CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrFoto: Kecko. Midcaps suizas y tecnología disruptiva marcan la diferencia en renta variable
MFS has announced the appointment of Anton Commissaris as managing director and head of Sales for Switzerland and Austria.
Based in Zürich, he will report to Matthew Weisser, managing director and head of European Wholesale Distribution at MFS.
He joins from Credit Suisse Asset Management, where he was in charge of fund distribution to the EMEA region, distributing to banks, insurances, external asset management firms and family offices.
Matthew Weisser comments on his appointment: “Anton’s appointment reinforces our commitment to expanding our distribution footprint in the Swiss and Austrian markets. He is a highly experienced sales director with over 24 years of expertise covering the Swiss wholesale market. I am confident that his in-depth knowledge — not just of the global banks, but also of the local markets will prove invaluable as we move forward.”
CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrFoto: Thomas Leuthardc. ¿Cómo evolucionan los mercados de bonos tras el Brexit?
At the half-way point of 2016, Investec‘s Multi-Asset team revisit their key investment themes for the year to see how they have fared over the past six months. Most played out as they expected, but in some cases the markets have moved in unexpected ways…
The need for portfolio resilience At the end of 2015, investors were confronted by a world that appeared to be full of potential pitfalls. To preserve and grow the value of their assets, they needed robust portfolios that could outperform the market in challenging environments and deliver resilient returns in the face of unforeseen events.
The investment environment in 2016 has been no easier. A slowing Chinese economy, the Bank of Japan’s surprise move to introduce negative interest rates, political and economic uncertainty in the US and the UK’s momentous decision to leave the European Union have all played their part in increasing global financial instability and volatility.
Investec’s approach to building portfolios that are resilient in the face of such tumultuous events requires a strong understanding of investment risks, beyond estimates of volatility. Portfolio construction should balance the trade-offs between potential returns and individual assets’ contribution to overall risk exposure. But they also believe that portfolios need to be diversified and to avoid those parts of the market that could be vulnerable to sudden liquidity squeezes. Investors should also have strategies to cope with periods of market stress.
Diverging monetary policies Six months ago, Investec believed the US dollar would reach new cyclical highs, as US monetary policy slowly normalised. Then, Europe had only just started to run down private-sector debt and seemed at least three years behind the US. Asia, and China in particular, were further behind Europe. These markets’ debt to gross domestic product ratio were still high, suggesting that monetary easing would need to continue for several years.
Since then, global economic headwinds and a weaker domestic backdrop has prompted a more dovish tone from the US Federal Reserve in the first quarter of 2016, which has slowed the pace of monetary policy normalisation. This means that the phenomenon of diverging monetary policy is less pronounced than it was at the beginning of the year.
Selectivity needed in emerging markets Their belief that the emerging market universe is disparate, and offers a wide range of investment opportunities still holds true. They continue to favour economies that are natural extensions of developed markets, such as Hungary or Romania are for the European Union. Nevertheless, Investec believes they need to continue to be selective in emerging markets, partly due to different sensitivities to demand for Chinese commodities and the US dollar.
Finding bottom-up opportunities Investec continues to believe that a bottom-up approach to choosing investments can help penetrate the short-term macroeconomic noise. Emerging market equities and resource stocks led global stock markets higher from mid-January, at a time when Chinese data remained negative and many analysts were forecasting a US recession. However, they still acknowledge that the environment has, even if temporarily, become marginally less supportive for stock picking.
ESG going mainstream As they predicted, 2016 is the year that many investors focused on taking account of environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues. Integrating ESG assessment into investment processes is increasingly being seen as a way of driving long-term value creation. German auto manufacturer Volkswagen could be seen as a game changer triggering increased attention on corporate behaviour and practices. The Paris Agreement on Climate Change in December 2015 has also focused investors’ minds on the environmental challenges surrounding global warming.
Photo: NicolaCorboy, Flickr, Creative Commons. Pioneer Investments and Santander Asset Management Will Not Merge
After 20 months in negotiations, UniCredit announced on Wednesday that it has agreed with Banco Santander and Sherbrooke Acquisition to terminate the agreements entered into on 11 November 2015 to combine Pioneer Investments and Santander Asset Management. The merger would have created one Europe’s leading asset managers with around 370 billion euros (almost $400 billion) in assets under management.
