Hello and welcome to our US Fixed Income Market Views Webinar, Why it Might be Time to Fix Your Float, sponsored by RBC Global Asset Management. I'm Lauren Bailey, Deputy Editor at Markets Group and I'm joined by Andrzej Skiba, Head of BlueBay US Fixed Income, and Tim Leary, Senior Portfolio Manager. With interest rates showing signs of moderation, it may be time for floating rate investors to consider fixing their float. During today's discussion, Andrzej and Tim will explore the US fixed income markets, breaking down key opportunities on the horizon, risks to consider, and the evolving macro-environment as we approach 2026. Andrzej and Tim, thank you for joining us today.

Thank you, Lauren. It's great to be here and we're looking forward to the discussion.

So while the US fixed income market is stabilizing as inflation cools and expectations of future rate cuts improve the outlook for bond income and total returns, longer term volatility remains due to lingering fiscal concerns and uncertainty around the pace of economic slowdowns. With all that in mind Andrzej, what macroeconomic trends are having the greatest impact on portfolio positioning?

Look, as far as we are concerned, there are two key macro variables that we're looking at that determine how our portfolios are positioned and will really impact how we steer through the coming year. The first one is to do with the consumer and there is a large disagreement amongst investors right now whether consumers are heading for a weaker outlook or actually whether some of the income groups are suffering, whereas others are doing much better and the broader market should not be too concerned about what is happening to the US consumer. So, I think that is the first key variable that we are assessing and in our opinion, we are not seeing evidence of a broader consumer weakening to the point that would make us particularly concerned. We're actually seeing pretty stable performance across most income cohorts compared to how consumers behaved in prior years. The second aspect that is to do with macro that is driving our thinking is kind of connected to the first one, because that is the labor market. And I think investors are focusing on the headlines about layoffs. They're focusing on rising unemployment numbers and are asking a question whether we will see more labor market weakness ahead. And that question is critical, because one of the reasons why US has outperformed so many other markets in recent years has been the resiliency and the strength of the US consumer. So if the labor market that was underpinning that was about to break, that clearly would have negative implications for risk assets both in equities and in fixed income. So we're watching very closely for the incoming data, particularly when it look, we look at aggregate layoffs for indications whether pretty robust conditions in the labor market are starting to shift or whether things are on a pretty steady trajectory. And we have seen those aggregate layoff numbers pick up a little bit from the multi lows, but nowhere near to the extent that would ring alarm bells for us. So all those two things together, the strength of the consumer and labor market still in decent shape, indicate to us that the GDP growth outlook is also on a decent trajectory for the US. Those investors who are worried about the consumer and about the labor market clearly are pointing to weaker outcomes. However, the data we're seeing, the analysis that we're seeing, our investment teams are confident that acceleration in US growth is ahead.

So, no alarm bells and some acceleration ahead. Andrzej, where are you seeing macro trends create the most compelling sector specific opportunities today?

So, look a very practical example of how differences across consumers play out in this whole notion of a K-shaped economy, where the lower income cohorts are struggling and it's fair to admit that there is a fair amount of pain for lower income households in the US. They have not really benefited from the latest budget. They are struggling. Having said that, medium and higher income consumers are doing fine and they've been beneficiaries of the latest budget and also benefited from rising asset prices within the market. So, you have this big discrepancy between how different consumer cohorts are doing and that impact a lot of businesses. When we look at business models that are targeted to specific income groups, those that are targeted to the low income cohorts are going through a tough time as well. Whereas the ones that are relying on medium and high income consumers are not worried about their outlook. So when we are looking at sectors like retail, consumer staples, but even non-bank financials, for example credit card providers or mortgage originators, it's really important to differentiate between which business models, which consumer groups are you exposed to, because you could see quite a big discrepancy in how your underlying performance looks like in 2026.

I want to bring Tim in here and hear, you know Tim, what are your thoughts about macroeconomic trends that are really impacting portfolios?

Certainly. So, any bond portfolio is going to be very in focused on inflation in the path of interest rates. But what a, one of the most interesting things we've seen this year is that globally, inflation has been uneven at best. You've seen certain sectors actually experience deflation. So, WTI is an example. Down on the year 20% While net gas in the US is up 10% year to date the equivalent in Europe is down, you know, close to 45. So, that imbalance has an impact to US high yield issuers in particular that have global business lines that transact across both US and Europe. Chemicals would be another sector where you're seeing, you know, because of the trade war, because of the reshuffling of the global supply chain and where those products end up, you're seeing an oversupply of chemicals and paper and pro, paper and pulp coming from China being sold into Europe, which has added pressure to reduce prices and reduce the amount of margin that European issuers can sell that their chemicals onto in the US or into Europe. And so that dynamic is sort of the unintended consequences of the the trade war, the global macro, whether it's attentions in Ukraine and the like. Those are all impacting corporate credit issuers, some for the positive and and some for the negative.

