Barron's Streetwise - The Golden Age of Income

Episode Date: May 23, 2025

Bonds took a hit this week. BlackRock's Russ Brownback explains why that's an opportunity, and what investors should do now.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's hockey season, and you can get anything you need delivered with Uber Eats. Well, almost, almost anything. So no, you can't get an ice rink on Uber Eats. But iced tea, ice cream, or just plain old ice? Yes, we deliver those. Goaltenders, no. But chicken tenders, yes. Because those are groceries, and we deliver those too.

Along with your favorite restaurant food, alcohol, and other everyday essentials. Order Uber Eats now. For alcohol, you must be legal drinking age. Please enjoy responsibly. Product availability varies by region. See app for details. I like to reiterate this idea. We're calling it the golden age of fixed income.

It's really the golden age of income. There is definitely uncertainty today. That kind of slowdown does not dent credit quality in the fixed income market. Hello and welcome to the Baron Streetwise podcast. I'm Jack Howe and the voice you just heard is Russ Brownback. He's the co portfolio manager of the forty one billion dollar BlackRock strategic income opportunities fund.

He's going to talk to us today about why he believes we're in the golden age of income, even though fixed income took a hit this past week. You know, it looked pretty golden was gold and Bitcoin bonds not so much, but Russ sees that as an opportunity. We'll talk about it. Listening in is our audio producer Alexis Moore. Hi, Alexis. Hey Jack.

I want to talk about the ruckus in the bond market. I've got all the sober, serious financial news. There seems to be a disruption in my news flow about what's going on with light fluffy stuff and pop culture stuff. What is the latest? What's going on this week in the rest of the world that I need to know about?

Well, Beyonce is bringing her Cowboy Carter tour to the New York area. Okay, what else you got? It's not enough? Okay. Our sibling publication published an article entitled The NFL's War on Butts is Over, The Tush Push Survives. The Tush Push, the Wall Street Journal.

Yeah, I saw that. The Tush Push is where The Tush Push, the Wall Street Journal. Yeah, I saw that. It's a, the Tush Push is where it's a Philadelphia Eagles thing where a bunch of guys get in a big pile and push each other for one yard. When they need a yard, they push each other. It's only the Eagles? Uh, I think the Bills do it. I read this story. I think you need to have, uh, you need to have a quarterback who can squat a lot.

That seems to be an important part of it. Okay, tush push is good, what else you got? That's about it. There's a article in the Atlantic from early May that asks, is this the worst ever era of American culture, question mark? Just American culture in general? American culture.

The author, I think, is questioning that claim, but apparently that's the consensus view. Do they know that there's a Mission Impossible movie for Memorial Day weekend? I mean, what are these people talking about? Okay, well, I feel like I'm more in the know now, so thank you. You're welcome.

So look, it's not great what has been happening in the bond market. If you hold longer issues, there's an ETF out there called I shares 20 plus year treasury bond that has lost close to 6% since the end of April. Okay, 6% no big whoop, but that's not what people buy bonds for. They buy bonds for safety. The selling ramped up this past week and that appears to be directly related to budget negotiations. Also this past week, stocks fell, gold rose, and Bitcoin rose kind of a lot. The move in Bitcoin is really remarkable. Since the end of April, that's up 17%.

Last I checked, it was over $111,000 per Bitcoin. It's really a bizarre state of affairs. Investors are selling long US treasuries and buying Bitcoin in the search for safety. I mean, it's not really a one for one thing. These aren't the same investors necessarily. The bond market is reacting to a budget deal that worked its way through the House of Representatives and is now headed to the Senate. It doesn't seem to show any meaningful attempt to reduce the deficit. Here's what one strategy from Macquarie wrote, even if the inability to reduce the deficit in the U.S. doesn't lead to default, a large deficit

still implies greater bond supply and perhaps eventual inflation as the debt is monetized to avoid default. Either way it makes nominal fixed income instruments less attractive as long-term investments. So that explains some of the selling and long treasuries. The 30-year bond if we go back to the end of April the yield there was 4.66%. The last yield I have is 5.08%. That's a significant move in a short amount of time. The Bitcoin move, I don't know if you could say is directly related to Treasury weakness.

