Exploiting yield-curve dynamics in hiking cycles

In the systematic research section of Alphorum, our quarterly assessment of global fixed-income markets, we focus on trading strategies that can help capture positive returns across the US Treasury yield curve in a rising-rate environment. It follows reports on developed-market sovereigns, corporate credit, emerging-market debt and sustainability. Tomorrow, we will conclude with our overarching perspectives as 2022 gets underway.

Exploitable trends

The hawkish shift in rhetoric from the Federal Reserve has led to intensifying expectations of rising interest rates. The obvious concern in fixed-income markets is the downside potential as prices are marked lower from rising base rates, yet we believe that such a scenario need not condemn active managers to negative performance.

In this piece, we analyse previous rate-hiking cycles and look to unearth exploitable trends in yield-curve dynamics that could offer opportunity in these challenging markets. For our analysis, we use US total return swaps to access the returns of different segments across the US yield curve over the last 30 years, focusing on the two-year, five-year, 10-year and 30-year maturity points.

Performance across the yield curve

Central-bank rate hikes affect different maturity segments of the yield curve in different ways. This analysis, therefore, addresses the three components of the traditional decomposition of moves in yield curves: level, slope and curvature.¹

Clearly, the most obvious and direct impact is levied on the level of yield curve. In the simplest of terms, increasing rates lifts the level of interest rates, causing prices to fall. Figure 1 shows how different segments of the curve performed over the last 30 years, in which we identify four hiking regimes: 1994-1995, 1999-2000, 2004-2006 and 2016-2018.

Figure 1: USD interest-rate swap unfunded total returns by duration segment

Source: Bloomberg bellwether swap indices, LOIM Calculations as at January 2022. Returns calculated using monthly data from July 1992 to Dec 2021. We remove six-month swap returns from the headline indices to calculated ‘unfunded’ returns. ‘Hold’ periods are those deemed neither ‘hiking’ nor ‘cutting’ cycles. All figures are annualised.

Figure 1B shows how performance varies across maturity segments and by regime. Over our sample period, all segments show an average loss across the four hiking regimes, with the higher maturity segments suffering the worst absolute performance along with the largest drawdowns. The reverse is experienced in cutting cycles. This is as expected, with the higher duration segments by definition more sensitive to changing rate levels. However, this is not a fair comparison across segments as the durations and therefore volatility of various segments are very different.Source: Bloomberg bellwether swap indices, LOIM Calculations as at January 2022. Returns calculated using monthly data from July 1992 to Dec 2021. We remove six-month swap returns from the headline indices to calculated ‘unfunded’ returns. ‘Hold’ periods are those deemed neither ‘hiking’ nor ‘cutting’ cycles. All figures are annualised.

To correct this, we calculate returns per unit of duration, as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2A shows that the longest maturity segment performs the best in a rate-hiking cycle and is the weakest in a rate-cutting environment. Economically, this is intuitive, since per unit of risk (duration), the front end of the yield curve is more sensitive to changes in rates, while the longer end of the yield curve is driven by long-term growth and inflation expectations. Hiking rates sees front-end rates affected more per unit of risk directly through the rate-hike channel than long-end rates. What’s more, rate hikes can be seen to be expected to rein in growth and inflation expectations, which should exert some downward pressure on long-end yields.

Figure 2: USD interest-rate swap total returns per unit of duration by maturity segment

Source: Bloomberg bellwether swap indices, LOIM Calculations as at January 2022. Returns calculated using monthly data from July 1992 to December 2021. Returns calculated using monthly data from July 1992 to December 2021. We remove six-month swap returns from the headline indices to calculated ‘unfunded’ returns. ‘Hold’ periods are those deemed neither ‘hiking’ nor ‘cutting’ cycles. All figures are annualised.

Nevertheless, the performance of all rate segments after adjusting for duration remains negative, indicating that the ‘level’ effect of the hiking cycle dominates the yield curve. So, to generate positive performance from risk-free assets in this environment, investors need to exploit relative relationships within the curve.

Slope trades (flattener strategies)

Slope trades can be constructed through two approaches: by over- or under-weighting specific segments of a Treasuries portfolio, or by using a variety of derivatives instruments like swaps or futures. Here we focus on unfunded interest-rate swaps to build our strategies.

The previous section established that longer maturity yields have outperformed shorter maturity yields through recent rate hiking cycles. This would favour a curve ‘flattener’ trade, which profits when short-term yields rise more than longer term yields and the curve ‘flattens’. To achieve this, the trade goes long the longer maturity swap and goes short the shorter maturity swap in a duration-neutral manner. In Figure 3 we analyse the performance of three different, commonly implemented duration-neutral flattener trades which focus on different parts of the yield curve: two-year versus 10-year (2s10s), five-year versus 30-year (5s30s), and 10-year versus 30-year (10s30s).

Figure 3: USD interest-rate swap flattener strategies

Source: Bloomberg bellwether swap indices, LOIM Calculations as at January 2022. Returns calculated using monthly data from July 1992 to December 2021. Returns calculated using monthly data from July 1992 to December 2021. We remove six-month swap returns from the headline indices to calculated ‘unfunded’ returns. ‘Hold’ periods are those deemed neither ‘hiking’ nor ‘cutting’ cycles. All figures are annualised.

