Smriti Popenoe
Analyst · BTIG
Thank you, Rob and good morning everyone. Rob has covered a great deal of detail on our financial performance in 2022. My comments today will be focused on our current macroeconomic thinking, our risk, portfolio posture, opportunities and outlook for 2023. There are three key elements underlying our macroeconomic thesis. First and this one has been a consistent theme since 2015. The global environment is increasingly complex, with rising global debt, increasing human conflict, rapid technology changes and shifting demographics. This leads us to favor more liquid strategies. Second, global central banks have embarked on a monetary tightening cycle against this complex backdrop. How long the tightening cycle lasts, how effective it is? The intended and unintended consequences are yet unclear. This leads us to prepare for multiple scenarios and unforeseen events. Third, quantitative tightening, which is seen currently as running in the background, can have a significant impact on the price of risk going forward. We believe the draining of liquidity has the potential to be a major driver of the repricing of risk in this decade. We think this can occur even if the Fed is cutting rates as the balance sheet continues shrinking. This leads us to hold assets that can be easily valued and traded at those valuations, saving dry powder for when valuations on all assets, especially less liquid assets reflect fundamental value with less distortion from central bank balance sheets. In our view, these factors have shifted the yardstick by which to measure what is a fair return for the risk environment. It is easy to be beguiled by a return that seems higher than we have seen in the last 8, 10, even 15 years. We are taking the approach that the last 15 years of market history must be viewed by considering the distortion of quantitative easing on prices. The team and I have focused on evaluating returns in the context of the future. This is a key foundational element of our thinking. Finally, a characteristic of the investment landscape that we are calling a flat distribution, fat tails, making predicting outcomes very, very difficult, because there are more probable outcomes, more equal probability of each outcome, a wider range of outcomes and the possibility of skewed distributions and exogenous events. Many investors use models with implicit normal or log normal distributions to measure risk and return. We believe the results from such models must be viewed with the lens of a very different reality. Our risk and investment strategy are set in this context. Next, I will discuss the specifics of the investing environment. I will tackle financing costs and the inverted yield curve first and then address asset valuations, our spread outlook and expected returns. A key feature of the investing landscape today is the inverted yield curve. Short-term interest rates are higher than long-term interest rates. This has been driven by the Fed tightening to almost 5% and long-term interest rates falling driven by investor expectations for future Fed easing either due to recession and/or inflation declining to 2%. Whether you believe what the market has priced in or not, an inverted yield curve has consequences for levered investors like us, because it means that in the short-term, financing costs will be higher, but they are expected to fall in the intermediate and long-term. If we funded all our assets in the repo market and had no hedges, our income would suffer in the short-term, but improve in the long-term assuming the market’s prediction came true. But the reality is different. Dynex shareholders have benefited from our hedging strategy, which locks in financing rates for longer periods of time, so that fluctuations in short-term interest rates are mitigated. Our current strategy of hedging with treasury futures in September 2020 effectively locked in 10-year financing at very low rates on hedges, largely mitigating the impact of the 400 plus basis points rise in financing costs. As Rob mentioned, those hedges have generated a gain position of $691 million as of December 31 and they are reflected in book value. Another important point to remember in an inverted yield curve environment is that asset returns must still be viewed on a hedged basis so that you can incorporate the value of locking in lower long-term financing costs by hedging. When we view returns today in this context, we see the investment environment as continuing to be favorable offering low to mid-teens returns in agency RMBS. So, the key takeaway on inverted curves, they can be managed with hedges and the Dynex team has significant experience managing through these types of environments. A last point on financing, the availability of financing remains very strong. Repo markets are functioning smoothly and financing remains widely available, especially for the liquid assets that we own. Let’s now turn to assets. Credit spreads are broadly tighter year-to-date. We see this as the evidence of the power of the liquidity that still remains in the system and the need for cash to be put to work. Our book value is higher as a result, as Rob mentioned, between $15.10 and $15.20, up from $14.73 at year end. As shown on Page 14, agency RMBS spreads to 7-year swaps are settling in about 80 basis points higher from the tight level seen in 2021, a more than doubling of spreads. We see this as a favorable investment environment, because it’s possible to earn hedge returns using leverage of 7x in the low to mid-teens. We have currently invested at these levels with the option and flexibility because of our liquidity position to add assets when spreads are wider. You can also see on the chart that most times that spreads have gotten this wide or wider, there has been a reversion to the mean, if you will. This is a longer term tailwind to book value. We say longer term because there is a major difference between the past spread cycles and the one that we are in. The past spread cycles had the GSEs, Fannie and Freddie with large portfolios supporting spreads in the 1990s and early 2000s. I know because I was there and probably executed some of those trades bringing spreads back in line. Post-2008 you have the Fed. In today’s environment, we have neither. In fact, the Fed is shedding mortgage assets from its balance sheet. We are now seeing the ability for MBS to tighten 10 to 20 basis points as volatility declines, but the catalyst for much tighter spreads the 30 to 50 basis points tightener is not as apparent. Where could this bid eventually come from? Over time, we think banks maybe a powerful bid. If fixed income funds experienced major inflows money managers could be a strong bid, but new cash will be needed to increase exposure to RMBS. So we are not investing today with the hope of an immediate reward of tighter spreads. We have invested capital with the idea that today’s returns meet or exceed our all-in cost of capital. And if spreads go a lot wider, we can add incremental value by adding assets at wider spreads. So for this reason, we feel like we can be more patient in our investing process. For now, we expect spreads to be range bound, reflecting technical factors of demand and supply. Agency RMBS spreads have been highly correlated with risk assets in general and we believe that trend continues in 2023. We anticipate that volatility in the macro economic environment will translate into chances to deploy capital. We believe it is essential to maintain lower leverage, higher liquidity, a more neutral duration position and a patient disciplined approach to fully capture the value offered when volatility hits. You can see this is reflected in our risk positioning on Pages 15 and 16. I want to make another point as we look at the risk position. Our leverage as of December 31 was 6.9x to common with $6.4 billion in assets. As you can see on Page 16, for a 20 basis point tightening and spreads on agency RMBS and a 50 basis points on CMBS IOs, our book value rises by 9% or $1.35. Conversely, if spreads widened 20 basis points the opposite happens. And therefore, we respect and maintain lower leverage and liquidity so that when we do get to those wider levels, we can potentially invest. But as you can see at plus or minus 9%, this profile does not suggest that we are under-invested, under-levered taking a defensive or cautious approach. In our view, we have plenty of risk on for this environment. It produces an economic return to support the current level of the dividend. You can expect us to continue to reallocate assets opportunistically and manage the portfolio dynamically, because this is what we expect the environment to dictate. I’d like to leave you with the following thoughts. We have focused on preserving capital and generating returns for the long-term. Our performance in 2022 positions us to recover book value without the need to take excessive risks to recover capital. We are highly respectful of the evolving macroeconomic environment. We are focused on measuring risk-adjusted returns with an eye to the future and not the past. As such, we will be patient and deliberate in our decision-making. Our portfolio and liquidity is currently structured, support the economic return necessary to pay the current level of the dividend about 10.5%. We continue to have upside potential from dry powder and the ability to deploy capital at accretive levels. I am deeply grateful for the trust you placed in us as we manage your capital. I will now turn it back to Byron.