The Muzinich Europeyield and Muzinich ShortDurationHighYield funds won the European High Yield and Short-dated Bond categories.
In addition, Muzinich Americayield was highly commended in the US High Yield category and the company was highly commended in Specialist Fixed Income Group of the Year.
The awards were judged using a combination of quantitative and qualitative criteria, based on independent performance data and analysis by a panel of leading industry figures.
Josh Hughes, Managing Director of Marketing & Client Relations at Muzinich said: “We take great pride in the fact that a panel of highly respected industry figures have recognised our success in delivering superior risk-adjusted returns for our investors, which has been the focus for Muzinich & Co for more than two decades.
It underlines the quality and specialist expertise of our credit team, who we believe are among the most experienced in the industry.”
The awards are designed to recognise consistency of returns by asset managers focused on specialist asset classes. Muzinich & Co was also recognised in last year’s awards when it earned four awards and was highly commended in two categories.
The active/passive management conversation doesn’t have to be a debate. Those are better left to the politicians. As MFS Co-CEO Michael Roberge says in his October 18 opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, investors can choose both. And they may want to consider that, given the potential diversification benefits of having active alongside passive in their portfolios.
With active management facing criticism of late, Mike sheds some light on the rhetoric and how to recognize a manager with skill. He also makes a compelling case for active’s risk management capabilities and the importance of excess return in an environment fraught with return-generating challenges.
Investors know this. In a recent survey conducted by MFS, nearly three-quarters of professional investors surveyed in the US cited strong risk management as an important criteria when selecting actively managed investments
So passive has its place. Active has its advantages. And there are some real merits to a “bipartisan” portfolio. Here’s what Mike has to say:
It is true that flows into passive strategies have picked up. But U.S. advisers are still allocating 70% of their clients’ assets to active investment strategies, according to our recent survey.1 Investment flows can be fickle and aren’t always a good barometer for long-term shifts in sentiment.
Most of it points to the average active manager’s inability to consistently beat their benchmark, net of fees. And while that might be true for average managers, there are skilled active managers who have consistently outperformed their benchmarks over a full market cycle. But how do you distinguish between skilled and average? It really comes down to conviction and risk management.
Investors caught in the active/ passive debate need to under- stand the issues—but stay focused on the outcome. Market returns might look appealing. Excess return will matter more. And managing the downside is essential. Long term, the bipar- tisan portfolio probably wins.
Effective from noon on Friday 4 November 2016, M&G Investments (M&G) will resume trading in the shares of the M&G Property Portfolio and its feeder fund, the M&G Feeder of Property Portfolio. The M&G Property Portfolio is a broadly diversified fund, which after all sales, will invest in 119 UK commercial properties across retail, industrial and office sectors on behalf of UK retail investors.
The decision was taken in agreement with the Depositary and Trustee and the Financial Conduct Authority has been informed. The fair value adjustment originally applied on 1 July 2016 has also been removed in full.
M&G announced a temporary suspension on 5 July 2016 after investor redemptions rose markedly due to high levels of uncertainty in the UK commercial property market following the outcome of the European Union referendum.
William Nott, chief executive of M&G Securities, says: “Suspending the fund wasn’t a decision we took lightly, but we felt it was the only way to protect the interests of investors in what were very unusual circumstances in the aftermath of the referendum. Suspension created an environment more akin to normal conditions, allowing us time to choose the most appropriate assets to sell at the right price in order to preserve the integrity and future of the fund. As such, the fund manager has kept higher quality assets while reducing the exposure to assets deemed riskier than their prime counterparts, putting the portfolio in a good position for any further volatility that may be experienced in the lead up to Brexit.” As confidence returns to the market, 58 properties have been sold, exchanged or placed under offer for a total of £718 million.
Meanwhile, and effective January 1st, 2017, Sam Ford will be the new manager of the £598 million M&G UK Select Fund given the incumbent manager, Mike Felton is leaving M&G. Until the end of the year, the fund will be managed by co-deputy managers Garfield Kiff and Rory Alexander.