And as we look to 2026, Andrzej, which segments of the US fixed income market appear best positioned to generate attractive returns?

Well Lauren, we actually see a good chance of high single digit returns across both investment grade and high yield markets. And that sounds pretty good to us. This is similar level of returns to what we have witnessed so far in 2025. But by historical standards, it's pretty solid. And the way we get to those numbers, it's a little bit different between the asset classes. If you looking at investment grade, you on top of the yield of the asset class, you need to have some cooperation from government bond yields from treasury yields falling. But also some benefit from compression in asset prices where higher beta assets outperform in response to better economy. Whereas in high yield the most the the largest portion of that expected high single digit return is just coming from the yield of the asset class. And here investors have a choice, because there are some of our clients who look at those return expectations and say that, "Well, from a risk adjusted perspective, I would prefer being invested in investment grade compared to high yield if I'm getting a similar return." But then, there are plenty of other of our clients who are actually arguing that they're very happy to pick high yield, because the likelihood of that outcome is much greater since most of that expected return is coming just from the yield of the asset class. You don't really need other things to cooperate too much. So as far as we are concerned, both our outcomes for IG and high yield are strong by historical standards and should lead to continued inflows into the asset class. Those kind of returns are nothing to scoffed at as far as we're concerned.

And Andrzej, how are expectations for moderating interest rates influencing decisions between floating rate and fixed rate securities today?

So look, our attitude has always been, and that generally played out really well in the markets, that when you have rate cuts coming your way, you want to have exposure to convex assets, to assets, to bonds that benefit from in total return terms in that environment. So high yield bonds, for example, are really well-positioned to benefit in this regard. But also with an investment grade, the total return of the asset class is lifted if you have a corresponding fall in treasury yields with the rate cuts. Once the rate cuts have passed, because we do believe there will come a point at which Fed will no longer need to consider rate cuts ahead. You could have a debate reemerging about the relative merits of floating assets compared to fixed rate assets, but we're not there yet. And also, the last time the market was torn by that debate, the level of rates was much higher. So investing in floating assets offered you very similar, if not higher returns than further out the curve in fixed rate bonds. You sometimes had situations, where floating yields were higher than those when you were holding five or 10-year fixed rate securities. Right now, curves are much steeper so it's quite unlikely that you will get to a point where the attractiveness of floating assets exceeds that of fixed rate market in the near term. But clearly, once Fed comes towards an end of a cutting cycle, investors might restart that debate between fixed and floating. For the time being, we're pretty clear. Focus on convex assets, it's an environment to own fixed rate bonds.

So I'm curious Andrzej, how do current yield levels compare to historical periods when fixed rate credit outperformed? Is there a more compelling risk adjusted return basis now than there were at other points over the past decade?

So look, when, especially when you looking across the last 10 years, we do broadly believe that we are closer to the highs of the yield range than the lows. And in that regard, investors are still well-compensated for exposure to fixed income assets. Look, let's look at the examples. In US investment grade, the lowest yields over the last 10 years were below 2%. The highest yields for an index overall were close to mid sixes. And right now, we're hovering around 5%. So again, we're closer to the higher end of the range rather than the lows. In high yield, if you exclude the two periods when yields were above 10%, so at the peak of the COVID crisis few years ago, but also back actually 10 years ago when we're in the middle of a commodity crisis in 2015 and 16. Like in those times yields spiked above 10% for a little while. Away from that, kind of the high end of the range in US high yield, was around 9% and the lows were below 4%. And right now, we're hovering close to 7%. So again, we feel that being closer to the high end rather than low end of the range, investors are still compensated well for exposure to fixed income. And what is important to highlight, and that particularly applies to investment grade from an outlook perspective, that we don't expect these yields to fall dramatically from here. Yes, there might be some rate cuts coming your way, but at the same time, if we're right and US economy is accelerating and at the same time in part because of that economic vibrancy, inflation could be pretty sticky, it's unlikely that you will see a dramatic fall in treasury yields. For something like that to happen, you would have to experience a meaningful economic downturn, not a scenario that is our base case looking ahead for the next 12 months.