Figure 3A shows that these trades have negative performance over the whole period. This is in line with the results established in Figure 2, as the 30-year underperforms the five- and 10-year segments, and the 10-year marginally underperforms the two-year, on a duration-adjusted basis. However, the benefits of the flattener trades in hiking environments are clear to see in Figure 3B, with all trades showing strong Sharpe ratios through the four rate-hiking cycles (as well as in each cycle individually).

Having said that, it’s important to note that this outperformance is not persistent across other central bank regimes, and that it suffers heavily outside of hiking cycles. This is not because curves have steepened more than they have flattened across the whole period – in fact, the steepness of curves is actually mean-reverting and tends to follow rate cycles. Instead, it is a structural feature of yield curves, which tend to be flattest at the long end and are generally steep at the short end. This is because at the short end there tends to be a premium for uncertainty in inflation and real rates, while at the long end there is an excess demand for convexity, especially from long-term liability-driven investors. As a result, yield-curve carry reduces as we increase maturity, and so the flattener strategy runs a negative carry position, which creates a performance drag over time.

Curvature trades (butterfly strategy)

This leads us to the final strategy and the final component of rate-curve dynamics: curvature. Here, the strategy essentially takes two slope positions: one flattener and one steepener (this is colloquially known as a ‘butterfly’). By adding a steepener elsewhere in the curve, the strategy can benefit from the positive carry and reduce the drag that the flattener experiences from its negative carry position. From the results in Figure 3B we can see that, during hiking cycles, it would have made the most sense to have a 2s10s flattener (highest Sharpe ratio) and a 10s30s steepener (lowest Sharpe ratio). Ultimately, the strategy is long the 10-year and short the 2-year and 30-year, with the expectation that the curve will develop greater convexity.

The economic intuition for a butterfly trade comes from overtightening by central banks. Overtightening, such as during the 2017-2018 period, often leads to expectations of a policy error. This tends to depress the belly of the curve as it incorporates more rate cuts in the intermediate period. Such expectations result in an outperformance for the butterfly trade described above.    

Figure 4: USD interest-rate swap slope and butterfly strategies

Source: Bloomberg bellwether swap indices, LOIM Calculations as at January 2022. Returns calculated using monthly data from July 1992 to December 2021. Returns calculated using monthly data from July 1992 to December 2021. We remove six-month swap returns from the headline indices to calculated ‘unfunded’ returns. ‘Hold’ periods are those deemed neither ‘hiking’ nor ‘cutting’ cycles. All figures are annualised.

Indeed, we can see from Figure 4 that the 2s10s30s butterfly strategy improves the Sharpe ratio further across the four periods, with a substantial reduction in volatility compared to a 2s10s flattener alone. Again, this strong performance is achieved across each of the four rate-hiking cycles.

A final caveat is that these results are based only on the four hiking cycles experienced in the past 30 years. Any hiking cycle takes place in unique conditions, so there is no single strategy best suited to all hiking scenarios. However, since a lot of the economic intuition behind the success of these strategies remains intact, we believe that deploying them in a timely manner can help nimble managers outperform in challenging fixed-income conditions.

For professional investor use only

This document is issued by Lombard Odier Asset Management (Europe) Limited, authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (the “FCA”), and entered on the FCA register with registration number 515393.
Lombard Odier Investment Managers (“LOIM”) is a trade name.
This document is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute an offer or a recommendation to purchase or sell any security or service. It is not intended for distribution, publication, or use in any jurisdiction where such distribution, publication, or use would be unlawful. This material does not contain personalized recommendations or advice and is not intended to substitute any professional advice on investment in financial products. Before entering into any transaction, an investor should consider carefully the suitability of a transaction to his/her particular circumstances and, where necessary, obtain independent professional advice in respect of risks, as well as any legal, regulatory, credit, tax, and accounting consequences. This document is the property of LOIM and is addressed to its recipient exclusively for their personal use. It may not be reproduced (in whole or in part), transmitted, modified, or used for any other purpose without the prior written permission of LOIM. This material contains the opinions of LOIM, as at the date of issue.
Neither this document nor any copy thereof may be sent, taken into, or distributed in the United States of America, any of its territories or possessions or areas subject to its jurisdiction, or to or for the benefit of a United States Person. For this purpose, the term "United States Person" shall mean any citizen, national or resident of the United States of America, partnership organized or existing in any state, territory or possession of the United States of America, a corporation organized under the laws of the United States or of any state, territory or possession thereof, or any estate or trust that is subject to United States Federal income tax regardless of the source of its income.
Source of the figures: Unless otherwise stated, figures are prepared by LOIM.
Although certain information has been obtained from public sources believed to be reliable, without independent verification, we cannot guarantee its accuracy or the completeness of all information available from public sources.
Views and opinions expressed are for informational purposes only and do not constitute a recommendation by LOIM to buy, sell or hold any security. Views and opinions are current as of the date of this presentation and may be subject to change. They should not be construed as investment advice.
No part of this material may be (i) copied, photocopied or duplicated in any form, by any means, or (ii) distributed to any person that is not an employee, officer, director, or authorised agent of the recipient, without Lombard Odier Asset Management (Europe) Limited prior consent. In the United Kingdom, this material is a marketing material and has been approved by Lombard Odier Asset Management (Europe) Limited  which is authorized and regulated by the FCA. ©2022 Lombard Odier IM. All rights reserved.