Tag Archives: api

Navigating Shifting Risk Sentiment In A Low-Growth Environment

Andrew A. Johnson, Head of Global Investment Grade Fixed Income The global fixed income market is increasingly complex and erratic. We live in an overly indebted, overly obligated world, with a growth rate that is slower than we are used to. Central bank activism, very low or negative rates, the threat (even if remote) of deflation and increased regulation have contributed to violent market responses – exacerbated by yield-seeking investors who have been forced out on the risk spectrum and away from their natural habitat. Andrew Johnson shared factors he and his team are focused on in this unique market environment, as well as their potential investment implications. What do you make of the pace of growth, and its effect on investment opportunities? On balance, we believe the most likely economic scenario is one of positive albeit lower-than-pre-crisis growth in the U.S., and more of a struggle for growth in Europe and Japan. We expect significant continued help from central banks. The ECB remains extremely accommodative, as we recently witnessed in the latest round of easing. Japan also is maintaining a very aggressive easing stance, deciding a few months ago to join the world of negative policy rates. And, the Fed still is accommodative, just moving toward “less so.” In aggregate, global growth is low, but still positive. This is not the world of 10 years ago, however, when U.S. growth was running over 3%, helped by the excessive use of leverage. Today, growth is simply lower. Economists generally put potential growth (the rate the economy can grow without stimulating inflation) at 1.5%-2.0%, while the Federal Reserve is expecting slightly above 2%. Europe’s growth potential is probably about 1% and Japan’s is 0%-0.5%. The contrast with pre-financial crisis expectations is a key reason for market volatility – but I think investors should “get real.” A more moderate pace close to 2% is more likely the case going forward. Given this reality, incremental sources of yield become an important portfolio contributor, especially over the long run. We believe there are a number of areas that provide opportunities to capture such yield, including credit, non-agency mortgages, senior floating rate loans and select emerging markets bonds. On the other hand, low yielding government bonds in countries such as Germany and Japan are less appealing. In the U.S., given the level and trajectory of yields, there is little compensation from government bonds currently for the possibility of better economic conditions that could lead to a quicker pace of rate increases. There’s a lot of talk about deflation these days. How likely is it? Deflation is a fear, but a remote one. The problem is that deflation could be highly damaging for the markets, especially those that are overly indebted. A move into deflation potentially sets up the kind of spiral that economist Irving Fisher talked about in the Great Depression of the 1930s. That’s why central banks, from the Fed to the ECB to the Bank of Japan, are doing everything in their power to make certain it doesn’t happen. I believe there are strong arguments against the likelihood of deflation. Although there is considerable debt outstanding, it has been trimmed since the financial crisis, and the debt that has been issued has been well dispersed across the financial system. Moreover, the amount of leverage in the system is down, so there is less risk that asset declines will force sales, and then trigger further asset declines, and sales, and so on. Core inflation has been strong, but somewhat veiled by the sharp decline in energy prices – which we believe is transitory. Then why is the threat of deflation having so much of an impact on markets? Are investors overly worried? However remote the possibility of deflation, the implications are so feared that markets are responding aggressively to the possibility. In our investment approach, we consider various potential economic scenarios or states, in what we call States-Space Analysis. Within this framework, we believe the most likely state is one of low, but positive and stable inflation. In contrast, we assign a state of sustained deflation as a low probability, given the strength of the U.S. economy, the commitment of central banks, and generally constructive financial conditions. Not all investors see it that way. Recent asset price declines due to a sharp fall in energy prices have helped frame investors’ expectations, so relative to the probability of deflation, we believe inflation is underpriced in the market. All this comes with a caveat: Other developed regions may be more vulnerable to deflation than the U.S., given their lower inflation rates, slower growth and the general trend of increased indebtedness. To some degree, Japan is a special case given its long-term bout with deflation and demographic challenges. Europe bears close watching as it seeks to move past recent weakness. Banks securities have recently been in the headlines. What are the concerns, and what’s your take? Credit issued by financial companies suffered earlier this year, in line with equities. Earning concerns arose due to expectations of reduced net interest margins if the Fed departed from its current rate hike path, and revenue reductions from an unfavorable trading and investment banking environment. Loan losses were also a concern given deterioration in commodity prices. The specter of systematic contagion captured the markets’ attention, as Deutsche Bank, after a full year of losses, was feared to delay payment of one of its hybrid loss-absorbing instruments. While some of these factors may impact profitability, credit fundamentals of financials, especially in the U.S. remain strong. Banks are well capitalized with quality