So, I'd love to hear from you both just to see where, you know, valuations and fundamentals are diverging most across the credit spectrum and what exactly does that mean for investors? Tim, why don't you start?

Sure. So, I think that from a valuation perspective, if you think of leverage finance as two sides of the same coin with floating rate assets, leverage loans, private debt, direct lending, and on the other side fixed rate, investment grade, high yield, right? On either side, spreads are tight, right? There's a positive technical within fixed income that is across all asset classes within it. What's interesting is that the credit quality between the two is quite the divergent. And so when you think, when we think about the opportunity set, we look at high yield through the lens of, you know, a ratings adjusted spread level, right? So, the spreads are around 300 in US high yield. But by the same token, if you look at their long-term average, it's on the tighter side. But by the same token the rating quality in the US high yield benchmark is much higher than it has normally been. You know, we're mid 55% of the market is BBs and just over 10% is CCC. The balance is B, and that's a considerably better credit quality and rating profile than in probably syndicated loans. And while the ratings don't necessarily exist in private debt to the same degree, if at all, you can imagine that it's those types of deals are going to carry higher leverage and more, you know, opaque aspects of the market.

Andrzej, anything to add?

Maybe I will share an example from investment grade space where two markets that kind of strike me as quite illustrative that highlight that valuations don't accurately match fundamentals like the first one would be BDCs. By that I mean companies focusing on private credit, mid-market lending. You know, we don't think the market is fully appreciating the vulnerabilities of the portfolio companies held within these vehicles, but also the extent of leverage that you have in the vehicles themselves. So, that is something that can lead to asymmetric price action. We're already seeing a fair amount of weakness in the stock valuations of BDCs. We think more of that could filter into credit valuations over the coming 12 months. Contrary to that an example where we think the market is mispricing bonds and not seeing the potential of that space, a good example of that would be within the securitized space where we have a pretty new entrant to the ABS market across data center, issuers, and fiber securitization issuers. So, kind of new kids on the block within the securitized space and compared to more traditional types of ABS investments, they are trading at meaningfully wide valuations than is the case in the rest of that space. But at the same time, they offer superior credit protection compared to, for example, unsecured investment grade bonds within these markets. So as the those spaces develop, we could see convergence of spreads to the rest of the securitized universe and a pretty meaningful spread tightening ahead. So those opportunities, those mispricings happen both ways and for an active manager like ourselves, that is exactly the kind of environment you want to see where you focus on haves and have nots in your portfolio rather than buying the entire market at the same time.

So given current technicals and market sentiment, how should investors balance caution with opportunity across sectors? Andrzej?

Well look, we are seeing stronger US economy in 2026. We can see a good chance of growth above 3%, which is meaningfully higher than what we have seen from the Fed and quite a lot of investment banks on the street. At the same time, we don't think that this is an autopilot go long risk here. We are actually seeing an increase in dislocations between different sectors and also dispersion within individual sectors, differentiating between those business models that are doing well and those that are not doing so well. So active selection is very important, because you could see very binary outcomes, like a great example of that recently something that I'm sure a lot of our listeners are talking about these days relates to the AI space. There is a scenario over the next 12 months where the market gets disappointed with the pace of adoption, with commercialization efforts within the space, funding pressures start percolating and that leads to very ugly outcomes when it comes to AI-related names. Equally, there could easily be a scenario where market is surprised to the upside by the pace of adoption by how well these companies are doing and how they are delivering ahead of expectations, highlighting this theme going from strength to strength. Those are two very different scenarios and that is the reason why across our investment teams, we want to make sure that even though we are constructive on the outlook for the broader market, we do not get sale in that view. that we do not become anchored in that view. So, we're challenging internally all those notions on a regular basis to make sure that we respond to evolving market conditions. So yes, a pretty constructive outlook, but one where you will have winners and losers across the sectors.

Tim, what are your thoughts?

