Tag Archives: nreum

Handicapping Bubbles And Shocks

Tail risk, the risk of an asset or portfolio moving more than three standard deviations away from its current price, appears to be increasing around the world. And some investors feel ill-equipped to manage this risk. This according to our latest poll of institutional investors. Last week, we released the results of the Allianz Global Investors RiskMonitor survey, a comprehensive look at views on portfolio construction, asset allocation and risk. This year we queried 735 institutional investors around the globe representing a variety of different institutions: pension funds, foundations, endowments, sovereign wealth funds, family offices, banks and insurance companies. The findings of this year’s survey reinforced our view that global risks are increasing amid a complicated economic, geopolitical and monetary policy environment. In particular, this challenging climate was underscored by the survey results, which showed that two-thirds of the respondents believe that tail-risk events are likely to be more frequent due to the interconnectedness of global financial markets. In addition, two-thirds of the survey participants also assert that tail risk has become an increasing worry since the 2008-2009 global financial crisis. Specifically, 62% believe tail risk is a “high” or “very high” risk. And 41% of the institutional investors surveyed believe a tail-risk event is “likely” or “very likely” in the next 12 months. Yet far fewer are “confident” or “somewhat confident” that their portfolios have appropriate downside protection for the next tail-risk event. Known Unknowns? Where are they seeing the biggest risks? The institutional investors we surveyed believe the most likely cause of future tail-risk events include oil-price shocks, sovereign-debt default, European politics, new asset bubbles and a euro-zone recession. However, this view varies by region. In the Americas, investors polled believe oil-price shocks are most likely to be the cause of the next tail-risk event, followed by US politics and European politics. In Europe and the Middle East, new asset bubbles are believed to be the most likely cause of the next tail-risk event, followed by geopolitical tensions in Europe and sovereign-debt default. Meanwhile, in the Asia-Pacific region, oil-price shocks are perceived to be the most likely cause of the next tail-risk event, followed by sovereign-debt default and a euro-zone recession. Interestingly, the timing of the release of the study coincides with an escalation of the ongoing debt crisis in Greece. That volatile situation aligns with the view that a sovereign-debt default and European politics are probable causes of future tail-risk events. Heading for the Grexit? So could Greece’s problems trigger a tail-risk event? Today, in light of the recent deterioration in negotiations between Greek government officials and Greece’s creditors, we see a material rise in the risk of a mistake by either side. We now have less confidence in a constructive outcome than we’ve had previously. As a result, we see increasing potential for a “Grexit” – Greece intentionally leaving the European Monetary Union – or a “Graccident” – Greece accidentally exiting. The accidental exit could occur if there’s a run on the banks, which would trigger the termination of emergency liquidity assistance from the European Central Bank. We believe that the ECB’s quantitative easing program and Outright Monetary Transactions will temper a lot of the bond and currency volatility, and some of the stock-market volatility. However, a “black swan” event remains a possibility. This is relevant because, despite heightening risks, only 36% of institutional investors we surveyed believe they have access to the appropriate tools or solutions for dealing with tail risk. This lack of preparedness could be a recipe for bigger problems down the road for investors without sufficient risk management baked into to their portfolios. Obstacles hindering the adoption of appropriate tools include concerns about cost and a lack of understanding of tail risk.

The Super ‘Short-Term’ Epidemic

Bonds, dividend investing, ETF investing, currencies “}); $$(‘#article_top_info .info_content div’)[0].insert({bottom: $(‘mover’)}); } $(‘article_top_info’).addClassName(test_version); } SeekingAlpha.Initializer.onDOMLoad(function(){ setEvents();}); In a recent post I talked about the intertemporal conundrum, the problem of time in a portfolio. That is, we live in a dynamic world where our financial lives aren’t necessarily one clean “long-term” . Because of this we often obsess over the short-term and end up doing detrimental short-term actions in what is essentially a failed attempt to create certainty in an uncertain financial world. It isn’t totally irrational to think about the short-term, however, this article from Fund Reference shows just how bad the problem is. Here are just two examples of how bad the current state of affairs is: That is even worse than I would have expected. For every person who is thinking about the “long-term” there are almost 20 who are thinking about the “short-term”. And the chart on expenses relative to performance shows that we’re basically just chasing performance and downplaying the importance of fees. Yet the data shows this is precisely the wrong way to think about the financial markets. Yes, we’re all active investors . But the smart active investors maximize efficiencies by reducing portfolio frictions like taxes and fees while maintaining a realistic perspective of your investing time horizon. The obsession with the super short-term is almost certainly detrimental to your wealth. Share this article with a colleague

Ongoing Exit From Equity Funds Continues 20-Week Streak

“}); $$(‘#article_top_info .info_content div’)[0].insert({bottom: $(‘mover’)}); } $(‘article_top_info’).addClassName(test_version); } SeekingAlpha.Initializer.onDOMLoad(function(){ setEvents();}); By Jeff Tjornehoj Equity mutual fund investors withdrew an estimated $920 million net for the week. Not surprisingly, they pulled money from domestic equity mutual funds (-$2.2 billion)-for a twentieth consecutive week of net outflows for the group. Equity exchange-traded funds (ETFs) saw net inflows of $7.8 billion, although investors turned their backs on emerging markets products (-$346 million) to avoid excess risk. The week’s biggest equity ETF recipient was the SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF ((NYSEARCA: SPY ) , +$3.0 billion), while modest selling hit the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF ((NYSEARCA: EEM ) , -$342 million ) and the iShares Core S&P 500 ETF ((NYSEARCA: IVV ) , -$477 million). Bond mutual fund investors freaked out on High Yield Funds and pulled $1.7 billion net from that Lipper classification to send taxable bond funds as a whole to a negative $3.4 billion for the week. Mutual fund investors pumped some cash into Lipper’s Core Bond Funds (+$737 million) and Core Plus Bond Funds (+$271 million) classifications. Bond ETF investors pulled $1.8 billion from their accounts to create combined (mutual funds and ETFs) outflows of $5.2 billion-for the largest bond fund outflows since the last week of December 2014. The week’s top individual destination for bond ETF investors was the PowerShares DB USD Bull ETF ((NYSEARCA: UUP ) , +$89 million); outflows of $666 million hit the iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: HYG ) . Municipal bond mutual fund investors pulled $421 million from their accounts for the seventh weekly net outflow in a row. Money market funds saw net outflows of $10.8 billion, of which institutional investors pulled $12.6 billion and retail investors added $1.9 billion. Share this article with a colleague