Tag Archives: economy

5 Worst Performing Mutual Funds In August

It turned out to be quite a terrible August for US mutual funds. Except for the Precious Metals equity funds, none of the sector equity mutual funds finished in the green in August. Moreover, the Healthcare sector which had been a consistently strong performer since last year turned out to be the biggest loser among sector equity funds in August. Real Estate sector, which was July’s best gainer, suffered a 5.7% decline in August. The best gainer for August turned out to be Bear Market funds, gaining a robust 9.1%. This is particularly significant given the fact that the second and third placed Commodities Precious Metals and Equity Precious Metals had scored gains of 3.3% and 2.7%. Municipal Bond Funds were the only other gainers, but those gains were marginal with the best one being 0.3%. The success of Bear Market funds is not surprising though. It was a torrid August for markets, struggling hard to survive growth fears in China. For the month, the benchmarks dropped to their multi-month lows. The world’s second largest economy continued to be a cause for concern and led to a global market rout. A slump in oil prices also weighed on energy stocks before a rebound in prices late in the month. August’s Performance For the month, the S&P 500, the Dow and the Nasdaq plunged 6.3%, 6.6% and 6.9%, respectively. While the Dow notched up its biggest monthly decline in more than five years, the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq registered their steepest monthly losses since May 2012. All the major indexes moved in and out of their correction territory to end a volatile month in the red. Benchmarks slumped for the month on concerns that a weak Chinese economy would result in a global slowdown. Benchmarks also closed in the red, following the yuan’s devaluation. Uncertainty about the timing of a Fed rate hike was another major cause for the losses. China Fears Spook Markets Several economic indicators from China signaled the slowdown may be deepening. Data on manufacturing was disappointing in nature, indicating underlying China’s economic weakness. Producer prices declined to the lowest level in six years in July. Additionally, exports recorded a greater than expected decline. Dismal data aggravated losses for China stocks, which weighed on investor sentiment in the U.S. On Aug. 21, the blue-chip index nosedived, declining 3.6% after a volatile trading session. This was a result of investors’ concerns about the adverse effects of a slowdown in China’s economy. The Shanghai Composite Index tanked 8.5% to close at 3,209.91 on the same day. China’s main stock index moved into the red for the year, while it plunged almost 38% from its peak in mid-June. In its latest move to prop up markets and the economy, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) decided to cut interest rates for the fifth time since November. The apex bank will cut one-year lending rate to 4.6% from 4.85%, while the one-year deposit rate will be lowered to 1.75% from 2%. The PBOC also decided to reduce reserve requirement ratio for all banks from 18.5% to 18%. This will pump around 678 billion yuan or about $105.9 billion into the Chinese economy. However, investors remained unconvinced about whether these measures would be able to prop up the economy. Market Rout & Rebound China’s concerns had triggered record losses for U.S. stocks as well as all other major markets across the world at the latter half of August. The S&P 500 and the Dow had entered correction territories. A drop of 10% or higher than the peak achieved that year, generally indicates a correction. The blue-chip index and the S&P 500 posted their biggest weekly declines for the week ending Aug. 21 since Sep. 2011. The Nasdaq recorded its steepest weekly drop since Aug. 2011. Losses spilled over into the following Monday, i.e. Aug. 24, with the Dow plunging by more than 1,000 points during the first six minutes of trading. The index finished in negative territory, losing 3.6% and settled at its lowest level since Feb. 2014. All 30 Dow components ended in the red. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 dropped more than 10% on Aug. 24 from its peak achieved on May 21, losing 3.9%. Moreover, the index ended at its lowest level on Monday since Oct. 2014. Almost all the 500 members of the index settled in negative territory. The S&P 500 along with the blue-chip index posted their biggest one-day percentage declines on Aug. 24 since Aug. 2011. Additionally, the Nasdaq declined heavily, by 3.8%. However, markets rebounded later on Aug. 27 and 28. On Aug. 27, the Dow and the S&P 500 registered their biggest one-day percentage gain since Nov. 2011. The Dow also posted its third largest gain in terms of points and the best since the crisis of 2008. The Nasdaq too notched up its biggest one-day gain since Aug. 2011. The indexes bounced back on Aug. 27 following a six-day rout, which wiped out around $2 trillion from the market. Upbeat GDP data and rebound in oil prices helped benchmarks notch up massive gains for the second consecutive day on Aug. 28. The blue-chip index increased 6.3% over two days, its largest two-day increase since 2008. Why Bear Market Funds Won? The gains, or the rebound, after the market rout failed to help benchmarks finish in the green for the month. Oil prices had shown a reversal in fortunes at the end of August, but those gains were insufficient compared to the month-long decline oil prices suffered. During August, price of WTI crude oil had finished below $39 a barrel for the first time since Feb. 2009. Additionally, price of Brent crude oil fell below the $43 mark for the first time since March 2009. Moreover, certain dismal earnings numbers and rate hike uncertainty also kept the benchmarks in the red. The losses for the broader markets helped funds that employ a short strategy. The Long/Short mutual funds generally profit from both bull and bear markets. These funds utilize conventional methods to identify stocks which are either under or overvalued, aiming to profit from shorting the overvalued stocks. These funds invest in short positions and profit from declines in share prices. The returns thus move in the opposite direction of the markets. These funds use leverage, derivatives, and short positions in order to maximize total returns, irrespective of market conditions. Biggest Losers in August As mentioned earlier, there was hardly any category of funds outperforming. The monthly performance list is all about decliners this time. Below we present 10 fund categories with the biggest losses in August: Source: Morningstar To have China Region as the biggest loser among all categories was no surprise. The rout in Chinese markets was sure to keep the funds under pressure. Pacific Asia, Diversified Emerging Markets and India also had to deal with China concerns and ended in the red. The emerging markets