Internacional archivos - Page 248 of 506

Navigating the Regulatory Maze: An Overview of Key Regulations Impacting the Offshore Private Wealth Business

For years, practitioners have been signaling the apocalypse for the offshore private wealth business due to strangling regulation. Yet, year after year, clients are well served, products are well developed and doomsday never quite arrives. Former Secretary of the Treasury Nicholas Brady is said to have once remarked: “Never bet on the end of the world; for one thing, even if you win there’d be no one around to collect from.”

And so it is with regulation. No doubt that technology and the otherwise shrinking and connected world have greatly accelerated the pace of global initiatives like tax transparency. Similarly, the pace of change in many countries has lagged and the ability to gather and share personal data globally has not moved consistently with governmental stability and the ability to keep private data private. Nonetheless, the global initiatives and their reduction to local law and regulation are a current reality.

No practitioner in the private wealth world should be without at least a conversational familiarity with those pieces of regulation shaping our world. While the regulations themselves vary from aspirational multinational initiatives by non-governmental bodies to specific national legislation or treaties, together they form a mosaic that is, in fact, beginning to resemble something recognizable.

I. United States Anti-Money Laundering Act

From 1970 the United States has had at least some measure of comprehensive anti-money laundering legislation. While the intricacies of the AML framework are vast and broad, certain areas directly impact the offshore private wealth world.

Broadly, money-laundering is the process of making illegally gained proceeds appear legal. It was officially established as a federal crime in 1986. Importantly, the ultimate offense of laundering criminal proceeds applies with specificity only to those Specified Unlawful Activities (SUA) enumerated in the legislation. Not all crimes are listed, and many are noticeably omitted, including tax non-compliance in foreign countries.

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the US Congress passed the PATRIOT ACT. Title III of the Act is its primary AML component and greatly changed the landscape for brokerage and other non-banks. The Act greatly increased the diligence provisions of AML KYC (Know Your Customer) and crafted those as part of broader Customer Identification Programs (CIP) to which nearly all financial institutions must adhere. These CIP requirements, including its Customer Due Diligence and Enhanced Due Diligence prongs are most familiar to private wealth practitioners as they today form an essential piece of client onboarding and account opening. Foreign customers are treated differently than the domestic US national customers and require additional data gathering including identification documents which may range from passports to country verification cards.

The Customer Due Diligence Program (CDD) is designed to demand more from those clients and institutions that may present higher risks for money-laundering and terror financing. Customers that pose higher risks including certain foreign accounts such as correspondent accounts, senior foreign political figures and personal corporate vehicles, require even greater diligence. This “enhanced” due diligence (EDD) is the normal course for the offshore private wealth client.

Part and parcel of enhanced diligence is the concept of “looking through” corporate investment vehicles, whether simple entities or trusts, to determine and verify true ownership. The use of these vehicles is regularly regarded as an additional risk factor which requires “high-risk” documentary procedures in account opening and subsequent monitoring. Of particular interest are potential underlying crimes of political corruption. Enhanced scrutiny of accounts involving senior foreign political figures and their families and associates is required to guard against laundering the proceeds of foreign corruption.

II. FATCA

In what is the most significant legislation impacting financial transparency, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) has reshaped the world of international tax reporting and cooperation. FATCA’s original intent was to enforce the requirements for US persons to file yearly reports on their non-US financial accounts by requiring foreign financial institutions to search the records for indicia of US person accounts and to report these to the Department of the Treasury. For those who fail to adequately search and report US persons within those foreign institutions, a 30% penalty would be assessed to qualifying payments. Because the US capital markets remain the world’s foremost, access by foreign institutions to those markets quickly became FATCA dependent.

For foreign institutions, FATCA commands they search their customer base for FATCA indicia of US person status, including place of birth, US mailing address, a current US power of attorney, and other indicators. Additionally foreign institutions are to annually certify compliance and implement monitoring systems to assure the accuracy of the certification.

An important FATCA feature is its complex definitional scheme. Many of FATCA’s definitional criteria impose bank-like requirements on commonplace personal investment entities designed to suit the needs of only one individual or family. Practitioners need to be aware that under FATCA simple PIC’s may well qualify to be FATCA foreign financial institutions.

In its most familiar implementation, FATCA devises a model of international financial data exchange through bilateral Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s). Today, there are over 100 IGA’s calling for exchange of information between governments. Beginning with France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK in 2012, other countries have joined the data sharing protocols which provide for either the foreign institution to directly provide the US person account data to the IRS (Model 2) or the institution reports to its home authority, which in turn reports the data to the US IRS (Model 1).

It is important to note that while mutual, not all IGA’s are reciprocal and that the reporting obligations may vary among the signatories. By example, under Model 1A, the US shares information about the country’s taxpayer, while under Model 1B there is only exchange to the US, but not from the US. The quality of the data may also vary greatly. As an example; Mexican financial institutions must identify the ultimate owners of corporate entities with US persons. Non-reciprocally, US financial institutions need not report those corporate entities beneficially owned by Mexican residents.

III. Automatic Exchange of Information

Taking its cue from the developing US FATCA framework, the OECD and the G20 crafted its own version of a global transparency framework beginning in 2014. The Automatic Exchange of Information Act (AEI) framework imposes an automatic standard requiring financial institutions in participating jurisdictions to report individual account holders to their respective home countries, including “looking through” legal entities and trusts.