According to a press release by Unicredit, “The parties held detailed discussions to identify viable solutions to meet all regulatory requirements to complete the transaction, but in the absence of any workable solution within a reasonable time horizon, the parties have concluded that ending the talks was the most appropriate course of action.”
Further to UniCredit’s announcement on 11 July 2016 of a Group-wide strategic review, the results of which will be communicated to the market before the end of 2016, Pioneer will now be included in the scope of the strategic review to explore the best alternatives for all Pioneer stakeholders including a potential IPO. “This is to ensure the company has the adequate resources to accelerate growth and continue to further develop best-in-class solutions and products to offer its clients and partners.”
Meanwhile in Spain, and during Santander’s earnings release presentation, José Antonio Álvarez, Santander’s CEO commented that “we will cancel the transaction. We will develop Santander AM along with our partners and strive to build an asset management business that excels in serving our clients.”
Pioneer has presence in 28 countries and an experienced team of over 2,000 employees, including more than 350 investment professionals. It manages €225 billion in assets and is known internationally as one of the leading fixed income managers across all strategies. It also offers strong capabilities in European, US and global equities, as well as multi-asset and outcome-oriented, non-traditional products.. Meanwhile, Santander Asset Management has presence in 11 countries, and assets of €172 billion across all types of investment vehicles. Santander Asset Management has over 755 employees worldwide, of which around 220 are investment professionals.
Hong Kong. Foto: TreyRatclif, Flickr, Creative Commons.. BNY Mellon WM lleva su negocio de gestión de patrimonios a Hong Kong y refuerza su presencia en Asia – Pacífico
According to Mercer’s 2016 Cost of Living Survey, Hong Kong tops the list of most expensive cities for expatriates, pushing Luanda, Angola to second position.Zurich and Singapore remain in third and fourth positions, respectively, whereas Tokyo is in fifth, up six places from last year. Kinshasa, ranked sixth, appears for the first time in the top 10, moving up from thirteenth place.
Other cities appearing in the top 10 of Mercer’s costliest cities for expatriates are Shanghai (7), Geneva (8), N’Djamena (9), and Beijing (10). The world’s least expensive cities for expatriates, according to Mercer’s survey, are Windhoek (209), Cape Town (208), and Bishkek (207).
Mercer’s widely recognized survey is one of the world’s most comprehensive, and is designed to help multinational companies and governments determine compensation strategies for their expatriate employees. New York City is used as the base city for all comparisons and currency movements are measured against the US dollar. The survey includes over 375 cities throughout the world; this year’s ranking includes 209 cities across five continents and measures the comparative cost of more than 200 items in each location, including housing, transportation, food, clothing, household goods, and entertainment.
Despite volatile global markets and growing security issues, organizations continue to leverage global expansion strategies to remain competitive and to grow. Mercer’s 22nd annual Cost of Living Survey finds that factors including currency fluctuations, cost inflation for goods and services, and instability of accommodation prices, contribute to the cost of expatriate packages for employees on international assignments.
“Despite technology advances and the rise of a globally connected workforce, deploying expatriateemployees remains an increasingly important aspect of a competitive multinational company’s business strategy,” said Ilya Bonic, Senior Partner and President of Mercer’s Talent business. “However, with volatile markets and stunted economic growth in many parts of the world, a keen eye on cost efficiency is essential, including a focus on expatriate remuneration packages. As organizations’ appetite to rapidly grow and scale globally continues, it is necessary to have accurate and transparent data to compensate fairly for all types of assignments, including short-term and local plus status.”
The Americas
Cities in the United Stateshave climbed in the ranking due to the strength of the US dollar against other major currencies, in addition to the significant drop of cities in other regions which resulted in US cities being pushed up the list. New York is up five places to rank 11, the highest-ranked city in the region. San Francisco (26) and Los Angeles (27) climbed eleven and nine places, respectively, from last year while Seattle (83) jumped twenty-three places. Among other major US cities, Honolulu (37) is up fifteen places, Washington, DC (38) is up twelve places, and Boston (47) is up seventeen spots. Portland (117) and Winston Salem, North Carolina (147) remain the least expensive US cities surveyed for expatriates.