are also having to put up with recent market turmoil and wild currency swings. Now let’s look at funds that had suffered largest declines in August. We have narrowed our search based on Zacks Mutual Fund Rank. The following funds carry either a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #4 (Sell) or Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #5 (Strong Sell) as we expect the funds to underperform its peers in the future. Remember, the goal of the Zacks Mutual Fund Rank is to guide investors to identify potential winners and losers. Unlike most of the fund-rating systems, the Zacks Mutual Fund Rank is not just focused on past performance, but the likely future success of the fund. The minimum initial investment for these funds is within $5000. Turner Small Cap Growth (MUTF: TSCEX ) invests a minimum of 80% of its assets in small-cap US firms’ equity securities. These firms are believed to have strong earnings growth prospects. The firms are diversified across economic sectors but sector concentration may be on ones that approximate those in the 2000 Growth Index. TSCEX currently carries a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #4 and lost 9.6% in August. Alger Health Sciences A (MUTF: AHSAX ) seeks capital growth over the long term. AHSAX invests most of its assets in equity securities of companies related to the health sciences sector. These companies may be of any size. AHSAX may also invest in derivative instruments. AHSAX currently carries a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #5 and lost 8.9% in August. AllianzGI Health Sciences A (MUTF: RAGHX ) invests a lion’s share of its assets in health-science related companies including those that design, manufacture or sell products associated with healthcare, medicine or life sciences. It invests mostly in common stocks and other equity securities. RAGHX currently carries a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #4 and lost 7.6% in August. BlackRock Health Sciences Opportunities Portfolio Investor A (MUTF: SHSAX ) seeks capital appreciation over the long run. It invests a major portion of its assets in healthcare and related companies. These firms include health care equipment and suppliers, health care providers and services, biotechnology companies and also pharmaceuticals. SHSAX currently carries a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #4 and lost 7.5% in August. Gabelli Utilities A (MUTF: GAUAX ) seeks to provide high return through current income and capital growth. The fund invests a large portion of its assets in readily marketable US and non-US utility companies that pay dividends. These companies are believed to have the potential to offer current income or capital growth. GAUAX currently carries a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #4 and lost 5.1% in August. Original Post

Frontier Markets Index Issues: How Flawed Index Construction Is Distorting Perceptions Of The Asset Class

Summary A common complaint heard from Frontier Markets investment managers is the poor quality of the major indices that are designed to track Frontier Markets equities. The primary underlying cause of the problem has been, and continues to be, the use of market capitalization as the construction weighting methodology. This can contribute to lopsided geographic and sector weightings, which distort the risk and return characteristics of the equity market segment being considered. This article explores the nuances and flaws of two of the most prominent Frontier Markets indices, the MSCI Frontier Markets Index and the S&P Frontier Broad Market Index. It details the uneven geographic and sector concentrations found in these indices, root causes of these imbalances, as well as the implications such index construction has on return and risk. Frontier Markets Index Issues (click to enlarge) How Flawed Index Construction is Distorting Perceptions of the Asset Class Sean Wilson, CFA Brent Clayton, CFA Ha Ta A common complaint heard from Frontier Markets investment managers is the poor quality of the major indices that are designed to track Frontier Markets equities. Poor index construction is not a new issue for the global investment community. The primary underlying cause of the problem has been, and continues to be, the use of market capitalization as the construction weighting methodology (some indices use free-float adjusted market capitalization weighting methodologies, which suffer from the same issues). This can contribute to lopsided geographic and sector weightings, which distort the risk and return characteristics of the equity market segment being considered. Frontier Market indices suffer from additional weaknesses due to varying degrees of capital market development in constituent countries, which can magnify the distortions caused by market capitalization-based weighting methodologies. As Frontier Markets indices are used to formulate asset allocators’ return and risk expectations for the asset class and as benchmarks to measure and evaluate Frontier Markets investment managers, it is important that the nuances and flaws of these indices are identified and understood. D é j à Vu All Over Again … Over the past century, indices have risen in importance from rough barometers of equity market performance to structural components of passive investment strategies with allocations worth hundreds of billions of dollars. However, some of the most prominent indices have been distorted by the common practice of employing market capitalization to determine the weight of their respective constituents. With this approach, the larger a company’s market capitalization, the larger its weighting in the index will be. This approach is particularly sensitive to distortions from market bubbles because it exaggerates the weightings of those areas in the index which have been inflated. One of the most extreme examples of this occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s in the MSCI EAFE Index, then the most popular benchmark for international equities. Japan grew from approximately 10% of the index in 1970 to over 60% of the index by the late 1980s. Investors in the US market saw a similar phenomenon appear in the S&P 500 when the technology sector grew six-fold to over a 30% weighting during the tech bubble at the turn of the century. Both events created indices that were less diversified and more precarious with concentrations in areas of the market that were most overvalued. Investment managers benchmarked to these indices faced a binary decision with respect to their weighting in these extreme concentrations, putting commonsense portfolio diversification at odds with the business risk of deviating substantially from the primary measuring stick of their performance. An investment manager’s singular call on Japan or the technology sector often, for better or worse, became the primary determinant of fund performance. With the retreat