We move Brazil USD-denominated sovereign bonds to Neutral from Underweight following the first round and remain defensive on the curve. Our September Underweight combined valuation and event timing, and we identified the first round as the point to reassess it. Flávio Bolsonaro finished ahead of President Lula with 47.0% of valid votes against 45.2%. Roughly 8% went to eliminated candidates, mostly from the center and right of center. Right-of-center parties also strengthened their position in Congress, and the Liberal Party (PL) emerged as the largest party in both chambers, with 28 senators and 121 deputies. That gives a potential Bolsonaro administration a stronger legislative starting point for fiscal reform.

Neither of the re-entry conditions we set in September has been met. The Brazil 2035s trade at 199 bps of OAS, not around 230 bps, and no fiscal framework has been delivered. Those thresholds were set before the first-round result. The first round removes most of the event-risk rationale for the Underweight, but valuation remains restrictive. The Brazil 2035s at 199 bps offer only an 8 bp pickup to the Mexico 2034s at 191 bps, with 6.3 versus 5.8 years of duration. At the front end, the Brazil 2029s trade at 51 bps against 62 bps on the Mexico 2029s, with reported durations of 2.4 and 2.3 years. Further out, the Brazil 2041s trade 34 bps through the Mexico 2040s. The political signal is better; the valuation is worse. That leaves too little upside for Overweight and too little evidence for a broad sovereign Underweight.

Since September 17, Brazil has tightened 9 to 16 bps across the belly and long end while peers widened, with the Mexico 2034s 16 bps wider and the South Africa 2036s 15 bps wider. The clearest relative-value dislocation is the Brazil 2041/Mexico 2040 pair. The Brazil 2041s moved from 6 bps through the Mexico 2040s on September 17 to 34 bps through today, an additional 28 bps of relative tightening in three weeks, with reported durations of 9.2 and 8.6 years, respectively. The Brazil 2035/Mexico 2034 pair shows the same 28 bp compression, from a 36 bp Brazil premium on September 17 to 8 bps today, with durations of 6.3 and 5.8 years. Both Mexico bonds widened over the period, so two actual-bond pairs showing the same 28 bp move provide clear evidence of Brazil-specific repricing.

Read more

We move Brazil USD-denominated sovereign bonds to Underweight from Neutral. This is a valuation and event-timing call into the October 4 first round and the October 25 runoff, not a change in our credit assessment. Brazil’s external position is stronger than at our July initiation. Gross international reserves are near $370bn and projected to increase through 2028, FDI covers the current-account deficit and the sovereign funds predominantly in local currency. What has changed is the price, while the medium-term growth and rates mix has become less supportive of debt stabilization. Since initiation the 2029s have compressed 37 bps to 29 bps of OAS, the 2030s 32 bps to 94 bps, the 2031s 25 bps to 119 bps and the 2035s 17 bps to 209 bps. Over the same period, the LatAm Broad Bond Index USD compressed 8 bps to 231 bps. At current levels, Colombia trades wider than Brazil across most comparable points, while Mexico remains tighter. Every major point on the curve still trades within 8 to 19 bps of its one-year OAS minimum. The compression accelerated in September as several polls narrowed toward statistical ties and prediction markets moved toward the challenger. Over the same period our economic monitor’s 2027 growth forecast moved from 1.7% to 1.3% and its end-2027 Selic forecast from 10.6% to 12.3%, while the deficit, interest bill and debt projections remained unchanged.

We read that as the market pricing a change in fiscal regime that has not been delivered, by an administration that has not been elected, through a Congress that has not been seated. Prediction markets have moved further toward the challenger than the polling has. We treat that divergence as a positioning and event-risk signal, not as a forecast of the result. For the bonds, the relevant question is how much fiscal improvement current spreads already discount, not which candidate wins. Spreads at these levels provide some peer cushion but limited protection against adverse post-election fiscal outcomes. Two of the triggers we set at initiation have fired. We said we would reduce the belly preference if the 2035s and 2036s compressed without better fiscal evidence, and turn more defensive on fiscal slippage or a shift in the easing path. The belly compressed 8 to 17 bps without a corresponding improvement in the fiscal outlook. Fuel-relief measures carried a roughly R$40bn fiscal cost between March and September, and on September 17 the government announced a 15% increase in Bolsa Família benefits with an estimated additional cost of R$22bn in 2027. Investment and government consumption supported second-quarter growth while private consumption contracted, and the central bank is easing into 2027 inflation expectations that have moved higher. Gross debt still reaches 100% of GDP in 2027 on the general government definition in our economic monitor.