The actual data exchange implementation requires bilateral agreement between the countries. Countries are free to deny exchange with other signatories if confidentiality standards are not satisfactory, among other factors. Importantly, the US is not committed to the AEI or it’s Common Reporting Standard (CRS) which dictates what the signatories are to report and contains many of the “look through” features which reveal the identities and home countries of the ultimate beneficial owners of corporate entities and trusts. While to date the US remains committed to its FATCA/IGA framework as its mode of implementing global tax transparency , IRS Commissioner John Koskinen recently has called for the adoption of the AEI/CRS standard.

Common Reporting Standard

In order to affect meaningful data exchange, there must be a uniform standard for the quality of data to be exchanged. Those provisions exist under Common Reporting Standard. Unveiled in February 2014, over 50 countries have expressed their willingness to join the multilateral framework. The US is not yet an adopter, and the OECD has noted that the “intergovernmental approach to FATCA is a pre-existing system with close similarities to the CRS.” In deference, the OECD views FATCA as a “compatible and consistent” system with the CRS. Under the CRS, institutions must report passive investment entities and look through the entity structure to report its “Controlling Persons”. Also included in the reporting scheme are trusts both revocable and irrevocable.

IV. Conclusion

The recent wave of regulation is fast and fervent. While it builds on an existing foundation in many instances, nothing will quite ever be the same again. Transparency and data sharing are inevitable. For the offshore private wealth practitioner, the only answer is transparent and locally tax efficient and compliant solutions. Consulting a learned wealth planner is no longer a luxury; it has become a necessity.

Precisely Wrong on Dollar, Gold?

| For Gabriela Huerta | 0 Comentarios

Since the beginning of the year, the greenback has shown it’s not almighty after all; and gold – the barbarous relic as some have called it – may be en vogue again? Where are we going from here and what are the implications for investors?

Like everything else, the value of currencies and gold is generally driven by supply and demand. A key driver (but not the only driver!) is the expectation of differences in real interest rates. Note the words ‘perception’ and ‘real.’ Just like when valuing stocks, expectations of future earnings may be more important than actual earnings; and to draw a parallel to real interest rates, i.e. interest rates net of inflation, one might be able to think of them as GAAP earnings rather than non-GAAP earnings. GAAP refers to ‘Generally Accepted Accounting Principles’, i.e. those are real-deal; whereas non-GAAP earnings are those management would like you to focus on. Similarly, when it comes to currencies, you might be blind-sided by high nominal interest rates, but when you strip out inflation, the real rate might be far less appealing.

It’s often said that gold doesn’t pay any interest. That’s true, of course, but neither does cash. Cash only pays interest if you loan it to someone, even if it’s only a loan to your bank through a deposit. Similarly, an investor can earn interest on gold if they lease the gold out to someone. Many investors don’t want to lease out their gold because they don’t like to accept the counterparty risk. With cash, the government steps in to provide FDIC insurance on small deposits to mitigate such risk.

While gold doesn’t pay any interest, it’s also very difficult to inflate gold away: ramping up production in gold is difficult. Our analysis shows, the current environment has miners consolidating, as incentives to invest in increasing production have been vastly reduced. We draw these parallels to show that the competitor to gold is a real rate of return investors can earn on their cash. For U.S. dollar based investors, the real rate of return versus what is available in the U.S. may be most relevant. When it comes to valuations across currencies, relative real rates play a major role.

So let’s commit the first sin in valuation: we talk about expectations, but then look at current rates, since those are more readily available. When it comes to real interest rates, such a fool’s game is exacerbated by the fact that many question the inflation metrics used. We show those metrics anyway, because not only do we need some sort of starting point for an analysis, but there’s one good thing about these inflation metrics, even if one doesn’t agree with them: they are well defined. Indeed, I have talked to some of the economists that create these numbers; they take great pride in them and try to be meticulous in creating them. To the cynic, this makes such metrics precisely wrong. To derive the real interest rate, one can use a short-term measure of nominal rates (e.g. the 3 month T-Bill, yielding 0.26% as of this writing), then deducting the rate of inflation below:

The short of it is that, based on the measures above, real interest rates are negative. If you then believe inflation might be understated, well, real interest rates may be even more negative. When real interest rates are negative, investing cash in Treasury Bills is an assured way of losing purchasing power; it’s also referred to as financial repression.

Let’s shift gears towards the less precise, but much more important world of expectations. We all know startups that love to issue a press release for every click they receive on their website. Security analysts ought to cut through the noise and focus on what’s important. You would think that more mature firms don’t need to do this, but the CEOs of even large companies at times seem to feel the urge to run to CNBC’s Jim Cramer to put a positive spin on the news affecting their company.

When it comes to currencies, central bankers are key to shaping expectations, hence the focus on the “Fed speak” or the latest utterings coming from European Central Bank (ECB) President Draghi or Bank of Japan’s (BoJ) Kuroda. One would think that such established institutions don’t need to do the equivalent of running to CNBC’s Mad Money, but – in our view – recent years have shown quite the opposite. On the one hand, there’s the obvious noise: the chatter, say, by a non-voting Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) member. On the other hand, there are two other important dimensions: one is that such noise is a gauge of internal dissent; the other is that such noise may be used as a guidance tool. In fact, the lack of noise may also be a sign of dissent: we read Fed Vice Chair Fischer’s absence from the speaking circuit as serious disagreement with the direction Fed Chair Yellen is taking the Fed in; indeed, we are wondering aloud when Mr. Fischer will announce his early retirement.