There's another piece of legislation working its way through Congress. It's called the Genius Act. It has to do with stable coins. It does some basic rule setting and crypto fan see it as a sign that the U S government is opening the way for further crypto adoption. As I've said before on this podcast, I don't really connect it to, I don't see how something being more widely used as a financial tool means that its price should be much higher.

I would think almost the opposite. Something that's going to become more of a financial tool means that its price should be much higher. I would think almost the opposite. Something that's going to become more of a financial utility should have more of a steady price. I think the people buying Bitcoin now are buying it because it has gone up. And so they think it's going to go up more. I also think this could be part of what we talked about in this podcast several weeks ago, what JP Morgan coined the debasement trade.

People are worried about deficits. There have always been some talking heads out there that might have been fans of gold and buying gold, fans of crypto, and who've talked about these deficits are worrisome and we're going to have some sort of bad financial event and you're going to be glad that you hold these things. But now what we're seeing is institutional bond investors are starting to say, not quite the same things, not quite to the same degree,

but they're saying enough is enough. If you're not gonna do anything about these deficits, we're going to demand higher yields on long-term bonds to make up for what we think is going to turn into hotter inflation down the road. I don't really know what it means next for gold prices or Bitcoin prices. Those are very behaviorally driven, but I want to caution investors against extreme binary thinking here. In other words, either bonds are the thing that's supposed to provide ballast and safety in my portfolio,

or I should abandon them altogether and go into one of these other asset classes. I think if anything, the rising yields in the bond market are a sort of self-correcting mechanism. If these bonds are becoming riskier, you need more yield, and you're getting it as the prices fall. If you want to put a small portion of your money in gold or crypto on a bet that those things are going to continue to rise in price, fine. I'm just someone who thinks of the word return literally as in something should be returned to the investor. And I think that whatever theoretical support bond prices are supposed to provide for a portfolio, bond yields, in other words, income flowing into the investor.

That can be a source of comfort during periods of financial turmoil. But maybe investors should do things differently now given the weakness we're seeing on the long end of the yield curve. I wanted some thoughts on how exactly to approach bond investing now. So I reached out to Russ Brownback.

He's the global head of macro positioning for fixed income at BlackRock. He's also the co portfolio manager of something called the BlackRock strategic income opportunities fund. It's got a gold rating and a four star rating for Morningstar has just over $40 billion in assets. I asked Russ about going long versus staying short. I asked Russ about going long versus staying short, what to think about taking on more credit risk, which parts of the bond market are most attractive now and how good of a deal bonds are relative to stocks. Let's pick up with that conversation now.

You're just the guy we need to talk to to figure out what to do about bonds. Could you give us a quick overview of, you know, what you see when you look across the bond landscape right now? It's an incredible opportunity for income. And, you know, for many, many decades, the fixed income regime was more about duration,

getting kind of the rate beta trade right. And you had a secular tailwind to price appreciation just through falling yield. You think about the tenure note falling from around 16%, hard to believe, you know, in the early 80s to about 60 basis points in the depths of the pandemic. And so along the way, you know, you had that tailwind of price appreciation, but you also had kind of duration as a hedge for your portfolios, because much of that price appreciation came during sort of crisis modes.

And so if your equities weren't doing well for you, your bonds were a built-in hedge to your portfolio. You almost couldn't go wrong. You're getting these fat yields. You're getting the price appreciation as yields broadly fall. It was a beautiful time, I guess, to be a bond investor for decades, right? It was. And in particular, as it pertains to your 60 40 portfolio, your, your 40,

your fixed income did its thing for you. And today it's a very different regime. Um, because you don't, uh, you have flatter curves than you did prior and nominal yields certainly higher than the last decade, and because you have these uncertainties we've been cycling through, you know, bouts of uncertainty this year is no exception. You can't make a sort of directional bet on the, on the beta of rates, whether they're going to go up or down.

