LatAm archivos - Page 177 of 221

Can Capital Spending Pick Up the Slack From a Weakening Consumer?

¿Puede el gasto de capital repuntar el déficit de un consumidor que se debilita? — CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrPhoto: Yann Gar. Can Capital Spending Pick Up the Slack From a Weakening Consumer?

I often think of consumer spending and industrial production as the yin and yang of the U.S. economy. In the years since the financial crisis, I am struck by the juxtaposition of the resilience of the consumer against the weakness on the industrial and manufacturing side of the economy.

Now, however, there are troubling signs that the consumer is coming under pressure. “Something bad is going on that we can’t explain.” This quote about the U.S. consumer was spoken to us recently by the management of a home-goods retailer. Dramatic? Yes, but not atypical of what we are hearing from other consumer companies. For example, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz said the company has never in one quarter seen a convergence of social and political turmoil at home, weakening consumer confidence and increasing global uncertainty.

Digging into the numbers a bit, recent data don’t tell an upbeat story either. For example, half of retailers reported negative year-over-year same-store sales growth in the second quarter of 2016 .

Of course, traditional retail is facing structural challenges from e-commerce and the continuing rise of Amazon. But there’s something else going on here.

Does a flagging consumer mean the stock market can’t continue to move higher? Of course not. In fact, there are some reasons to hope that the industrial sector and a rebound in capital expenditure (CapEx) might pick up the slack from the U.S. consumer.

It is widely mentioned that consumer spending accounts for about two-thirds of the U.S. economy. However, consumer spending has contributed only 20% of the variation in GDP growth over the past five years. Meanwhile, private investment, which accounts for less than 20% of output, has contributed 52% of the variation in growth.

Yes, consumer spending is a huge part of the economy, but it might be the wrong place to focus right now. Productive capital, or spending on plant and equipment, may be a small part of the economy, but it is much more volatile than consumer spending. This makes sense intuitively. To take a simple example, consumers at the grocery store might spend slightly more on higher-priced items if they feel confident. But they won’t double their consumption of food.

CapEx is different. Companies can fairly quickly change their capital spending if their outlook changes. Because business spending is more volatile, a pickup can meaningfully swing the economy’s trajectory.

In other words, CapEx is where the real action is for the economy, and it’s been missing during the muted recovery.

There are several reasons for this.

First, in the wake of the financial crisis, investors have rewarded companies that generated free cash flow, dividends and buybacks. Investors have wanted yield and haven’t been enthusiastic about companies making expensive, long-term investments. We’ve also seen more industries with a relatively small number of large companies that have kept supply and capacity constrained, avoiding market share fights. Finally, in many industries, regulation has become a much more significant factor in recent years. That has forced companies to divert resources inwardly and raised uncertainty about the long-term outlook for their businesses.

Overall, it’s been a tough slog for the manufacturing sector. A rising U.S. dollar has hurt exports, falling oil prices have hit energy companies and auto sales have pulled back, albeit from record 2015 levels. The Institute for Supply Management’s (ISM) Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) has been hovering around 50, indicating flattish growth.

Ampliar

Overall, companies have cut back on spending and didn’t invest in new plant and equipment. Looking at the macro data such as ISM and shipping, things are soft.

But there may be reasons to hope. The November election will bring clarity and potentially policies that support growth in the industrial economy. These policies may include repatriation of a significant portion of the $2 trillion of overseas cash, reductions in the U.S. federal corporate tax rate from 35%, infrastructure spending and reduced regulation. The best-case scenario would be a virtuous circle of increased capital spending, which would boost productivity and lead to stronger economic growth.

Bottom line: A pickup of investment in productive capital is what’s needed more than debt-fueled consumer spending.

Column by Edward J. Perkin CIO at Capital Eaton Vance Management.

Trump Vote Wrong- Foots Forecasters

| For Fórmate a Fondo | 0 Comentarios

Trump: los pronósticos se equivocaron y eso podría provocar mayor volatilidad en los mercados — CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrPhoto: Sam Valadi. Trump Vote Wrong- Foots Forecasters

The result of the US presidential election, like that of the UK referendum on the EU, went against the predictions of most opinion pollsters, who had put Hilary Clinton, the Democratic candidate, slightly ahead prior to the actual vote. What currently seems the likely victory of Donald Trump, the Republican candidate, was in defiance not only of the pollsters, but also of many investors’ expectations.

Overturning predictions, Trump won key swing states of Florida, Ohio and North Carolina on his path to the White House. Forecasters have been wrong-footed, and there could be increased volatility in markets while investors digest this new information, and wrestle to understand the implications of a Trump presidency.

