Tag Archives: management

Protecting Yourself Against The Next Bond Liquidity Crunch

By DailyAlts Staff Anyone who lived through it knows that liquidity evaporated during the 2008-09 financial crisis. In response, the U.S. federal governments imposed a series of rules and regulations designed to make financial markets safer, but instead, they’ve contributed to even more illiquidity. What can investors do about it? That’s the question explored in Alliance Bernstein’s September 2015 white paper Playing with Fire: The Bond Liquidity Crunch and What To Do About It . Trading Turnover is Down The bond market has long been considered a safe haven during times of financial stress. Historically, well-capitalized banks have stood at the ready, willing to buy bonds – particularly investment-grade and government issues – when no other buyers were interested. But due to regulatory changes, banks are hamstrung from providing this service, and as a result, turnover in both investment-grade and high-yield bonds has plummeted since the financial crisis. Increased Correlation It’s not that demand is down: New bonds are being issued in record numbers, and investors are willing to buy. The problem is that during so-called “fire-sale” selloffs – when stocks, bonds, and commodities suffer sharp declines – bond-market liquidity is drying up, and thus sellers under duress must contend with wide bid/ask spreads and lower selling prices than they bargained for. And, as a result of the policies of the Federal Reserve and other central banks, these broad selloffs are becoming more and more common. The Impact of Central Banks In the wake of the financial crisis, when liquidity dried up, central banks began forcing down interest rates by buying government bonds and other assets, thereby expanding the money supply and flooding the markets with liquidity. Their bond buys pushed interest rates down and forced yield-minded investors into riskier assets. In addition to the U.S. Federal Reserve, the U.K.’s Bank of England, the EU’s European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, and the People’s Bank of China have all massively expanded their balance sheets since 2009. Crowded Trades With lower rates on government bonds, stocks and other riskier assets become more attractive by comparison. While 0% interest rates may have made sense as an “emergency” policy measure, nearly ten years later, rates are still pegged near zero, but it appears things are likely to begin normalizing later this year, or in early 2016. It’s widely acknowledged that the Fed and other central banks have boosted bonds and other asset prices, so the reversal of their policies is likely to have the same effect – indeed, even the Fed’s threat of scaling back its “quantitative easing” bond-buying program in 2013 led to a “fire-sale” dubbed the Taper Tantrum. The risk in 2015 and into 2016 is that yield-starved investors have crowded into too many of the same trades, and that without banks standing on guard to buy during the next “fire-sale” selloff, there may be no takers (at reasonable prices), and thus a severe liquidity crunch. What to Do About It? So what can investors do about it? AllianceBernstein’s Head of Fixed Income Douglas Peebles and Head of Global Credit Ashish Shah, authors of the white paper, provide the following list: Diversify using a broad multi-sector strategy; Be a contrarian and avoid the crowd; Keep cash handy – and don’t neglect derivatives; Do your credit homework – and expand your investment horizon; and Consider select investments in private credit. Investors should vet asset managers as part of their “credit homework.” Peebles and Shah recommend asking managers questions to gauge their acumen, such as “To what do you attribute the decline in liquidity?” and “How has your process changed as liquidity has dried up?” In closing, the authors ask investors to remember: While the financial crisis did considerable damage to markets and investors, those who kept their cool – and who didn’t rely too much on liquidity – made a lot of money. For more information, download a pdf copy of the white paper .

Can Investors Achieve Commodity Exposure Via Equities?