But what you can do today is harvest these very attractive nominal and real yields, particularly when you add corporate and securitized credits on top of the risk free assets. Okay. So when you say a flattish curve for the benefit of people listening who might not know, you just basically mean that you don't get that much more yield going out to longer bonds than you would staying in shorter ones, right? So how do you figure where to be, whether to go long or short, or is it just a diversified portfolio?

What do you make of that right now? Yeah, so you know, you think about what your risk adjusted returns are, and you can look at either historical volatility or implied volatility in the rates market, the options market will tell you what it's implying over the next year in terms of the price moves for various parts of the yield curve. And so if you can get, you know, in the low fours at the front end of the rates curve versus high fours in yield at the long end, but do so with a fraction of the volatility, it's a higher sharp ratio trade. It's more optimal portfolio if it's comprised of those, uh, front to belly assets, cause like I said, you get almost all the yield without all that implied

volatility. You mentioned a moment ago about how bonds had done their job in the past as a hedge for stocks. I have noticed, I'm not the only one, everyone has noticed that there have been moments this year where stocks and quite safe bonds, treasuries have fallen at the same time, which has investors rattled,

they don't quite know what their hedge is supposed to be. What do you make of that going forward? Do bonds still provide you the right kind of protection to offset your stock risk? So I'd say a couple of things, Jack one, you know, the, your ballast today is not the duration, it's the income. So, you know, the, the very high yields today are kind of that cushion to your portfolio. And you're right about the correlations having flipped a positive more recently. And that will likely be a feature of the fixed income markets.

As long as inflation is above the Fed's target, and it means their ability to react, you know, to a crisis in markets is less than it otherwise would have been if inflation were at or below target. Now that's not to say that if there weren't another crisis, heaven forbid, that would come along that the Fed wouldn't ease. They would. And in that instance, the front end of the curve would do very, very well following, you know, the policy rate lower.

But today, as you kind of ebb and flow back and forth from one data point to the next, the correlations have exhibited that positive relationship. And so that's right. You can't count in the moment on duration as a hedge. Interesting. So the income, I guess, meaning, you know, it's nice if you're looking at your, the value of your portfolio and it's not moving in the right direction. And you can't count on the asset prices to be where you want to have that stream

of money flowing in. I guess that that helps, you know, both to put you in a better position financially, but also I would think it's just comforting. Absolutely. Absolutely. In fact, Jack, we have a metric we call a carry break even. And what we look at is the amount of sort of rate shock that one could absorb in a portfolio or in an individual asset and earn the carry over one year that would earn you back that price loss in the short run. And so today with yields very high, you have to at the front and

the belly of the curve, you have to have rates move up demonstrably from here before you're in a situation where you've eaten through that one year's worth of carry. And so that that is your ballast in portfolios today. Got it. Um, what does the the recent downgrade of the US government as a debtor? What does that mean for investors, anything in practical terms? Or is it just something that's, you know, just a milestone out there. So I think it's a milestone.

I think it serves as a timely wake up call as policymakers are endeavoring to, you know, get through this reconciliation process. And we do, you know, face large deficits today. And so I think, you know, it's another signal to policymakers, you know, that it's time to sort of get to a more sustainable stance on deficits. I don't see it, you know, as an event in and of itself, that's, you know, shock inducing, but more symbolic of kind of the trend that we've been on. So what I hear so far is that bonds look attractive.

The yields are high enough to offset whatever risk we have of, you know, of yields rising. I mean, you're getting paid enough for the risk you're taking in bonds and you don't necessarily have to go too far out on the yield curve. You can stay short in bonds and pick up plenty of yields. First of all, tell me if I've got that right so far. And now I wonder about credit risk.

