Ready, set, watch
This month, our fixed income teams discuss what's driving the US hybrid boom; weigh up the pros and cons of European versus US investment-grade credit; and assess Mexico and Colombia’s fiscal balancing acts ahead of their 2026 elections.
Read this article to understand:
In this month’s Bond Voyage, we discuss what is behind the boom in hybrid issuance. We also look at the similarities and differences between the first and second Trump administrations, and what they might mean for European and US investment grade (IG). And in emerging markets (EM), the team reflects on their recent trips to Mexico and Colombia. As tariff announcements evolve, the watchword is caution. We hope our reflections help you make some sense of the potential risks and opportunities.
Hybrid boom: US issuers ignite global growth
Changes in rating methodologies are fuelling a boom in hybrid issuance as companies take advantage of favourable tax and ratings treatment. The Global Hybrid index has grown significantly, with 11 US hybrids added to ICE hybrid indices in January alone – and a total of 56 globally (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Number of issues in the Global Hybrid Non-Financial Index (GNEC), 2005-2025
What Are corporate hybrids?
Corporate hybrids are a type of financing that combines elements of both debt and equity.
Debt-like features:
Equity-like features:
Why the boom?
The surge is driven by Moody's Ratings methodology updates, which offer tax advantages (interest payments on hybrids are tax-deductible) and equity credit, making hybrids attractive to US corporations.
The standardisation of the structure, combined with diversification benefits and higher yields, has boosted investment demand. Recent changes in insurance regulations have also made it easier for insurers to use corporate hybrids.
Key themes for 2025
Rates and investment-grade credit: Is European credit a tactical trade or a strategic investment?
All eyes and ears are once again on President Trump. This situation is reminiscent of late 2016 and early 2017 when markets tried to assess tariffs and geopolitical relations. Despite different starting points in 2016 and 2024, both periods fuelled an initial rally in the S&P 500 – in the period from November to February – and stoked fears of inflation from tariffs, pushing longer-term yields higher.
In 2016, uncertainty initially fuelled a sell-off in both regions before a credit-driven boost to US growth saw US IG spreads tighten. Meanwhile, European IG spreads continued to widen as markets grappled to assess the effects of tariffs on European companies. By the end of February 2017, US IG spreads had fallen below European ones for the first time since the eurozone debt crisis.
The 2025 Trump administration is using deregulation to generate a credit-driven boost to growth
In contrast, the 2025 administration is using deregulation to generate a credit-driven boost to growth. The US president aims for lower energy prices and easier financial conditions, particularly at the long end (30-year) of the curve. Interest rates are far higher today, and the US Federal Reserve Board (Fed) has entered a cutting cycle, whereas it was just starting to hike in 2017. President Trump’s new agenda seems to have been partly priced in before the election.
One consistent trend is the higher long end of the US Treasury curve, with a steepening of ten basis points (bps) on the ten to 30-year yields. Key questions arise: Do markets believe in the credit-driven boost to growth? Are there real fears of tariff-led inflation? Or have markets realised tariffs are negative for US companies? US IG and US HY have been flat since the election.
In this context, is European credit a tactical trade or a strategic investment? A variety of considerations have been providing lively debate on the desks.
In favour of European IG, all-in yields are still at decade highs at 3.1 per cent. As the European Central Bank (ECB) continues to cut rates because of lacklustre growth, it looks to be a compelling place to invest. This is because further ECB rate cuts will likely see spreads widen, making European IG cheaper than US IG. There is also demand for European credit to satisfy pension fund needs, favouring domestic over global credit.
Yet these arguments are on a technical rather than fundamental level, pointing toward a tactical trade. Compared to the US, fundamental factors for growth generation appear unlikely. Defence spending is?lower (though this may change), energy prices and the cost of regulation are high, and tariffs are a threat. Europe also suffers from a lack of innovation, competition from China and could see more strikes and public unrest.
Interest rates could create a headache over the course of the year, especially if growth and inflation pick up
In comparison, US IG spreads are historically tight at around 84bps and, although rates are high, they are looking less likely to move lower. Therefore, at 5.1 per cent, the all-in yield available on US IG is higher than on European IG and may seem like a better investment. But interest rates could create a headache over the course of the year, especially if growth and inflation pick up. As a relative value call, we think investing in European credit still looks compelling, even if it is from a rates perspective.