of the Japanese stock market and the bursting of the technology bubble, the distortions dissipated, but the underlying methodology issues remained. Today, Frontier Markets indices suffer from a lack of diversification with historically high concentrations in a few countries and an abnormally large weighting in the financials sector. This can be seen in the following charts of the historical concentrations of the two most prominent Frontier Markets indices, the MSCI Frontier Markets Index (“MSCI FM Index”) and the S&P Frontier Broad Market Index (“S&P Frontier BMI”): Chart 1: (click to enlarge) Source: MSCI Barra, S&P Dow Jones Indices On August 31st, 2008, the eve of the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the ensuing Global Financial Crisis, the MSCI FM Index and the S&P Frontier BMI held a whopping 65% and 58%, respectively, in the financials sector. Likewise, two countries, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, together accounted for 51% and 53% of the MSCI FM Index and the S&P Frontier BMI, respectively. One single country, Kuwait, with a population and land mass that are approximately one third and three fifths that of Belgium respectively, accounted for 35% of the MSCI FM Index and 39% of the S&P Frontier BMI. These concentrations are slightly less disproportional today, but there remains a roughly 50% concentration in the financials sector in both indices and 38% and 32% weightings in the top two countries of each, respectively. As discussed further below, the ramifications of such uneven weightings are significant. The root causes of such lopsided concentrations are twofold. First, a market capitalization-based weighting methodology makes these indices susceptible to market bubbles, which reward stocks and markets that go up with greater and greater index weights. Second, differences in development stages among countries can skew index sector weightings. Financial institutions are generally first to list on nascent stock exchanges. Banks are the foundation of any economy and are relatively more established than other industries in Frontier economies. They have business models that rely on shareholder funding due to international regulatory requirements, so it is not surprising that Frontier Markets indices have an overly large weighting to the financials sector. In addition, more developed Frontier Markets with large index weightings such as Kuwait that are held back from being upgraded to “Emerging Markets” status for technical reasons (foreign ownership restrictions, liquidity and size requirements) can skew overall index exposures due to the idiosyncratic nature of their underlying stock markets (e.g. a disproportionately large publicly-listed banking industry, a lack of energy and materials sector listings due to state ownership, a small consumer sector due to a smaller population). These two issues together serve to magnify the distortions in sector and country weightings. Implications for Return Expectations in Frontier Markets Analyzing historical returns of indices is a logical starting point for investors wishing to understand an asset class. Typically, historical returns are used as guideposts for setting investor expectations about potential future returns. With Frontier Markets, however, the lopsided concentrations in certain countries and the financials sector have dominated the historical performance of these indices and continue to mask the true underlying diversity of opportunities available in the over 50 countries with liquid Frontier Markets stocks. An argument sometimes voiced against allocating to Frontier Markets is the lower relative performance of Frontier Markets compared to traditional Emerging Markets following the Global Financial Crisis. Looking at the MSCI indices in Chart 2, while Emerging Markets appear to have quickly snapped back, Frontier Markets appear to have languished for several years and only recently have begun to experience a modest recovery. As of May 31st, 2015, the MSCI FM Index was still more than 18% below its August 31st, 2008 pre-Lehman value while the MSCI Emerging Markets Index was up 23%. Chart 2: (click to enlarge) Source: Bloomberg Looking at the three largest country weightings in the MSCI FM Index on August 31st, 2008 (collectively representing 66% of the index), however, reveals how greatly these index concentrations can influence index performance. Chart 3: (click to enlarge) Source: Bloomberg The MSCI Kuwait Index (Kuwait was 35% of the MSCI FM Index in August 2008) has, in fact, languished since the Global Financial Crisis. Plagued by low growth, high valuations, regional instability with the Arab Spring, and political gridlock domestically, Kuwait has not been a hallmark of the investment case for Frontier Markets in recent years. It remains 45% below its pre-crisis value. The United Arab Emirates market (16% of the index in August 2008) also languished for several years. However, the economy and market began a recovery in 2012, which shot the MSCI UAE Index up 276% from the end of 2011 to the country’s exit from the MSCI FM Index at the end of May 2014. Viewing the broader index’s performance from this perspective suggests that the tail may be wagging the dog much more than a superficial view would suggest. Trying to estimate an expected return for the entire asset class based on the historical returns of such a lopsided index is largely an analysis of its largest three country components – one of which is no longer even classified as a Frontier Market! While the demographic-led growth potential of these early-stage markets is one of the primary allures of Frontier Markets investing, these concentrations mask that case. The underlying drivers of Frontier Market index returns have not necessarily been the consumption growth stories that compel investors into the asset class. Take, for example, the case of Kuwait and Bangladesh as shown in Table 1: Table 1: Country Kuwait Bangladesh Difference MSCI FM Index Weighting 22.2% 2.4% 19.7% S&P Frontier BMI Weighting 17.4% 3.7% 13.7% Market Cap of Local Exchange (USD bn) 94 34 60 3M Average Traded Value (USD mm) 55 57 -1 Market Cap to GDP % 52.5% 18.0% 34.5% Number of Liquid Listed Companies 76 92 -16 GDP (USD bn) 179 187 -7 GDP Per Capita 44,844 1,179 43,665 Population (NYSE: MM ) 4 158 -154 Source: IMF World Economic Outlook, Bloomberg. Economic data from the IMF is for calendar year 2014. Market data is as of May 31st, 2015. “Liquid listed companies” is defined as locally-listed stocks with a 3-month average dauly traded value over $100,000 and median daily traded value over $25,000. Kuwait enjoys a 14-20% higher weighting in the MSCI FM Index and the S&P Frontier BMI than Bangladesh. Both markets have similar total GDP, a similar number of liquid listed stocks and similar market liquidity. Which of these two markets, however, appears to have more room for future growth and development? Bangladesh stands