In Latin America, Buenos Aires (41) ranked as the costliest city despite a twenty-two place drop from last year. San Juan, Puerto Rico (67) follows as the second most expensive location in the region, climbing twenty-two spots. The majority of other cities in the region fell as a result of weakening currencies against the US dollar despite price increases on goods and services in countries, such as Brazil, Argentina, or Uruguay. In particular, São Paolo (128) and Rio de Janeiro (156) plummeted eighty-eight and eighty-nine places, respectively, despite a strong increase for goods and services. Lima (141) dropped nineteen places while Bogota (190) fell forty-two places. Managua (192) is the least expensive city in Latin America. Caracas in Venezuela has been excluded from the ranking due to the complex currency situation; its ranking would have varied greatly depending on the official exchange rate selected.
Canadian cities continued to drop in this year’s ranking mainly due to the weak Canadian dollar. The country’s highest-ranked city, Vancouver (142), fell twenty-three places. Toronto (143) dropped seventeen spots, while Montreal (155) and Calgary (162) fell fifteen and sixteen spots, respectively.
Europe, the Middle East, and Africa
Two European cities are among the top 10 list of most expensive cities. At number three in the global ranking, Zurich remains the most costly European city, followed by Geneva (8), down three spots from last year. The next European city in the ranking, Bern (13), is down four places from last year following the weakening of the Swiss franc against the US dollar.
Several cities across Europe remained relatively steady due to the stability of the euro against the US dollar. Paris (44), Milan (50), Vienna (54), and Rome (58) are relatively unchanged compared to last year, while Copenhagen (24) and St. Petersburg (152) stayed in the same place. In Spain, Madrid is up from 115 to 105, and Barcelona from 124 to 110.
Other cities, including Oslo (59) and Moscow (67), plummeted twenty-one and seventeen places, respectively, as a result of local currencies losing significant value against the US dollar. London (17) and Birmingham, UK (96) dropped five and sixteen places, respectively, while the German cities of Munich (77), Frankfurt (88), and Dusseldorf (107) climbed in the ranking.
A few cities in Eastern and Central Europe climbed in the ranking as well, including Kiev (176) and Tirana (186) rising eight and twelve spots, respectively.
Tel Aviv (19) continues to be the most expensive city in the Middle East for expatriates, followed by Dubai (21), Abu Dhabi (25), and Beirut (50). Jeddah (121) remains the least expensive city in the region despite rising thirty places. “Several cities in the Middle East experienced a jump in the ranking, as they are being pushed up by other locations’ decline, as well as the strong increase for expatriate rental accommodation costs, particularly in Abu Dhabi and Jeddah,” said Ms. Constantin-Métral.
Despite dropping off the top spot on the global list, Luanda, Angola (2) remains the highest ranking city in Africa. Kinshasa (6) follows, rising seven places since 2015. Moving up one spot, N’Djamena (9) is the next African city on the list, followed by Lagos, Nigeria (13) which is up seven places. Dropping three spots, Windhoek (209) in Namibia ranks as the least expensive city in the region and globally.
Asia Pacific
This year, Hong Kong (1) emerged as the most expensive city for expatriates both in Asia and globally as a consequence of Luanda’s drop in the ranking due to the weakening of its local currency. Singapore (4) remained steady while Tokyo (5) climbed six places. Shanghai (7) and Beijing (10) follow. Shenzhen (12) is up two places while Seoul (15) and Guangzhou, China (18) dropped seven and three spots, respectively.
Mumbai (82) is India’s most expensive city, followed by New Delhi (130) and Chennai (158). Kolkata (194) and Bangalore (180) are the least expensive Indian cities ranked. Elsewhere in Asia, Bangkok (74), Kuala Lumpur (151) and Hanoi (106) plummeted twenty-nine, thirty-eight, and twenty places, respectively. Baku (172) had the most drastic fall in the ranking, plummeting more than one hundred places. The city of Ashkhabad in Turkmenistan climbed sixty-one spots to rank 66 globally.
Australian cities have witnessed some of the most dramatic falls in the ranking this year as the local currency has depreciated against the US dollar. Brisbane (96) and Canberra (98) dropped thirty and thirty-three spots, respectively, while Sydney (42), Australia’s most expensive ranked city for expatriates, experienced a relatively moderate drop of eleven places. Melbourne fell twenty-four spots to rank 71.
CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrPhoto: Jorge Gobbi
. Will Erdogan Overplay his Hand in Turkey?
The dramatic events of the failed coup in Turkey and its aftermath has weighed heavily on all of the country’s asset sectors – equity, debt and currency. For the Eaton Vance Global Income Team this is not an unreasonable reaction, given many uncertainties of the political landscape. A member of the Global Income team is visiting Ankara now to assess the situation.
Turkish President Recep Erdogan announced a three-month extension of the state of emergency, following days of rounding up thousands of perceived political adversaries in the military, police and universities. As the situation evolves, Eaton Vance’s team will be focusing on two broad issues:
The U.S./Turkey relationship. It was strained before the coup, and is under even more stress now. Planes involved in the coup flew from the NATO airbase in which the U.S. military operates, and Turkey subsequently cut the power to the facility. Turkey is also seeking extradition from the U.S. of Fethullah Gulen, an Islamic cleric accused by Erdogan of being behind the coup.
Possible fissures in Turkish society. The relevant factions in Turkish society can be broadly divided into Erdogan and his ruling AKP party; the opposition, dominated by secular Turks; and Gulenists – followers of the exiled cleric. Erdogan’s opposition came out against the coup, despite the misgivings many have about his authoritarian style of rule.
“Most believe the purge is the right course of action for now, and believe the Gulenists are the problem – society is not fractured on this issue. On the other hand, we hear estimates that some 50,000 people are affected by the purges, so the impact is widespread – a scenario in which Erdogan goes too far would be worrisome.” The team explains.
For the team, the bottom line is: Turkey’s reputation as a democracy capable of reasonable growth and holding to tight budgets is obviously overshadowed by the latest developments. “We believe the U.S./Turkey relationship will survive this episode because it continues to serve the interests of both countries. We are watching very carefully to see if Erdogan overplays his hand and threatens the cohesiveness in Turkish society that currently works in his favor.”
CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrPhoto: Ennor, Flickr, Creative Commons. Allianz Global Investors: Institutional Risk Management Strategies Need Urgent Overhaul
Institutional risk management strategies are in need of urgent overhaul, according to a study of institutional investors conducted by Allianz Global Investors.
Conducted in the first quarter of 2016, AllianzGI’s 2016 RiskMonitor asked 755 institutional investors about their attitudes to risk, portfolio construction and asset allocation. The firms surveyed represent over $26 trillion USD of assets under management in 23 countries across North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific.
The Risk Monitor report found that since the 2008 global financial crisis, risk management practices have changed very little. Pre-crisis, investors’ top three strategies were diversification by asset class (57%), geographic diversification (53%) or duration management (44%). Despite the fact that 62% of respondents admit these strategies didn’t provide adequate downside protection, their use has actually increased post-crisis, with 58% of investors reliant on diversification by asset class, 56% using geographic diversification and 54% embracing duration management.
As a result, two-thirds of institutions are calling for innovative new strategies to help balance risk-return trade-offs, provide greater downside protection and replace traditional approaches to risk management. In fact, 48% say their organization is willing to pay more if it means access to better risk management strategies and 54% say their organization has set aside additional resources to improve risk management.
Commenting on the findings, Neil Dwane, Global Strategist AllianzGI, said:
“Investors are facing a world where average market returns continue to be lower and volatility is higher. In this environment, fulfilling investment objectives will require taking risk and applying truly active portfolio management,which needs to go hand in hand with an adequate strategy for managing that risk. Unfortunately, our RiskMonitor results show that a considerable number of investors do not show much confidence in their ability to manage risks effectively in both up- and down markets.”
“Encouragingly, institutional investors do seem to recognize the need for more effective risk management solutions. However, it is time for asset managers to innovate and offer solutions and products that will help clients to navigate the low yield environment without exposing them to inappropriate levels of volatility. This can take different forms, but the next few months and years will certainly be a litmus test for the growing offering in sophisticated multi asset solutions.”
Main investment concerns and allocation trends
There are countless risks lurking on the horizon, but a few are on the top of many investors’ minds as they navigate the markets in 2016 and try to meet their return objectives. Globally, 42% of those surveyed say market volatility is their main investment concern. Add to that the other big concerns this year – low yields (24%) and uncertain monetary policy (16%) and there is little doubt that investors may be in for an even bumpier ride compared to the last few years.