Does it do me any good? Should I just stay in the safe stuff? Does it do me any good to take on extra risk? And if so, to what point? What's the, what are the most attractive areas of, of the, you know, non AAA, I guess, I guess we have to include the treasuries of that now, but the, you know, the, the, of this stuff, that's a little riskier, what are the most attractive parts? Yeah. Okay. So, and first let me just say, you know,

I wouldn't characterize all bonds and throw them into that sort of framework. Not all bonds were created equal. The front to the belly of the curve. Again, you get the yields without the volatility. So you think about the 30 year treasury and you look at what options markets are implying today, it yields about four, right around 5% today. The options markets are implying that could trade

in a 15% price return over the next year. So I don't think that's enough compensation, you know, to own that asset. In contrast, so what we're doing with our multi-sector portfolios in a diversified way, putting corporate credit, securitized assets in that front to belly of the curve. And when you do, Jack, you can get a six and a half to a 7% portfolio yield. You're diversified. It's investment grade rated on average and your long-term volatility is less than three. So it's a multiple of yield to volatility rather than a

fraction of yield to volatility. Interesting. And, and in terms of taking on more, uh, more risk on other types of issues, beyond treasuries, what other fixed income securities look attractive right now? If you had to rank them, what are your favorite parts of the bond market versus lease favor? Or we can open that up to other income vehicles, whatever it is that you keep an eye on. Yep. So underpinning, what I'm about to tell you is that we are very constructive on fundamentals, not withstanding, you know, near term stagflationary shocks, not withstanding

uncertainty that can dampen velocity in the economy. But from a credit quality perspective, the markets are very healthy and corporate America is very, very healthy. And so what we then are doing, looking holistically at the credit markets, saying, okay, the backdrop is healthy. Where is the right value in the moment? So corporate credit in general is okay from a credit quality perspective, investment grade, super high quality credit has rallied all the way back from its spread widening from early April. So we have really reduced our exposures there. Instead, for corporate credit, we like the high yield market, particularly the double B part of the high yield market. And that's, again, across different industries and the like. The high yield index is a very, very high quality version of itself, certainly versus previous decades. So we like the characteristics there. Very attractive yields, technicals are very powerful, there's a relative scarcity of credit assets today that really makes us feel comfortable. In terms of high

quality assets, we like agency mortgage-backed securities over investment grade credit. We think of those two oftentimes as interchangeable in the high quality space as both being very liquid expressions. The mortgage market is cheaper today on a nominal spread basis because the volatility in the rates market is high and mortgages are negatively convex, meaning if you have a home mortgage, you could call that mortgage anytime rates are to drop. And that requires a little bit of an extra premium there. We think it's enough to warrant owning those securities. So we like those as a proxy for high quality credit.

And then Jack, the securitized markets, non-agency mortgage backed securities, commercial mortgage backed securities, asset backed securities and consumer loans, private consumer loans, we find a tremendous amount of opportunity both for yield and for dispersion. Thank you, Ross.

Let's take a quick break here. We'll be back with more of our conversation about the bond market. The Hot Honey McRispy is so back at McDonald's with juicy 100% Canadian raised seasoned chicken, shredded lettuce, crispy jalapenos, and that completely craveable hot honey sauce. It's a sweet heat repeat you don't wanna miss.

Get your Hot Honey McCrispy today. Available for a limited time only at McDonald's. Welcome back. A couple of quick follow-up questions that have occurred to me about the Beyonce tour. It's called Cowboy Carter? Correct. Who's Carter?

Beyonce Giselle Knowles Carter, the name that she took as she married Jay-Z. His name was Carter? Yeah, Sean Carter. Oh, I got you. Okay. So it's not, so I thought Cowboy Carter was like a fictitious cowboy.

Ah, okay. And then Cowboy, because it's country music? Correct. Is it just me or is country music picking up in New York City? No, that's true. I went to a line dancing night recently. Really? Where?

Brooklyn? Yes. Uh huh. And, uh, did the people there look like they know what they were doing? I mean, when it came time to do the line dancing, did the people have the moves down or did they look like they were, you know, just New York City people who were trying to act like, you know, maybe Nashville people or something? No, it was, it was serious.

