Smriti Popenoe
Analyst · Douglas Harter from Credit Suisse. Your line is open
Thanks Steve. Let's go to our macro view now, and I'll review the slide starting on Slide 4. We’ve held this macro view now for some time. And basically what we believe is that the ability for interest rates to rise rapidly and remain elevated over the long-term is limited. Why? First, the foundations of the global economy are built on extraordinary growth in Central Bank balance sheets and global debt. Second, we see that increasing global debt in and of itself is a significant headwind against growth, higher interest rates, and inflation. Third, the ability of Central Banks to reduce monetary stimulus continues to be challenged by low inflation and tepid growth rates. In addition, the impact of global trade policies and varying fiscal policies inject considerable uncertainty into their ability to continue pursuing tightening policies. These factors, in our opinion, make global growth fragile and vulnerable to rapid adjustments. They also make markets vulnerable to surprise events. That's why we believe the ability for interest rates to rise rapidly and remain elevated over the long-term is limited. Now, since the first tightening from the Federal Reserve in December, 2015, fed funds have increased 225 basis points. Two-year treasuries have increased 200 basis points. And since the election in November, 2016, the 10-year treasury rate has increased about 129 basis points. In contrast to prior tightening cycle, though interest rates have moved up in a low volatility environment. We now sit in a range on the 10-year U.S. treasury between 275 and 375. We believe we are approaching levels of rates that are having an adverse effect on the global economy and global capital markets. Regarding U.S. monetary policy, the market is pricing in three more increases in the fed funds target rate through 2019. We believe the fed will be data dependent and the future path of short-term rates is largely tied to global economic outcomes. Due to the macroeconomic challenges I previously stated, we believe that rates cannot move above the current range on the 10-year U.S. Treasury for any meaningful period of time without negative consequences to the economy. If we are indeed near the end of the fed tightening cycle as we believe, our view is that the outlook for our business and the mortgage REIT sector in general is bullish. As these tightening cycles end, the yield curve typically steepens, increasing marginal investment return opportunities. Even if the yield curve remains relatively flat, MBS spreads currently provide ROE opportunities in the low-teens at reasonable leverage. Part of the current ROE return on the Agency MBS stems from market concerns over the fed, possibly reducing its investment in RMBS beyond its announced reinvestment policy. We believe this risk is very low. Given this macro view, let me now explain our strategy since 2015. Over the last 11 quarters, despite increases in interest rates, we have paid dividends of $2.10 per share and posted a total economic return of $1.14 per share or nearly 15% on a cumulative basis. This is what we've done since 2015. First, we've been willing to allocate our capital and earned income from the highest risk adjusted return assets. In fact, Dynex has a consistent track record of capital allocation being able to move in and out of sectors opportunistically. As one of the best recent examples, in 2016 and 2017, we transitioned from less liquid hybrid ARMs with high prepayment risk to more liquid 30-year fixed rate securities with better returns for this environment. Second, we view investing in lower rated credit investments as having an asymmetric return profile today, limited upside, but severe downside potential, particularly when you consider the incremental liquidity risk. Historically, we have found that holding these strategies on a leverage basis late in the business cycle has proven fatal to many mortgage REITs, no longer in business today. Third, we have avoided the operational risks and overhead associated with inflexible illiquid strategies with a high degree of exposure to regulatory risk. Four, we have been and continue to be unwilling to take a neutral or short duration position even as interest rates have risen. The historically high number of short positions in the fixed income markets today creates the potential for a rapid short covering flight to quality moved down and interest rates. So liquidity drain from such a rapid move down, very much ignored by many market participants would severely limit our financial flexibility, particularly if we were short treasuries are derivatives, believing that our duration position was neutral. Finally, we have been willing to remain long duration and earn income because when the fed pauses or eases, we believe there will be multiple opportunities to grow book value per share in the future. In summary, for this environment we believe that up in credit and up in liquidity is the appropriate investment strategy. I’ll now turn it back over to Byron.