By Wesley R. Gray, Ph.D. This past year we examined the possibility of replicating commodity exposure via equities. The project was spurred by an insightful research report from MSCI , which showed some impressive results. Other research outfits have proposed similar concepts . The figure below, taken from the MSCI report, highlights how well the MSCI Select Commodity Producers Index replicates various commodity indices over 2010-2012: (click to enlarge) The results are hypothetical, are NOT an indicator of future results, and do NOT represent returns that any investor actually attained. Indexes are unmanaged, do not reflect management or trading fees, and one cannot invest directly in an index. Additional information regarding the construction of these results is available upon request. We replicate these results and come to similar conclusions: Correlations for commodities and commodity-related-equities are > .8 from 2010-2012. However … and this is a big however… When we look at a longer out-of-sample period, from 1991 to 2014, correlations are much lower (the best versions of our algorithms can get the correlation in the .6-.7 range after intense data-mining). The executive summary below is from a 125-page internal report we did on commodity via equity replication. The correlation figures represent the full-sample correlations between the underlying commodities and some of our top replication techniques. Clearly, the evidence below suggests that we should be skeptical of claims that commodity exposures can be effectively replicated via commodity-related equities. Especially, when the sample period analyzed is short. (click to enlarge) The results are hypothetical, are NOT an indicator of future results, and do NOT represent returns that any investor actually attained. Indexes are unmanaged, do not reflect management or trading fees, and one cannot invest directly in an index. Additional information regarding the construction of these results is available upon request. Understanding Commodity Replication via Equities Accessing commodity exposures can be complicated. Consider oil exposure: Buy oil futures? The oil ETF? Oil stocks? Each of these option has pros and cons. Futures Futures appear straight forward, and require less margin than equities; however, these contracts trade in large notional amounts (eliminating the option for retail investors), incur transaction costs (potential roll costs and other transaction costs), and trading futures should not be viewed as a buy-and-hold investment (e.g., see research here and here ). Many investors view commodity futures like stocks, where an investor simply buys and holds over the long term and grinds out the equity risk premium. But this is not the right frame of thinking. Commodity futures aren’t equities. Futures are a traded asset class, and being active – not passive – is the only way to capture the potential risk premiums offered by commodities (e.g., term structure). ETFs that own futures One can buy an oil ETF that owns oil futures, which is simple and requires less capital, but there are management fees, and these funds still have embedded future trading costs. Stock replication One could also explore investing in stocks that are in the oil business. This approach has some huge potential benefits: tax-efficiency (i.e., deferral), simplicity, no roll risks, dividend payments, etc. However, the biggest risk is that oil stocks may not necessarily capture the exposure of oil future prices. For example, some oil producers may hedge production, thus limiting their business exposure to underlying oil price fluctuations, and thus, their correlation to the underlying commodity. In order to deal with this risk, one needs to engineer a specific portfolio and actively manage the exposures. How to Replicate Commodity Futures via Equity Portfolios In this piece, we look at different algorithms that form portfolios meant to capture commodity risk exposure via equities. To facilitate understanding, we focus on an analysis of the energy sector. In order to replicate commodity returns with stocks, we look at 3 approaches (one can mix and match or add additional techniques, but these are the big muscle movements): Identify commodity-related sectors and the associated stocks (e.g., oil sectors stocks should follow oil more than information technology stocks would). Identify % revenue generated by specific sectors (e.g., an oil stock that generates 95% of its revenue from the oil sector is better than one with 51%). Identify past correlations between stocks and commodities (e.g., an oil stock with a 90% historical correlation is better than one with a 50% correlation). In the end, we perform a variety of data-mining techniques that mix and match various elements to try and data-fit the portfolios that have the highest correlation out-of-sample. Here is an example combination approach that seems to be most effective in our research: Identify companies in a specific SIC sector (e.g., primary SIC code is energy). Confirm that the firms identified have 50%+ of their revenue from energy For firms identified in steps 1 and 2, calculate rolling past 12-month correlations with energy returns. Purchase the top 10% highest correlated firms (can equal-weight or value-weight the portfolio) Monthly