This begs the question who to listen to, to cut through the noise. The general view of Fed insiders is that the Fed Governors dictate the tone, supported by their staff economists. These are not to be mistaken with the regional Federal Reserve Presidents that may add a lot to the discussion, but are less influential in the actual setting of policy. Zooming in on the Fed Governors, Janet Yellen as Chair is clearly important. If one takes Vice Chair Fischer out of the picture, though, there is currently only one other Ph.D. economist, namely Lael Brainard; the other Governors are lawyers. Lawyers, in our humble opinion, may have strong views on financial regulation, but when it comes to setting interest rates, will likely be charmed by the Chair and fancy presentations of her staff. I single out Lael Brainard, who hasn’t received all that much public attention, but has in recent months been an advocate of the Fed’s far more cautious (read: dovish) stance. Differently said, we believe that after telling markets last fall how the Fed has to be early in raising rates, Janet Yellen has made a U-turn, a policy shift supported by a close confidant, Brainard, but opposed by Fischer, who is too much of a gentleman to dissent in public.

It seems the reason anyone speaks on monetary policy is to shape expectations. Following our logic, those that influence expectations on interest rates, influence the value of the dollar, amongst others. Former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke decided to take this concept to a new level by introducing so-called “forward guidance” in the name of “transparency.” I put these terms in quotation marks because, in my humble opinion, great skepticism is warranted. It surely would be nice to get appropriate forward guidance and transparency, but I allege that’s not what we have received. Instead, our analysis shows that Bernanke, Yellen, Draghi and others use communication to coerce market expectations. If the person with the bazooka tells you he (or she) is willing to use it, you pay attention. And until not long ago, we have been told that the U.S. will pursue an “exit” while rates elsewhere continue lower. Below you see the result of this: the trade weighted dollar index about two standard deviation above its moving average, only recently coming back from what we believe were extremes:

f reality doesn’t catch up with the storyline, i.e. if U.S. rates don’t “normalize,” or if the rest of the world doesn’t lower rates much further, we believe odds are high that the U.S. dollar may well have seen its peak. Incidentally, Sweden recently announced it will be reducing its monthly bond purchases (QE); and Draghi indicated rates may not go any lower. While Draghi, like most central bankers, hedges his bets and has since indicated that rates might go lower under certain conditions after all, we believe he has clearly shifted from trying to debase the euro to bolstering the banking system (in our analysis, the latest round of measures in the Eurozone cut the funding cost of banks approximately in half).

On a somewhat related note, it was most curious to us how the Fed and ECB looked at what in some ways were similar data, but came to opposite conclusions as it relates to energy prices. The Fed, like most central banks, like to exclude energy prices from their decision process because any changes tend to be ‘transitory.’ With that they don’t mean that they will revert, but that any impact they have on inflation will be a one off event. Say the price of oil drops from $100 to $40 a barrel in a year, but then stays at $40 a barrel. While there’s a disinflationary impact the first year, that effect is transitory, as in the second year, inflation indices are no longer influenced by the previous drop.

The ECB, in contrast, raised alarm bells, warning about “second round effects.” They expressed concern that lower energy prices are a symptom of broader disinflationary pressures that may well lead to deflation. We are often told deflation is bad, but rarely told why. Let’s just say that to a government in debt, deflation is bad, as the real value of the debt increases and gets more difficult to manage. If, in contrast, you are a saver, your purchasing power increases with deflation. My take: the interests of a government in debt are not aligned with those of its people.

Incidentally, we believe the Fed’s and ECB’s views on the impact of energy prices is converging: we believe the Fed is more concerned, whereas the ECB less concerned about lower energy prices. This again may reduce the expectations on divergent policies.

None of this has stopped Mr. Draghi telling us that US and Eurozone policies are diverging. After all, playing the expectations game comes at little immediate cost, but some potential benefit. The long-term cost, of course, is credibility. That would take us to the Bank of Japan, but that goes beyond the scope of today’s analysis.

To expand on the discussion, you can register for Axel Merk’s upcoming Webinar entitled ‘What’s next for the dollar, currencies & gold’ on Tuesday, May 24.

What Should Keep Investors Up at Night?

| For Gabriela Huerta | 0 Comentarios

A few months ago, when the already so distant summer of 2015 was coming to a close, we had the opportunity to talk to Art Hogan, MD, Director of Research and Chief Market Strategist at Wunderlich, at an event organized by Dominick & Dominick, a division of Wunderlich Wealth Management, for its Miami clients, regarding investors’ major concerns. We have now resumed that conversation to find out whether those concerns have changed and, if so, how.

On September 9th, 2015, at an event held for Dominic & Dominic clients in Miami, Art Hogan listed investors’ major concerns at that particular time in the following order: What will the Chinese government do to stimulate the economy? (Which had climbed from fourth place to the top of the list); Will there be continuity to the Fed’s policy or not? (An issue which was previously in sixth position); thirdly, an issue concerning valuations, are stocks expensive? The fourth concern was, what effect will geopolitical risks have? And as the last of the concerns in the top five, how will corporate earnings evolve?

Leaving concerns behind, Hogan III shared the good news: GDP growth, corporate earnings for the second quarter and estimates for the third, volume of mergers and acquisitions in the first half of 2015, employment growth; the strong recovery in housing sales; the low price of gasoline and electricity, the fact that banks were extending loans, and developments in Europe, which had improved greatly over the previous year.

And how do we stand now? Are the reasons that keep investors up at night still the same, and in the same order? Hogan responds by analyzing each of those topics.

Monetary Policy
Monetary policy is investors’ major concern, given the huge impact which the decisions of some countries have on the economy of others, both overall and on the financial sector, which is crucial for the functioning of the economy. “We must be aware of monetary decisions” as some potential errors could be disruptive, like China “irresponsibly ” devaluing its currency very quickly; another error would be for central banks to consider that negative interest rates help their economies become more competitive, when it has been shown that, at present, they cause the opposite effect; a third would be if the United States acted with undue haste in rising rates in an unstable economy. “It hasn’t done so yet, and I’m less concerned about us being too restrictive than about others being too lenient”. Monetary policy is definitely one of the issues that Hogan recommends we should follow closely.