For the second year in a row, Singapore takes the top spot in HSBC’s Expat Explorer country league table. Expatriates in Singapore enjoy some of the world’s best financial rewards and career opportunities, while benefiting from an excellent quality of life and a safe, family-friendly environment.
More than three in five (62%) expats in Singapore say it is a good place to progress their career, with the same proportion seeing their earnings rise after moving to the country (compared with 43% and 42% respectively of expats globally). The average annual income for expats in Singapore is USD139,000 (compared with USD97,000 across the world), while nearly a quarter (23%) earn more than USD200,000 (more than twice the global expat average of 11%).
Overall, 66% of expats agree that Singapore offers a better quality of life than their home country (compared to 52% of expats globally), while three quarters (75%) say the quality of education in Singapore is better than at home, the highest proportion in the world (global average 43%).
Now in its ninth year, Expat Explorer is the largest and one of the longest running surveys of expats, with 26,871 respondents sharing their views on life abroad including careers, financial wellbeing, quality of life and ease of settling for children.
The 2016 Expat Explorer report also reveals:
Millennials are drawn to expat life to find more purpose in their careers Nearly a quarter (22%) of expats aged 18-34 moved abroad to find more purpose in their career. This compares to 14% of those aged 34-54 and only 7% of those aged 55 and over. Millennials are also the most likely to embrace expat life in search of a new challenge: more than two in five (43%) say this, compared with 38% of those aged 34-54 and only 30% of those aged 55 and over. Millennials are finding the purpose they seek, with almost half (49%) reporting that they are more fulfilled at work than they were in their home country.
Expat life accelerates progress towards financial goals Far from slowing progress towards their longer term financial goals, expats find many are fast tracked by life abroad. Around two in five expats say that moving abroad has accelerated their progress towards saving for retirement (40%) or towards buying a property (41%), compared to around one in five (20% and 19% respectively) whose move abroad has slowed their progress towards these financial goals. Almost a third (29%) of expats say living abroad has helped them to save towards their children’s education more quickly, compared to only 15% who say it has slowed them down.
The top expat destinations for economics, experience and family are:
Dean Blackburn, Head of HSBC Expat, comments: “Expats consistently tell us that moving abroad has helped them achieve their ambitions and long-term financial goals, from getting access to better education for their children to buying property or saving more for retirement. Most expats also find that their quality of life has improved since making the move – and that they are integrating well with the local people and culture.”
Health care stocks have suffered as political rhetoric heats up around health care reform. Heidi suggests the sector may have been over-penalized.
No sector has been a victim of election antics and volatility like health care, the third-largest sector weight in the S&P 500 Index. The S&P 500 Health Care Index is down a little more than 2% this year and the S&P Biotechnology Select Industry Index has plummeted over 15%, while the S&P 500 has notched a decent 6% gain, according to Bloomberg data.
This should come as no surprise: A key factor in the recent selloff has been investor concerns that new regulations could impact the prices of drugs. These concerns are exacerbated by political rhetoric connected to the presidential election, and we think the likelihood of significant reform remains low. Although both U.S. presidential candidates have very different approaches to health care, each has proposed significant changes to the current system. And as politicians suggest plans to rectify an imperfect system, many health care companies feel the heat, particularly biotechnology companies, which then see weakened stock prices.
However, despite the potential for near-term political headwinds, there are positive fundamental and structural factors that suggest some health care companies are being over-penalized.
In recent years, U.S. equities overall have generally seen their stock prices gain from multiple expansion, rather than significant earnings growth. In other words, investors have been willing to pay more for the same dollar of earnings. But the health care sector is an exception; its earnings have been overlooked. The cheaper the stock prices get, the less the stocks are loved. See the chart below.
So why have health care and biotech stocks been left out in the cold? The market selloff in biotech began last year when Hilary Clinton commented on drug price gouging and the need for increased regulation. In a single day, the Nasdaq Biotech Index dropped almost 5% (source: Bloomberg).
