jonathan: from new york city, i am jonathan ferro. this is "bloomberg real yield." ♪ coming up, valuatis main elevated, volatility sinks. the epicenter of the reflation trade comes unstuck and china's deleveraging campaigros commodities. where are the investors who turned bullish? we start with a big issue. is low volatility a sign of investor complacency? >> you see that in equities, in

credit, in interest rates, really across the board, markets are looking past almost all risks out there. >> the fix is very low and you have no real sense the markets are starting to crack. if the fed pushes their luck and hikes too much or titans too fast, ior tightens too think that will change. >> you are going to need to see real evidence of inflation building. i happen to believe that is a real possibility on the back end of this year. right now, i think it's a bit -- i think the vix has it right. >> if the market is going to be that calm, you need to leverage your positions. you will get to a tipping point at some stage. join -- jonathan: joining me from pennsylvania is great davis. also oksana aronov. ,great to have you with me.

the theme of the week has been low volatility, not just in the equity market, but across assets and the bond market and fx as well. greg my question to you with , that chart in mind is whether you reconcile low volatility with complacency. do the two things equal? gre ihink there is a bit of both. when you look at what is driving some of this, you have a very accommodative monetary policy helping to contributed to this -- helping to contribute to this low volatility environment we have been seeing. there has also been a lot of expectations around what is going to happen in terms of growth in the economy given regulatory reform, fiscal reform, and thgsf that nature. i think those are helping to contribute to this low volatility environment we see on the equity side, the fixed income side from treasury as , well as spread product. oksana: i think when we talk about complacency and that the

fact that volatility has been low, it is not just a week story. it is across markets and it is really outstanding. there is perhaps more overvalued -- no more overvalued or synthetically or absolutely not realistically priced market out there than the bond market with $30 trillion of stimulus and we $200 billion pour into the market last year and it keeps on going unabated. it is unclear what investors are expecting to get, especially those getting exposure tracking the ag index which is at a record duration high. what are the expectations? it is unclear to me. jonathan: the question i have asked on this program a couple of times, are you being adequately compensated for the you are assuming? looking at fixed income, are you? >> i think you can make the argument that since volatility

is so low, the spread per unit -- the compensation in ter o the spread per unit, the volatility is actually pretty , high historically, but i think it is hard to argue that there is a lot of absolute value. oksana: if we saw a rates move back up to 2010 levels, we would see something like 6% to 8% losses in traditional bond market portfolios, especially considering that most of those are not maturing portfolios. i don't think there is enough realization out there that this is the risk that if you do see that move over a year's period of time, which is not unconscionable, those are have to losses you are looking at. jonathan: greg, let's get into that. what is the motivation to get exposure to the benchmark? what is the investment thesis behind it? greg: for most i think it is

broad-based diversification at a low cost. it is points well made in terms of valuaondon't look attractive, but from a diversification benefit, bonds still make sense for most investors. if you go back and look at what during the worst months in the equity markets, bonds have been the place to be. it is nice high dividend. it is corporate and treasury bonds that provide balance and diversification during the dotus. i think that is what investors are gravitating towards. oksana: that is definitely true. one of t iues with taking historicalnasis is that history tells us bonds historically have not been at but even 3% year,

plus. that is no longer the case. you basically would come out even and while the equity market has the same amount of downside potential, the fixed income market ds t have the same side of upside potential. jeff: i do not disagree in terms of you are not getting compensated tremendously well. rates are very low and the potential for investor losses is certainly there. however, i think you also have to think about the probability of those scenarios occurring. and i think you will probably be in this range until you get one of two things to occur. i think some of those things are to the upside and downside. to the upside standpoint, i think you would really need to see either true comprehensive tax reform happen or i think you would need to see central-bank policy action that is in excess of what is already priced in.

to the downside, i think the two big risks to the downside are what we were talking about before. does this cyclical inflationary impulse from china start to dissipate? jonathan: over the lasmoh what have we seen? we have seen softer data out of china. what is remarkable to me and other people is the only asset class really adjustetohe data change out of china. it is commodities. why? oksana: i am looking at a chart here that shows china's housing market essentially turning over somewhat. and this has been the big reflation story china has gone through this credit creation and the effect it had on the housing market. and that fed into em strength in general. that is another area that received sovereign type bonds and trillions in interest. already more than all of 2016.