out with its massive population, low per capita GDP, and a lower market capitalization to GDP ratio. While these metrics simplify the nuanced growth stories for both countries, it is our view that Bangladesh has far more desirable “Frontier Markets” characteristics than does Kuwait. Nonetheless, the returns of the MSCI FM Index have been far more influenced by underlying drivers of the Kuwaiti market than those of the Bangladeshi market due to the index’s market capitalization-based weighting methodology. The returns of Frontier Markets equity indices are also affected by the annual reclassification of countries by market development status. As countries develop, they are reclassified as Emerging Markets, and as new Frontier stock markets open, they can attain “Frontier Markets” status. Countries can also be “demoted” from Emerging to Frontier Markets status, as was the case in MSCI FM Index with Morocco (2013), Argentina (2009), and Jordan (2008). (Argentina is also in the S&P Frontier BMI and currently accounts for 15% of the index. Astonishingly, unlike the MSCI FM Index, the S&P Frontier BMI includes local Argentinian shares that are impractical for foreigners to own due to capital controls.) Since its launch on December 18th, 2007, the MSCI FM Index has seen eight new countries join and three exit the index. The effects of country reclassifications on Frontier Markets index returns are most pronounced when countries are upgraded to “Emerging Markets” status. This can most recently be seen during the time period between MSCI’s June 10th, 2013 announcement that the UAE and Qatar would be promoted to its Emerging Market index effective June 1, 2014 and their exit, one year later, from its Frontier Markets index. At the time of MSCI’s announcement, both countries collectively accounted for almost one third of the entire MSCI FM Index. During this 12-month time period, the MSCI UAE Index and the MSCI Qatar Index rose 97% and 55%, respectively, before declining 24% and 22%, respectively, during the month of June 2014. As a result, the MSCI FM Index was up 20% during the first six months of 2014 with the UAE and Qatar accounting for a staggering 72% of that total return according to a recent report by FIS Group. An analysis of the historical returns of an index that has changed its composition so drastically and is constructed without diversification considerations masks the underlying opportunities in Frontier Markets and is a dangerous starting point for extrapolating future returns. Pick an Index any Index … To demonstrate how returns can vary depending upon the index and the weighting methodology it employs, we have constructed four custom indices using the same constituents as the S&P Frontier BMI (see Table 2). We also show the MSCI FM Index, which uses a different country universe than the S&P Frontier BMI. However, because it is less diversified with only 127 stock constituents versus 579 in the S&P Frontier BMI, the S&P Frontier BMI constituents were chosen to construct the custom indices. The equal-weighted index shown is derived by assigning each constituent of the S&P Frontier BMI an equal weight in the index. We also weighted the countries by population and by total GDP. For these two indices, we weighted the companies within each country by market capitalization. Lastly, we weighted each company by its size using annual sales instead of market capitalization. The point of this exercise is not to promote one Frontier Markets index over another since most have large concentrations, as Table 3 shows, but rather to demonstrate the variability of returns from reasonable indices constructed from the same constituents (excluding, of course, the MSCI FM Index, which has its own constituent universe). Table 2: Source: MSCI Barra, S&P Dow Jones, Business Monitor International, Bloomberg, LR Global Table 3: Source: MSCI Barra, S&P Dow Jones, Business Monitor International, Bloomberg, LR Global As Table 2 shows, yearly comparisons between the indices vary greatly with the biggest difference between the highest and lowest annual return of 24% occurring in 2009, where a sales-weighted index outperformed the MSCI FM Index by the largest amount. Likewise, the boost the MSCI index received from the removal of UAE and Qatar in 2014 can be seen in its outperformance in 2014 (The S&P Frontier BMI also removed these two countries in 2014, but not until September after both markets had fallen from their peaks at the end of May. Other weighting differences also influenced the variant returns). As the table shows, while there is a broad range of historical returns from which an investor can choose to help formulate future return expectations, each index comes with different biases and shortcomings. In addition, given the limited amount of historical data (under a decade of “live” index results), it is hard to argue that any of these indices can be used to anchor future return expectations (S&P Frontier BMI inception is 10/31/2008 and the MSCI Frontier Markets Index inception was on 12/18/2007). Implications for Manager Evaluation Flawed indices also obfuscate manager evaluation when used as benchmarks. For example, it is common for investors to separate an investment manager’s return attribution between stock selection and allocation versus the benchmark. This attribution analysis is an attempt to better understand the source of the manager’s returns and validate the consistency of the manager’s professed style. If returns are mostly coming from geographic and/or sector allocation, then a top-down style of investing is assumed. If returns are being generated from individual stock selection, a bottom-up style is inferred. In the case of Frontier Markets indices where there is a huge weight to financials, however, it is highly likely that Frontier Markets managers will never be overweight this sector and will most likely underweight financials in the interest of common sense diversification. Any underweight in one sector by definition implies an overweight in another sector or sectors. Does this mean the Frontier Markets manager is making top down strategic decisions to sector allocation or simply employing common sense diversification? An all too familiar binary decision is forced upon managers with regard to how closely to match the concentrated index exposures. Implications for Risk Expectations in Frontier Markets Just as return expectations in Frontier Markets are clouded by the flawed Frontier Markets indices, so too are the risk expectations for the asset class. With the birth of Modern Portfolio Theory in 1952 (Markowitz), investment risk became defined as the standard deviation, or volatility, of returns. If the historical returns are sampled from a flawed index such as one of the major Frontier Markets indices, this risk measure is also distorted. In a previous LR Global white paper (“Risk in Frontier Markets: Overcoming the Misperceptions.” May 2014) we