In light of the choppy markets at the start of this year, 77% of investors are apprehensive about equity-market risk, citing it as the top threat to portfolio performance this year. Also high on the list of threats that those surveyed believe could derail the performance of portfolios were interest rate risk (75%), event risk (75%) and foreign-exchange risk (74%).
Despite the concerns around market turbulence and equity market risk by institutional investors, many have not been persuaded to take a wide-spread defensive attitude. Institutional investors report their primary investment goal for 2016 is to maximize their risk-adjusted returns. Further, their inclination towards equities suggests their risk appetite has not been completely dampened by the market volatility. In particular, with 29% and 28% respectively, US equities and European equities garner the top spots among the investments earmarked for long exposure again this year.
CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrPhoto: Brian Evans
. Robeco Opens a New Office in Singapore
Robeco has opened a new office in Singapore. This office will focus on credit research and strengthening Robeco’s service to their clients in the market and the broader Southeast Asia region.
According to a press release, “Singapore is a fast growing Asian fixed income hub, so by establishing a permanent presence in the market, Robeco is able to expand capabilities, leverage opportunities and further strengthen our fixed income infrastructure in the region.” Maurice Meijers, Client Portfolio Manager Fixed Income for the Asian markets, will be heading the Singapore office. In addition to Meijers, two credit analysts will also be based in Singapore.
Maurice Meijers said: “Singapore is uniquely positioned as a leading fixed income hub in Asia, with a strong outlook for future growth. Robeco’s pan-Asia business, which includes offices in many key Asian markets, allows us to gain access to local market knowledge and attract local talent. The opening of our Singapore office is another important addition to Robeco’s Asia footprint and will enable us to further expand our fixed income capability to leverage opportunities in the region.”
Nick Shaw, Head of Global Financial Institutions, said: “The Asia Pacific region leads the world in new wealth creation and Singapore has long-since established itself as a global private banking hub. The opening of a local Singapore office will allow us to better service our distribution partners and provide local support to institutional clients and consultants in the region.”
Robeco has had a presence in Asia Pacific since 2005 and it has been growing its footprints in the region with offices in Australia, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea and now Singapore. Hong Kong is home to their Asia Pacific equities investment team, and their new Singapore office will be an extension of their Rotterdam fixed income team. The expansion in Asia Pacific is a key part of their “strategy 2014-2018: accelerate growth”.
CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrPhoto: Cheryl Marble. Anything But "Me-Too" Management
The decision to hire an active manager requires a belief that markets are inefficient. But in the last five years, active managers have been losing significant market share to passive vehicles, which suggests investors no longer believe markets are inefficient and instead have adopted the “efficient market hypothesis” theory.
On the surface, I can understand why. Alpha has been elusive in this market recovery. Consequently, many active managers have responded by documenting the reasons why and when alpha may become abundant. I believe, however, it’s our job as active managers to showcase the inefficiency of markets and distinguish between what is coincidental and causal when it comes to understanding what truly drives stock prices. We also need to build confidence that over a full market cycle investors in active portfolios won’t be overpaying for market beta.
Investors throughout time have anchored to the wrong things. Consider how often investors source their market view to the economic backdrop. A statistical regression of GDP growth between countries from multiple regions and their respective equity markets showed no relationship between the two. And yet, investors get caught up in determining when the Fed is going to raise rates or the results of the upcoming U.S. Presidential election and how it may impact stock prices. This is a “me too” investment thesis with binary outcomes. That isn’t what stock pickers focus on, because it isn’t important to alpha generation.
What drives stock prices long term – and what we want to understand as active managers – is a company’s steady state value plus future cash flows. While many of us learned this in school or early in our careers, it has gotten lost in today’s investment climate.
Another way to think about it, is where a company’s product or service fall on its industry’s “S curve.” Is the product in early awareness phase? Or has it reached escape velocity and at the point of commoditization where it’s under threat from “me too” copy cats? Determining where a company’s products exit in its maturation cycle is critical to understanding what has driven a company’s stock price versus what may drive its stock price in the future.