Trump is in many ways an unknown quantity, and his presidency could spell a period of uncertainty for investors. We shall be monitoring markets closely, but it would be reasonable to expect, in the short term at least, a sell-off in equities, not only in the US but also internationally. The immediate reaction of equity markets was negative, with Asian indices falling. The US dollar also fell, down 3.4% against the Yen as at 5:20am London time.

The dollar has come under pressure, both because a hike in interest rates by the US Federal Reserve now seems less likely, and also because investors may place a higher risk premium on US investments. Volatility across many asset classes could increase in the short-term.

Looking further ahead, several of Trump’s policies, for example his protectionism, his desire to scrap existing international trade deals, and to deport illegal immigrants, have the potential to contribute to longer-term market volatility; but others, for example his plans to slash taxes, including reducing the business rate from 35% to 15%, his plans to encourage repatriation of corporate profits held offshore, and to embark on massive infrastructure spending, could stimulate the US economy, lifting equities. Much is uncertain, not least because his campaign promises have been long on rhetoric and short on policy detail.

Given the intense degree of attention on the election, and its undoubted political importance, it may seem surprising that within the global equities team at OMGI we made no attempt to predict its result. We are not in the business of trying to predict events that are very hard to predict. Striving to forecast a binary (either/ or) event such as a close-run election is, in our view, not a good way to invest. We have built our investment process on other –we believe sounder– principles.

Macro events and geopolitical events, like the US election, affect our investment process implicitly rather than explicitly. They impact the market, and this is the key for us. We are much more interested in how the market is behaving because that gives us the clues as to how we should position our portfolios.

A Stable Process

Our investment process involves developing a view of how the stock market is behaving. We have to be very aware of the direction of the market, the volatility of the market, and of the ways in which individual stocks’ returns differ from each other. How, and to what degree, do stock returns vary from each other? How great is investors’ appetite for taking risk? Are investors comfortable exposing themselves to higher degrees of risk, in the hope of achieving higher returns, or are they much more risk averse, shunning risk and seeking the safety of stocks of higher quality? Those kinds of questions are being asked all the time within our portfolio investment process. That leads us to the stocks that we will want to buy.

US Equities Not Cheap

Recently, US equities have generally not been cheap in valuation terms, though many of the companies in this market are high quality, so one might expect to pay a higher price. Parts of the US market are particularly expensive relative to the average. For example, large caps (shares in larger companies) tend to be more expensive than small- and mid-caps (shares in small and medium-sized companies): this is partly because large caps are international, but also because they receive large inflows from investment funds that track indices (the largest of which track baskets of large caps). Other areas of the market that have become more expensive are dividend payers (shares which pay out high levels of dividends to shareholders), and low volatility (shares which move up and down less than the overall stock market).

In my view, active managers have a great opportunity at the moment because there is a lot of mispricing in North America. Although North America as a whole is not cheap, there are cheap areas of North America that can be exploited by investors who are nimble enough.

Ian Heslop is Head Of Global Equities at Old Mutual Global Investors and Manager of the Old Mutual North American Equity Fund.

The Morning After: What Now For Markets?

| For Fórmate a Fondo | 0 Comentarios

El día después: ¿Qué pasará ahora en los mercados? — CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrPhoto: Bradley Weber. The Morning After: What Now For Markets?

In a shocking development reminiscent of Brexit, Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, was elected the forty-fifth president of the United States on Tuesday, 8 November. In addition, Republicans maintained control over both houses of Congress.

Trump’s unexpected victory brings with it a great deal of policy uncertainty, given his lack of specificity during the presidential campaign. Judging by the tone of his campaign, one can surmise that foreign trade will likely be a major focus of the new administration. It is quite unlikely that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will be ratified against the present backdrop, while the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) could be renegotiated or even abandoned. Uncertainty over immigration policy is likely in the near term, which could potentially impact labor markets.

On the campaign trail, President-Elect Trump vowed to lower taxes and repeal the Medicare tax on investment income. He also promised to repeal the complicated alternative minimum tax, while taxing carried interest as ordinary income. Corporate tax rates would be reduced to 15% from 35%, and repatriated foreign profits would be taxed at a one-time rate of 10%, if Trump’s plan is enacted. Economists, however, question whether this package would spur enough economic growth to offset lost revenue from lower tax rates, which could widen fiscal deficits.

Sectors that may be advantaged under a Trump presidency include:

Fossil fuels: Trump repeatedly promoted US energy independence during the campaign, calling for leasing federal land for energy exploration, repealing some regulations on coal and reviving the Keystone XL pipeline project.
Pharmaceuticals: Price controls will be less of a concern for the industry than they would have been under a Clinton presidency.
Financials: Trump has called for repealing or significantly revising Dodd-Frank. Regulatory burdens could be reduced across the economy, based on his campaign rhetoric.