There were cowboy boots. There were fans. There were moments I had to get off of the floor because the action was too intense. That's a, that's really something. I do find myself listening to the outlaw country channel on the radio in the car. Uh, I think it's like, it's kind of older songs and every song involves drinking or someone going to jail. It's the outlaw part of it.

But I'm not doing line dancing in Brooklyn though. I know my line and it doesn't include line dancing. Let's get back to the bond market. How would I say that in Outlaw Country terms, Alexis? Fixing to talk fixed income? Oh. Or pick up some yield? Oh, okay.

Come on, don't pander. I know, I know, that's pretty good. How about we Brooklyn boot scoop back to our fixed income discussion with Russ from BlackRock? Can I get a yee haw? I knew I was asking too much. Good for you. Boundaries. Let's get back into my conversation with Russ Brownback.

You mentioned high yield bonds. You mentioned double B rated companies. What's a company like that look like? I mean, describe a typical one to me. What is it that keeps them from being at a higher rating for now? And what is it that makes them, you know, still a pretty good bet for investors? Yeah, so I'm gonna answer the question broadly speaking

from the high yield index perspective. So, you know, if you go back 20 years, the high yield index perspective. So, you know, if you go back 20 years, the high yield index composition of double B credits was about 35%. Today it's over 50%. 20 years ago, the triple C part of that market was a quarter. Now it's down around 10%. So the overall quality of the index has improved.

And another point that I made before, and I wanna give you what's gonna be your favorite cocktail party statistic going forward. I love it. I'm ready for it. The entire high yield market capitalization, 2300 companies is $1.4 trillion. The treasury market grows by that much every nine months because of deficits. Okay. And so the relative scarcity of these assets, we live in a world of, you know, too much money and not enough yielding assets today. And so, you know, credit spreads

may be tight, but the all in yields of these very high quality credit assets today supported by really powerful technicals is really what gives us comfort. In fixed income, you know, if, if we're talking about stocks and we're talking about large cap US companies, then I would say, boy, investors have been pretty well served by their cheap stock index fund in recent decades. And yeah, maybe, you know, you can make a case that, okay, now things are gonna be different. Now it's gonna be more about value stocks.

Now it's this, maybe, but you know, the record has been pretty solidly in favor of those indexes. What does it look like in the bond universe? Is it, because the index is, it's a little strange, like sometimes they weight issues by the amount of debt outstanding, which you would think would be a negative thing, not a positive thing.

So I guess the question is, how does it compare being a bond manager trying to beat an index in the bond world versus the large cap U S stock world? That's an excellent question. And you know, the broad equity indices are market cap weighted. And so if you're a passive investor in say, you know, the S and P 500, you're constantly reweighting to the largest companies and therefore the most successful companies that are growing market capitalization. You're a genius because you knew it all along about Nvidia if you have an S&P 500 fund. Right, you hand off the chess piece,

your exposure to successful companies just grows. Fixed income markets as cap weighted indices grow by who is the largest borrower, right? So your exposure as a passive investor is to the ever greatest debtors in the market. And in this instance, it's the US Treasury. And so when you think about the broad sort of aggregate index, which is kind of the bond markets version of the S&P 500, your composition of that index is about 94% between Treasuries, Agency Mortgage-backed Securities, and Investment Grade Credit, which

is all long duration and low spread assets. So it's completely suboptimal and it constantly reweights into evermore treasuries. So active management on the fixed income side today, where you can go into the securitized markets, where you can go into the, you know, off benchmark parts of credit, like high yield globally and find the best opportunities. It's a very different game between equities and fixed income in that regard. If you're a US investor and you're figuring out what to do with the bond portion of your portfolio, how concerned do you have to be about the value of the dollar

and how that's gonna change down the road? I think there's a lot of hyperbole about the short-term price action. People are saying, gosh, the dollar's super weak today. If you look at the trade-weighted dollar, the Fed has an index for this, it's higher on a one, five, 10, 15, and 20-year basis. So if you wanna say, gosh, it was higher in January,

yes, it was, but it's higher today than it was last September when we had a growth scare. And if you look at where the dollar has dipped over the last several years, it's been when we've had these kinds of convincing sort of hard landing scares. Remember back to the regional banking crisis in 2023. So, you know, the, the, the dollar is the world's reserve currency. It is so entrenched today. It takes decades to reverse something like that.