and yet, we have not seen a significantly roer dollar this year, not significantly higher rates this year at all. there is this rhetoric out there to try and explain all of this euphoric inflows with em is resilient. we haven't really seen the conditions that would warrant us to say that the em is resilient. last year was really an oil recovery story and this year we haven't really seen the type of environment that tests the em. perhaps we are starting to in china little bit, but i think the expectation is that china will be dormant until the conference in the fall. greg: we think the fundamentals in em still look pretty attractive. when you look at valuations, though, we are not from a place where we look at it at a broader market. from a fundamental standpoint, we think em could continue to hold in for some time at least given what we are seeing. oksana: since i seem to be t

contrarian here today, em is at the tightest five-year level right now. and maybe 100 basis points higher than the all-time tight. -- all-time high. this is hardly a valuation. i am not saying there are no good but it may look think the exception would be the overwhelming sort of euphoric inflows and i question how much investors understand what they are buying and ultimately when we buy china. jonathan: china has rolled over, -- has not rolled over em. why? oksana: it is going to take some

time. jonathan: help me out here, why? greg: em at the end of the day is still a higher asset class. until you see things change, you are going to continue to see investors flocking after higher-yielding products and that is driving some of the flows we see into the em complex. oksana: here is an interesting point, too, there is certainly a global surge for yield and it seems to be a huge benefit for em. yet we have another asset class bonds which are not , getting the love em is getting although there are pockets of , that market offering significantly better compensation even on a default adjusted basis and anything around default and restructuring is a very well-delineated process where you know exactly what to expect. jonathan: where in high-yield would you be buying right now? oksana: to echo earlier comments within high-yield, , there are pockets in the lower - rated part of the market, even the triple c part of the market

which is roughly 400 basis points above the all-time tights , and defaults have been roughly 4%. but you can double that number and you are still on a default adjusted basis getting paid. and i think there is this narrative a generally of confusing quality with safety , whereas safety should be defined by your margin of saty, by your coupon cushion . and from that perspective, you are definitely being compensated, but the flows are not reflecting it. jeff: i think the market is also taking a lot of comfort in this narrative that this is an administrative tightening. it is regulatory driven to clamp do ofinancial speculation and i think there is this be a -- i think there is a view that it is not a fundameal growth for supply and demand type of situation and i think the markets ying into that. however, i do think you have to be careful because these are not exactly precision instruments that they are using.

so the potential for an overshoot exists. to the extent that china has been the epicenter of the reflation trade, anytime they are tightening or there is something going on there, i think you need to pay a bit more attention. jonathan: i love how much we trust the government with a multi-trillion dollar company. i am not sure we would do that with that. jeff cucunato thank you so much. greg davis is sticking with us. coming up is the auction block. calling out the bond bulls after a lousy treasury auction. this is "bloomberg real yield." ♪ ♪

jonathan: from new york city, i am jonathan ferro. is is "bloomberg real yield." i want to take you to the

auction block, where commentary this week caused a little unease in the $62 billion in the treasury auctions. the $15 billion 30-year saw wall street data stuck with the largest share since september. while the $23 billion 10 year had -- auction had primary dealers absorbing a larger than usual amount, it has been more than two years since they drew more than expected. that's true the attention of one person. he wrote "lousy 10-year treasury auction. where are all the investors that turned bullish in 2015 talking about 150?" let's bring in our roundtable. up tois, jessica cannot hash -- oksana, the twitter account raised a lot of eyebrows.

i will not ask you to respond directly, but the story really is that the market has changed in terms of positioning. coming into the year, huge short and now a marginal long. what do you make of how the market is set up in treasuries? oksana: the market is still massively long, this kind of risk generally. long, traditional, interest rate driven. let's get that very clear. any amount of open short interest out there that fluctuates is meaningful and important to follow. if you look at individual portfolios institutional , portfolios and the risk parity , funds, think about the amount of leverage they are probably amassing. they are probably at or about max leverage and any kind of high frequency trading portfolio is probably low. it is a massively long trade. i think talking about investors being short is way too premature until we actually see rates move up and see how portfolios react.

