Nordea: “We Still Believe That the Risk Aversion Towards Emerging Markets is Too High”

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

Nordea: "Seguimos pensando que la aversión al riesgo en los mercados emergentes es demasiado elevada"
Foto cedidaEmily Leveille, courtesy photo. Nordea: "We Still Believe That the Risk Aversion Towards Emerging Markets is Too High"

The current economic fundamentals in many emerging countries, along with the perception that they involve too much risk, generate interesting opportunities for investors with a medium to long-term investment horizon according to Nordea‘s Emily Leveille. In this interview with funds society she discusses Emerging market opportunities.

Apart from valuations, which other attractions do the Emerging Markets investments currently have?

We still believe that the risk aversion towards emerging markets is too high; this is partly based on concerns over the impact on these markets of the Federal Reserve raising interest rates. In our view, however, the current economic fundamentals in many emerging markets, combined with this perception that they are too risky, creates an attractive investment opportunity for investors with a medium to longer term horizon. We acknowledge that EM in general have been performing well recently – particular in 2017 – but because of valuations, which are still at a discount to developed markets, growth rates which are higher than in developed markets, and the great companies that we can find in emerging markets, we still see an attractive long-term opportunity here.

Are all the regions cheap, or are there some cheaper than others?

We are bottom-up investors, so we don’t have strong views about the valuations of particular markets, but what I can say is that we find a lot of opportunities across regions in companies exposed to domestic development. These could be companies focused on urban consumers in India, healthcare companies in China, or education businesses in Brazil. We also find lots of innovative companies in the technology space in emerging markets, where we see that there is a lot of potential for earnings growth that is not being priced by the market.

Which are the main challenges that the emerging countries are facing? Would they be affected by FED’s monetary normalization? Mainly in Latin America? 

We believe there is already a sufficiently large valuation buffer that exists between emerging markets and developed markets due to the expectation of monetary tightening in United States, such that emerging markets are able to stomach future increases in the Fed’s benchmark rate.  When we look at the underlying medium to long-term economic drivers of a large number of EM countries relative to a group of DM countries – and here of course as the key benchmark the USA – and look at the 10 year yield, we see a significant risk premium already priced into EM. In particular when we look at the underlying growth and debt dynamics of EM vs DM, and how EM has improved since 2013. Of course, we cannot rule out some short-term volatility in EM, particularly if the Fed increases rates at a faster pace than the market expects, but we would argue that this would be a an opportunity for adding to the asset class.

In order to look for opportunities in the Nordea 1 – Emerging Stars Equity Fund…which are the most important criteria for you? And, following these criteria, in which region do you see more opportunities?

When we look for new investments for the Emerging Stars Fund, we look for high quality businesses that can grow their earnings sustainably for many years to come, and then we make sure that we buy them at a discount to their intrinsic value. We can find companies like this all around the world, but as an example, right now we find a lot of interesting companies in India, where you will see we have a big overweight positon. Many of the reforms implemented by the current administration have created a more favourable business environment and lowered the cost of investing, creating many new opportunities for good businesses to take advantage of. 

Focusing in Latin America (where we have a lot of audience), which are the opportunities, divided by sectors or type of company, that you see? Could you give any example? Is it key to have a fundamental bottom-up focus or is the macro view important for you as well?

We see a lot of opportunities in industries like healthcare and education, particularly in Brazil, where an ageing population and rising middle class provide a tailwind for higher spending in these areas. We also still see that banking penetration is very low in many countries across the region, and the competitive environment for banks is very favourable, so we also have a positive view on banks like Banorte and Itau, for example.

With regards to the importance of macroeconomics- for us, the most important thing is to find good businesses that generate returns above their cost of capital for many years. We often find however, that there are many more investable companies in countries with stable macroeconomic environments, because it is difficult to grow a company and invest in a market which experiences a lot of economic volatility. Furthermore, when we make projections as part of our valuation work, we of course take into account projections of inflation, GDP growth, and interest rates and we can have a higher degree of confidence in these projections if there is a stable macroeconomic backdrop.

By countries, in Latin America, where do you see a more promising economic situation that can lead to the creation of investment opportunities in these markets and why?

We have been very impressed by the reforms being implemented in Argentina since the change in administration. The equity market is still very small, but with reforms in monetary and fiscal policy, we are already seeing a lot of businesses coming to the market that want to grow because the economy is growing and the political environment is more stable. In Brazil as well we are encouraged by the economic recovery, very low inflation, a consumer with less leverage, and recent reforms in the labour market and long term interest rates, though we still need to see reform to the pension system in order for us to feel comfortable with debt dynamics longer-term. Finally in Mexico we see a government and central bank committed to prudent fiscal and monetary policy and the ongoing adjustment to government spending due to falling oil production. We believe that the energy reform will be transformational to many sectors of the economy and is already creating many new investment opportunities.

In which Latin American markets is Nordea 1 – Emerging Stars Equity fund overweight?

We currently have no overweight positions in any markets in Latin America, but that is not because we do not find interesting companies in which to invest. Our process is a bottom-up, company by company analysis, and our under- and overweight positions are a result of individual companies that we find to invest in at the right price. We are invested in a concentrated group of companies that we like very much in the region, but we happen to have more investments at the moment in Asia and India primarily.

Does the region face a wave of positive changes and reforms for its equities?

Every country is so different in Latin America, from their size to the components of their economy and their politics. Though we have seen some positive and market-friendly reforms in recent years in places like Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico, I do not necessarily see these as related to some sort of general consensus in the region about a move to the right or to the left of the political or economic spectrum. Each case has been very much related to specific domestic situations.

