Page 1 of 612345...Last »
anthony_doyle_100

20/20 hindsight – looking at three year government bond market returns

Investors in government bonds – historically seen as a low volatile and safe asset class – have had to get to grips with assessing credit risk as well as duration risk in their portfolios. It is simply no longer the case that investors can safely lend to a government without first assessing the government’s willingness and ability to pay back the borrowed sum. This has had a large impact on government bond market returns over the past three years, the results of which are shown below.

Given the fall in yields in developed bond markets, it is unsurprising to see long duration assets like UK index-linked gilts and government bonds performing very well. For example, a broad based measure of the UK index-linked market has generated a 40% total return for investors since the end of March 2010. This is despite the UK losing its prized AAA credit rating this year. Even more surprising is the fact that the big buyer in the gilt market – the Bank of England – has not spent a single penny on a UK index-linked gilt. To date, all £332bn of government bond purchases have been in the gilt market. One investor that did buy index-linked gilts was the Bank’s £3bn pension fund, which had a 95% allocation to index-linked gilts and corporates as at February 2012.

3 year total returns in government bond markets

Looking elsewhere, those that were willing to take some credit risk were handsomely rewarded in European government bond markets. For example, investors in Irish debt generated a return of 25% over the past three years. This compares favourably to Europe’s true “risk-free” asset, German government bunds, which generated a total return of 19%. That said, it was not all smooth sailing for peripheral bond investors. Just ask investors in Greek debt, who suffered a 40% loss. Investors in Cypriot government debt fared somewhat better, losing 6% over the three years. Unfortunately for investors seeking protection from Italian inflation, Italian index-linked government bonds generated a return of only 6%. This was below the increase in Italian inflation of 9% over the three year period and is the result of investors becoming more pessimistic about the Italian growth outlook.

Overall, the gold medal for government bond 3 year returns goes to the Philippines with equity-like performance of 64%. The bond market has benefited from purchases by foreign investors, largely due to its relatively strong fundamentals. The combination of a relatively high yield, strong growth and low inflation has been a magnet for government bond investors.

This analysis isn’t much of a guide for what is going to happen over the next three years. Going back to March 2010, I can’t remember many forecasting that Ireland would outperform Germany in government bond markets or that UK linkers would outperform their Italian equivalents by over 30% . So should we be worried about what the consensus is saying now? Isn’t 20/20 hindsight a wonderful thing.

jamestomlins_100

The Real Income Enigma

“The question isn’t at what age I want to retire, it’s at what income.”

George Foreman

The carry trade, the grab for yield – call it what you will, but this has been a persistent fact of life in today’s investment climate, especially as larger cohorts of the developed world join the ranks of the retired. As Mr Foreman points out above, the financial aspect of retirement isn’t really dominated by how much capital you might have, but how much income can be generated from your savings and various entitlements. Furthermore, safeguarding this income from the rapacious grasp of inflation is crucial. Real income is the goal.

While there is plenty of demand for real income, the supply of assets that can provide this is now dwindling. The chart below is a very simple one (and arguably too simplistic), but it paints a stark picture for income hungry investors. On the left hand side is the nominal income yield from various asset classes (dividend yield in the case of equities, yield to maturity for fixed income). The right hand side merely takes away the last inflation number to give you a snapshot of real income yields. This does not take into account the possibility of earnings and dividend growth from the equity markets (an important aspect) or indeed any changes in the inflation rate. For any income orientated investor, this essentially gives you the menu of options for generating inflation beating income in the here and now.

Comparing real yields across asset classes

One thing that should come as no surprise is that cash and government bonds offer negative real returns on a buy and hold basis, but what is less obvious perhaps is that the number of asset classes that offer a positive real return has shrunk dramatically. Indeed, only high yield bonds offer a significant pick up above and beyond the inflation rate. (This pick up is there in part to compensate investors for the risk of default, volatility and lack of liquidity). Whilst we do not expect dramatic capital gains from high yield in the near future, absent a major negative shock for risk appetite, this context provides very powerful structural and technical support for the asset class. Investors, particularly those seeking income, ignore this at their peril.

mike_riddell_100

Middle East research trip – a rare oasis of attractive bond valuations

My last research trip video to Asia was deemed by our marketing department to be so bad that we all had to be sat down and told what would be common sense to most people; apparently it’s not a great idea to speak to camera next to a busy airport runway, and you can’t see anything if you record yourself in your hotel room at night with the main lights off. So hopefully this effort is a slight improvement, although I still couldn’t resist a quick stint at Abu Dhabi International Airport, and the majority of it is filmed outside a shisha cafe in London.

You can view the video below.


The trip if anything strengthened my belief that parts of the Middle East debt market look very attractive relative to some of the massively overvalued emerging markets.