I think this is a classic example of investor behavior driving stock prices rather than investment fundamentals. For now, this reform talk is all rhetoric. Actual reform measures affecting drug pricing would likely take years to legislate and implement. I won’t speculate on whether Congress would remain under Republican control, or which candidate would become president, but I believe that there is a strong likelihood of continued political divisions and gridlock. This suggests that the power to push through major reforms will be limited.
Markets in autumn have historically seen an uptick in volatility, according to Bloomberg data. Given that we are in the final weeks before the election, we expect volatility to continue in the health care sector. In fact, the issue is top of mind for voters. In a 2016 national survey of registered voters, health care ranked number four on the list of importance behind the economy, terrorism, and foreign policy. With so much focus on the sector, health care companies could continue to pay the price for political rhetoric in the near term.
The need for health care
But it’s important to remember that in addition to valuations and earnings, lifestyle and demographic factors support health care over the long term. First, while we can postpone discretionary purchases like a car or new appliances in dire times, health care is one thing we cannot live without. Meanwhile, an aging baby boomer population means demand for health care services will likely continue to grow. And as advancements in technology ensue, so will the average age in life expectancy, thus furthering the need for health care.
Some options to think about
Stocks in the biotech industry have a history of volatility, and given the election, nothing is certain. Yet, the industry is experiencing a wave of innovation. Within this context, it may make sense for some long-term investors to consider how biotech stocks may fit into their portfolio. Investors with a higher risk tolerance and/or a longer-term investment horizon may want to think about taking advantage of market volatility to find select opportunities in health care and biotech. To gain exposure to health care or biotech companies, investors may want to take a look at the iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF (IBB) or the iShares U.S. Healthcare ETF (IYH).
Build on Insight, by BlackRock written by Heidi Richardson
Populism is on the march. The unexpected UK vote to leave the EU, rising support for right-wing politicians in several other European countries, and the surprisingly strong showing by politicians such as Donald Trump are starting to cause jitters amongst investors. Not least because several of these politicians and political movements support ideas that range from mildly damaging to economically illiterate, such as greater government intervention in business, criticism of central bankers and restrictions on immigration and protectionism.
Despite increasing popular support for these unattractive ideas, equity markets have so far held up reasonably well, with the US market still trading near record levels. European markets have also snapped back from their post-Brexit vote blues, but is this stance complacent? And what are the potential investment implications of this populist movement?
Discontent with the status quo
First we should consider what is behind these votes and polls. Popular dissatisfaction with general economic development since the global financial crisis is palpable, caused by stagnation or falls in real disposable income for middle or lower earners. And discontent has been further sharpened by the realisation that almost all of the economic rewards go to a tiny elite. Mostly, these are the failings of globalism, which has delivered cheaper goods but also a deflationary impact on the bargaining power of semi-skilled and unskilled labour in developed countries, as products and services are moved offshore.
But the key point is that this discontent is being directed at national governments, because of the belief that politicians can ‘do something’. More unscrupulous politicians have realised that they can exploit these discontents to further their careers, even if they have no clue how to solve the underlying problems. Remember how prominent Brexiteers in the UK promised that the UK could control immigration and retain full access to the single market – a false claim that was exposed fairly quickly after the vote.
Thankfully, no politician has the power to roll back the effects of globalism – otherwise someone might propose that we all buy locally made clothes or rear our own chickens. Perhaps that sounds like a lovely idea. But on a more serious note, there is still a risk that politicians could come up with increasingly outrageous ideas to try to appeal to voters and to make a difference in a low-growth world. The Brexit debate is a case in point. Is the UK really likely to be a more prosperous place if it becomes significantly less attractive to foreign investors?
The politics of pragmatism
So the key task is to identify politicians who might do real damage and to assess if they really will be in a position to do that damage. The resilience of markets in the face of Brexit and other factors is explained by the expectation (or hope) that relatively sensible people are likely to end up taking decisions, or that the most foolish ideas will not actually be enacted.