re-balance. Some Example Results SP500 = S&P 500 Total Return Index future_energy_ew = equal-weighted across 6 energy futures (natural gas, crude oil, Brent crude, gasoline, heating oil, and gas oil) equity_energy_ew_12m daily corr = equal-weighted, top 10% 12-month rolling correlation using daily returns, re-balance at the end of month equity_energy_vw_12m daily corr = value-weighted, top 10% 12-month rolling correlation using daily returns, re-balance at the end of the month Results are gross of fees. All returns are total returns and include the reinvestment of distributions (e.g., dividends). Indexes are unmanaged, do not reflect management or trading fees, and one cannot invest directly in an index. Summary Performance 1992/05 to 2014/12 (click to enlarge) The results are hypothetical, are NOT an indicator of future results, and do NOT represent returns that any investor actually attained. Indexes are unmanaged, do not reflect management or trading fees, and one cannot invest directly in an index. Additional information regarding the construction of these results is available upon request. The correlation results are not promising – average correlation is 65-67% – a far cry from the 90%+ results we’d like to see if we wanted to replicate commodity future returns with equity. Invested Growth 1992/05 to 2014/12 (click to enlarge) The results are hypothetical, are NOT an indicator of future results, and do NOT represent returns that any investor actually attained. Indexes are unmanaged, do not reflect management or trading fees, and one cannot invest directly in an index. Additional information regarding the construction of these results is available upon request. Energy-related stocks don’t track energy sector futures that well over time. Looking inside the black box: Sample stock names as of 2014/12/31, market cap in millions (click to enlarge) The results are hypothetical, are NOT an indicator of future results, and do NOT represent returns that any investor actually attained. Indexes are unmanaged, do not reflect management or trading fees, and one cannot invest directly in an index. Additional information regarding the construction of these results is available upon request. Conclusion Based on the analysis above, replicating commodity futures via equity is mediocre, at best. In contrast to MSCI, we’re not convinced . Determining if commodity exposure is a benefit to a portfolio is a complex issue, but given that one believes in the benefit of exposing a portfolio to the commodity sector, trying to access these exposures via equity replication probably isn’t going to work that well… at least not as well as previously contemplated. Original Post

3 Mutual Funds To Buy If Fed Opts For Rate Hike

In our Mutual Fund Commentary yesterday we spoke about funds in focus if the U.S. Fed decided against a rate hike as soon as September. Utilities funds demand attention then as low interest rate environment, which has for sometime been near a zero level, has been extremely conducive for its growth. The capital intensive utilities industry needs to access external sources of funds to expand its operations. While it remains too close to call, today let’s look at funds that investors may immediately add to their portfolios if the Fed announces rate hike. Amid the market volatility, the Fed seems to be stuck between global central banks’ easing measures, dollar strengthening, deflationary pressures arising from the energy sector and troubles in the global economy. While most polls recently turned against a September rate hike, a recent CNBC survey shows that 49% predict a rate hike now. We do not rule away the chances of a rate hike completely, may be by 0.25%, but uncertainty is what is ruling the roost. Whether lifting the monetary policy stimulus would be a prudent move is the question that the Fed needs to answer. The two-day Federal Open Market Committee’s policy meeting ends today. The finance sector, in this regard, seems to be a good bet, as several industries including insurance, banking, brokerage and asset managers tend to benefit from the rising rates. Before we pick the funds, let’s look at some other details. CNBC Survey Goes Against Other Polls According to a CNBC survey, 49% of respondents out of 51 economists are projecting a rate rise now. This data as of Sep 16 is in line with predictions on Aug 25. On the other hand, those believing in a delayed rate hike dropped to 43% from 47% on Aug 25. The rate has increased for those who are unsure, as the percentage is at 8% as of Sep 16 compared with 5% on Aug 25. They predict that the Fed will finish hiking rate in this cycle, or take it to “terminal rate” in the first quarter 2018. This brings the prediction forward by six months. Separately, most are of the view that markets have priced in the hike. While 56% believed its priced into stocks, 60% said its priced into bonds. However, the Standard & Poor’s 500 is estimated to finish 2015 at 2,032, lower that prior projection of 2,135. Meanwhile, a Reuters poll shows that 45 respondents out of 80 economists believe that the Fed will leave its benchmark interest rate between zero and 0.25%. Only 35 respondents expected a rate rise. Looking at the primary dealers or economists from banks dealing directly with the Fed, 12 banks see