Trump’s focus on trade during the campaign and the risk that NAFTA might be revisited could pressure the currencies of two of the US’s largest trading partners, Mexico and Canada. Additionally, emerging market currencies will likely be pressured, since any additional US trade barriers would probably further slow the growth of global trade, which could negatively impact both producers of raw materials and of finished goods.

If the US puts trade barriers in place on imports, US exporters may be hurt as a result of trade partners retaliating against US actions. With roughly 40% of earnings from S&P 500 Index companies earned outside the US, there appear to be significant risks to US-based multinationals. A full-fledged trade war would be damaging to growth and employment, and could have ripple effects beyond US borders. Companies whose business is more domestic in nature may fare better against a backdrop of global trade friction. If financial markets have a persistently negative reaction to a Trump victory in the run-up to the December FOMC meeting, odds of an interest rate hike could shrink.

A front-loaded agenda

Given the political ebbs and flows of recent decades, it is reasonable to expect Republicans to try to pack as much policy change into the first two years of a Trump presidency as possible, much as Democrats did in the first two years of the Obama administration. In 2009–2010, Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress and passed a large economic stimulus package and the Affordable Care Act. Oftentimes, when one party controls both Congress and the White House, voters perceive political overreach and seek to balance the scales during the midterm elections.

In 1994, President Bill Clinton’s Democrats lost both the House and the Senate and never regained congressional control during the balance of his two terms. Losing control of one or both houses in the midterms would limit Trump’s ability to achieve his agenda, suggesting that policy change could become more incremental later in his term.

Erik Weisman is Chief Economist at MFS.

Andy Rothman: “The Chinese Debt Problem is Concentrated to Some Sectors and Standardization Will Not Be Traumatic”

| For Fórmate a Fondo | 0 Comentarios

Many experts predict a dramatic story for China, claiming that an economic crisis or a hard landing of the Asian giant is just around the corner. But the reality is less dramatic: Although China faces many challenges, it is more likely to continue to account for about one-third of global growth than to be at the center of a collapse.

Speaking at Matthews Asia’s 2016 Investment Forum in San Francisco, Andy Rothman, investment strategist at the firm, explained that a misunderstanding of how much the economy has changed in recent years is what drives the extreme pessimism for China’s prospects.

“China’s growth deceleration is indeed a fact, but, How possible is a ‘hard landing’?” he queried. “From the media’s point of view, the story of China’s collapse is very appealing, and given the misunderstanding of its economy, it’s an argument that easily gains adherents,” he said.

“The average citizen in developed economies imagines China as an economy which is fully controlled by the state, with a very communist background, ghost towns, “zombie” companies, and a huge weight of exports and investment in its GDP. But the reality of China’s economy is more like this:

80% of employment in China is in private hands.
All employment growth is generated by SMEs
China has become a market for entrepreneurs
It is headed for its fifth consecutive year in which services and consumption account for a larger part of its economy than manufactoring and construction.”

The rebalancing of the Chinese economy from investment to consumption implies lower growth, said the expert, “but we must not forget that last year China was responsible for 35% of the global economy’s growth and that, ultimately, what happens in China has a huge impact on the global economy and in most of the companies in which we invest, both inside and outside China. Therefore, it is important for investors to understand what is really happening there,” Rothman pointed out.

As an example of this transformation, the strategist mentioned the prevalence of private companies, and not of state-run enterprises, as is widely believed. Also, the services and consumption sectors already exceed manufacturing and construction.

Mistrust indata

It is true that when dealing with the macroeconomic data published by China, there is certain mistrust, which is very hard to overcome. For the Matthews Asia fund manager, skepticism is quite clear. “There are reports that growth in electricity consumption is much lower than the GDP growth data. And that is so. That does happen, but the same is true in the United States. Growth comes from companies and industry sectors which are much less electricity intensive, such as Alibaba,” he explained.

“Another thing which is also frequently mentioned is the drop in imports of raw materials, but that data is always reported in dollars, not volume. And the reality is that the price of raw materials has plummeted in recent years, so when looking at imports of raw materials in terms of volume (tonnes), the slowdown is far less dramatic,” he said.