The weakness of the dollar … how is it helping the region? Do you consider currencies when investing or covering them?

We do consider currencies in our fundamental analysis as we think about the impact of currency movements to the operating profits of our investments, but we do not try to predict currency movements and we do not cover our currency exposures from being invested in local markets. The weakness of the dollar helps certain industries and hurts others- in general, because commodity exports are a big portion of many Latin American economies, they tend to benefit from the inverse correlation between the dollar and commodity prices; furthermore, the weak dollar makes imported goods in local currency more affordable. However, a dollar that is too weak can also overly inflate the value of Latin American currencies and reduce their relative competitiveness in manufactured exports, as we saw during the financial crisis in 2008-2009, but we are not seeing these types of movements at this point.
 

BlackRock: “We Think The Chinese Economy Is Doing Well and Do Not See Any Worrying ‘Bubbles’ Forming Up At This Stage”

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

BlackRock: "Por el momento, la economía china funciona bien y no creemos que se estén formando burbujas preocupantes"
Foto cedidaJean-Marc Routier, courtesy photo. BlackRock: "We Think The Chinese Economy Is Doing Well and Do Not See Any Worrying ‘Bubbles’ Forming Up At This Stage"

Jean-Marc Routier, Director, and Product Strategist for the Asian Equities team in the Fundamental Equity division of BlackRock‘s Active Equity Group is convinced that there are many fundamental reasons for investing in Asian equities, an asset still not well favored by investors: not only its growth surpasses the rest of the world, but the reforms are improving its quality and there are solid advances in urbanization, consumption and the services sector that can not be overlooked. Besides China, which dominates the investment universe, in this interview with Funds Society, he speaks of the attractiveness of markets such as India and Indonesia,

Are investors coming back round to Asian equities as an alternative to the high prices of the US stock market? Is Asia just an alternative or are there fundamental reasons to invest in their equity markets?

Investors are still relatively underweight Asian Equities (source EPFR). Whilst Asia would indeed be a nice alternative to other markets and a good source of diversification, investors remain cautious to allocate as they are still unsure about China and don’t yet believe in the earnings recovery story that we have been observing now for the last 18 months. We believe that Asia benefits from attractive valuations, low ownership and good fundamentals. The fundamentals reasons to invest in Asia are that growth is outpacing the rest of the world, reforms are improving the quality of growth and we are seeing strong urbanization, consumption and services sector developments.

Growth could be one of the reasons for the return to the Asian equity markets, but this growth will slow down due to China’s effect. Do you think that less growth in the future will impair returns? Or do you consider a more balanced growth as positive for the region?

We think growth in China has now normalised – in fact China has doubled its GDP growth in nominal terms from Q1 2016 to Q1 2017. We expect growth to be lower than a decade ago but we also expect the growth to be better quality (less reliant on capital investments) which we think is positive for company returns and therefore markets. Yes definitely more balanced growth is a positive for the region

Regarding China… Do you see opportunities in the framework of the country’s new growth? In what sectors? Do you opt for the old or the new economy in the BGF Asian Dragon fund?

Contribution from consumption to GDP growth has gained importance over the year and now contributing to around 2/3 of China’s GDP growth.  The importance of investment component will be reduced over time. The economy transition from an investment-driven model to a consumer-led model is a multi-year process, but well-supported by urbanization, job creation (mainly driven by private sector employment due to privatization progress), strong labor market (very low unemployment rate), and wage growth. We have recently seen very strong growth in the e-commerce and internet part of the market – China has one of the world best penetration of e-commerce (15% of retail sales) and most of its population online.

How will the recently announced inclusion of China’s A-shares in the MSCI emerging markets index affect the Chinese and Asian markets?

MSCI’s A-share inclusion decision represents a significant step in opening China’s equity markets to foreign investment and to aligning the weight of China in global indices with the country’s emerging status as an economic superpower (China’s weight in MSCI ACWI is only 3% but China accounts for around 17% of world GDP in 2015 per IMF).

While A-share inclusion may lift sentiment temporarily, we believe the impact in the China onshore market will be minimal at the initial stages of inclusion. Firstly, the actual inclusion implementation will not happen until mid-2018. Secondly, incremental inflows to A-share market will be modest initially.  Incremental active inflows at initial inclusion stages shall actually be minimal since active investors who took a view on A-share would have already increased exposure given the multiple market access channels already in place (including QFII and Stock Connect).

However, the long-term investor implications are likely to be far-reaching.  At full inclusion, China weight (offshore and A-share equity together) can exceed 40% in MSCI EM index.  Therefore as MSCI moves towards full inclusion of China A-share, China allocation will be strategically important for international investors.  The entry of more institutional investors would also help drive the healthy development of China’s onshore equity markets.

To what extent could economic slowdown in China and its debt and financial issues impact the rest of Asia? Will there be firewalls or is there a real danger of these problems spreading?

While we recognize that China’s debt makes up 250% of its economy and is increasing at a rapid pace, we think concerns are overblown. The likelihood of a debt contagion is minimal as China is a close-ended economy and debt is concentrated in state-owned companies whilst consumers, private corporate and government debt is very low. But more importantly, we believe we have seen the peak in the non-performing loan cycle as reform progress in the past few years is starting to come through and many of the structural problems such as overcapacity and credit growth are starting to be addressed. Furthermore, good cyclical momentum within China as well as a pickup in global demand in developed markets may also help lift the economy.

On account of China, is there a risk that the volatility in the Asian stock markets could surge once again, as they did in 2015 or is this risk more controlled than in the past? And why?