examined the riskiness of Frontier Markets. Using the Modern Portfolio Theory definition of volatility, we analyzed Frontier Markets risk by calculating the standard deviation of individual Frontier Market country returns. Using ten years of rolling three-year weekly US dollar returns, we found that the median standard deviation of the Frontier Market country returns were consistently less volatile than Emerging Markets country returns and surprisingly less volatile than Developed Markets in six out of ten years (see Chart 4). Chart 4: Source: Sean Wilson, Brent Clayton, & Ha Ta (2014). “Risk in Frontier Markets: Overcoming the Misperceptions.” LR Global White Paper. However, it is also worth considering a different mindset of risk that does not assume investors are perfectly rational and that markets are efficient, as Modern Portfolio Theory requires. The booms and busts of individual Frontier Markets, the relative lack of institutional investors and research coverage as well as the opaque nature of these immature markets suggest that Frontier Markets are inefficient. Thus, a different notion of risk may be needed. Warren Buffet, a disciple of Benjamin Graham, explained why volatility is a poor measure of investment risk in a 1994 Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting : “For owners of a business – and that’s the way we think of shareholders – the academics’ definition of risk is far off the mark, so much so that it produces absurdities. For example, under beta-based theory, a stock that has dropped very sharply compared to the market – as had Washington Post when we bought it in 1973 – becomes ‘riskier’ at the lower price than it was at the higher price. Would that description have then made any sense to someone who was offered the entire company at a vastly-reduced price?” 15 In Frontier Markets, we also see volatility in individual markets and sectors as a potential source of opportunity and not risk. Fortunately, there are over 50 countries that comprise the broader Frontier Markets universe, and some of the biggest opportunities we have identified and exploited have been the result of extreme volatility in one or more countries. Would the Real ” Benchmark Risk ” Please Stand Up Thanks again to Modern Portfolio Theory, a new sub-category of risk was born. “Benchmark risk,” or, as it is more commonly known, “active risk” measures the amount of “risk” an investment manager takes by constructing a portfolio that is different than the benchmark it seeks to outperform. Studies conducted by academics and consultants over the past five years show that active managers who deviate significantly from their benchmarks have outperformed their more benchmark-like peers. According to researchers at Yale University, managers with an Active Share, one measure of active risk, of greater than 80% beat their benchmarks by 2.0% to 2.7% before fees. If, however, the benchmark is not diversified properly and constructed sub-optimally as current Frontier Markets indices are, then benchmark risk should really be literally thought of as just that, benchmark risk . In an asset class often assumed to be highly risky and not for the faint of heart, one might assume that managers should seek to minimize active risk. In light of these studies and the aforementioned flaws of Frontier Markets benchmarks, however, Frontier Markets managers should really be encouraged to seek out active risk. Conclusion Since Farida Khambata of the International Finance Corporation coined the term “Frontier Markets” in 1992, Frontier Markets have grown into a market segment distinct from traditional Emerging Markets with growing interest from investors and asset allocators. Much of this interest has occurred only over the past decade, which has accounted for the lion’s share of asset growth. It is important that investors interested in Frontier Markets understand the shortcomings of the major indices when considering an allocation or monitoring an existing allocation. In a subsequent paper, an alternative solution to existing Frontier Markets indices that will provide a better tool for monitoring and understanding the asset class will be discussed. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Companhia Energtica de Minas Gerais’ (CIG) on Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Start Time: 13:00 End Time: 13:53 Companhia Energtica de Minas Gerais (NYSE: CIG ) Q2 2015 Earnings Conference Call August 19, 2015 13:00 ET Executives Antonio Carlos Velez Braga – General Manager & IR Luiz Fernando Rolla – Chief Institutional Relations & Communication Officer Fabiano Maia Pereira – Chief Officer, Finance Analysts Vinicius Tsubone – UBS Lylianna Yang – UBS Antonio Carlos Velez Braga Good afternoon to all of you. My name is Antonio Carlos Velez Braga, Cemig’s Investor Relations Officer. We’ll now start the video webcast with Cemig’s results from the Second Quarter 2015. We have the presences of Dr. Mauro Borges, Chief Executive Officer, Fabiano Maia Pereira and also Dr. Luiz Fernando Rolla, Institutional Relations and Communications Officer. You can follow this over the phones, 5511-2188-0155 or 21880188 and also in our website ri.cemig.com.br. To start off our presentation, we hand over the floor to Dr. Luiz Fernando Rolla, our Institutional Relations and our Communications Officer. Luiz Fernando Rolla Good afternoon. It’s always a major pleasure to us to disclose our results this time of the second quarter 2015. Today, we unfortunately can’t count on the presence of Dr. Mauro Lemos. He has a bad throat and he is not in position to speak well. And I and Dr. Fabiano Maia will take over and try to make up for his absence, answer any questions from the strategic point of view. As always, our presentation covers first the highlights of the quarter and then we go more specifically into our results of that quarter. We’ve had a disclosure from the Energy Ministry of Brazil talking about the decisions, taken as provisional measure about two very relevant topics. But at this point, we haven’t got enough information, enough clarity about that to disclose and to tell you about it. So, according to our internal advice we’ll set up another date for further information to you about these latest developments from our Ministry of Energy. Result presentation starts with our usual disclaimer. We’ll point at some of the most relevant pieces of information that can govern our decisions. We focus on some key indicators, so that you can understand our results. As you know, the context in Brazil, what we have been through in these first six months of Brazil and more specifically in the second quarter is radically different from what happened in the first and second quarters last year. Several variables saw relevant changes. I could mention PLD, the spot price that was substantially reduced due to the regulatory change proposed by the government. Also, interest rates grew very sharply from