Commodity Prices in General, and Energy in Particular.
The second major issue is the price of commodities and energy. Emerging economies are dependent on commodity sales to developed economies and, in general, the latter are favored by low prices. But make no mistake, the benefits obtained by developed markets is not as great as the damage suffered by emerging markets, because they need stable prices to grow. Furthermore, Hogan points out that “looking at the prices of commodities and the economy, can lead to the erroneous interpretation that the former are premonitory of the evolution of the latter. It’s an error to believe that if the price per barrel was US$100 18 months ago and $ 36 a month ago, the global economy must be in tatters. It is not always the case.” In fact, the real problem is the imbalance between the excess supply and the demand.

The first steps in the right direction are being taken to reach some agreement, says Hogan, his reasoning being that high prices are in everyone’s interest and there is movement within the sector (Saudi Arabia and Russia have made a first and difficult attempt at communicating, America is slightly reducing its production, Iran- starting to export after years of sanctions- is asked not to increase its production). By pointing out that intentions are not about freezing production altogether, but rather about halting its increase, and carrying out rational negotiations, Hogan makes it clear he does not expect the outlook to change from one day to the next, but he believes we are at the beginning of the path to recovery and invites us to see what happens at the OPEC meeting in June, although he believes there will be preliminary discussions.

China
China may not be investors’ major concern at this time, but it’s still in the Top 3 and, according to Hogan, will remain in the list of concerns for a long time, as it is after all the second largest economy in the world and still undergoing a process of major change. The country is in the throes of a difficult process, from being purely an exporter of inexpensive products produced by cheap labor, to becoming a net consumer at the hands of its emerging middle class. What we do not know is how effective they will be at orchestrating a soft landing -as they are new in what they do and, inevitably and as part of the process, they will make mistakes -or how disruptive this will be if they don’t succeed. They will improve in the process, however, as well as improving their communication.

US Politics
US politics, which although is not usually on his “list” does appear now because it’s in the midst of the electoral process. It is another issue that Art Hogan follows closely. At the start of the primaries, when Trump and Sanders both looked promising, Hogan commented that it was easier to be well positioned for the less moderate candidates, although it is more likely that the more moderate ones finally win the elections. Neither option -Trump, with his protectionist proposal, calling for import taxes on products imported by China, Mexico and Japan, among many other measures, nor Sanders, leaning towards socialism, with anticipation of higher taxes, unfriendly to Wall Street, and planning to spend a lot of money- seems the most “market friendly”. For now, markets are allowing the process to continue and will react when the candidate for each party is known. So, can’t we predict the market reaction to a possible Democrat or Republican victory? “Exactly”, says Hogan, “that will depend on who the candidate is for each of the options. The best performing markets over the past 15 years, regardless of whether the President is either Democrat or Republican, have had either a mixed senate or one with a majority from the president’s opposing party, which balances decisions”.

Geopolitical Risks Abroad
When asked for his opinion on the political situation in other countries, Hogan points out that India is moving in the right direction according to the markets, while Brazil does so in the opposite direction, although because of cycles, “we must monitor the movements well”. His biggest concern in the geopolitical sphere is the low price of commodities and reminds us that the situation in Nigeria, Venezuela, Iran and Iraq. Also, Russia and Saudi Arabia are stable when prices are high, but not so much when the lack of revenue caused by the fall of those commodities begins to cause economic problems within the country.

Europe is another region facing its own challenges, with somewhat distant positions between the EU and the UK. “If the European Union wants to keep the UK among its members, it will have to make some reforms. Its departure could encourage other countries to follow suit and produce great instability in the region. In the short term, the UK must be kept within the European Union,” said Wunderlich’s Research Analyst and Strategist, pointing out that just a few months ago it seemed that Greece could be the first one to exit the EU, and advising not to forget that country. Europe also faces another major challenge which will leave a mark on its future, which is the operational, financial, and economic management of immigration, the resolution of which will not be as fast as decision making in the UK. But there are still other issues outstanding: the establishment of a single monetary policy and stimulating the economy, something to which the strong dollar has contributed towards in recent months, improving competitiveness.

Will There be Contagion?
Another issue that seems to worry the markets, “although I do not share it” is that the slowdown in global economic growth could end up leading developed economies into recession. One of the most frequent conversations these days is whether the slowdown in emerging countries, will end in recession and then cross the border to spread to the United States; the Chief Market Strategist says he still believes that there will be no recession in the United States. “Although it is now more likely than before, the possibility remains at around 20%.” According to Hogan, the US economy is moving in the right direction: the GDP is growing between 2 and 2.5%, and the rate of employment, consumer confidence, car sales, etc. are all increasing. In short, if it does happen, it would be more the result of contagion than of country fundamentals.

GAM Acquires Taube Hodson Stonex

| For Gabriela Huerta | 0 Comentarios

GAM, the pure-play asset manager that owns Julius Baer Funds, is to acquire THS, a global equity investment firm based in the UK, renowned for its successful, thematic, bottom-up and benchmark-agnostic investment approach.

At completion, the THS investment management business will transfer to GAM. The acquisition is expected to close in the third quarter of 2016, pending customary regulatory approvals. The investment team, led by the four principals Cato Stonex, Mark Evans, Robert Smithson and Ali Miremadi, will subsequently relocate to the GAM offices in London and their strategies will be marketed under the GAM brand. THS currently manages approximately GBP 1.78 billion of assets (CHF 2.5 billion) as at 31 March 2016

THS has a long track-record managing institutional mandates investing in global and European equities, following a long-term, unconstrained and active investment approach based on proprietary company research. THS has also been the sub-advisor to one of GAM’s oldest global equity strategies, launched in 1983.