There are always risks that situations that move on non-fundamental drivers come back to normalised levels. At the moment we think the Chinese economy is doing well and do not see any worrying ‘bubbles’ forming up at this stage.

Is the Asian equity market just China? What other regions offer decent opportunities to be taken into account? Do you like the Indian market? And other more modest markets, such as Indonesia, Philippines..?

China now makes up 35% of the Asian index (MSCI AC Asia ex Japan) and is the biggest constituent. But indeed, we see a lot of value in more peripheral markets. Specifically, we have good exposures to Indonesia at the moment as we see the economy normalising after a period of sub trend growth. We like India and have good exposure there too specifically to cyclicals and financials. We are currently cautious on the Philippines where the twin deficit is increasing

Following the strong rally which Asian equities experienced in 2016, is it still the right time to enter?

Asian equities are trading below the 40years long term average so valuations are not yet on mid-cycle levels yet. Investor ownership is low. Earnings drivers should remain positive as long as the main world economies continue to see normalising growth and we can maintain the domestic reform agenda in the region.

When investing in Asia, what is the most important thing to bear in mind, the macroeconomic aspects or the companies’ fundamentals and why? What are the characteristics that you look for in the companies which you invest in?

The Asian Equity team believes that stock prices are driven by fundamentals, liquidity and perceptions of risk. Markets frequently exhibit sharp swings of sentiment and misprice a company’s true worth. By combining fundamental research with local market knowledge and quantitative and qualitative screening and valuation techniques, we can exploit market inefficiencies. By investing over the medium to long term, we aim to invest in companies that are both relatively cheap to reasonably priced (valuation conscious), which can meet or beat market expectations.

Investing in Asia, is it better to cover currency risk or take it on? What are the current risks for Asian currencies against the dollar?

We invest with currency un-hedged as we take a view when we pick a stock that we make a deliberate call on the company, where it is listed, the sector it is in and the currency it is traded under. We do recommend investors to hedge to their local currency to avoid surprises unless they have very strong and informed views otherwise.

LatAm Fixed Income: “Despacito” [Slowly] Evolving Beyond a Passing Fad

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

LatAm Fixed Income: “Despacito” [Slowly] Evolving Beyond a Passing Fad
Photo: Geralt . LatAm Fixed Income: “Despacito” [Slowly] Evolving Beyond a Passing Fad

The times in which investing in bonds of Latin American issuers was something done only by managers of the most daring funds and/or those specialised in that region are behind us. In fact, these days practically everybody holds some LatAm fixed income investments in their portfolios.

There are several key factors typically pinpointed to justify international investors’ rising demand for bonds of Latin American issuers: the expansionary policies of the main central banks and the consequent search for returns under a global scenario of low/negative interest rates. However, we should also bear in mind other factors as well: the improvement of the region’s economies, adjustments to their trade and current account balances, a decline in inflationary pressures, company earnings growth, greater political stability, structural reforms, the rise in the number of issuers as well as the number of issuances in international markets, etc. These factors also underpin the rising presence of this region’s debt in a greater number of portfolios.

According to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), in June 2016 the value of international debt outstanding by non-financial Latin American and Caribbean companies amounted to $406 Billion or triple the June 2010 figure. According to Dealogic’s data, in the first half of 2017 new international issues of LatAm bonds had already reached $93 Billion. With regards to LatAm’s presence in international debt markets, we would mention the stellar reappearance of Argentina in April of last year – after suffering a 15-year shutout from international debt markets – with its $16.5 Billion issue which was then followed by a $2.75 Billion centenary bond in June 2017 (initial yield of 7.9% and it was 3.5x oversubscribed). We would also highlight the fact that numerous corporate issues have been carried out in international primary markets, often (40% in 2016) accompanied by buybacks of outstanding issues: thus leading to healthier financial positions thanks to refinancing at lower rates and with longer-term maturities.

Clearly, this wave of primary issues has greatly improved the liquidity, diversity and size of the LatAm debt market. But, as some voices are saying, is this also a symptom of excessive leverage and a potential bubble? Well, based on June 2016 data compiled by Bank of America Merrill Lynch, LatAm issuers with investment grade ratings are 30% less leveraged than North American companies. As for liquidity levels, LatAm corporations are quite comparable to their North American peers.

Obviously, neither all Latin American countries nor all of their companies face similar situations and/or have identical outlooks. Opportunities arising in the region’s debt markets are certain to be diverse and changing, but can investors aiming to build solid medium-term portfolios opt to completely ignore LatAm debt? Investing in this region no longer seems to be a temporary fad. Its greater resilience may help prevent price upheavals such as we suffered in 2013 on the back of the taper tantrum caused by Bernanke. Moreover, this asset class is increasingly becoming a key element for well diversified portfolio construction.

Column by Crèdit Andorrà Financial Group Research, written by Meritxell Pons, Asset Management Director at Beta Capital Wealth Management.

Yves Perrier and Amundi, Considered the Best in Europe

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

Yves Perrier y Amundi, los ganadores en los Premios Financial News
Foto cedidaPhoto: Financial News. Yves Perrier and Amundi, Considered the Best in Europe

Amundi was the standout winner at Financial News’s 16th Asset Management Awards last night, fending off fierce competition from a strong line-up of contenders to claim three of the top awards on offer.

Europe’s largest fund house was the only asset manager to take home more than one award — no mean feat in a year where several top prize winners only just pipped their closest contenders to claim victory.

Amundi was crowned Asset Manager of the Year after a distinguished panel of industry judges deemed its €3.5bn acquisition of Pioneer Investments last year worthy of the top award.