Debt

“The debt problem is serious, but the risk of a hard landing or banking crisis is, in my view, low. The key reason for that is that the potential bad debts are corporate, not household debts, and were made at the direction of the state—by state-controlled banks to state-owned enterprises,” Rothman said. This provides the state with the ability to manage the timing and pace of recognition of nonperforming loans. It is also important to note, he points out, that the majority of potential bad debts are to state-owned firms, while the privately owned companies that employ the majority of the workforce and account for the majority of economic growth have been deleveraging. Additional positive factors are that China’s banking system is very liquid, and that the process of dealing with bad debts has begun.

A massive devaluation of the Renminbiis not expected

Last year, the Renminbi depreciated by about 6% against the dollar, while so far this year, it’s down by about 4%. “The Chinese currency is unlikely to depreciate, or appreciate by more than 5% per annum, and the direction will most probably vary depending on the strength of the dollar against the other world currencies. The reality is that China remains a competitive exporter, even though wages have grown on average 15% annually in recent years and the Renminbi has appreciated over 40% against the dollar from 2005 to 2015” Rothman, concluded.

Maitland Restructures its Institutional Client Team

| For Fórmate a Fondo | 0 Comentarios

Maitland rediseña su equipo directivo para organizarlo por tipo de producto — CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrPhoto: Federico Mena Quintero . Maitland Restructures its Institutional Client Team

Maitland, a global advisory and fund administration firm, has announced a major organisational restructure of the leadership team of its institutional client services arm. The management team will now reflect the five fund services products on offer – Traditional Fund Services, Transfer Agency, Hedge Fund Services, Private Equity & Real Estate Fund Services and ManCo Services.

The move reflects Maitland’s impressive expansion over recent years, both in terms of size and geographical reach as well as breadth of internal expertise and talent. The product approach empowers each product head to drive all aspects of the delivery to clients, both in terms of day-to-day service as well as longer-term strategic alignment.

The entire institutional product offering will be led by Jim Clark, who joined Maitland in May 2014 from State Street and brings over thirty years of industry experience to the role. The TFS team will be led globally by Rob Leedham, with Guido Frederico leading the South African business. TA and HFS teams are led globally by Mark Bredell and Ben Pershick respectively while Bruce McGlogan will head up the PERE team as it builds on its current period of success in Europe and South Africa.

Steve Georgala, CEO of Maitland, said: “Maitland is a unique firm in terms of its product capability and breadth of services we are able to offer institutional clients. We are delighted to have a leadership team full of deep industry experience, with each member bringing substantial knowledge and expertise to their domain. Our focus is to stabilise the areas of Maitland that have enjoyed substantial growth recently, whilst continuing to actively grow products and regions where our offering is attracting considerable market interest. Given this, it made sense to restructure our organisation to reflect our client-centric approach, and to empower our business leaders to deliver the best service possible. These are exciting times for the company.”

How will Bond and Currency Markets React to the US Election Result?

| For Fórmate a Fondo | 0 Comentarios

La renta fija estadounidense vivirá escenarios diferentes dependiendo de si gana Clinton o Trump, mientras el dólar subirá — CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrPhoto: Colleen P. How will Bond and Currency Markets React to the US Election Result?

With the latest polls suggesting the race to become the 45th President of the United States is neck and neck. Bond and currency managers around the world are currently trying to assess how a win for either candidate might affect their portfolios. M&G’s Anthony Doyle offers his best estimate as to what might happen.

A Clinton win

A Clinton victory is seen by the markets as a continuation of the current US political environment, particularly if the Republicans retain control of the House of Representatives. This would be the most benign scenario for bond and currency markets as measured by price volatility. Following a Clinton win, the bond market would likely price in a higher probability of a move in interest rates, with the removal of perceived political uncertainty paving the way for a Fed rate hike in December. The US dollar stands to be the main beneficiary of this change in market pricing in the immediate future, though any gains are likely to be measured.

Ampliar

In a Clinton win scenario, bond prices across the Treasury curve would likely remain under pressure in the coming weeks given the high chance of a rate hike, rising inflationary pressures, and the possibility of an easier fiscal policy stance by a Clinton administration. A Clinton win is not likely to radically alter bond investors or economists views on the outlook for the US economy. If Clinton is able to implement easier fiscal policy in the US in the medium term, US growth and inflation would likely increase, meaning a rise in term premiums and a steeper yield curve.

A Trump win

A Trump victory would result in heightened volatility across a number of markets given the uncertainty around what the implications are for the US economy. Following the result, risk aversion would likely increase meaning a rising US dollar, lower bond yields and a weaker US high yield corporate bond market. In the fixed income universe, emerging market bonds and currencies would likely be hit the worst in this environment given Trump’s tough stance on China and Mexico. This market reaction could look similar to previous US risk-off events such as the 2008 financial crisis, the 2011 loss of the US government AAA rating, and the 2013 taper tantrum. Equally, should the Fed push ahead with a rate hike in an uncertain political environment, we may see an adverse reaction in markets similar to the 2014 rate hike.