In the case of the UK, the finance ministry is being run by the first man to have some actual business experience in at least a generation. And although much of the public rhetoric in the UK seems to be anti-business, a good part of this is probably pre-Brexit negotiation tactics aimed at securing a good deal. There is a difference between what politicians feel they need to say to justify their positions to discontented voters and what they are likely to enact in practice. It is also overlooked that the UK could well remain inside the European customs union – even if it leaves the single market.
If you work on the basis that the most extreme politicians will not get their hands on the controls and that mildly daft ones will be reined in by bureaucrats, then the current market view looks more realistic. There are risks that relatively sensible politicians could try and spend their way out of low growth, especially because we seem to be close to the limits of what central banks can do via quantitative easing (QE) and negative interest rates.
But it is more likely that a few high-profile infrastructure projects or housing schemes will be announced (maximum publicity for the least money) and that much riskier ideas such as ‘helicopter money’ – an alternative to QE that could be anything from payments to citizens to monetising debt – will be avoided. Fears that the EU will fall apart because of Brexit also seem misplaced: history means that other European countries have a completely different view of the institution.
Why pay for nothing?
Back to investment. If you want to get a return on your capital, no-one likes the idea of paying to lend money to a company (thanks for the offer, Henkel and Sanofi, which have both offered debt at negative rates). This only makes sense if you think someone else will buy the debt for an even more negative return.
So it seems that equities are one of the few places that can offer the potential of a real return. And within equities, there are some sensible steps to follow that can help to identify the types of company that should be able to ride out the next few years in a resilient way:
Look for basic products and services (tyres, lubricant, shampoo, food)
Look for recurring revenues or long-term contracts
Don’t overpay for growth – it might disappoint!
Find niche products with pricing power
Avoid regulatory/tax risk
Avoid dependence on a few products or countries
Identify beneficiaries of low interest rates (infrastructure)
Look for contractors with specialist infrastructure skills (tunnels, bridges)
Locate ‘self-help’ stories
Although valuations in Europe are significantly higher than they were two years ago, it is still possible to find solid businesses capable of delivering a cash yield of 6–7% and with opportunities to grow. Unless the political situation really deteriorates, those prospects are some of the best available in a world where low growth and negative rates are likely to continue for some time to come.
Simon Rowe is a fund manager in the Henderson European Equities team.
Eaton Vance recently announced the execution of a definitive agreement to acquire the business assets of Calvert Investment Management, an indirect subsidiary of Ameritas Holding Company. In conjunction with the proposed acquisition, the Boards of Trustees of the Calvert mutual funds have voted to recommend to Fund shareholders the approval of investment advisory contracts with a newly formed Eaton Vance affiliate, to operate as Calvert Research and Management, if the transaction is consummated.
Calvert is a recognized leader in responsible investing, with approximately $12.3 billion of fund and separate account assets under management as of September 30, 2016. The Calvert Funds are one of the largest and most diversified families of responsibly invested mutual funds, encompassing actively and passively managed U.S. and international equity strategies, fixed income strategies and asset allocation funds managed in accordance with the Calvert Principles for Responsible Investment. As a responsible investor, Calvert seeks to invest in companies that provide positive leadership in their business operations and overall activities that are material to improving societal outcomes.
Founded in 1976, Calvert has a long history in responsible investing. In 1982, the Calvert Social Investment Fund (now Calvert Balanced Portfolio) was launched as the first mutual fund to oppose investing in South Africa’s apartheid system. Other Calvert innovations include the first responsibly managed fixed income and international equity funds, and pioneering programs in shareholder advocacy, corporate engagement and impact investing.
“I am extremely pleased that Eaton Vance has chosen to make Calvert the centerpiece of its expansion in responsible investing,” said John Streur, President and Chief Executive Officer of Calvert. “By combining Calvert’s expertise in sustainability research with Eaton Vance’s investment capabilities and distribution strengths, we believe we can deliver best-in-class integrated management of responsible investment portfolios to investors across the U.S. and internationally. Eaton Vance is the ideal partner to help Calvert fulfill its mission to deliver superior long-term performance to clients and achieve positive impact.”