Sure, so I think one of the most interesting themes going into 2026 as a continuation from 25 is that M&A is going to pick up, right? The deal flow at a bank level, at an underwriting level is robust and companies are actively seeking ways to diversify and grow their footprint. You know, high yield is uniquely situated to benefit from that in that the average high yield issuer only has about a billion and a half of debt outstanding. More than half of them are BB credit rating profile and they can be easily absorbed within an investment grade buyer or perhaps merge with another double or single B name. And we've seen example after example of that throughout 2025. And what that means is two things, one, from a technical perspective, oftentimes you'll see two BB rated companies actually reach sufficient scale and be upgraded to investment grade. Conversely, obviously if an investor great buyer buys a BB name, odds are there'll be investment grade, you're opening up the buyer base to a much larger market but also lower dollar price bonds. So think about bonds that were issued in 2020, 2019 when interest rates were much lower than they are today. Those bonds have lower coupons. They're trading below par and there's a upside convexity if and when those bonds are required to be refinanced at a change of control. So, some of the actual documentation in the individual bond and ventures themselves allow for a near term pop in dollar price. So, where we see value when we're thinking about the shape of the treasury curve, where spreads are, we are actively trying to find ideas where there might be a positive M&A catalyst energy was a big sector this year with regard to that catalyst. You know, media is going to be another sector this year, where we expect M&A to pick up whether it's broadcasting or content. And so, I think that is well placed there. The second aspect may be less positive from a convexity, but more so from a generating carry and the opportunity set in, in leverage finance more broadly is LBOs are going to pick up again. And so as you start to see more and more LBO paper, private equity firms reentering the bond market. Perhaps because the direct lending market's a bit saturated, perhaps because they want to print deals that are perhaps lower rated than what the CLO market and leverage loan market was willing to bear. Maybe they want to refinance some existing bank debt or leverage loan paper alongside the transaction. You're going to see more of that paper enter the high yield market. We expect the US high market to be about 150 billion bigger at the end of 2026 than it is today, which is a absolutely manageable number, but it's still the direction of travel is larger with more and more issuers in it. And those bonds are going to come to the market priced with an attractive coupon because of the fact that, you know, spreads are reasonable and interest rates are higher today than they were in 2020. All of that said, there's one area BBs, longer duration BBs just given how uncertain the path of inflation's going to be, how strongly we think the US economy is going to be. We do not want to hang our hat on duration or a rate rally, and Andrzej touched on this earlier, doing the heavy lifted for us. So, we tend to be shorter duration in terms of where we're finding value in high yield issuers. And we're not extending further out the curve to take BB risk, because those types of those spreads in BB's are fairly tight and you're more reliant on a rate rally to drive total return as opposed to carry.

So Tim, are there any other particular emerging risks developing in areas like direct lending and private credit that investors should really, you know, monitor closely?

So, one of the design features of private markets is that they're opaque and they are done so to keep information to the ownership group as opposed to disseminating them to broad investors. 86% of the US yield market is a 144A, you know, qualified institutional buyer base only market. It's hard for the average individual sitting at home to get information on a lot of the companies that are in the high yield market. Now that said some, because of the ease market, those 144 issuers are actually issued by public companies. So in high yield, north of 50% of the index is actually a public company you can get information on far less, far less so in leverage loans, which are syndicated in trade and even in 0% in private debt, right? So as you think about the emerging risks, we think about where the sector overweights are in between each individual asset class. 15.5% of the loan market is software-related, technology-related assets. They tend to be, and we touched on this earlier, lower rated B3, B2 corporate family rating names. they carry more leverage. There's more adjustments to EBITDA. There's less liquidity to a certain extent in terms of settlement times certainly, but there's zero liquidity on the private debt side. And so one of the risks that we're keeping an eye on as relates to high yield and the broadly syndicated performing parts of the credit market is what the composition of the index itself looks like by the end of 2016 or 2026. Are you going to see more refinancings of those loan deals and private debt deals in bond form, in 144A bond form, you know, find their way into US mutual funds in the United States.

So, are you seeing the greatest concentration within that software space or are there any other areas where, you know, you can see this emerging?

Yeah, absolutely, tech spend is going to be, you know, very, very topical, whether you're talking about investment grade, build out of data centers, CapEx spend needs, and so on or within leverage markets, which is more software related than it is CapEx spend. Though you are seeing, you know, obviously recent issues in AI-related names issuing debt to build out data centers, and then to power data centers as an example. So, that theme is going to really overtake financials and investment grade potentially at some point in the coming years, depending on how much is issued, depending on how much the market pushes back. And as Andrzej mentioned earlier, depending on how successful these companies are in integrating AI into, you know, profitable ventures across the street. As I think about sector specific within high-yield and loans, more so loans, it less becomes about individual sectors and more becomes about rating ban. 70% of the US loan market is owned by a CLO vehicle of some kind. CLOs have tight rating constraints with regard to the types of ratings that they can buy and equity returns for CLOs in 2025 were terrible. So when you think about an investor base at the equity side of CLO deals that have not had a particularly good year, you know, they really need to see spreads widen in US CLOs or pardon me in US loans for CLOs to perform well in 2026. You know, it was a very, very busy year with regard to refinancing in CLOs. 500 billion of CLOs were refinanced or repriced. And they were able to do that because of the underlying health in the US economy and the technical associated with the leveraged loan market. And private debt is going to be much more idiosyncratic as it relates to hearing more and more stories about the successes and the failures on individual stories within the private credit space.