no rate hike now as against 10 expecting a rate hike. Financials to Gain While Deutsche Bank believes they expect a “hawkish hold,” stance, UBS chairman Axel Weber is expecting a rate hike. He said: “The underlying economic data in the U.S. warrants a rate hike. The U.S economy can stand it. The U.S. economy in my view actually needs it medium- to long-term and I’m pretty convinced that the U.S. will see a rate hike, most likely in September.” The financial sector will be among those which will gain if a rate hike occurs. One particular beneficiary of higher rates is the insurance industry. This is because they take in premiums from customers, invest them — usually in fixed income securities — and then pay out claims in the future. Also, brokerages earn interest income on un-invested cash in customer accounts. So when rates rise, they can invest this cash at higher rates. Banks may benefit from rising interest rates, as long as long-term rates move up more than short-term rates. Banks derive benefits from a steep yield curve, i.e. when the spread between long-term and short-term rates is wide. The interest rates on deposits are usually tied to short-term rates while loans are often tied to long-term rates. This means that the potential rise in rates will enable the banks to charge more for loans, leading to an increase in the spread between lending rates and the rates paid on deposits. Moreover, an improving economy means that credit quality will likely improve, which will also aid banks’ profitability. Insurance companies invest majority of the premium income received from policyholders in government and corporate bonds to earn investment income. They utilize this investment income in meeting their future commitments to policy holders. The potential rise in rates will allow the insurance firms to invest their new premium income in higher yielding securities, thereby leading to higher future returns. With a rise in rates, brokerage firms are likely to engage in more investment activity. Brokerage firms earn interest income on un-invested cash in customer accounts. The rise in rates will allow the brokerage firms to invest at higher rates. Further, asset managers can position themselves favorably with the rise in rates. In the fixed income sector, default rates are likely to decline and higher interest rates will enable reinvestment at higher yields, which ultimately will boost portfolio returns. The benefit can be achieved by positioning fixed income portfolios strategically through proper management of duration, diversification of sources of yield and maximize the reinvestment of income. 3 Financial Mutual Funds to Buy Below we present 3 Financial mutual funds that carry either a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #1 (Strong Buy) or Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #2 (Buy). We expect the funds to outperform 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 funds have encouraging year-to-date, 1-year and 3 and 5-year annualized returns. The minimum initial investment is within $5000. These funds also have low expense ratio and carry no sales load. Emerald Banking and Finance Fund A (MUTF: HSSAX ) seeks long-term growth through capital appreciation. Income is a secondary objective. HSSAX generally invests at least 80% of its net assets in common stocks. Emerald Banking and Finance’s managers limit the fund investment to 50 companies and the fund invests primarily in U.S. based companies. HSSAX currently carries a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #2. It boasts year-to-date and 1-year returns of 11.9% and 18.3%. The 3 and 5 year annualized returns are 20.1% and 18%. Annual expense ratio of 1.60% is however higher than the category average of 1.52%. Moreover, HSSAX also has low beta score. The 1, 3 and 5 year beta scores are 0.58, 0.63 and 0.75. Franklin Mutual Financial Services Fund A (MUTF: TFSIX ) seeks capital growth. TFSIX invests a lion’s share of its assets in undervalued companies that are involved in the financial services domain. TFSIX may also invest in merger arbitrage securities and securities of distressed companies. TFSIX currently carries a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #2. It boasts year-to-date and 1-year returns of 4% and 7.3%. The 3 and 5 year annualized returns are 13.9% and 11.2%. Annual expense ratio of 1.44% is lower than the category average of 1.52%. Moreover, TFSIX has 1, 3 and 5 year beta scores of 0.81, 0.83 and 0.70. John Hancock Regional Bank Fund B (MUTF: FRBFX ) invests most of its assets in equities of regional banks and lending companies. These may include commercial banks, industrial banks, savings and loan associations, financial holding companies, and bank holding companies. FRBFX may also invest in other U.S. and foreign financial services companies. A maximum of 5% may be invested in stocks outside the financial services domain. FRBFX currently carries a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #2. It has year-to-date and 1-year returns of 2.2% and 8%. The 3 and 5 year annualized returns are 14.3% and 13.2%. Annual expense ratio of 1.98% is however higher than the category average of 1.52%. Moreover, FRBFX has 1, 3 and 5 year beta scores of 0.62, 0.65 and 0.88. Link to the original article on Zacks.com