Group CEO Alexander Friedman said: “With their proven track-record and deep expertise, the THS team is a great strategic and cultural fit for GAM and we are delighted that they have chosen to join us. We have a multi-decade relationship with the founders and this acquisition is consistent with the growth agenda we set out in 2015, which includes targeting opportunities that substantially deepen our global equity capabilities.”

THS Founding Partner Cato Stonex said: “We are excited to join GAM – one of our oldest clients and a firm with such an impressive track-record as a home for active investors. We think this is an excellent deal for our clients. GAM’s global client network and its operational infrastructure will allow us to remain focused on our investment priorities and to build on our strengths. We look forward to joining the team.”

Is China Losing Control of its Economy and Currency?

| For Gabriela Huerta | 0 Comentarios

According to Chi Lo, Senior Economist, Greater China, Hong Kong at BNP Paribas Investment Partners, concerns that an economic hard landing in China could force Beijing to massively devalue the renminbi have receded since the start of the year but remain in the background. “Such a development would send shockwaves through global financial markets. Some investors continue to wonder whether Beijing is losing control of its economy and currency.” He writes on his blog.

Lo mentions that traditional macroeconomic indicators, such as growth in industrial output, electricity consumption, freight volume and steel and cement output, do paint a hard-landing scenario for China by showing either anaemic growth rates or outright contraction. However, the new economy, represented by the service-based tertiary sector became the largest category of GDP in 2013. “This development suggests to me that creative destruction is underway. The traditional macroeconomic indicators have failed to capture the structural changes. The fact that China is going through a difficult transition from the old to the new economy with some setbacks in financial reforms does not necessarily spell an economic crisis.”

While the new economy is neither large enough nor strong enough to offset the contraction of the old economy, electricity consumption and railway transport have been growing in the new economy. Lo argues that there should be a policy-easing bias until economic momentum stabilises. He also mentions the setbacks in China’s financial reform, “notably the bursting of asset bubbles and a clumsy renminbi policy shift. All this has led to an exodus of capital recently. However, setbacks do not mean crises. Beijing is walking a fine balance between sustaining GDP growth and implementing structural reforms. The resultant creative destruction is dragging on growth and creating volatility. This situation should not be seen as a sign of Beijing losing control of the economy.”

What about the currency? Some market players have used the Impossible Trinity theorem to argue that with capital fleeing China, it is not going to be possible to maintain a stable renminbi and ease monetary policy at the same time. If Beijing wants to cut interest rates to stabilise domestic GDP growth, it would have to allow a sharp devaluation in the currency, the pessimists argue.

“However, the application of the Impossible Trinity analysis to China is flawed. I do not see signs of capital flight. Otherwise, one should have seen a significant depletion in domestic deposits, which has not been the case. More crucially, the Impossible Trinity is not as pressing a constraint on China as many have claimed. Despite the seemingly big strides that China has taken in recent years, its capital account is still relatively closed. Most of the liberalisation measures have been aimed at institutional and official institutions’ investments. Beijing has only been opening up the capital account in an asymmetric fashion by allowing capital inflows but still restricting capital outflows.”

Sure, China lost about USD 700 billion in currency reserves last year, despite a surplus in its basic surplus (current account balance + net foreign direct investment inflows). But a big chunk of the decline came from the valuation effect, Chinese companies repaying their foreign debt and a one-time transfer to recapitalise the policy banks (three new “policy” banks, the Agricultural Development Bank of China (ADBC), China Development Bank (CDB), and the Export-Import Bank of China (Chexim), were established in 1994 to take over the government-directed spending functions of the four state-owned commercial banks). “There is no denial that there are capital outflows from China, but they do not signify Beijng losing control of the renminbi. Since there is still no full capital account convertibility, China’s monetary policy will only be partly compromised if the People’s Bank of China wants to keep the control of the renminbi in the medium-term.” Lo concludes.

Advent International Appoints Enrique Pani as Mexico City Managing Director

| For Fórmate a Fondo | 0 Comentarios

Advent International, one of the largest and most experienced global private equity investors, announced that Enrique Pani has joined the firm as a Managing Director in its Mexico City office. Enrique Pani will work alongside Luis Solórzano, head of Mexico for Advent, and 12 other investment professionals in the office. Advent has the largest dedicated private equity team in Latin America, with 41 investment professionals working from offices in Mexico City, Bogotá and São Paulo.

Prior to joining Advent, Enrique Pani was a Managing Director and Head of Investment Banking for Mexico at Bank of America Merrill Lynch (BAML). There he was responsible for managing the investment banking coverage and execution team based in Mexico City and was also a member of the BAML Management Committee.

Enrique Pani started his career as an equity research analyst and has over 20 years of investment banking experience in Mexico and New York. He established and was responsible for investment banking operations in Mexico at Deutsche Bank, BTG Pactual and, most recently, BAML. He has advised clients in the financial services, healthcare, retail and infrastructure sectors across Latin America and has raised more than USD 20 billion in capital for his clients.

“Enrique is a great addition to our firm as his broad experience and deep relationships in a number of our target sectors will benefit Advent as we continue to build on the local team’s achievements”, said Luis Solórzano, a Managing Director and Head of Mexico for Advent. “We have a 20-year presence in Mexico and continue to believe it is an attractive market for private equity. We look forward to welcoming Enrique to the team.”