So in periods with potential for economic deceleration, how should investors think about liquidity risk in private credit?

It's actually an interesting question because regardless of where we are in the economy, there is no liquidity in private debt, be it as may. You know, there are folks that there are, there will be investors that are going to try to access liquidity and redeem. And which could lead to, you know, partial strips of direct lending funds being sold or units of direct lending funds being sold at a discount. That isn't going to be something that's very widespread. I think it's more than likely that before that happens you start to see deals, part portions of these funds get refinanced into public market and return capital to investors that way potentially. But liquidity from the leveraged loan side is more healthy than that in the fact that there are tradable broadly syndicated loan markets. They bought loans trade every day. It's a function of the settlement time which has improved over the last few years. But be that as it may, 70% of that buyer base is a CLO. So if you end up getting stuck with a loan that's downgraded and no longer applicable to CLO vehicles where the math doesn't work, the weighted average spread is too low, you've just alienated 70% of your buyer base. On the flip side, on high yield portfolio trading and the ability to trade vertical strips of your portfolio, you know, has really added to the liquidity and the access to markets. But again, part of that is a function of the transparency in high yield, where you know, company more, more, and more and buyers and sellers are familiar with who actually these companies are and what they do. And they know their tickers and there's been more and more participation across a more diverse set of buyers and sellers, which has also improved liquidity. But be that as it may, I don't want, I don't mean to say all of this to sound negative on the floating rate side of the market loans and private debt. Quite to the contrary, right? That's a very natural home for much of the leveraged buyout paper that's out there, right? It makes total sense to have a private debt, a large healthy private debt market reside in institutional hands as opposed to say in regional bank hands, where you could see, or regional bank balance sheets I should say, where you could see risks become more systemic to the banking system, right? That is not where we are in as long as private debt is held by institutional clients.

So, what do you think is the most misunderstood aspects in the leveraged finance asset class? What would you, if you could just, you know, bounce off a three or four-

Sure, I, you know, without, I mean they call us the junk bond market, right? And all we've done is outperform other credit markets for the last few years in a row and done so with better ratings and more transparency and tradability and underlying sort of health from a ratings perspective. So, I think the fact that it's the junk bond market is somewhat misunderstood. I think that, you know, those of us who have been around a while think of the junk bond market and sort of the Michael Milken era, when it was, you know, in its infancy, right? We're thinking about Mezz financings. We're thinking about closely held hedge fund paper, maybe an insurance buyer. Not the, you know, very mature market that it's become. If anything, the private debt space is a much more closer cousin to what the high yield market used to be back in those days, right? You know, for every article that comes out about credit markets, everybody asks about defaults. Well, defaults were at one point a half percent last year. Just to ruin the surprise for everyone. Defaults are going to go higher, because they can't really go lower. But it's also going to be very, very manageable, right? And if you think defaults are high and high yield, don't look at loans or private debt because they're considerably higher there. So I think that's, those are really the two most interesting aspects of like what's misunderstood in the market and we love to have the debate about it.

Thank you so much Tim, Andrzej. Such great insights. I think this is a great time to bring in audience questions. And our first, Andrzej, I'm going to pose to you. "What are your rate cut expectations and what has the strongest influence in your opinion on the path the Fed ultimately takes?"

Look, as far as we're concerned, the don't need to be any rate cuts in 2026. If we are right about the US economy accelerating, if we are right about inflation remaining pretty sticky. That is not an environment that is calls, is calling for rate cuts. Having said that, we think it's pretty plausible that we will see one or two cuts during the year, but that will be more to do with the change of leadership at the Fed in May of 2026 rather than to do with the needs of the economy. So that our outlook is for one to two cuts, but not because the economy needs that.

And Andrzej, I'll pose this one to you as well. "What are your thoughts on corporate hybrid securities relative to other tools at the credit investors disposal?"