“As part of Eaton Vance, we see tremendous potential for Calvert to extend its leadership position among responsible investment managers,” said Thomas E. Faust Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Eaton Vance. “By applying our management and distribution resources and oversight, we believe Eaton Vance can help Calvert become a meaningfully larger, better and more impactful company.”
Completion of the transaction is subject to Calvert Fund shareholder approvals of new investment advisory agreements and other closing conditions, and is expected on or about December 31, 2016. Because the transaction is structured as an asset purchase, liabilities in connection with Calvert’s previously disclosed compliance matters and other pre-closing obligations will remain with the seller. Terms of the transaction are not being disclosed.
China Oceanwide Holdings and Genworth Financial, have announced that they have entered into a definitive agreement under which China Oceanwide has agreed to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Genworth for a total transaction value of approximately $2.7 billion, or $5.43 per share in cash. The acquisition will be completed through Asia Pacific Global Capital, one of China Oceanwide’s investment platforms. The transaction is subject to approval by Genworth’s stockholders as well as other closing conditions, including the receipt of required regulatory approvals.
As part of the transaction, China Oceanwide has additionally committed to contribute to Genworth $600 million of cash to address the debt maturing in 2018, on or before its maturity, as well as $525 million of cash to the U.S. life insurance businesses. This contribution is in addition to $175 million of cash previously committed by Genworth Holdings. to the U.S. life insurance businesses. Separately, Genworth also announced preliminary charges unrelated to this transaction of $535 to $625 million after-tax associated with long term care insurance (LTC) claim reserves and taxes. Those items are detailed in a separate press release. The China Oceanwide transaction is expected to mitigate the negative impact of these charges on Genworth’s financial flexibility and facilitate its ability to complete its previously announced U.S. life insurance restructuring plan. Genworth believes this transaction is the best strategic alternative to maximize stockholder value.
James Riepe, non-executive chairman of the Genworth Board of Directors said, “The China Oceanwide transaction is the result of an active and extensive review process conducted over the past two years under the supervision of the Board and with guidance from external financial and legal advisors. The Board is confident that the sale of the company to China Oceanwide is the best path forward for Genworth’s stockholders.”
Upon the completion of the transaction, Genworth will be a standalone subsidiary of China Oceanwide and Genworth’s senior management team will continue to lead the business from its current headquarters in Richmond, Virginia. Genworth intends to maintain its existing portfolio of businesses, including its MI businesses in Australia and Canada. Genworth’s day-to-day operations are not expected to change as a result of this transaction.
China Oceanwide is a privately held, family owned international financial holding group founded by Lu Zhiqiang. Headquartered in Beijing, China, China Oceanwide’s well-established and diversified businesses include operations in financial services, energy, culture and media, and real estate assets globally, including in the United States. Businesses controlled by China Oceanwide have more than 10,000 employees globally.
“Genworth is an established leader in both mortgage insurance and long term care insurance, which are markets that present significant long-term growth opportunities,” added Lu, Chairman of China Oceanwide. “We are impressed by Genworth’s purpose and its focus on helping people manage the financial challenges of aging as well as achieving the dream of homeownership. In acquiring Genworth and contributing $1.1 billion of additional capital, we are providing crucial financial support to Genworth’s efforts to restructure its U.S. life insurance businesses by unstacking Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company (GLAIC) from under Genworth Life Insurance Company (GLIC) and address its 2018 debt maturity. In order to close the transaction and achieve these objectives, we have structured the transaction with the intention of increasing the likelihood of obtaining regulatory approval.”
Tom McInerney, President & Chief Executive Officer of Genworth concluded, “We believe that this transaction creates greater and more certain stockholder value than our current business plan or other strategic alternatives, and is in the best interests of Genworth’s stockholders. China Oceanwide is an ideal owner for Genworth going forward. They recognize the strength of our mortgage insurance platform and the importance of long term care insurance in addressing an aging population. The capital commitment from China Oceanwide will strengthen our business and increase the likelihood of obtaining regulatory approval.”