Since opening its Mexico City office in 1996, Advent’s local team has invested in 25 companies in Mexico, the Caribbean and other Latin American and global markets. The team focuses on buyouts and growth equity investments in the firm’s five core sectors: business and financial services; healthcare; industrial, including infrastructure; retail, consumer and leisure, including education; and technology, media and telecom. Recent Mexican investments include; Viakem, a Mexico-based manufacturer of fine chemicals for the global agrochemical industry; Grupo Financiero Mifel, a Mexican mid-sized bank serving the mass-affluent retail segment and small and medium-sized companies; and InverCap Holdings, a Mexican mandatory pension fund manager.

“Advent is one of the leading private equity firms in Latin America, and I am excited to begin working with Luis and the team in Mexico as well as with Advent professionals throughout the region and worldwide,” said Enrique Pani. “Advent has a differentiated approach to investing and building value in Latin American companies, and I believe my prior experience and existing relationships will be quite complementary to this large and talented group.”

In the 20 years it has been operating in Latin America, Advent has raised more than USD 6 billion for investment in the region from institutional investors globally, including USD 2.1 billion raised in 2014 forLAPEF VI. LAPEF VI is the largest private equity fund ever raised for the region. Since 1996, the firm has invested in over 50 Latin American companies and fully realized its positions in 35 of those businesses.

Capital Group Launches Flagship US Equity Strategy, Investment Company of America, for European Investors

| For Alicia Miguel | 0 Comentarios

Capital Group, an active investment management firm with US$1.4 trillion of assets under management, has announced that it plans to launch its longest-established strategy, Investment Company of America (ICA), in Europe. Consistent with the plan announced in 2015 to provide European investors access to some of its most successful investment strategies, and following the launch of Capital Group New Perspective Fund (LUX) last year, Capital Group will make its flagship strategy from the US available to European investors in June 2016.

ICA will be launched in Europe as a Luxembourg-domiciled fund (UCITS) and will follow the same active, time-tested investment approach that has proved successful for more than 80 years. The new fund will be managed by the same investment team that manages the US strategy. Since its launch in 1934, the Capital Group ICA strategy has achieved a return of 12.9% per annum, compared with 10.7% for the S&P 500.

“The strategy’s research-driven, fundamental investment philosophy has remained consistent for eight decades with long-term investment horizons, valuation discipline and a focus on seasoned companies with an emphasis on future dividends. This has provided growth over different market cycles and has typically offered downside protection in depressed or volatile market conditions,” said Richard Carlyle, Investment Director.

“The ICA strategy can therefore be an attractive option for investors looking for long-term active exposure to US equities as part of a core equity portfolio, or looking to manage downside risk versus a passive investment approach.”

Hamish Forsyth, European President of Capital Group Companies Global, said “This new fund launch represents a further stage in our strategic plan to make available the best of Capital to European investors and to support the growth of our business activities across the region. We have had a very positive reaction from both institutions and financial intermediaries for our Capital Group New Perspective Fund (LUX), and believe that providing European investors with access to one of our largest and longest-standing strategies provides an important next step in this process.”

Capital Group has been serving investors in Europe since 1962, when the company opened its first ex-US office in Geneva. Capital Group employs more than 500 associates in Europe. It has offices and sales branches in Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Geneva, London, Luxembourg, Madrid, Milan and Zurich.

Robeco Announces a New Corporate Structure

| For Alicia Miguel | 0 Comentarios

Robeco Groep N.V. will separate its activities into Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V., which will have its own Supervisory Board and executive management to emphasize its position as an autonomous global asset manager, under the name Robeco, with its headquarters in Rotterdam, preserving the strong name and history, and Robeco Group (“RG”). The latter will be transformed from an operating company into a financial holding company.

The new corporate governance structure will further separate the holding activities of RG, and the asset management businesses of its subsidiaries: Boston Partners, Harbor Capital Advisors, Transtrend, RobecoSAM and Robeco. The new structure reflects current global industry and market trends, guaranteeing continued expertise in investments, distribution and client servicing.

Robeco will get its own dedicated Supervisory Board. The Supervisory Board of Robeco will consist of the following members: Jeroen Kremers (chairman), Jan Nooitgedagt and Gihan Ismail. Further members of the Supervisory Board will be announced in the near future. Both Jan Nooitgedagt and Jeroen Kremers serve as members of the Supervisory Board of Robeco Groep. Gihan Ismail has 20 years’ experience in the financial services sector and is currently executive director at Marine Capital Limited.

Day-to-day management remains with Leni Boeren, Roland Toppen, Peter Ferket, Ingo Ahrens and Karin van Baardwijk, who form the Executive Committee of Robeco. Leni Boeren will lead the transition to the new governance and remain a member of the team until the transition is completed. The executives all have deep roots and experience within the asset management sector and all members have served Robeco for many years already, ensuring stability and continuity for the new Robeco, meeting the challenges of the future in the best interests of our clients.

Makoto Inoue, President and Chief Executive Officer of ORIX Corporation: “Robeco employs absolutely world class investment talent. All members of the Executive Committee of Robeco have developed themselves through the ranks of Robeco, which clearly underpins the quality and talent available at Robeco. This new structure will allow for this talent to flourish and help Robeco to further expand on its strong foundation.”

Leni Boeren, who has been a member of the Management Board of Robeco Groep since 2005, will leave Robeco Groep once the transition is completed. Currently Leni Boeren is vice-chairman of the Group Management Board and holds several board positions at Robeco’s subsidiaries Boston Partners, Harbor Capital Advisors, Transtrend, Robeco Institutional Asset Management and RobecoSAM and is Vice-Chairman of the board of the Dutch Fund and Asset Management Association.