It's like trying to get a country to change its system of weights and measures. It's very, very arduous to try to change an infrastructure and a standard that's like that. If you take intra-European trade away, which of course they're going to trade with one another in euros or invoice in euros, about 75% of trade is invoiced in dollars. The BIS suggests that over 80% of global trade finance is done in dollars, many times with borrowers and lenders, neither one of which is a US entity. And so it's really, really hard to upend that. And then, you know, Jack, if you're talking about depth and breadth

of bond markets, nothing compares to the US. If you're talking about shareholder returns and growth stocks, nothing compares to the US. So you can have marginal ebbs and flows one day to the next, but the dollar is the world's reserve currency is not changing. Last question I have, you are the bond guy, right? So there, I assume that there's someone at your firm who's, who's the stock person. There's probably another person whose job it is to say how people ought to be allocated between stocks and bonds and lots of other stuff. So I don't know about asking the bond guy about how good of a deal bonds

are relative to stocks, but that's, uh, you know, apart from whether bonds are a good deal on their own. If you look at where stocks are priced and what's happening with the economy and, you know, for the 60, 40 investor out there, what do you think about the tilt that, you know, people ought to have? Should there be a shift in their preference right now for bonds versus stocks or the other way around? So again, I'm not an equity expert, but I'll give you my view. Since you asked the question, I am very bullish on the US economy and very bullish on the US stock market. And I think 60-40 works for investors today, very much like it has in the past.

But today, fixed income is the income part. I think people are underestimating what's possible with the proliferation of AI. It's funny, six months ago, that's the only thing we could talk about. Today, we're not even talking about it. I don't know about you, but the tools that are on my desk today that I can use to make my job easier and make me better at what I do are profoundly better than they were just six months ago. When you deep dive agentic AI, physical AI and what this means for every corner of the

economy, you could come up with some pretty remarkable productivity enhancements over the next five years, which would be very much flattering profit margins. Jack, I have some 20-year-old-ish sons, and they're kind of dabbling investing for the first time. During early May, they were like, Dad, the market's rallying. We missed the rally. I'm like, guys, the range on the S&P 500 over the next 10 years is probably 5,000 on the downside and 10,000 on the S&P 500 over the next 10 years is probably 5,000 on the downside and 10,000 on the upside.

So you're going to be kicking yourself if you're getting too cute about 100 S&P points now. So I think a portfolio that's comprised of a six and a half to seven percent yielding high quality, low volatility, fixed income allocation with the S&P 500 and particularly if you can handpick growth stocks is a really elegant construction. This is warming my heart to hear. Are you, are you like the most bullish guy in the room when you go to, you know, cocktail parties and you're talking with the other strategists out there?

This sounds like everybody's, you know, cautiously optimistic at best right now. And some, some are, some sound pessimistic. So you feel like you're on more in the optimistic camp right now. And some, some are, some sound pessimistic. So you feel like you're on more in the optimistic camp right now. I very much am. And I do feel like that's an out of consensus view today. I haven't always been, uh, I I'm a card carrying member of the wet blanket club. I have been in the past, but, but today I just listen, I call it like I see it. And I think there is definitely uncertainty today. We are in a moment

of a stagflationary kind of incremental evolution over the next quarter, a couple of quarters, the hard data will decelerate a little bit, inflation will take up a little bit. But I think, you know, the equity market is a discounting mechanism that's going to look down the road and can look through that. And that kind of slowdown does not dent credit quality in the fixed income market. Thank you, Russ. And thank all of you for listening. If you have a question you'd like played and answered on the podcast, you can send it in could be in a future episode.

Just use the voice memo app. You send it to jack.how that's H O U G H at barons.com. Alexis Moore is our producer. You can subscribe to the podcast and Apple podcast, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts, and if you listen on Apple, please write us a review. Thanks and see you next week.