jonathan: greg davis are in a , privileged decision to see the -- privileged position to see the flows coming across the desk. as you look at fixed income, talk about the amount of money going into something like treasuries over the last five or six months? greg: we have been seeing it coming across the complex in a variety of areas. in a broad-based funds that are there has still been a various things there has still -- there hasf still been a lot of interest in investment products where you are getting additional yield and that relative up to the treasury market. thgs that have somewhat moderate to low levels of duration andomcredit spread pick up our areas we are seeing a lot of interest from investors. jonathan: the conversation that dominated the asset class was what was going to happen with d.c. and the risk was to the downside. i think the optimism from investors that i am speaking to is kind of right down here and

it is the risk to the upside that if d.c. can deliver something fundamental it will change? jeff: i think absolutely. we were probably overly optimistic about the process and the timing and there is still enormous challenges in terms of the legislative process. to the extent that now i think investors have downshifted with with respect to the expectations around policy, if you get something right where it is policy that is truly reform and not just smutive, there is potential for markets to react. oksana: i wanted to add one different perspective. a lot of the discussion around rates and when they are moving up and what path of they should take, it is just on fundamentals. economic indicators are generally constructive in the u.s. and europe, but let's not forget about the technical picture. because that is really important. on one hand, if you look at the three largest holders of u.s. treasuries and what they are

doing, we know now the fed -- it has been suspected all along, but they said they are going to reduce the size of the balance sheet. you have got the next two largest holders, japan and china , reducing holdings of treasury sincjaary of laughs -- of last year. hundreds of millions of dollars off their balance sheet treasury and banks have doubled the treasury holdings. what are they going to do if we do see some deregulation which i think that is one thing that is certainly reasonable to expect. jonathan: let's talk about one of those things. what is the balance sheet unwind at the end of the year? what is the actual policy look like? oksana: i think there will be a lot more conversation around it. i think it is hard to put any kind of specifics around it, especially in terms of how it will affect the market. generally, the market stands toward the fed. whether it is the hiking or the rhetoric, it has been a

dismissal. jeff: i think the fed has been sensitive about not disrupting markets that i think the balance sheet unwind will be gradual and i think they will not simply let whatever matures runoff. but my expectation would be that they would set a monthly limit that they would allow to runoff and that will be much more gradual than letting the $650 million -- or billion over the next year runoff. jonathan: greg davis, is that how you view it? almost a nonevent? really? greg: i would not say a nonevent, but the devil is in the details. i think it will be gradual and the fed will try to figure out what impact the reduction of the balance sheet will have. we think it will be unlikely you see both of them happening at the exact same time, that they will take a pause on the hiking cycle to see how the balance sheet unwind impacts the marketplace.

a quick check on the market. treasuries throughout the week and yields grinding lower, down by about two basis points. ahead on the final spread, it is the week ahead featuring president trump going on to her. this is "bloomberg real yield." ♪

♪ jonathan: from new york city, i am jonathan ferro. this is "bloomberg real yield." it is time now for the final spread. coming up over the next week, the chinese president hosting world leaders, including the russian president as he promotes his trade and in for structure -- and infrastructure plan.

president donald trump getting his first international tour. some things on the agenda coming up in the next week. i want to bring in our roundtable including greg davis, oksana aronov, and jeff cucunato from blackrock. a question coming in from a viewer via the bloomberg terminal. this one for you, oksana. on a default adjusted basis, isn't em better? oksana: the answer to that question will very much depend on what part of em. as i said, it is differentiated. if you look at the indices very simply and you are getting paid $250 over em and $850 over in triple rated high yields, do not confuse quality with safety. even if you assume 1% of default in e.m. versus 10% default in that triple category, you are better off and you have a much clearer picture of what your

default -- what your recovery may be in the high-yield space than you do in em because this year we are finding rules are meant to be broken. these questions, there are no set answers to them and you have to consider all the variables. jonathan: this is the rapidfire round where i ask you one question and it is one word answers only and i begin greg davis. more complacency in the u.s. or europe for the sovereign base? greg: u.s. oksana: europe. jeff: u.s. jonathan: buy or sell. greg: sell. oksana: sell. jeff: buy for now. jonathan: long or short. jonathan: here is the final question for you. onhe0-year treasury, do we see 2% before 3%?

2% before the percent yes or no? , greg: no. oksana: predicting short-term -- i would lean toward no. jeff: yes. jonathan: my thanks to our guests. for your very much time. that is it for us. you have been watching bloomberg real yield. ♪

>> robert kraft leads a corporate empire worth $5 billion. as the owner of the new england patriots, he has an organ asian that has o -an organization that has won five championships. >> in our organization, people are free to do with they do and are not encumbered by corporate bs. his thoughts on what makes tom brady special. robert: he is a genuine, nice, hard-working person. do not hold grudges, but i also do not forget anything. >> and on his close, personal bond