last year. We had some impact on our results as we’re about to see. Anyway, we had an adjustment in the first quarter and in the second quarter for our tariffs in our distributor and that helped us achieve this 14% plus increase, second quarter that was almost BRL5.400 million the consolidated for Cemig GT and this was a result of the developments. EBITDA dropped substantially almost 22% as compared to second quarter last year for reasons we’re going to show you in the next slide. Also, net income saw a sharp drop for the same reasons, our contracts in Brazil, but this has been absorbed by the company very well and this can be linked to the situation in Brazil. Yes, we have been talking about that before this meeting, I and Luiz Fernando, in the first month of this year, we already could foresee that we should brace for tougher times than last year. We made adjustments in-house, so that we could traverse this more delicate moment of our economy. And as we’re about to see, we have managed to deliver that result, especially given the cost reduction measures we took, that are controllable by the company and you see the positive results. We had some highlights, as you all probably know, our injunction questioning the postponement of our concession of the Jaguara Hydro Plant. So the Appeal Court has arrived at a decision. We’re just waiting for the publication of the full judgment so that we can define our line of direction in response. That’s just like we did with Sao Simao. This should be unfolding into the upcoming months and as I said, we just await publication of the full judgment. We had the signature of agreement about this transaction that is very ambitious, strategic view behind it. So far as the technology we’re absorbing with this transaction, is being acquired. So we’re signing this agreement with SunEdison and this should add substantial value to Cemig, SunEdison being a global player and bringing solar energy, topnotch technology and this is probably in the future is to become one of the top sources of energy. This transaction was rather complex, wasn’t it? And it’s brought very positive results to us. Yes indeed, as we have signed this agreement, in our understanding, through Renova, this allows us to achieve new levels of competitiveness, opening new pathways for access to top technology, spearhead technology at lower costs. For sure, because if we have this partner, then we would have access to the U.S. market, very well developed in that regard. This allows us to have a lower cost in the funding of our future projects without bringing any other risks to Renova, in terms of exchange rate, for example, you could see the volatility of the rates in the recent weeks and this protects us from the contamination so far, as these are funds which will be raised in international market, so this transaction is of high quality, bringing a lot of positive results to Renova and also to Cemig, as one of the its major stockholders. Also, the benefit of the sale of [indiscernible] participation right is a function of the GSF and increasing GSF and also of the transfer of the prices of our energy bought in the entire sector. We have been granted an injunction and we would have to hear from our CEO to see what could be done about this issue, this issue affecting all the companies in our group. Our debt profile has been adjusted by ratings companies. This was not only restricted to our companies, but that was a result of the overall situation of our industry regarding GSF and also increasing costs of bought energy, this was a generalized movement. But we’re pleased to see that we’re still at a condition that allows us access to markets, especially local markets with investors of higher quality. This is extremely important to us. As you know, our strategy is to seek financing and funding in the financial market, in the local market to preserve us from any exchange rate related risks. As this first part has been closed and we could give you an overview of events in the first and second quarters. Let’s move on to the results of the second quarter more specifically. So, we will share this task, Velez, Fabiano and myself to show you the effects of this context that we’ve just described. Let’s we start by the consolidated net revenue indicators that was a very positive performance, almost 15% increase, even more so given the fact that sales were reduced. Even against all odds and with the drop in the supply of energy, we had this substantial increase. This drop in demand was expected due to conditions of the economy and the tariff adjustment of the beginning of the year that was accompanied by a reduction in the consumption of families, and also this restructuring of Gasmig last year. Then we had the purchase of Petrobras participation in Gasmig, our own ownership, which is almost 100% and we shared in the Gasmig results even more. Another relevant point in this context was the GSF. We’re dealing with this provisional measure from government. This was an average — that was 81%, different from what it shows there. And yes, even having this at 81% average, we had very a good result in Cemig GT, as a result of the two plants, even as they face legal issues in court. For a long term, in Cemig — well we cannot sign long term contracts with that regard, so presently we should do the liquidation at the spot price, which at this moment ended up being positive for the company. Our court litigations are still on, still in progress and then if we end by keeping the plant, then we will go for the long term agreement. That’s our priority, rather than the short-term liquidations. Yes, our view is a very long term. Now, as for the volumes sold, a good deal of that reduction was in our distributor. You can see that in these two diagrams, one showing second quadrant’s rather 2014 and 2015. Yes, we saw, at the time there is robust growth of some segments and then the overall drop in the first half was 1.8%. But as we had this tariff impact, then this is reinforced. We can see that the residential consumers, families, have reduced and made their consumption more efficient. When they compared quarters in 2014 and 2015, we can see how it dropped. A factor that we have been following up there closely is that while we have increase in tariffs, this has not been accompanied by default from the consumers. And having viewed the huge tariff adjustments, we should expect commercial losses or even higher default levels. Fortunately this didn’t happen. Fabiano mentioned in the beginning, in the first part of his presentation about our cost reduction measures, trying to adjust to this transitional moment, which as a function of the first quarter, which had not yet been adjusted, this only in the second quarter. Then we have to adjust our cash flow accordingly, so that it would preserve some of the things that are very valuable to us as we’re going to see next year. We had anticipated a more