assets, liquidity has improved and regulators have curtailed risky activity. European banks are also better capitalized, although many (for example in Italy) have yet to deal with loan vulnerabilities. With that in mind, we favor senior and subordinated debt of large U.S. banks, with more muted enthusiasm for subordinated debt of banks outside the U.S. Names matter though, and we believe that diligence as to issuer and part of the capital structure remains crucial. Of all the economic factors you’re considering, what are you most focused on right now? We are watching consumer behavior, and think it is a major factor in the future economic path. Confidence, retail sales, personal consumption expenditures (PCE), income expectations, the savings rate and credit growth are all indicators we are watching closely. Confidence is fairly high – higher than it was in the middle of the last decade. The confidence of the middle third (by income) of the U.S. population recently hit its highest level since the mid-2000s. So, outside of Wall Street, people are pretty confident; they have de-levered and believe that their incomes are going to go up. However, if confidence rolls over, we have a real problem, because the other contributors to economic activity are not growing enough. In fact, capital expenditures and inventory replenishments are probably going to worsen. Confidence of Middle Third of U.S. Population Near Highest Level Since Mid-2000s Source: Bloomberg. Represents middle third of consumers by income. Fortunately, the energy “tax cut” likely provides a floor for consumer conditions. The wage pie (the number of hours worked times earnings) has been expanding, and as long as that happens, the consumer will probably be fairly optimistic. The savings rate is high – higher than most economists expected – and trending upward somewhat. You would think that, given the repair of the consumer balance sheet, they would “let go” a bit, but that has not been the case yet. Where does all this leave you from an investment perspective? Given the improvement in the U.S. economy and the low probability of deflation, coupled with such low yields, we see limited benefit to holding Treasuries. This is especially true at the short end of the curve, where even though the Fed talks about moving rates higher, the markets still are not convinced. However, we see real opportunity in credit and particularly in the high yield market, where spreads recently widened to a level of historical opportunity. We also believe it makes sense to be somewhat short on duration, given the probability of further, staggered U.S. rate increases. And, we prefer TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities) to Treasuries given the low inflation expectations priced into the TIPS market today. This is an environment of intensified risk. How can investors account for that in portfolios? Because of low potential growth around the globe, I believe that shocks have become much more dangerous to economies and markets. There is far less of a buffer, as growth and inflation are a lot closer to zero, and the risk of a GDP slipping for a quarter or so below zero is more likely given the low initial rate of growth. Investor psychology also creates market hazards. As investors seek yield and move further along the risk spectrum, they go to places that are less comfortable for them; they’re not in their usual habitat. So, they are more likely to overreact at the first hint of volatility. We saw this in emerging markets, the oil and gas industry, and more recently across the credit markets. Coupled with significantly less liquidity, these jittery investors can trigger sharp market responses, and we believe should be considered when sizing positions, assessing liquidity, and in choosing securities that have a better chance of withstanding short-term volatility. Because we live in a less forgiving economic environment, with jumpier investors, I believe riskier assets should have a higher risk premium attached to them today. This means that spreads on riskier assets may not get to historical levels, and investors could be compensated in portfolios for the higher expected risk. With significant bouts of heightened correlation of riskier assets, it is important to pick through the securities to see where price declines have been warranted, and where securities have just been swept up in the tide of sentiment. This material is provided for informational purposes only and nothing herein constitutes investment, legal, accounting or tax advice, or a recommendation to buy, sell or hold a security. Information is obtained from sources deemed reliable, but there is no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, completeness or reliability. All information is current as of the date of this material and is subject to change without notice. Any views or opinions expressed may not reflect those of the firm as a whole. Neuberger Berman products and services may not be available in all jurisdictions or to all client types. Investing entails risks, including possible loss of principal. Investments in hedge funds and private equity are speculative and involve a higher degree of risk than more traditional investments. Investments in hedge funds and private equity are intended for sophisticated investors only. Indexes are unmanaged and are not available for direct investment. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. This material is being issued on a limited basis through various global subsidiaries and affiliates of Neuberger Berman Group LLC. Please visit www.nb.com/disclosure-global-communications for the specific entities and jurisdictional limitations and restrictions. The “Neuberger Berman” name and logo are registered service marks of Neuberger Berman Group LLC. © 2009-2016 Neuberger Berman LLC. | All rights reserved