Amundi also beat Lyxor Asset Management and AQR Capital Management, Ossiam and Tobam to take home the award for Smart Beta Manager of the Year.

Yves Perrier picked up Amundi’s third award, for Chief Executive of the Year, after judges felt much of the firm’s success in the past 12 months was driven by its senior leadership team.

The other industry personality to receive recognition was Dominic Rossi. He picked up the Chief Investment Officer of the Year award as a result of his work to bolster Fidelity International’s stance on corporate governance.

Among exchange traded fund providers, Lyxor stormed to success after beating BlackRock’s iShares division — the world’s largest ETF firm.

Emerging markets proved to be the most competitive categories this year, with Ashmore only just beating Hermes Investments to claim success.

It was also a closely fought battle for Environmental, Social and Governance Manager of the Year, with Hermes emerging the victor after managing to outshine rivals Legal & General Investment Management and Nordea.

An enviable track record for Terry Smith, who holds a concentrated portfolio of 20-30 stocks in global equities, was enough for the judges to hand Fundsmith the award for Boutique Manager of the Year.

Others continued their winning streak from last year. Insight Investment once again picked up the Liability-Driven Investment Manager of the Year award — the eighth year the asset manager has claimed victory in this category.

Edinburgh-based Baillie Gifford was the runaway winner in the Equities Manager of the Year category, with its performance alone enough to impress the judges it should be awards the top prize.

Redington held onto its prize for Investment Consultancy of the Year, demonstrating again it has the ability to fend off larger rivals Mercer, Hymans Robertson and Aon Hewitt for the top award.

Anglo-Dutch outfit Cardano continued to steamroll competition and claim top prize in the fiduciary management category — the ninth consecutive year it has won the award.

Winners of the Asset Management Awards Europe 2017:

  • Chief Executive Officer of the Year — Yves Perrier, Amundi
  • Asset Manager of the Year — Amundi
  • Chief Investment Officer of the Year — Dominic Rossi, Fidelity International
  • Investment Consultant of the Year — Redington
  • Index Funds/ETF Provider of the Year — Lyxor Asset Management
  • Fiduciary Manager of the Year — Cardano
  • Boutique Manager of the Year — Fundsmith
  • ESG Strategy of the Year — Hermes Investment Management
  • Equity Manager of the Year — Baillie Gifford
  • Fixed Income Manager of the Year — M&G Investments
  • Multi-Asset Manager of the Year — Nordea Asset Management
  • Smart Beta Manager of the Year — Amundi
  • LDI Manager of the Year — Insight Investment
  • Emerging Markets Manager of the Year — Ashmore

How Could Individual Investors Outperform Institutional Investors?

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

¿Cómo podrían los inversores individuales superar a los inversores institucionales?
C4_0010_shutterstock_540575218. How Could Individual Investors Outperform Institutional Investors?

Portfolio management is the art and science of making decisions about mixing investment with policy, matching investments to objectives. Within Crèdit Andorrà, the Advisory team is dedicated to portfolio construction and to guiding clients on capital markets.

There are two categories of investors in the financial markets:  individual investors and institutional investors.  The term institutional investors refers to just what the name implies: large institutions, such as banks, insurance companies, pension funds, and mutual funds.

Institutional investors outperform individual investors

Institutional clients usually use a benchmark to manage their portfolios, meaning that they have to follow defined rules of asset allocation that they cannot derive too much from. Those rules are hard constraints, with a defined level of active exposure (also called tracking error) that they can implement. Those hard constraints oblige them to own assets on which they have negative views, which is highly inefficient. More constraints are usually bad for portfolio management if you are talented, as you cannot completely implement your views on capital markets. As most of the portfolios from individual investors are not benchmarked, their portfolios’ returns should on average outperform the ones from institutional clients. However, we are seeing the opposite as institutional clients outperform individual clients by 1% per year on average. We explore the reasons behind this phenomena and what could be done to reduce this performance gap.

Outperformance is less due to skills differential

One could think that this outperformance mostly comes from skills. Institutional money, which is also called “smart money”, is managed by professionals that not only have a lot of experience in managing money but also dedicate 100% of their time to this activity. On the other hand, individuals usually manage their portfolio when they have the time, mostly during weekends or at night, and they do not always have the technical background to do so.

However, most of the outperformance is not due to the difference in skills, but to basic mistakes coming from individual investors that could be easily corrected.
Thanks to investment behavioural mistakes

For instance, we see patterns of investor behaviour biases that have a negative impact on portfolio returns. Most clients have a home bias, which is the natural tendency for investors to invest in large amounts in domestic markets because they are familiar with them. This results in an unnecessary concentration in assets and less portfolio diversification. In addition, many Latin clients look for assets that provide yields, as they perceive them as being less risky. This is not true, as the demand for this type of assets is high and, therefore, they end up being expensive from a valuation point of view. Finally, individuals have a bias towards loss aversion. Loss aversion refers to people’s tendency to strongly prefer avoiding losses rather than acquiring gains. As a result, investors keep assets in their portfolio with large losses for years even though those assets have very little probability of recovery.

We believe that individual investors could reduce the performance gap with institutional investors by simply focusing on three aspects of portfolio management:

#1 Focus on diversification by holding alternative assets

Everybody knows that diversification is key in portfolio management. But the reality is that few portfolios are well diversified within private banks. Many Latin American clients’ portfolios are only invested in US stocks and emerging market bonds, which is a strategy that has worked very well over the last 3 years. There are benefits to being exposed to direct names to reduce the cost of management fees; however, it is also primordial to use funds to benefit from diversification. Indeed, it is wiser to use funds in the following asset classes: high yield bonds, preferred shares, catastrophic bonds, small caps Equity, and emerging markets equities.