This space has been quite interesting because compared to Europe, for example, where it's been vibrant over many years, in the US, it's been pretty dead. In the US, we call these junior subordinated corporate bonds. And about a year, year and a half ago, one of the major rating agencies changed their methodology to allow for structures that are much more investor friendly but also increase the equity credit for these issuers. So, what you end up having is a market that focuses on primarily investment rated issuers at the senior level that are issuing subordinated debt for a variety of reasons. It could be to help protect the ratings. It could be to finance CapEx. We have plenty of energy or power companies within the space with big capital expenditure programs. And you issuing this debt at spreads often 150 to 200 basis points wider than where the senior spreads are trading. And we think that is particularly attractive for investors to consider, because it's very competitive to where, for example, BB segment of the high yield market is trading, whereas here you're getting exposure to investment grade balance sheets. In the meantime, investors are trying to make sense of this space. There is an opportunity, arbitrage opportunity as far as we're concerned, before valuations normalize. And we've already seen a lot of growth within this space. From being a very dormant part of the market, it is has now grown to well over a hundred billion dollars and has exceeded the size of the institutional bank preferred market. And we expect more activity within this space over the course of 2026. So, that combination of attractive valuations. But also the fact that these new structures have coupon floor language, which essentially means that the likelihood of this bond not being called at the first call date in the future is much lower than was the case in the past before that language existed. All these things together mean that we expect junior subordinated space to grow as a meaningful portion of fixed income markets and credit over the coming quarters.

So Andrzej, if I could jump in for a sec. When, for our listeners at home, why don't you explain how, what happens when a hybrid doesn't get called at its first call date?

Sure. If it doesn't get called, you have two scenarios. For example, in the bank preferred space, you switch to a floating instrument where you're being paid SOFR plus a reset spread, and then it's at the option of the bank whether to call that bond or not. When it comes to most of the junior subordinated bonds, if they are not called, they switch to a five-year treasury yield plus a reset spread. Some of them also switch to floating plus spread. But again then it's at the option of the issuer whether to call these securities in the future. But having a coupon floor provision means that even if at the time of that call decision, let's say your SOFR plus spread, let's say it gets you to 5%, but your coupon floor is at 7%, the issuer will have to pay seven, which increases the likelihood they will take out these bonds at the first call date, which wasn't the ca the case in the past. In the past, most subordinated bonds in the US did not have coupon flow provisions. So, that is a credit friendly development within the space.

And Tim, because we dived a little bit into the M&A space, why don't you take this one? It's just asking for your views on the mergers and acquisitions space in 2026 and looking forward, what do you expect for this sector?

So, I think the expectation is that the amount of M&A in the market in total will increase year over year. The amount of M&A that will impact high yield issuers will increase year over year. It's going to be a busier for bankers and it's going to be a positive tailwind for high yield junk bonds. It has the potential I think to be a headwind for certain high dollar price investment grade bonds that have weaker covenant packages that benefit of the fact that their balance sheets are in much better shape and so, that the market doesn't require the same sort of indenture protections. But you could see a scenario where the investment grade bonds trading north of par get LBO or an acquisition is made where they're taking on, you know, consider amount a debt to finance that acquisition. And credits have to be rerated and the bonds have to be rerated. And so, it's not going to be the type of environment where M&A is necessarily good for all bonds. And so that's really fun part of the market to be in, right? And the speculation around what M&A is going to happen in the media, anybody that's read the news is well aware of what's going on and across cable networks and streamers. And you know, well, all I can say is when you can just kind of zoom out and think with a longer term view of what the landscape looks like six months to a year and a half from now, there's some really good opportunities in the high-yield space with regard to names that could be bought or will likely make an acquisition.

So unfortunately, we do have to start wrapping up. Andrzej and Tim, it was a pleasure. Thank you so much for your insights. Before we go, I want to quickly let everyone know that Andrzej, Tim, and other members of the BlueBay US Fixed Income team deliver quick high quality insights into what's driving fixed income markets in "The Weekly Fix." This weekly commentary is published every Tuesday and can be delivered straight to your inbox or podcast platform. Just click the top link in the box to the right to subscribe and watch the latest episode. We also held an emerging markets webinar on December 10th through RBC that can be viewed on demand at www.marketsgroup.org. And I also want to encourage you all to please complete our feedback form. We'd love to hear your thoughts and suggestions. And everyone thank you so much for tuning in today. Have a great week.

Thanks so much for your time.