Ampliar

Turning to credit markets, Trump’s proposal of a repatriation tax holiday would likely be positive for US investment grade corporate bonds at the margin and may lead to a reduction in corporate bond issuance. It is estimated that companies hold almost $1trn offshore, with around 60% denominated in US dollars. The big question is how companies would use this cash: will they pay out special dividends to shareholders? Will they increase capital expenditure and expand their operations? High yield companies would be less affected, as most companies have domestic sources of revenue.

Over the medium term, Trump’s proposals on large tax cuts for all is the equivalent of a large Keynesian injection of cash into the economy which would benefit economic growth but also raise inflation. The implementation of trade barriers would also be inflationary, as import prices rise from current levels. Immigration reform means the already tight US labour market would tighten further, leading to higher wages. Fed policy would need to counteract the rise in inflation, meaning much higher interest rates and a bear market for bond markets. The US treasury market would return to a world of higher yields and a much steeper yield curve. In this environment, the US dollar would likely strengthen given the contrasting monetary policy stance with other developed market economies. A Trump win would be good for government bonds in the short term, bad for bonds in the long term.

The bottom line

A Clinton victory would likely result in lower volatility in the near term relative to a Trump victory. In the immediate aftermath of a Clinton win, there may be some slight risk-on moves from investors but over the medium term much will depend upon the make-up of the United States Congress. Credit markets should prove to be relatively resilient, given that default rates are expected to remain low and the Fed remains cautious in removing policy accommodation, thereby reducing the chances of a policy error. A Trump victory would be seen as a risk-off event in the short-term, resulting in lower treasury yields, a higher US dollar and weaker risk sentiment towards emerging market assets. Given both candidates are advocates of an easier fiscal policy stance, government bond prices are likely to come under pressure in 2017 under both scenarios. Over the longer term, like a Clinton win scenario, the policies that Trump is able to implement given the make-up of Congress will be key to determining the outlook for the economy and consequently bond and currency markets.

Muzinich & Co Achieves Double Award Success

| For Fórmate a Fondo | 0 Comentarios

Muzinich & Co logra dos premios como especialista en renta fija — CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrPhoto: Investment Week Specialist Investment Awards 2016. Muzinich & Co Achieves Double Award Success

Muzinich & Co, an institutional asset manager specialising in corporate credit, earned two fixed income awards in the Investment Week Specialist Investment Awards 2016.

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.

Active vs. Passive? Choose Both

| For Fórmate a Fondo | 0 Comentarios

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.

M&G to Resume Trading in M&G Property Portfolio

| For Fórmate a Fondo | 0 Comentarios

Los fondos de real estate británicos vuelven a operar con normalidad tras suspender reembolsos ante el Brexit — CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrPhoto: David Lofink . M&G to Resume Trading in M&G Property Portfolio

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.

Marcelo Coscarelli Leaves Citi for EFG International

| For Fórmate a Fondo | 0 Comentarios

EFG International nombra director para Américas a un ex directivo de Citi LatAm — CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrPhoto: Google Earth. Marcelo Coscarelli Leaves Citi for EFG International

Marcelo Coscarelli has been appointed Head of Americas Region and a member of the Executive Committee at EFG International. The appointment will be effective January 1st 2017.

Previously, Marcelo Coscarelli was at Citibank Latin America, serving as Managing Director for high-net-worth and affluent clients since 2012. From 2008 to 2012, he was Chief Operating Officer of Itaú Private Bank International in Miami.

EFG International also announced that it has completed the acquisition of BSI for a preliminary purchase price of CHF 1,060 million. According to a press release, this transaction represents a milestone for EFG International’s positioning and growth. Joachim H. Straehle, CEO of EFG International said “the closing of the acquisition marks a historic milestone for both EFG International and BSI. Together we are forming a leading pure play private bank with strong Swiss roots, a broad international presence and an entrepreneurial spirit. Over the coming months, we will jointly drive forward the integration to realise the full benefits of the business combination for our clients, employees and shareholders. The combined group will have a solid capital and liquidity position, which will support the further development of the business.”

With the completion of the transaction, Steve Jacobs, Vice-Chairman of BSI from September 2015 until closing, and Roberto Isolani, CEO of BSI from May 2016 until closing, have become members of EFG International’s Board of Directors as representatives of BTG Pactual.

BSI will operate as a separate subsidiary within EFG International’s holding structure for a limited time, until its full legal integration, expected in the second quarter 2017.