We believe that most portfolios should have an exposure to the alternative assets class. We define alternative assets as those assets that have a low correlation with equity and fixed income.

Those are strategies such as long/short equity, CTAs, Global Macro, Merger Arbitrage, Real Estate and Private Equity, for instance. Adding alternative assets allows portfolios to be more robust during phases of market correction; in other terms, they reduce downside risks.

#2 Focus on the right asset allocation instead of on picking securities

The second advice is to stop spending too much time on picking the right securities. What is important is asset allocation, where most of the portfolio performance will come from. A top down approach should be implemented to determine the right exposure to equity vs. fixed income, at the region level and sector level.

Indeed, what is important is not if you own Facebook instead of Google, but your exposure to technology vs. energy, as technology has been the best performing sector in the US this year and energy the worse one. Stocks within the same sector tend to be highly correlated in average.

A common mistake for individual investors is to do the opposite. They focus on trade ideas applying a bottom-up approach without taking the interconnection amongst all those ideas.

Worse, they usually cumulate all the trading ideas without having specific target returns and stop losses. If the ideas do well, they will sell it -most of the time too early. And if the ideas do not work, they will keep it until they recover their losses. This is a bad idea, as returns are auto correlated (following a negative return, an asset has a higher probability to go down than to go up).

#3 – Do not overreact by taking more risks than you can afford

Following a market correction, some individual investors start to feel nervous and prefer to sell their positions, basically selling at the worse time. This happens because they took more risks than they could afford. 

The most important question investors should be able to answer is how much they can lose before they start selling their positions, basically knowing their capacity to lose investments. Once you know that the most you can lose is a 20% for instance, you can manage your risk exposure accordingly.

To manage your risk, you need to rebalance you portfolio on a regular basis. As equity usually tends to outperform fixed income, its weight in the portfolio increases over time. Rebalancing allows a reset of the portfolio to the initial portfolio weight.

Conclusion:

We saw that institutional money tends to be benchmarked, which adds constraints for portfolio management. Individuals, on the other hand, do not have all those constraints. By focusing on diversification, asset allocation, and risk tolerance, they can generate alpha and manage risks efficiently in the long term.

Column by Stephane Prigent, Investment Advisor at Banco Crèdit Andorrà Panamá. Crèdit Andorrà Financial Group Research.

A New Order in the Oil Industry?

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

¿Un nuevo orden en la industria del petróleo?
Pixabay CC0 Public DomainPhoto: StockSnap. A New Order in the Oil Industry?

At the end of July, the UK government announced plans to ban the sale of new gasoline and diesel vehicles from 2040, being the fifth country, with Holland, Norway, India and France, to end the sale of cars with traditional internal combustion engines. Noting the rapid changes taking place in the industry, many of the major car manufacturers have in turn announced their plans to focus on electric powertrain technologies in developing their product plans and launches. What’s more, in Volvo’s case, it has been announced that from 2019 the vehicles released into the market will be either electric or hybrid.

However, while much of the market narrative focuses on electric vehicles, the destruction of demand and the end of the oil era, the energy team at Investec Asset Management believes that global demand for crude oil continues to grow at a decent rate.

The International Energy Agency continues to alter historical data, distorting the picture, but the projected growth rate of demand is at 1% to 1.5% per year and shows no signs of slowing down. With this in mind, we expect the price of oil to remain at between 10% and 15% of current prices in the short and medium term. Even more important, for the energy companies that we have in our portfolios, we have behind us four consecutive quarters (from June 30th, 2016 to June 30th, 2017) in which the price of a barrel of Brent has averaged $50. This gives us a good understanding of the company’s profitability in the new oil order. In fact, we can find companies that are in the process of becoming more profitable at this price level than they were at the highest peak of the last cycle: given cost cuts, in asset classes, debt reduction and strategic focus on ‘value over volume’, which is perhaps not surprising. The main gas and oil companies have historically had no difficulties in generating liquidity; their errors have been committed from a poor allocation of capital and a search for growth.”

Fred Fromm, an analyst and Portfolio Manager at Franklin Natural Resources, a Franklin Equity Group fund, argues that while a small number of countries have announced plans to eliminate sales of internal combustion vehicles, given a time frame, which is often measured in decades, they do not see an impact in the oil markets. “These goals are long term and aspirational, with little foresight given the physical limits and practical implications of that shift. In the medium and short term, there simply is not enough infrastructure to facilitate a complete shift towards electric vehicles, while gasoline-powered vehicles have decades of infrastructure to withstand them, even with increased electric vehicle penetration, it will take years, if not decades, before the global base of vehicles, and therefore the demand for oil, is significantly affected,” says Fromm.

“The move to electric vehicles will require an upgrade of the existing electricity grid, the creation of new public recharging stations, the refurbishment of homes to equip them with charging capacity, and an increase in the production of batteries and associated minerals. While we see the increase in electric vehicle usage as a long-term trend, we do not think it is so short-term as to threaten global demand for crude oil. In any case, the Franklin Natural Resources fund is a diversified portfolio, with significant exposure to the energy sector, but which also invests in diversified metals and mining companies, so that it can invest in companies positioned to benefit from growth in demand for electric vehicles. In addition, the fund’s energy investment is spread among several sub-sectors and among oil and natural gas producers, the latter is likely to benefit, as it is a cleaner fuel in generating the electricity needed to recharge electric vehicles. While part of this potential increase in demand for electricity can be met from renewable sources of energy, such as wind and solar energy, these alone will not be sufficient and will depend on battery technology and large capacity storage solutions,” he adds.