If we look back over the last 150 years, we can think of multiple products that have scaled up through the S curve: railroad, telephone, radio, automobiles, refrigerators, dishwashers, to name just a few, and most recently the internet and smartphones. The stocks of the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) in all of these areas were massive outperformers as adoption cycles were escalating. Most often there were one, maybe two, horses in each race that enjoyed the lion’s share of unit growth and explosion of profits. However as the products reached escape velocity, investors behaved like they always behave, and continued to have linear expectations that what has happened would continue. Often they were unaware that margins were poised to decelerate and the stock’s outyear valuation was unrealistic.
With smartphone penetration rates in the developed world nearing potential peak levels, will these massive OEMs that are also enormous benchmark constituents because of past performance, continue to be strong outperformers? History suggests otherwise. ETFs and passive vehicles are constructed linearly based on what has already happened. Ultimately those icebergs become melting ice cubes and long-term underperformers.
Instead, let’s look at the impact of smartphone penetration on other profit pools and ask the question – are there alpha opportunities as a result? Advertising is an industry that will be significantly impacted, for example, as people spend more time watching programming on their hand held devices than sitting in front of a TV, reading magazines or going to the movies. Though only a small percentage of advertising is currently done through online platforms, this channel affords higher efficacy because it’s more targeted, measurable and cost effective.
As an active manager, we have to recognize disruptors and work to understand their impact on profit pools. That intelligence is critical to our ability to generate alpha – whether we’re trying to own the winners or trying to win by avoiding the secular losers.
Robert M. Almeida, Jr. is MFS Institutional Portfolio Manager.
CC-BY-SA-2.0, Flickr. Four Messages From Draghi's Meeting
The European Central Bank’s (ECB) Governing Council met on Thursday, marking the first of a series of high profile meetings scheduled over the next few days (the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting on July 27th, the Bank of Japan (BoJ) meeting on July 29th, Bank of England (BoE) on August 4th), which have become a strong focus for investors globally.
Past experience taught us never to take Mr Draghi and the Council for granted: whenever they needed to, they managed to surprise the market and that’s why this meeting was one to watch. The monetary stimulus is meeting its objectives of reducing credit fragmentation, and spreads between core and peripheral European government bonds. The programme has still quite a few months to go before its initial “end-date”, and more importantly the ECB has managed to provide stability to both Government and Corporate bonds during the past few volatile weeks.
Mr Draghi announced the following:
No news is good news: the Governing Council kept all key policy rates and asset purchases unchanged. Monthly purchases in particular have exceeded, so far, the ‘target’ of €80bn per month. He said that at the moment the stimulus package in place is sufficient – but that the ECB won’t hesitate to add fresh measures if needed.
It ain’t over till it’s over: the current Quantitative Easing programme was initially scheduled to go on until March 2017, but Mr Draghi stated that (i) the programme will run until a “sustained inflation adjustment” is seen and (ii) should the economic scenario deteriorate significantly, the Governing Council would act by using all instruments available within its mandate.
“Believe me, it will be enough”: Mr Draghi famously spoke these words in 2012, and they echoed in our mind when he said he would “stress readiness, willingness and ability to do so” regarding the ECB’s attitude to tackle any negative impact of Brexit on the broader European economy.
Non-Performing Loans (NPL’s) and Banks: When asked about initiatives to address the current NPL problems that the European banks (and Italian banks in particular) are facing, Mr Draghi said that addressing legacy NPL issues “will take some time” and, more importantly that any public backstop would be a useful measure but that it will need to be “agreed with the European Commission according to existing rules.”
Lastly, Mr Draghi reiterated that actions beyond monetary policy are the job of politically elected representatives – and that governments should support monetary stimulus with reforms aimed at raising productivity and improving the business environment.
The market reaction to Thursday’s meeting was relatively contained: we saw core rates correcting on the back of the lack of “new” news, and we share this view. We think this was a reassuring performance on behalf of the ECB, but a non-event from a market perspective.
We think investors are now in a “one down, four to go” mode and are awaiting for actionable catalysts from the meetings of FOMC, BOJ and BOE, as well as the results of European Banking Authority (EBA) Stress tests expected over the coming ten days.
CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrPhoto: Aziz Hamzaogullari, CFA, Portfolio Manager, at Loomis, Sayles & Company. Active Matters in U.S. Large-Cap Growth
Passive investments such as index funds have become increasingly popular, due primarily to lower fees and attractive performance amidst a seven-year bull market*.
