中信建投固收｜固羽增收 - 信用性价比框架失效了吗 20250320 摘要 Q&A 当前信用债的性价比框架是否失效？ 我们认为当前的信用债性价比框架在某些情况下确实失效。尽管按照之前的性 价比框架，短端信用债已经进入了较好的投资区间，但市场环境和前提条件发 生了变化。自 2022 年起，我们观察到中短票的信用利差（3A 评级、3 年期限） 在 30 到 50BP 之间波动。然而，2024 年的市场调整显示，这一规律并不总是适 用。 • 信用利差受资产荒、流动性及风险偏好影响，2024 年公募基金增持长端信 用债，改变了市场调整模式，3-7 年期债券调整幅度超过短端，需关注资 金面和货币政策。 • 构建信贷性价比框架需满足资产荒、流动性稳定和风险偏好不变三个假设， 否则适用性受限。当前利率债供给增加，传统信用利差配置区间逻辑可能 变化。 • 股市与理财产品存在互动，散户资金流向影响债市，需关注市场分化。广 义基金仓位平衡时应防守，仓位低则需配置，关注资金面和货币政策。 • 2025 年初专项债发行扰动市场，央行紧平衡操作并引导资金中枢偏高运行， 需关注银行态度及其引导方式，而非简单解读为阶段性扰动。 • 当前资 ...

Core Viewpoint - Since February 2025, long-term bond yields have shown an overall upward trend, with significant differentiation in trading behaviors among various institutions in the bond market. Funds and state-owned banks have primarily acted as sellers, while rural commercial banks and insurance companies have shown notable buying behavior in the long end of the curve. The market is expected to remain volatile in the short term despite a potential easing of regulatory pressure on market sentiment [1][2][4]. Recent Market Pressure - The bond market has faced overall pressure since February 2025, with the central bank tightening liquidity support. This has led to a rise in long-term government bond yields, breaking the earlier oscillating pattern. The yield curve has shown a general increase across various maturities, with the 30Y-10Y spread narrowing by approximately 20 basis points [2][3]. Institutional Trading Behavior Changes - There has been a significant divergence in trading patterns among major institutions. Insurance companies and rural commercial banks have displayed a clear tendency to buy on dips, while funds have mainly sold policy bank bonds. State-owned banks have significantly sold off various maturities of government bonds, contrasting with their previous "buy short, sell long" strategy [3][4]. Future Market Adjustment Pressures - The 10-year government bond yield has returned to levels seen before the "moderately loose" monetary policy stance was proposed. The market is now focused on the upper limits of this adjustment, with three key factors to consider: the return of policy rate anchors, the potential for substantial interest rate hikes conflicting with the goal of reducing overall financing costs, and the need to monitor liquidity and risk factors closely [4][5].

Group 1: Economic Context - The "American exceptionalism" narrative is being challenged as recent interest rate hikes have begun to tighten financial conditions, prompting market reflections on the implications of these changes[1] - The current liquidity environment in the U.S. remains relatively loose despite the Federal Reserve's aggressive tightening cycle, which saw a cumulative increase of 525 basis points from March 2022 to July 2023[2] Group 2: Household and Corporate Sector Analysis - The ratio of mortgage payments to disposable income for households is at 11.3%, slightly lower than the 11.7% level at the end of 2019, indicating strong consumer spending from 2022 to 2024[1] - In the corporate sector, the OAS spread on credit bonds has been declining since the second half of 2022, reflecting a historically loose credit environment and improved debt servicing metrics[2] Group 3: Upcoming Debt Maturities - A significant challenge is anticipated in Q2 2025, with over $600 billion in corporate debt maturing, marking a 70% increase compared to the average maturity in the second half of 2024[4] - The average financing cost for these maturing debts is estimated at 3.6%, while refinancing at current rates (approximately 5.5%) would increase financial costs by 190 basis points[4] Group 4: Liquidity Risks and Market Implications - The liquidity environment is expected to tighten as the Fed continues its balance sheet reduction, with the overnight reverse repurchase agreements (ONRRP) significantly lower than in previous years[6] - Historical patterns suggest that credit spreads may widen significantly following the end of the current tightening cycle, with a notable risk of increased financing costs exceeding 200 basis points this year[6]

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the mixed signals in economic data from the US, Eurozone, and Japan, indicating a resilient service sector in the US, while manufacturing shows signs of weakness. Employment data is also showing marginal deterioration, suggesting potential risks in the economic outlook [2][5][6]. Economic Data Review - US service sector remains strong with the S&P Services PMI at 51, exceeding expectations of 49.7, while ISM Manufacturing PMI is at 50.3, below the expected 50.5 [5][14]. - Eurozone manufacturing, inflation, and employment data exceeded expectations, with the manufacturing PMI at 47.6, CPI at 2.4%, and unemployment rate at 6.2% [6][15]. - Japan's unemployment rate rose to 2.5%, higher than expected, but the service sector PMI remains robust at 53.7 [6][15]. High-Frequency Data - US economic activity index declined to 2.24, while Germany's index increased to around 0.41 [7][17]. - US retail sales growth rebounded to 6.6% year-on-year [8][18]. - Mortgage rates in the US decreased to 6.63%, with mortgage applications rebounding by 14.1% [9][19]. - Initial jobless claims in the US increased to 221,000, while continuing claims rose to 1.897 million [10][21]. Financial Conditions - Financial conditions in the US and Eurozone are tightening, with the Bloomberg Financial Conditions Index for the US at 0.27 [11][23]. - The US high-yield corporate bond spread widened to 2.91 basis points [25]. - The US-Euro bond yield spread narrowed significantly by approximately 44.9 basis points to 134.5 basis points [12][27].

Group 1: Market Overview - The funding environment remains tight, with long-term credit bonds outperforming short-term ones due to factors such as tight liquidity and better-than-expected social financing data. The yield curve for credit bonds has flattened, with credit spreads generally narrowing [1][2] - Credit spreads for medium to long-term low-rated bonds and ultra-long-term municipal investment bonds have compressed significantly, with 3-year and above AA+ rated and below medium-term credit spreads narrowing by 4-8 basis points, while 1-year credit spreads narrowed by 2-4 basis points [1][2] Group 2: Specific Bond Types - Municipal bonds saw a general passive narrowing of credit spreads, particularly for medium to long-term low-rated and ultra-long-term municipal bonds, with 3-year and 5-year AA-rated municipal bonds' spreads narrowing by approximately 7 basis points [1][2] - Financial bonds, excluding short-term ones, also experienced a passive narrowing of credit spreads, with 3-year medium to low-rated financial bonds seeing a significant spread compression of about 4 basis points [1][2] Group 3: Investment Strategies - Following recent adjustments in the bond market, the cost-effectiveness of short-term credit bonds has improved, with institutions such as funds and other products increasing their allocation to credit bonds [2] - In a tight funding environment, it is advisable to consider left-side allocations in high-quality municipal bonds from central and eastern regions with a duration of 2-3 years, while also monitoring short-term recovery opportunities [2]