Leni Boeren: “It has been a privilege to have been with Robeco for almost twelve years. The company has an impressive 87 year history and I am confident that these changes mean that Robeco is well-placed to continue to meet clients’ needs by delivering superior investment returns. It was a great pleasure to work with so many passionate professionals worldwide. I also want to express my appreciation to our clients for the trust they have put in me over all these years.”

Makoto Inoue: “I am grateful to Leni for her commitment to Robeco Groep and the valuable contribution she has made to the strong growth of the company and its subsidiaries. She also has successfully led many transitions within the group over the years.”

As a financial holding company, RG will not perform any asset management activities. Subject to final regulatory approval, the Supervisory Board and the Management Board will be replaced by a simplified financial holding board chaired by Makoto Inoue.

As part of the new governance structure, the outgoing chairmen of the two boards, Bert Bruggink and David Steyn respectively, have stepped down and will join ORIX Group. The other members of the Supervisory Board of Robeco Groep will step down once the transition to the new governance is completed.

Investec: “In Europe, The Headwind Has Turned To Become a Tailwind”

| For Fórmate a Fondo | 0 Comentarios

Investec’s European Equity team is a part of the broader 4Factor investment team, one of seven distinct investment capabilities at Investec Asset Management. The 4Factor team is responsible for between $30-35 billion dollars of client assets. Ken Hsia, Lead Portfolio Manager of the European Equity Fund, summarized this investment process during his recent visit to Miami.

“We believe that equity markets are inefficient by definition, but the level of efficiency varies depending on the headlines,” he explains. Right now, investors are hearing news on the slowdown, the United States’ presidential election, or the referendum in the UK, the type of news that grabs their attention and which has created volatility in recent times, causing major inefficiencies in the markets. “As securities’ selectors, our job is to be able to exploit these inefficiencies.”

Why do these inefficiencies exist? “Due to market participants’ behavior errors; there are certain patterns that, when it comes to investing, cause investors to buy expensive and sell cheap” replies Hsia, adding: “We believe that by doing things right you can achieve better results consistently over time.”

To achieve this objective, they apply− from a benchmark, style, and capitalization agnostic approach− their “4Factor” process, which leads them to analyze four different aspects: high quality− those companies that have created value for their shareholders in the past−, attractive valuation−, those that are cheaper than the average in terms of cash flow return on investment and asset based valuations−; improved operating results−, those that are seeing their profit forecasts revised by analysts−, and increasing attention from investors−those starting an upward trend−.

The first two, both traditional ones, are the ones which help to find high quality corporations at attractive valuations, and the last two, related to behaviors, the ones which help to choose the right moment to take or leave positions and to avoid behavior errors.

Why Europe, and why now?

Corporate revenues and profits will grow, thanks to commodities.

European markets, which Hsia considers to be at an early stage of the profit cycle, have not had any returns in recent months to evidence the start of the recovery to which the fund manager refers, but he explains that the fall in commodity prices during the last 12-to 18 months (e.g. oil has dropped from more than $ 100 a barrel to oscillate between 35 and 45, and iron has dropped from over $ 100 per ton to between $40 and $50) is weighing heavily on the ROEs. And whether or not they appear in his own portfolio, Royal Dutch, Total, BHP Billiton, or other securities with exposure to commodities, weighed on the fund’s benchmark- the MSCI Europe.

“The two most interesting facts are that for 2017 analysts expect an increase in earnings in European corporations of an ample double-digit, and that commodities will shift from curbing their growth, to propelling it,” while during 2014 and 2015, the underlying trend in earnings per share (EPS), excluding commodities, approached 5%, and for 2016 the general consensus places it at between 4 and 6%.

There are signs of recovery.

“We have identified two cyclical sectors that provide some recovery signs”. On the one hand, car sales, which are a clear indicator of the confidence of investors, have been recovering since 2013, and in Europe grew by 8% in the first quarter of this year, although with differences between countries. Although still at a level of 15% below their previous highs, the fund manager is confident that these will once again reach their previous peaks, as car sales have done in the US during this recovery; the other sector with telltale signs is the cement industry. For example, the greatest difference between this product’s peak and lowest consumption rates in Spain was 80%, and 50% in Italy, both of those markets are now in recovery.

Given the slow recovery process−which frustrates some investors− and to provide depth to the study, the team looks at each sector in detail, therefore, Hsia speaks, of commercial real estate, for example, which, especially in southern European countries, is in the hands of private families or insurance companies, which have received no incentive to reinvest. “Energy efficiency in Italy or Spain is not optimal, as only 15% of office complexes obtained the highest (“A”) rating, while in France and Germany more than 30% have achieved that rating, with up to 40% in the United Kingdom, so it is necessary to improve the system” But we’re also seeing actions that will change the sector, such as that regulation in Italy is shifting from favoring property owners to favoring tenants, and the emergence of REITS in Europe, which are facilitating the inflow of capital to carry out these improvements in the sector.

These are just some examples showing recovery, says the fund manager, who admits to having mixed feelings, because, while he wishes improvement for that environment, which in turn favors the whole world, he believes that it’s best for investors if recovery doesn’t come too fast because “when economic growth is very strong there is more competition.”

Balance sheets are growing.

Corporate balance sheets are in recovery and much healthier than in 2008-2009, thanks to improved operating cash flows that the gradual growth of the economy and strengthening demand have brought about, as well as the fact that some companies no longer rely on high future economic growth and are streamlining their costs and cleaning up their balance sheets, which will also create more value. Should we expect more mass layoffs? Not necessarily, says the strategist, cost rationalization can also be achieved by an improvement in the production process, acquisitions, etc. We think that unemployment should fall.