What if the Fed does cut rates and delivers more quantitative easing? It is a risk that builds the case for investment in US IG.
The buzz word this month is tariffs. They may be a negotiation tool but will bring inflation. The question is whether President Trump wants a full blowout or just small and targeted country-level charges.
The desk debates continue…
Emerging market debt: Pathways and pitstops
This month, the emerging market debt (EMD) team spent a week in Mexico and Colombia – two very timely country visits given the uncertainty generated by President Trump’s first few weeks in power. We had a chance to meet with policymakers, local market players, think tanks, and political analysts.
On the trip, we realised it wasn’t just spending a week at an average altitude of 2,500m that was giving us shortness of breath and headaches. But also that, as we feared, both countries are facing very challenging fiscal dynamics at a time when real rates remain high amid strong external headwinds. Meanwhile, with both countries holding elections in 2026, course-correcting fiscal trajectories this year becomes all the more difficult.
Mexico – Running in Place
It felt like springtime under the sunny skies of Mexico City. But despite the hustle and bustle of the city, the economy is losing momentum, and the uncertainty generated by President?Trump’s tariff policies hangs like a dark cloud over the country’s outlook.
The team assembled by President?Sheinbaum is widely seen as pragmatic and professional
There are reasons to be upbeat: the team assembled by President?Sheinbaum four months into her presidency is widely seen as pragmatic and professional, and engaged with stakeholders in a way that former President Lopez-Obrador’s administration wasn’t. The growth slowdown is policymakers’ overarching concern, resulting in better coordination of monetary and fiscal policies. Externally, there is also a sense that President Sheinbaum’s cool-headedness in dealing with the tariff threats north of the border did well in defusing tensions and putting the country in good stead with President?Trump.
But not all that glitters is gold. Externally, the biggest risk is that the US president could remain unclear over future tariff policy. That would keep uncertainty levels elevated, preventing a much-needed boost to investment and sentiment. In short, there is no guarantee President Trump views his tariffs against Mexico solely as tools for negotiation or leverage. It is therefore difficult to discount this risk, even as the Mexican side appeals to the merits of strengthened “regionalism”.
Despite the geopolitical noise, however, Mexico’s real challenges remain domestic in nature – mostly in terms of fiscal dynamics, and especially with regards to Pemex (the state-owned petroleum corporation run by the government). In meeting after meeting, we found Mexico’s fiscal stance to be the main downer of the trip. The coming years will see a structural rise in spending on things like pensions and social transfers. Yet, knowing full well Mexico’s public finances are on a deteriorating trajectory, the government doesn’t seem willing to consider revenue-raising measures.
PEMEX continues to drain the budget by an estimated 1.5 to two per cent of GDP per year
Meanwhile, Pemex continues to drain the budget by an estimated 1.5 to two per cent of GDP per year, making fiscal trade-offs increasingly difficult as production continues to collapse and oil prices risk falling further. Our concern is that, in the absence of a wholesale strategy, the market will increasingly push for a solution, putting pressure on Mexico’s already limited fiscal space.
That said, we did return feeling that 2025 may be a transition year, with some policy space available to the authorities. However, cognisant that 2026 will likely be a crunch year for the budget, we will be closely watching whether President Sheinbaum can carve out the needed political space this year to set in motion a series of measures that can course correct and capitalise on Mexico’s myriad opportunities.
Colombia – the “Lula” factor
Bogotá’s cloudy skies reminded us of London and were a better reflection of the mood on the ground, despite the city’s vibrant energy and colours. Locally, attention has already turned to the 2026 elections, where a “light at the end of the tunnel” trade is starting to form on expectations that the centre-right political forces will come back to power.
We found more challenging fiscal dynamics than anticipated in?Colombia
However, we found more challenging fiscal dynamics than anticipated, given the government’s new financing plan rests largely on overoptimistic revenue assumptions. While asset prices have reflected some of the deteriorating fiscal trajectory in Colombia, a key question is whether enough is in the price or not. We think not yet, as markets may be expecting much less fiscal slippage in 2025 than might ultimately occur given the scope of the potential shortfall this year.