The Underweight is not a forecast of the election result. At current levels, valuation cushion is meaningful and the ordinary-case payoff is broadly balanced. Credible fiscal consolidation after the election could take the 2035s toward the Mexico 2034s at 176 bps, roughly 33 bps of compression and about 2.1 points on 6.4 years of duration. Fiscal slippage could instead retrace them toward the three-month average of 219 bps or the one-year average of 237 bps, a loss of roughly 0.6 to 1.8 points, with the one-year maximum at 278 bps implying about 4.4 points in the tail. The Underweight carries moderate conviction because the 2035s remain 21 bps inside our 230-bp Neutral re-entry area, sit only 18 bps above their one-year OAS minimum and 28 bps inside their one-year average, and the fiscal improvement required to sustain further country-risk compression has not been delivered. A constructive post-election fiscal signal could compress spreads quickly, but sustaining that move would require execution. Fiscal disappointment can reprice the curve before delivery becomes visible in the data.

Read more

We initiate coverage of Mexico sovereigns with a Neutral issuer stance on USD-denominated bonds, an Overweight on the MEXICO 2035s and 2036s, and an Underweight on the MEXICO 2041s and 2045s. This is a curve-specific recommendation, not a full-sovereign Overweight. Mexico remains investment-grade, externally resilient and fully market-accessible, but fiscal flexibility has weakened, support for public-sector companies continues to absorb fiscal capacity, and USMCA uncertainty limits confidence in the growth denominator.

Mexico’s spread premium reflects real fiscal, policy and public-sector company risks, but we think the market is too punitive in assigning a fallen-angel risk premium to an issuer that remains investment-grade, externally resilient and fully market-accessible. The MEXICO 2035s trade around $101.8, with 198 bps of OAS, 6.1% YTW and 6.3 years of duration. The MEXICO 2036s trade around $99.1, with 198 bps of OAS, 6.2% YTW and 7.2 years of duration. That places the recommended bonds close to LatAm Broad Bond Index duration, at 6.3 and 7.2 years versus 6.4 years for the index, while giving investors investment-grade Mexico exposure rather than the benchmark’s broader mix of LatAm sovereign, corporate and lower-rated credit risk. The recommendation is not driven by headline yield, but by where we think Mexico offers the best risk-adjusted compensation. The 2035s and 2036s yield around 6.1% to 6.2%, below the 6.8% to 7.0% available in the higher-beta long-end points. We prefer the belly because it offers enough OAS to compensate investors for Mexico’s fiscal and policy-risk premium without forcing the position into the long-duration bonds most exposed to supply, index-exit sensitivity and fallen-angel risk.

Read more

We initiate coverage of Brazil sovereigns with a Neutral recommendation on USD-denominated bonds. We view Neutral as a positioned call rather than a split of the difference. It is the point where a strong external balance sheet caps the downside, while a deteriorating fiscal trajectory and tight-to-fair valuations cap the upside. We do not think the credit earns an Overweight. The belly already trades close to its own recent averages and only modestly wide of higher-rated regional peers, while the fiscal turn needed to drive broader compression is absent into an election cycle with limited visible reform delivery. We also do not favor an Underweight. Brazil has no market-access or liquidity problem, funds predominantly in local currency, and pays enough carry that a defensive stance is costly to hold against a downside the institutional framework makes gradual rather than abrupt.