difficult scenario in 2015. We started controlling some expenses. And in this slide we can show you that the major increase in expenses was in non-controllable costs, especially electricity and gas, coming from Gasmig, of course. We had some provisions for losses on investments, basically Parati and pension plan rule. Parati, as a function, now it’s only the decrease in energy volume, but also it was of the higher interest rates. This alters the balance of our agreement with investments. This is being conducted with upmost care by us. So that in the end we can have a zero balance as for remuneration of the investors. As we said in the beginning, our Renova operation included some of that replacing Light. This allows Light to be in better position to pay dividend and this can be improved, as a function of this provisional measure that’s being issued by the government and this will bring effects, we hope, counter-effects in the Santo Antonio Plant. The cash generation, as measured by [indiscernible] or EBITDA, despite a decrease in the period, this is still in-line with what we had been expecting, especially in view of the advice we gave to the market during our Annual Meeting that happened in May this year. We’re reaching at half year a good deal of our guidance and we will meet our target. You can see contribution of generation was very effective in view of the performance of our Cemig GT, which is indeed a major contributor to the results in this semester. We got to 70% of our guidance, because of our strategy for trading in the first half of the year and as expected, we would be above 50% and we would have reached more than 50% of the numbers expected for the entire year, that was expected and this is according to our guidance. This is explained by the concentration of the Cemig GT sales in the first half of the year. Consolidated net income, we had a drop in the second quarter, but we still have 1.4% increase in that indicator, more than BRL2 billion of consolidated net income, with a very effective contribution to that result. Everything that we have said so far led to this result. So this is a very robust result, even considering the poor 2014 performance, we’re above that already. We had a strategy to look very carefully at the company debt, as we will see. Next we can see that the expenses increased, given the indexes, the CDI and IPCA of the country were especially complicated at the moment, but it tends to fall back to the previous normal levels in the near future. We can see the two most significant companies. We can see that in the year 2015, we have already taken a major step. If we remember our debt for the year, was at a much higher level than we show here and with a longer tenure. So the debt profile allows us, despite disproportionate cash flow generation and economic context of Brazil, we still then managed to have some very suitable financial indicators. You can see the nominal costs, as this CDI and IPCA increased, but in real terms, it’s rather stable, which is positive to the company. In terms of the maturity, we’re in a comfortable position, because we can see BRL2 billion maturing this year, but in July we already would roll BRL1 billion more for the Cemig GT company, so that we can design our strategy for the second half of this year, already having viewed the next year, not just this year. If you consider one more indicator, which is insurance coverage, we have five times factored. So the net debt over EBITDA is at a very comfortable position financially. And Cemig GT is even better, which allows us to reduce our debt. We have paid part of the debt already. We have rolled BRL1 billion from their debt already. And we now must look more carefully at this indicator, that index or should work in the second half and early next year. Yes, we should link that to our revenues — associating that with the ratio, revenue and debt. Now for Cemig Distributor, we have had a good view in 2015, it’s just some BRL500 million to be rolled on until the end of this year. We’ve achieved success in this rolling of the debt, although indicators are somehow pressured, like net debt on EBITDA. But the real cost is rather low, relatively low and we can reduce our debt and we have already begun to do that. We’ve taken measures, such as our reduction on dividends payment for Cemig Holding, so that we could generate surplus so that we wouldn’t have to increase indebtedness further. So for 2016, our debt is still relatively high, but in the second semester of 2015. We’ll have the time enough to work on this 2016 debt with necessary adjustments in the removal of a concession contract for distribution Cemig, we’re being well positioned to roll on the debt. What about the financial indicators, regulatory ones? We have made studies and calculations. We’re at ease with regard to the new regulatory codes proposed by the regulatory agency. This is the program that we’re going to accomplish by the end of the year. It’s a very robust program and a good deal of this program concentrated on our distributor. We have taken some measures to preserve their accomplishments of this investment program, which is extremely important to us, because it allows us to adjust our performance indicators as required by the regulatory body for renewal of concession contracts. While there is an additional 120,000 new consumers in this first half, by the end of the year it will have reached to 150,000 new consumers. That’s a substantial effort made by the company and this is part of this deep adjustment that we have been making in the management of the distributor. Let me comment, only to say that we will keep on making these necessary adjustments, precisely to deliver all these improvements in efficiency and regulatory compliance. This is a favorite for our Financial Officer. The major item here is that despite the favorable context and scenario, we’ve managed to keep enough cash to comply with our obligations and it’s allowed us to also make significant investments, while at the same time reducing the debt and even so, keeping this very comfortable cash availability. These were the main facts and figures that we would like to convey to you. Now we will open for the Q&A and in case we have overseen any aspect that may be of interest to you. Question-and-Answer Session Operator [Operator Instructions]. Our first question from Goldman Sachs. Q – Unidentified Analyst I’ve two questions, first about the plans, immediate plans. Despite the core decision, I would like to know the strategy of the company about this new rule that we read in the newspapers. Some Congressmen in State of Minas Gerais are trying to propose new measures. This opens up President. She would like to know what Cemig is doing. Well, have you actually managed to present an expressive, a substantial reduction in costs? Is there any reversal in provision or is there any unexpected event that is in play or have they really