Likewise, Pieter Schop, Lead Manager of the NN (L) Energy fund, agrees that the impact of the electric vehicle on the demand for oil is exaggerated. “Demand for crude oil is expected to continue to grow at around 1.5 million barrels per day for the next few years, reaching peak demand within a decade or two. Demand for gas-powered passenger vehicles in the developed world will be affected, but growth in demand will come from China and other emerging countries. There are still 3 billion people without access to a car, and the first vehicle they are going to buy is probably not a Tesla. Secondly, the other half of the demand for transport comes from demand for aircraft, trucks and buses, where it is much more difficult to switch to electric motors. Industrial and residential demand is also expected to be more resilient.”

According to Eric McLaughling, senior investment specialist at BNP Paribas Asset Management Boston, while he is aware of the forecasts for the long-term demand for fossil fuels, short-term prospects for oil prices are positive. Lower investment by oil producers will weaken supply growth throughout the latter part of this decade. “Through the lens of our investment horizon, the gradual introduction of the electric vehicle does not alter our valuation thesis.”

When it rains, it pours

In an industry that has been affected by the volatility and uncertainty surrounding oil and energy prices, a negative sentiment persists despite the fact that Brent’s average price so far this year is US$ 52 per barrel, surpassing the US$ 45 per barrel average of 2016; the devastation caused by Hurricane Harvey in Texas and adjacent states is now the immediate focus of investors.
“There are numerous repercussions in refineries, as well as in the upstream and midstream sectors, however, we believe that the impact will be transitory, given past experiences, and the operational strength and resilience of these sectors and businesses,” the team at Investec Asset Management comments.

In that regard, Schop, Manager at NN IP claims that the direct effects of the storm are limited. “The affected refineries will suffer cuts for a limited period of time and afterwards will continue production. We have seen some weakening in the price of WTI, but the Brent has not been impacted. This has resulted in an expansion of the spread between the WTI and Brent barrel. For most European oil companies, Brent is more important. The indirect effect of the storm is that it can result in lower GDP growth in the United States as damage costs are expected to exceed $ 10 billion. In turn, lower GDP results in lower demand for oil.”

Finally, from Franklin, they point out that in terms of impact on global markets, changes in production on the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast have resulted in a shift in trade flows, where Latin American markets have sought to import products from Europe and Asia to replace those typically received from the United States, and recent exports have also suggested that refineries in Asia are looking to secure US crude because of the discount at which it trades against Brent. “Although changes in production are the primary impetus that has led to the expansion of the differential, this was expected to occur at some point given the growth in US production, the limited ability of US refineries to expand their processing capacity in the short and medium term, and the need to encourage a decrease in net imports (through lower imports and higher exports).”

Ruben Lerner and Manuel Uranga Join Bolton’s New York Team

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

Bolton continúa su expansión en Nueva York con el fichaje del equipo de Ruben Lerner y Manuel Uranga
Photo: Bolton. Ruben Lerner and Manuel Uranga Join Bolton's New York Team

Independent broker-dealer Bolton Global Capital has ramped up its expansion in New York City with the addition of Morgan Stanley international advisors Ruben Lerner and Manuel Uranga.

After nine years as managing directors at Morgan Stanley, where they advised on an international client book of $550 million, Lerner and Uranga have launched A Plus Capital, which will be headquartered in Manhattan at 515 Madison Avenue, Bolton has announced.

Junior partner Ariel Materin, client associate Jennifer Ramos and office manager Olga Lopez also join from Morgan Stanley. Materin will manage client acquisition and investment strategy for the team while Ramos will be based in A Plus Capital’s Miami location and Lopez will manage the New York office.

Lerner, originally from Venezuela, and Uranga, from Spain, service clients across Europe, Latin America and the US.

The duo joined Morgan Stanley from Smith Barney, which was then still part of Citi, in 2008 with sales assistants Dolores Alcaide-Mendez and Jennifer Ramos. Alcaide-Mendez remains with Morgan Stanley.

Custody of client assets will be held through BNY Mellon Pershing. Bolton will be providing compliance, back office, and marketing support as well as the wealth management and trading technologies for the A Plus Capital team.

Morgan Stanley confirmed the team’s exit, but declined to comment further.

Bolton’s big plans

The Bolton, Massachusetts-based business is looking to continue to acquire more than $850 million in client assets in New York City market before the end of 2017. It entered the region in May when former HSBC private banker Ethan Assouline joined the broker-dealer.

Over the last two years Bolton had been targeting advisors in Miami, adding international teams that had left wirehouses and private banks due to internal policy changes during that period. It now has over $4 billion in assets under management from non-US resident clients.

Terry Simpson: “We Continue to be Overweight in Equities Relative to Bonds, Even Eight and a Half Years into the Cycle”

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

Terry Simpson: “Continuamos sobreponderando la renta variable frente a los bonos, tras ocho años y medio en el ciclo”
Photo: Terry Simpson, a multi-asset investment strategist at BlackRock / Courtesy. Terry Simpson: “We Continue to be Overweight in Equities Relative to Bonds, Even Eight and a Half Years into the Cycle”

In an environment where volatility levels are at a minimum, partly because of the widespread measures of QE by central banks and the low volatility of macroeconomic variables such as GDP, and the employment and inflation rates, the Black Rock Investment Institute is committed to maintaining current risk exposure, and even to increasing it. From here, the question that makes sense is: Given the present conditions, where do you take that risk within the capital markets? Terry Simpson, a multi-asset investment strategist, met in Miami in mid-July to resolve this issue and to share the firm’s expectations about the different markets.