The curve separates near-term repayment risk from fiscal-duration risk, and that separation drives our positioning more than final maturity. The 2027s and 2029s have largely priced Brazil’s external strength and now trade too tight to express more than a liquidity anchor, leaving little spread cushion and limited upside. The long end pays the most spread, but it also carries the part of the curve most exposed to the still-rising debt path and to an election cycle that has yet to offer a credible catalyst to bend it lower. Neither end is where we want the core of the position.

Read more

We initiate coverage of Argentina sovereigns with a Neutral recommendation on USD denominated bonds and identify the ARGENT 2035s and 2041s as our preferred curve expressions. Argentina remains a normalization trade, not yet a normalized credit. Fiscal consolidation, disinflation, rating momentum and improved market confidence support the recovery, while substantial carry argues against a defensive underweight stance. Much of the post stabilization convergence is already priced, however, and low net FX reserves, an incomplete current account adjustment and rising 2027 political risk argue against a broad Overweight recommendation at current levels.

Within the curve, we favor the 2035s and 2041s. The 2035s offer the cleanest OAS entry point, while the 2041s provide greater spread compression upside if Argentina continues moving toward market access pricing. We do not emphasize the 2038s because they trade inside the 2035s on OAS and below the 2041s on yield, while offering less upside to further spread compression than the 2041s. They are less differentiated within the preferred belly segment. For defensive exposure, we would favor ARGENT 2030 over ARGENT 2029, as the 2030s still offer modestly better yield and OAS while keeping policy horizon risk relatively contained. We would size the 2046s as a smaller, higher beta normalization position rather than the core expression. We would use political volatility as a source of entry points, not only as a source of risk, to add to the 2035s and 2041s.

The sovereign is no longer trading only on crisis avoidance. Investors are now pricing rating migration, lower country risk and eventual market access. Macro data, rating actions and the curve all point to that shift.

Read more

The removal of Nicolás Maduro and the designation of an interim authority marked a decisive rupture with the prolonged political paralysis that has defined Venezuela since the 2017 default. From a market perspective, that break alone was sufficient to trigger a sharp rally across defaulted Venezuelan sovereign bonds and PDVSA debt, as investors reassessed the probability of renewed engagement with the U.S. and, eventually, a path toward restructuring. We view this initial repricing as rational. Eliminating the tail risk of indefinite stalemate carries intrinsic value in a credit that had effectively been frozen by sanctions, legal uncertainty, and the absence of a credible interlocutor. However, we do not think this move should be read as confirmation of near-term normalization or a clean transition toward debt sustainability. The rally reflects a reopening of optionality rather than resolution.

The political configuration that is now emerging matters materially for credit. The interim framework appears explicitly designed to prioritize stability, control, and bilateral coordination with the U.S., rather than an immediate, opposition-led electoral transition. Notably, there is no defined election timeline, and the durability and international legal standing of the interim arrangement remain unresolved, with U.S. policy posture still framed around leverage and conditional engagement rather than full normalization. Senior U.S. officials have signaled a willingness to work pragmatically with elements of the existing Chavista structure, while simultaneously downplaying near-term elections and keeping deeper political recognition and normalization contingent on cooperation and outcomes. From a fixed income perspective, this setup increases the probability of incremental, transactional progress, but it also embeds legitimacy risk and reversibility into the process. A prolonged interim period may allow for selective policy actions such as targeted sanctions relief or expanded operating licenses, but it also leaves bondholders exposed to delays, policy fatigue, or partial rollbacks if political cooperation deteriorates. That distinction is critical because it directly shapes both the timing and the ultimate recovery path for creditors.

Recent U.S. actions suggest that engagement is being structured less as a broad normalization process and more as a tightly controlled oil monetization mechanism. The U.S. has indicated that Venezuelan crude and products are being marketed through authorized channels, with proceeds settling into U.S.-controlled accounts and disbursements occurring at U.S. discretion. The framework is described as beginning immediately with an initial tranche of oil sales and continuing on an indefinite basis. In our view, this materially clarifies the nature of early engagement: barrels may flow, but cash control remains externalized.

Read more