This investor preference was recently captured in the 2016 Natixis Global Asset Management Individual Investor Survey – where 67% of 850 Latin American investors surveyed believed index funds can help minimize losses. Further, 64% also believe they are less risky, and 57% think they offer better diversification than other investments**.
While there certainly is a place for passive investments in portfolios, these survey results may have uncovered misconceptions about their risk mitigation and diversification benefits. Aziz Hamzaogullari – a leading active investment manager in the U.S. large-cap growth equity space – shares his insight on active risk management, alpha, and diversification.
What can an active approach to growth achieve that indexing may not?
At the heart of active management lies the belief that one can deliver returns in excess of benchmark returns. Whether we are in the midst of a market rally or downturn, active investment management and active risk management are integral to alpha generation – creating risk-adjusted excess returns and adding value to long-term investor portfolios. Our focus is on quality companies uniquely positioned to capture long-term growth and active management of downside risk. Over the long run, we believe markets are efficient. However, short-term investor behavior can cause pricing anomalies, creating potential opportunities for active, long-term, valuation-driven managers like us. Capitalizing on these opportunities requires a disciplined investment process and a patient temperament.
Also, I think defining risk in relative terms obfuscates the fact that the benchmark itself is a risky asset. This is particularly true with cap-weighted indices because downside risk increases significantly when the stocks of a particular sector experience a run-up in prices that are above their fundamental intrinsic value. If a portfolio manager ties his investment decisions to benchmark holdings and risk factors, he must necessarily take on this additional downside risk. Instead, we define risk as a permanent loss of capital, which means we take an absolute-return approach to investing and seek to actively manage our downside risk.
How does your approach lead to high active share versus the Russell 1000 Growth Index?
Our approach is different from benchmark-centric portfolios that tend to begin their investment process by considering the influence of the benchmark’s top holdings and sector positioning on relative performance. The companies we invest in must first meet a number of demanding quality characteristics. Our philosophy and process often result in positions and position sizes that differ from the benchmark. If you want to outperform a benchmark net of fees, it stands to reason that you must be different from the benchmark. That said, high active share is a by-product of our distinct approach to growth equity investing. (Active share is a measure of how a portfolio differs from the benchmark. High active share indicates a larger difference between the benchmark and portfolio composition.)
A study by Antti Petajisto and Martijn Cremers found that high active share correlates well with positive excess returns and that the most active managers, those with active share of 80%–100%, persistently generated excess returns above their benchmarks even after subtracting management fees***.
Do you think there is a misconception among investors that more names in a portfolio mean more diversification?
Perhaps. While diversification does not guarantee a profit or protect against a loss, it is an important tool in managing portfolio risk or volatility. However, we do not think diversification is the simple notion that more names in a portfolio is better. Our 30 to 40 holdings isn’t a random number. A 2010 study by Citigroup demonstrated that a portfolio of 30 stocks was able to diversify more than 85% of the market risk. The diversification benefit of adding more stocks to the portfolio declined significantly as the number of stocks increased.
*- Refers to the U.S. stock market (as measured by the S&P 500® Index) from its low on March 9, 2009 through March 9, 2016. ** – Natixis Global Asset Management, Global Survey of Individual Investors conducted by CoreData Research, February–March 2016. Survey included 7,100 investors from 22 countries, 850 of whom are Latin American investors. ***- Martijn Cremers and Antti Petajisto, “How Active Is Your Fund Manager?” International Center for Finance, Yale School of Management, 2009.
This material is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as investment advice. There can be no assurance that developments will transpire as forecasted. Actual results may vary. The views and opinions expressed may change based on market and other conditions.
In Latin America: This material is provided by NGAM S.A., a Luxembourg management company that is authorized by the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF) and is incorporated under Luxembourg laws and registered under n. B 115843. Registered office of NGAM S.A.: 2 rue Jean Monnet, L-2180 Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. The above referenced entities are business development units of Natixis Global Asset Management, the holding company of a diverse line-up of specialized investment management and distribution entities worldwide. The investment management subsidiaries of Natixis Global Asset Management conduct any regulated activities only in and from the jurisdictions in which they are licensed or authorized. Their services and the products they manage are not available to all investors in all jurisdictions. In the United States: Provided by NGAM Distribution, L.P. 1535854.1.1