Over the next five years, they expect US large-cap equities, as well as small- and medium-cap equities, to deliver an average return of 4 %. Also, for the same time horizon, they expect developed global equities, excluding US, to achieve an average yield of 6.2% and emerging market equities to reach 7%.

“These differences in returns are due to the high valuation levels in the US equity market, which are vulnerable to mean reversion. But we also believe there is an opportunity in the growth of global volatility within this economic cycle and we want to tilt our portfolios to where growth will emanate from. We know that the US economic cycle is much more mature than that of the Eurozone, emerging markets, or Japan, so these economies have scope for catch up,” said Terry Simpson.

“Thinking about valuations and rethinking asset allocations, we often get the question about the high valuations in financial markets, which is true whether you look across equities or you look across bonds. Bonds valuations are at historically high valuations. While equities also are at high historical valuations, they are not as expensive when compared to bonds. Thus, the key is relative value,” he added.  

A Clear Commitment to Equities

The issue here is betting on relative value: If we invest in equities, how much premium are we offered in relation to investment in bonds? For the firm, these questions make more sense than to think about equities in absolute terms, as the vast majority of clients have positions in multi-asset portfolios. In addition, we are already eight and a half years into the cycle, so valuation levels are high: “If you compare the earnings yield of the S&P 500 index with the premium provided by equities- it can be calculated as the earnings yield of US Equities minus the real bond yield in the US markets- it can be seen that stock market valuations are high, but if the same yield is compared to bonds, one will see equities are still relatively cheap, and that is why we continue to maintain an overweight in equities in relation to bonds, even eight and a half years into the cycle.”

Another reason why the BlackRock Investment Institute favors equities is because earnings growth is now becoming a sustained part of this market: “We have long understood that this is a multiple expansion bull market, lacking an earnings growth recovery, yet we are at point of solid earnings growth. Q1 in 2017 was the first quarter since 2010, when all the major global regions recorded double digit positive EPS growth. So, it’s confusing that clients are taking money out of markets now that we are getting earnings growth. It is likely that growth in the first quarter of this year will not be recorded again because in some regions currencies have risen which may act as a headwind for earnings, but we still think that in Europe and Japan double digits earnings growth is feasible for Q2, while in the US we expect it to remain at the top end of single digits. In any case, this is a marked improvement from years past.”

Furthermore, one could consider Wall Street’s expectations, since there is a trend that began around 2010-2011. Since then, analysts broadcasted very high expectations in terms of earnings per share at the beginning of each year, yet as the year progressed, those expectations were adjusted downwards becoming more and more pessimistic. However, 2017 is the first year in which the expectations broadcasted at the beginning of the year remained practically flat, something that according to Terry Simpson should be interpreted as an encouraging fact, since it breaks with the previous pattern and in addition is being supported by an improvement in profit recovery.

Opportunities are Outside the US

At BlackRock, they began to think that there would be investment opportunities in the international markets at the tail end of last year, a position that at that time was identified as contrarian to market consensus. The rest of the market is now just getting on board, so their contrarian call is no longer contrarian. Will they adjust their position? Not quite yet.   

“When we analyze the fundamentals of certain regions, our takeaway remains positive. For example, in Europe, the percentage of countries that have PMIs above their historical average is at its highest level since 2011”.

“Prior to 2009, EPS in European equity markets, excluding the UK, was virtually in line with that of the United States, as was earnings growth, obviously as a result of increased globalization. After the Great Financial Crisis, US earnings continued to increase somewhat, but in Europe they basically remained flat or declined. We think that the gap has potential to close as the global economy picks up. This is a fundamental story, there is an opportunity that Europe is going to catch up to the US”, he explained.

Regarding the need to protect and hedge the portfolio against currency risk, Simpson argued that it depends on risk tolerance and the client’s time horizon. “If you are looking for exposure to the European or Japanese equity market and the local currency is at a positive moment, you would be adding alpha to the portfolio with a direct exposure to currency risk, as is currently the case with the Euro and the Yen. Conversely, if the local currency is in a weak moment, as was the case during the past two years, it is convenient to opt for currency hedging strategies. With a high-risk tolerance and with a short time horizon, you can invest without currency hedging and take currency risk, but if the client does not want so much volatility in their portfolio, it is better to hedge the position. The same happens with the time horizon, over the course of 20-25 years, the effect of the local currency is washed out, there is basically no difference in terms of total return, but if you only want to invest for one or two years, it is better to hedge the risk”.

Finally, Simpson reviews the fundamentals that support investment in emerging markets. The differential between the growth of emerging and developed markets began to narrow in 2010. The growth of emerging markets started to converge with that of developed markets. It happened with China, which went from registering an annual growth of 10% to one of 6%, but this was also the case in Brazil and Russia. “In the last two quarters, we are seeing a rebound in the differential; emerging markets are restarting their growth. If this trend firms, we believe that EPS will grow and we will see better performance by emerging markets in relation to developed markets.”

From a technical perspective, Simpson recalled what happened in 2013, in the episode known as the “Taper Tantrum.” Ben Bernanke was Fed Chairman at a time when yields in developed economies were depressed; a massive flow of funds had invested in emerging market equities seeking higher yields. “At that moment Bernanke told global investors that they had reached the peak in the influence of QE measures, and that it may be optimal to withdraw the stimulus. A miscommunication that saw investors respond with a strong exit from emerging markets. Money has returned to this asset class, but there is still a lot of money waiting on the sidelines to reenter emerging markets, another positive point for this asset class,” he concluded.