Natixis Global Asset Management has strengthened its European SICAV range with the launch of a new managed futures fund from one of its leading affiliates focused on alternatives, AlphaSimplex Group, LLC.
AlphaSimplex’s Managed Futures Fund will invest in futures and forward contracts across a broad range of markets including equities, fixed income and currencies and aims to profit from current trends in the markets, taking long positions in assets in a rising price trend and short positions in those that are in a falling price trend. The fund also has indirect exposure to commodity markets.
The new fund will be quantitatively driven with full transparency and will be co-managed by a team of five Portfolio Managers. Although the fund has only recently become available to European investors, AlphaSimplex has a six year track record in the U.S. managing over $3.5bn in its Managed Futures strategy.
“In a world that has become more and more interconnected, correlation has increased”, said Duncan Wilkinson, CEO of AlphaSimplex. We believe this product can be implemented as a strong diversifier in an equity-dominated portfolio.”
Commenting on the new fund, Chris Jackson, Deputy CEO – International Distribution at Natixis Global Asset Management, said: “Through Natixis’ regular investor surveys we believe that individuals are becoming increasingly aware of the need to have an allocation to alternatives within a portfolio. As managed futures are typically uncorrelated to other asset classes, these strategies can be a useful way of diversifying an investor’s portfolio. AlphaSimplex has a solid track record, supported by an experienced team of managers and we believe that this successful offering will resonate well in the European marketplace.”
According to the World Ultra Wealth Report 2015-2016 produced by Wealth-X, there are 212,615 ultra high net worth (UHNW) individuals globally, holding a combined wealth of US$30 trillion in net assets.
The fourth edition of this leading report on the world’s ultra wealthy population shows almost flat growth in 2015 as the number of individuals with US$30 million or more in net assets grew just 0.6% and total UHNW wealth increased by 0.8%. Despite this meager growth, UHNW individuals, who account for just 0.004% of the world’s adult population, still control 12% of its wealth.
Regional Differences in UHNW Growth Trends
In Europe, the Middle East and Africa UHNW wealth fell 2.4% as equity markets, local currencies and gross domestic product collectively experienced negative net returns. By contrast, Asia-Pacific experienced a 3.9% rise as the ultra wealthy in certain markets continued to benefit from dynamic business expansion and economic growth. In the Americas, it was Latin America, rather than North America, that helped the region achieve a modest 1.5% growth in ultra wealth value.
Across all geographic regions, it is the highest ranks of the UHNW population who are experiencing the most success. The report highlights that in 2015 billionaires saw their wealth grow 5.4%, more than double the rate of global economic growth, while collectively other tiers saw their wealth shrink by 0.6%.
Driven by Wealth-X’s unparalleled collection of hand curated dossiers on the global UHNW population, the World Ultra Wealth Report contains detailed analysis of the wealthiest individuals in the world with a focus on geography, lifestyle, social networks, philanthropic behaviors, motivations and legacy.
Additional key findings from the report include:
UHNW global wealth is expected to reach US$46.2 trillion by 2020
UHNW wealth is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 9%.
The UHNW population is expected to exceed 318,000 by 2020.
Female UHNW individuals saw their wealth decrease
While the female UHNW population remained steady at 13%, their share of total UHNW wealth fell from 14% to 11% this year. Average female high net worth wealth dropped from US$147 million to US$126.3 million.
Male wealth increased 2.4% from US$139.8 million to US$143.1 million, reflecting a greater focus on self-made wealth and a higher-risk asset composition.
Finance, banking and investment remains the top UHNW industry
Though its lead among other UHNW industries continues to shrink as manufacturing grows in importance.
In two out of three cases, wealth is purely self-made rather than inherited. As wealth matures in younger economies, the transfer of wealth has seen a growing class of second-generation ultra wealthy emerge.
Wealth continues to rise generation by generation
The under-30 demographic accounts for just 1% of the world’s ultra wealthy population and 0.3% of global UHNW wealth.
UHNW individuals aged 80 or over are seven times wealthier than those under 30 and are worth nearly double that of the average UHNW individual globally.