My ‘Wisdom’ On Smart Beta And Factor Investing

The latest installment from Tadas Viskantas’s series on “financial blogger wisdom” (is that an oxymoron?) asked a bunch of smart people (and also me) about smart beta. I was short: Smart beta and factor investing are the newest versions of high(er) fee active management promising the fairy tale of “market beating” returns in exchange for higher fees and usually delivering lower returns (after taxes and fees). Regulars know I am not a big fan of Smart Beta and Factor Investing (sorry to all my friends in the industry who love these approaches!). For the uninitiated, Smart Beta basically involves taking an index fund and changing it so it captures a “smarter” type of return. For instance, you might take a market cap weighted index fund like the S&P 500 and equal weight it so that it doesn’t expose you to the procyclical tendencies of the market cap weighted fund which will tend to be overweight the riskiest stocks at the riskiest points in the market cycle. The evidence that this is countercyclical is weak as Vanguard has shown and as I expressed in my new paper . Further, you will generally pay higher taxes and fees in these funds without a high probability of better results. For instance, the equal weight S&P 500 has a pretty mixed performance versus the market cap weighted S&P as it’s performed better on a 10-year basis, but underperformed on all periods shorter than 10 years. The nominal returns are slightly better over longer periods, but that’s only because the equal weight fund has a much higher standard deviation with 95% of the total correlation. So, the intelligent asset allocator has to ask themselves why they’d pay for 95% of the correlation while guaranteeing higher taxes and fees without a reasonably high probability of better risk-adjusted performance? Should you really pay higher fees for the empty promise of “market-beating returns”? I say no. The same basic story can be laid out for factor investing. There’s a great irony in the idea that the founder of the Efficient Market Hypothesis says you can’t pick stocks that will beat the market, but you can construct index funds that will be comprised of the stocks that will beat the market. The problem is no one knows what are the right stocks to put in a “momentum” index before they earn the momentum premium. And just like active mutual funds, no one should pay a premium for an asset manager who claims that they can construct an index that will be comprised of stocks that will benefit from “market beating” returns in the future. You just end up guaranteeing higher fees and taxes in exchange for the empty promise of market-beating returns. To me, these are just the new forms of “active” investing charging people higher taxes and fees for indexing strategies that won’t outperform.

3 Tips For Investing In Emerging Markets

By Tim Maverick Having been a neglected asset class for some time, emerging market stocks are enjoying a healthy rebound so far in 2016. The story of how we got here is a familiar one. When developing stock markets got overbought, they became overvalued. As a result, nervous investors – mainly from the United States – dumped those assets. But the selloff led to a sharp 180-degree turn – emerging markets then traded at a 28% discount to developed countries. Research Affiliates, founded by noted investor Rob Arnott, explains that emerging market stocks have only been cheaper than current levels six times. Each of those periods sparked an average five-year return of 188%. That should grab any investor’s attention. So what’s the best way to invest in emerging stock markets? Based on my decades of experience as both an advisor and an investor, I’ve compiled three quick tips to help you make sense of this market trend . Tip #1: Do NOT Use Index Funds I’m not a fan of index funds in general… but especially when it comes to emerging markets. It’s a sure-fire way to be unsuccessful. Why, you ask? First, because indices severely restrict your investable universe. And they’re usually restricted to the most overbought and overvalued stocks. Case in point: The Institute of International Finance points out that only $7.5 trillion out of a total of $24.7 trillion in emerging market equities are covered by indices from MSCI and JPMorgan (NYSE: JPM ). The rest are simply ignored as if they don’t exist. Yet, it’s those ignored stocks that usually boast the best bargains and room for growth. Tip #2: Avoid The Closet Index Trackers Even if you do avoid index funds directly, there’s another problem: “Closet trackers.” These are fund managers who like playing it safe. They couldn’t care less about outperforming the benchmark index for their shareholders. These managers have at least 50% of their funds in index stocks, so their funds will mimic the underlying index. Needless to say, that’s not what you want. Worryingly, a study from the World Bank revealed that 20% of equity funds were index trackers or closet trackers. This is a complete waste of money from an investor’s viewpoint. You’re paying for active management, but you’re not getting it. One example of a mutual fund company that usually goes off the beaten track and often invests in smaller companies is the Wasatch Core Growth Fund No Load (MUTF: WGROX ). Though I do not own their emerging market fund, I do own their frontier markets fund – Wasatch Frontier Emerging SmallCountries Fund (MUTF: WAFMX ) – for exposure to the smaller frontier markets. Please note: The fund is closed to new investors if you try buying it through your brokerage, but if you go directly to the fund company, it’s still open. Tip #3: Get Local Exposure If you truly want exposure to developing markets, guess what? You’ll need to own shares in local companies. And while it may seem like a clearer route to a profit, don’t do what many U.S. advisors espouse and have your sole exposure through multinational companies. Yes… there are many great multinationals with huge emerging market businesses – a company like Colgate Palmolive Co. (NYSE: CL ) comes to mind – they’re not the best way to gain exposure to developing markets’ economic growth. I like to use this analogy when explaining this point to clients: Let’s say a Japanese investor wanted exposure to the U.S. economy. His broker recommends Toyota Motors Corp. (NYSE: TM ). After all, Toyota sells a lot of cars in the United States. Silly, right? Toyota shares aren’t a good way to play the overall U.S. economy, as the stock only represents a very select fraction of market success. Neither is investing in emerging markets solely through multinationals. Investing in emerging local companies is the best way to profit from more specific foreign trends. There are all manner of resources available these days for researching foreign companies and stocks. It does take a bit of work, but the rewards can be well worth the time. Alternatively, you can leave the work to proven, active fund managers. Regardless of which route you prefer, now is a good time to build positions in emerging markets. Original Post