How Did the Top Private Banks Worldwide Fare in 2016 and Who Are They?

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

Cuáles son las entidades de banca privada más importantes del mundo y cómo les fue en 2016
Photo: Urbanrenewal. How Did the Top Private Banks Worldwide Fare in 2016 and Who Are They?

Scorpio Partnership’s latest edition of the highly anticipated Global Private Banking Benchmark shows a tale of two halves for the global wealth industry. The leading assessment of KPIs in wealth management highlighted that private banks successfully navigated regulatory and political upheaval in 2016, with assets under management rising by almost 4% on average.

The results, based on the publicly available information provided by over 200 wealth institutions, indicate that cost income ratios also fell below 80% for the first time since 2012, reflecting wealth managers concerted efforts to cut costs despite continued compliance pressures. Strong profitability growth masked the industry’s underlying struggle to improve revenues, with operating income rising just 0.04% on average.

 

“As advanced technology continues to reshape the wealth management industry, firms will be able to recognise cost savings through process optimisation,” said Caroline Burkart, Director at Scorpio Partnership. “The challenge going forward will be managing the revenue side of the profits equation. These firms are experiencing pricing pressure, driven by regulations, the trend for passive investing and the wave of lower-fee competitor models entering the market. Solving the equation will require increased focus on enhancing the proposition with advisory capabilities and improvements to the client experience,” she added.

This year the largest 25 firms in the Benchmark managed USD13.3 trillion of HNW AUM, representing a 63.2% market share. The list was lead by UBS, followed by Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo and Royal Bank of Canada.

 Of the top ten operators, seven had a North American focus. However, Asia’s private banks gained momentum in 2016. China Merchants Bank stands out in the ranking, having added over CNY400bn to AUM in 2016 as a result of enhanced customer acquisition efforts, as well as upgrading it’s private banking proposition. Another contender from Asia, Bank of China, entered the ranking this year, managing over CNY1 trillion on behalf of its wealth management and private banking customers.

By contrast, many of Europe’s key operators experienced negative AUM growth due to a combination of internal restructuring initiatives, decisions to scale back from non-core markets and reputational challenges.

As well as posting strong financial KPIs for 2016, wealth managers were also able to move the dial on client experience, with Scorpio’s annual client engagement tracker, which focuses on the three pillars of a wealth management relationship – Service, Proposition and Relationship, indicating an improvement of 5.72%. “Our research indicates that there a relationship between client perception of the firm and the AUM growth rate.” They added.

As evidenced by Figure 2, some firms faired better at converting enhanced quality of the client service into improved financial performance. North American banks are leading the ranks of wealth managers, with only one European bank among them in a top quadrant by CES vs AUM growth metrics.

“North American operators tend to have a more forensic approach to tracking, measuring and monitoring the client experience across multiple metrics. As such, we see them consistently move the dial on client engagement and, as a result, their financial results,” commented Caroline Burkart, Director at Scorpio Partnership. “The commitment to active listening to the needs of the clients will be imperative to a strong advice-led model.”

For the full report, follow this link.
 

 

Bill Gross: “A “Less Flat” Curve Could Signal the Beginning of a Possible Economic Reverse””

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

¿Se van a mantener los tipos eternamente bajos?
CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrFoto: Lunita Lu. ¿Se van a mantener los tipos eternamente bajos?

In his latest monthly outlook, titled Curveball, Bill Gross mentioned that to his mind, free will is the key to our unique position among life’s animals. Without it, this business of living is reduced to a meaningless game.

He also makes the case that monetary policy in the post-Lehman era has resembled the gluttony of long departed umpire John McSherry – they can’t seem to stop buying bonds, although as compulsive eaters and drinkers frequently promise, sobriety is just around the corner. In his opinion, “The adherence of Yellen, Bernanke, Draghi, and Kuroda, among others, to standard historical models such as the Taylor Rule and the Phillips curve has distorted capitalism as we once knew it, with unknown consequences lurking in the shadows of future years.”

“But the reliance on historical models in an era of extraordinary monetary policy should suggest caution. Logically, (a concept seemingly foreign to central bank staffs) in a domestic and global economy that is increasingly higher and higher levered, the cost of short term finance should not have to rise to the level of a 10-year Treasury note to produce recession.” And notes that commonsensically, a more highly levered economy is more growth sensitive to using short term interest rates and a flat yield curve, which historically has coincided with the onset of a recession.

“Just as logically, there should be some “proportionality” to yield curve tightening. While today’s yield curve would require only an 85 basis increase in 3-month Treasuries to “flatten” the yield curve shown in Chart 1, an 85 basis point increase in today’s interest rate world would represent a near doubling of the cost of short term finance. The same increase prior to the 1991, 2000 and 2007-2009 recessions would have produced only a 10-20% rise in short rates. The relative “proportionality” in today’s near zero interest rate environment therefore, argues for much less of an increase in short rates and ergo – a much steeper and therefore “less flat” curve to signal the beginning of a possible economic reversal.

How flat? I don’t know – but at least my analysis shows me that the current curve has flattened by nearly 300 basis points since the peak of Fed easing in 2011/2012. Today’s highly levered domestic and global economies which have “feasted” on the easy monetary policies of recent years can likely not stand anywhere close to the flat yield curves witnessed in prior decades. Central bankers and indeed investors should view additional tightening and “normalizing” of short term rates with caution” he concludes.