Valuations remain attractive

With a cyclically adjusted P/E ratio 15x earnings and a historical average of between 20 and 21, the opportunity seems clear, and the strategist is confident that it will return to maximum levels. Another favorable factor is the lack of issuance of sovereign bonds by the ECB, which will cause the flow of investment into other types of assets, such as equities.

“In short, there are signs of growth, sometimes frustratingly slow, but that is what increases the difference between winners and losers.”

“In an environment such as this, we see that there are sectors whose indicators improve, such as the industrial, although in our portfolio it remains underweight in relation to the benchmark; in this, we have included Siemens, which is shifting from obsolete businesses to creating a new supply line more tailored to current consumer requirements. Other sectors we like are information technology, the most overweight in our portfolio, and consumer discretionary. Not so with consumer staples, where we don’t see any value, or healthcare.”

Regarding the financial sector, adds Hsia, in which we are overweight by 2% in relation to the benchmark, we are pragmatic about its enormous volatility, but we like FinTech, banks focused on retail business in countries where consolidation has already occurred, such as France, Benelux and the United Kingdom, and not so much in those in which there is still much fragmentation− Germany, Italy and Spain−, because, although we see some consolidation, we can’t see any creation of shareholder value. Nor do we like investment banks in Europe and we are underweight in insurance and real estate.

By country, the UK, which although accounting for 24.7% of its assets− with much diversification−, is 5% underweight; France is 6% overweight, and Germany, by slightly higher than 6%, is the one he likes best. “When we saw the first ECB rate cut, we believed that there would be opportunity in Germany, but then Japan, its largest competitor, lowered rates and this was circumvented. However, we do find good ideas now.

Seizing the opportunity that Hsia lives in London, we asked about the sectors which could be most affected if the referendum to be held in June in UK propels a “disengagement” from the EU. He doesn’t seem worried about this and points out that, large corporations have a “B” plan and perhaps one of the most affected would be agriculture, but neither banks nor other big companies worry him because “they hopefully will have enough time, and have the resources to prepare their structure for an environment which could change.”

Once again, he summarizes: “The biggest driver of European equities will be corporate earnings, as the headwind has turned to become a tailwind”.

The Europe Behind the Headlines

| For Gabriela Huerta | 0 Comentarios

Factors line up behind corporate Europe.

April was far from the cruelest month for investors. Most will have felt sentiment improve behind equities, high-yield bonds, emerging markets and commodities. But did they also notice how well European assets performed?

Followers of CIO Perspectives will be used to our “show-me-the-money” theme—the difficulty of building conviction on big market exposures until the fundamental picture clarifies. The global economy is in “two steps forward, one step back” mode, and no one region can establish clear leadership. The rising dollar made life tough for companies in the U.S. even as its data strengthened. Now that economic releases appear to be softening, it may be time to look more closely at Europe.

Time to Dig Below Europe’s Headlines
We’ll turn to performance later. For now, let’s acknowledge how easy it is to focus on headlines and imagine Europe is in permanent crisis, awash with geopolitical risk. Dig a little deeper, however, and you can find positives in its economies and favorable positioning among its companies.

Last week saw rare good news around Greece, for example. Its parliament approved reforms with little drama, triggering a bailout review that should release needed funds and potentially open up discussions on debt relief.

A week earlier, Eurozone GDP growth surprised on the upside just as the U.S. posted its slowest quarterly growth for two years. On Friday, Germany gave us a strong GDP print. Manufacturing data out of Europe has been mixed, as it has from the U.S., but it’s encouraging to see Italy and Spain exceeding expectations. Europe’s unemployment problem remains severe, but recent jobless claims, participation rates and non-farm payrolls data remind us it’s not all clear sailing in the U.S., either.

Of course, this is all relative. Europe’s 0.5% growth in Q1 was the same as the U.S.’s. The appetite to restructure Greek debt still isn’t there. Industrial production in Germany, France and the U.K. is weakening. Inflation is nonexistent.

But the European opportunity isn’t really a big macro call. It’s about a series of factors lining up behind the investment case for corporate Europe.

European Companies Appear Well Positioned

European companies tend to benefit from lower oil prices. They have more exposure to emerging markets, where sentiment may be improving. Eurozone money supply has been growing strongly, and there was further stimulus from the ECB this year.

That stimulus included a commitment to buy corporate bonds, which is creating a wave of new euro issuance: Almost €19 billion came to market last Wednesday alone. That leverage could be problematic in the long term, but in the meantime it sends a message that liquidity is abundant and profitable investments may be available.

That would be encouraging because European companies have much more room to improve earnings than their U.S. counterparts. Corporate profits are back where they were in 2010, having never regained pre-crisis levels. By contrast U.S. profits peaked in 2014 and have declined ever since.

Performance in April Was Encouraging

The turnaround isn’t underway yet: With the Q1 earnings season almost done, S&P 500 earnings per share are down just over 5% year-over-year; in Europe, the Stoxx 600 EPS is down 21%, and the consensus for 2016 EPS growth is weakening.

Nonetheless, my equity-focused colleagues are looking beyond the U.S. for good reason. Let’s look at those performance numbers.

Year-to-date, the worst-performing markets still include the Stoxx 600, European banks, and Italian and German equities (alongside China and Japan). But the story was very different in April, when Spain was up 4%, Italy 3%, and the S&P 500 was flat. For U.S. dollar investors, the results were even better—in fact, Spanish equities ended April in positive territory, year-to-date, against the greenback.

In a world where clear opportunities are few and far between, European stocks could well be a source of compelling long-term value—and markets may now be recognizing some of that value.

Neuberger Berman’s CIO insight column by Erik L. Knutzen