Meanwhile, an excessive minimum wage hike and a lack of anchored fiscal policy have created upside risks to inflation. Although real rates are very high, the country’s central bank, Banco de la República - Colombia (BanRep) may be forced to pause rate cuts as these risks begin to materialise.?
The comparisons with the fiscal deterioration in Brazil under President Lula, who is also facing an election in 2026, seem obvious at first sight. But comparing the two may be a stretch; after all, Colombia enjoys much more robust institutions, and despite all the rhetoric, President Petro’s bark has proved louder than his bite.
This year will largely be about watching the interplay between political choices and fiscal outcomes
That said, ensuring the fiscal deficit doesn’t widen relative to last year will require spending cuts that may be difficult to implement in a pre-election year.
And so, as with Mexico, this year will largely be about watching the interplay between political choices and fiscal outcomes. The market will be looking for more robust signs of the latter, with some cautious optimism over the former.
Investment risk
The value of an investment and any income from it can go down as well as up. Investors may not get back the original amount invested.
Credit and Interest rate risk
Bond values are affected by changes in interest rates and the bond issuer's creditworthiness. Bonds that offer the potential for a higher income typically have a greater risk of default.
Important information
THIS IS A MARKETING COMMUNICATION
Except where stated as otherwise, the source of all information is Aviva Investors Global Services Limited (AIGSL). Unless stated otherwise any views and opinions are those of Aviva Investors. They should not be viewed as indicating any guarantee of return from an investment managed by Aviva Investors nor as advice of any nature. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable but, has not been independently verified by Aviva Investors and is not guaranteed to be accurate. Past performance is not a guide to the future. The value of an investment and any income from it may go down as well as up and the investor may not get back the original amount invested. Nothing in this material, including any references to specific securities, assets classes and financial markets is intended to or should be construed as advice or recommendations of any nature. Some data shown are hypothetical or projected and may not come to pass as stated due to changes in market conditions and are not guarantees of future outcomes. This material is not a recommendation to sell or purchase any investment.
The information contained herein is for general guidance only. It is the responsibility of any person or persons in possession of this information to inform themselves of, and to observe, all applicable laws and regulations of any relevant jurisdiction. The information contained herein does not constitute an offer or solicitation to any person in any jurisdiction in which such offer or solicitation is not authorised or to any person to whom it would be unlawful to make such offer or solicitation.
In Europe, this document is issued by Aviva Investors Luxembourg S.A. Registered Office: 2 rue du Fort Bourbon, 1st Floor, 1249 Luxembourg. Supervised by Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier. An Aviva company. In the UK, this document is issued by Aviva Investors Global Services Limited. Registered in England No. 1151805. Registered Office: 80 Fenchurch Street, London EC3M 4AE.? Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Firm Reference No. 119178. In Switzerland, this document is issued by Aviva Investors Schweiz GmbH.
In Singapore, this material is being circulated by way of an arrangement with Aviva Investors Asia Pte. Limited (AIAPL) for distribution to institutional investors only. Please note that AIAPL does not provide any independent research or analysis in the substance or preparation of this material. Recipients of this material are to contact AIAPL in respect of any matters arising from, or in connection with, this material. ?AIAPL, a company incorporated under the laws of Singapore with registration number 200813519W, holds a valid Capital Markets Services Licence to carry out fund management activities issued under the Securities and Futures Act 2001 and is an Exempt Financial Adviser for the purposes of the Financial Advisers Act 2001. Registered Office: 138 Market Street, #05-01 CapitaGreen, Singapore 048946. This advertisement or publication has not been reviewed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore.
In Canada and the US, this material is issued by Aviva Investors Canada Inc. (“AIC”). AIC is registered with the Ontario Securities Commission as a commodity trading manager, exempt market dealer, portfolio manager and investment fund manager. AIC is also registered as an exempt market dealer and portfolio manager in each province and territory of Canada and may also be registered as an investment fund manager in certain other applicable provinces. In the US, AIC is registered as investment adviser with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and as commodity trading adviser with the National Futures Association.
The name “Aviva Investors” as used in this material refers to the global organisation of affiliated asset management businesses operating under the Aviva Investors name. Each Aviva investors’ affiliate is a subsidiary of Aviva plc, a publicly- traded multi-national financial services company headquartered in the UK.