achieved a better discipline of costs? A – Luiz Fernando Rolla We will start answering in sequence. About the proposals being submitted to the Congress, as I mentioned, you know our position with that regard. Our decision is to try and protect the best interests of the company and it’s a function of some movement, the most effective, the one you mentioned about energy intensive consumers of the Northeast and the reaction and Minas Gerais’ own counterpart’s reactions, if they are expected to have the same benefits as given by our two, the Northeast and others. Our position is clear, we’re trying to defend the company’s interest, trying to safeguard our interest in our — concession contracts in our three plants. The plants that we’re transferring as of July to the Federal government, you know, our view about that. We’re seeking the best opportunities in the sense of assessing whether it is worthwhile going for it, in view of the longer-term contracts proposed by the Ministry. For the second question, yes, we had our last Annual Meeting last May. Our Corporate Management Officer, he made a comment about the major increase in productivity from our workforce. And this is the major fact in achieving the results you have just seen. We have been working in the sense of increasing productivity among our staff and workforce. We have seen some places where this was initiated already and we will go for new initiatives in the second half and we’ll enter 2016 with a complete project for the company, seeking higher levels of productivity of the company with ensuring a reduction in operational costs. Operator [Operator Instructions]. Mr. Vinicius Tsubone from UBS has a question. Vinicius Tsubone I would like to know a few more details. What Cemig did about the GSF deficit and the level of the risk, is it zero risk or what? A – Luiz Fernando Rolla The injunction that protects us against the GSF risks, yes, it really implies zero risk, not 5%, as it’s been said for the general market. We requested and required and obtained 0% risk. Operator Lylianna Yang from UBS has a question. Lylianna Yang My first question in regards [indiscernible] at the Light. We’re negotiating a possible extension of that, a new possible partner with Light or perhaps reimbursement in that regard? And the second question is, what will be your response about Jaguara and Sao Simao, as the judgment is published? In the past, you’ve considered and had some resource and appealed to the Supreme Court. Will that just be an appeal really or will you be questioning the constitutionality of the measure? Luiz Fernando Rolla Before I answer your question, I would like to say that if our international investor had any difficulty in making a question, you can send us an email and right after this video conference, we’ll share with our participants those email and our answers. If by the end of this webcast he is not able to make the question, well [indiscernible]. You know already our strategic vision and view about this issues, this structure that we have set up, it gives those who are having a private vehicle or private means, we have done that once with Light, we’re finishing in the second generation, we will go next for the third generation. We have no intention, whatsoever, to stop or to terminate this structure. This is part of our long term view to have Light as part of our private management. And we’ll seek other investors if the partner is no longer interested in keeping their position as partner, we will seek new partners in order to keep the links with Light. We’re talking about prospective investors, as well with current investors to check for their appetite, so to say and we have no intention again to break off with the cycle we have started some time ago. The second question, Lylianna, I put it to Raul Lycurgo, our Legal Department Officer. He said, I cannot tell you, because this is part of our strategy that should be implemented. We must wait for the publication of the final judgment, so that we can decide the best route to follow having in view the best interest of our company. At this point, we cannot answer your question, therefore, but rest assured that we will always be defending the best interests of the company, the same way as we have been doing so far. We’ll go for a negotiated solution and if that doesn’t work, we’ll resort to all the legal means at our disposal. Operator [Operator Instructions]. Luiz Fernando Rolla There being no more questions, we can then close this presentation. Before that, though, I would like our Investor Relations Officer to show us our next agenda for September. I know that it will take more than half an hour if you listen all of it, but naturally could point at the highlights, so that our investors could bear for that. Antonio Carlos Velez Braga Well, yes we have started last Friday with a luncheon in Sao Paulo with Santander. In September, next week, we will go on our road show with Pension Funds to prepare for the second half of the year, actions, plans, in-line with what Dr. Rolla said, to reduce our CDI exposure of our debt. Also, a conference with the Deutsche Bank in New York, a very important meeting as the North American market comes back from vacation, that’s also a big agenda. Morgan Stanley in London follows, a possible road show for the Continental Europe programs. And by late September, a conference in New York also with Santander, utilities, infrastructure and other Latin American and European companies of the sector. Very relevant meetings and we will be available 24/7, yes, to respond to your questions and clarify your doubts. And what about local market? Up next, we have done that, you know, all our original officers. Our agenda in that regard has been completed already. Dr. Fabiano, any final comments to our investors? Fabiano Maia Pereira For me it’s great, it’s been great. We have provided all the most relevant information during the presentation. Excellent. So I’d like to thank you for your attention. I know that time is precious and I hope we have provided all the adequate information you require for a sound decision making. And I hope that you’ll find it’s very interesting level for purchase, this investment that we believe will bring very good results to our investors. We’re available to further queries from you via phone and email. This presentation and all relative information related to the second quarter will be posted on the website and final words of confidence. Our company has demonstrated its capacity to react within tough conditions and favorable conditions and our attitude is always to strongly defend our interest, interest of our investors, shareholders, employees and consumers. I thank you for your attention again and in future we’ll sum up a new broadcast for comments on the recent provisional measures. Thank you. Operator So our webcast is now concluded. We thank you all for your participation and have a nice afternoon.