Abu Dhabi is said to be the Switzerland of the Middle East, and this appears to me to be largely justified. Abu Dhabi’s sovereign wealth fund is over US$600bn, which works out at almost US$100k per person. The big difference with Switzerland is in valuations. Many Swiss government bonds were until recently trading with a negative yield (meaning that investors were paying money to Switzerland for the privilege of parking their cash there), while the bonds of some AA rated Abu Dhabi state owned enterprises have higher yields than some junk rated EM sovereigns. The rating agencies’ assessment of the Abu Dhabi issuers looks broadly correct to us, so the valuations vis-à-vis EM sovereigns looks completely wrong.

Dubai remains a little worrying. It seems to see itself as Disneyland for adults; while I was out there reports surfaced of Dubai building its first underwater hotel, and yesterday plans were announced to build the world’s largest ferris wheel. Personally I don’t really get the attraction – it is a bit like going on holiday to Westfield Shopping Centre, not exactly my idea of a holiday – although there are many who disagree since apparently more people went to Dubai Mall last year than visited New York or Los Angeles.

Qatar perhaps sits somewhere in between. It is blessed with huge natural resources, but I’m still bothered on many levels why they bid for (and successfully won) the right to host the 2022 FIFA World Cup. The cost of hosting the FIFA World Cup is relatively trivial for Qatar; more concerning is that they are channelling quite a bit of money into economically and politically wobbly countries such as Egypt, and there are reports today that the Qatar sovereign wealth fund may invest $3.5bn in Russian bank VTB. Why?

I didn’t have a chance to visit Saudi Arabia or Bahrain, but some of the Emirati and Qatari banks provided interesting colour, suggesting they are concerned about investing or lending in Saudi Arabia given current valuations, and the ongoing unrest in Bahrain means that the country’s previous role as a regional hub has almost certainly been irreversibly ruined. In contrast to Bahrain, political unrest in Abu Dhabi, Dubai or Qatar is exceptionally unlikely given that the wealth effects of the economic boom have been widely distributed to the local population, and lower paid workers are on the whole migrant workers and are there voluntarily – if they don’t like it, they can leave.

PS I refer to avocado bathroom suites at the end of the video, but forgot to give Jim the credit for this point. See Jim’s blog from last year here.

jamestomlins_100

High yield – it’s pickin’ time

It’s fair to say that we have been toning down our view on the high yield market of late. We could well see returns in the high single digits for 2013, but the potential for more substantial capital gains is less apparent in today’s context.

This does, however, ignore quite a powerful feature of the current high yield environment – the scope for exploiting opportunities and pricing dislocations within the market itself. To use a more technical term, spread dispersion within the market is very elevated. What do we mean by this?

Here is a snapshot of the European high yield market back in 2007 with credit rating plotted against credit spread. As credit risk increased, you got paid incrementally more credit risk premium. This produced a gentle upward sloping curve. The market was fairly efficient and the level of spread dispersion within a credit rating category was fairly limited.

European high yield spreads June 2007

Compare this to a snapshot of today’s market below: not only is the average risk premium significantly higher than in 2007, but more importantly, there is a much higher range of spreads within each rating category.

European high yield spreads January 2013

How can this obvious dislocation be exploited? If you can correctly assess credit risk independent of the ratings agencies, then you can start to pick and chose the bonds that are mispriced. Furthermore the reward for getting this “stock selection” correct can be meaningful. If for example you purchase Bond X at a credit spread of 750bps and sell Bond Y at 250bps, this is a 500bps difference. Let’s say that this difference moves to zero over time with both Bond X and Bond Y converging to a credit spread of 500bps, with a duration of 5 years. This is a relative price performance of 25% (a capital gain of 12.5% for Bond X, and avoiding a 12.5% capital loss for Bond Y).

If an active manager can realise even a small element of these sorts of opportunities across a portfolio, then the additional returns can be meaningful. It’s (stock) pickin’ time.

It's Pickin' Time

 

anthony_doyle_100

The chart annoying every Aussie consumer

In 2012, the Reserve Bank of Australia cut its cash rate five times and by a total of 1.25%. That is a big move in interest rates for an economy growing at 3.1%, an unemployment rate of 5.4% and inflation sitting bang-on target at 2.0%. The RBA cash rate is now equal to the 50-year low seen during the 2009 recession. So what has got the RBA so nervous?

One word: consumption. Around 54% of Australian GDP is household consumption. But the household saving rate, at 10.6%, is more than double the average of the past decade. Aussies are deleveraging. Consumption, for so long the driver of growth in the boom years, has stumbled.

And unfortunately for the RBA, the latest GDP statistics showed limited sign of investment outside the mining sector. Certainly the appreciation of the Australian Dollar – once known as the “Aussie Battler” or “Pacific Peso” – has not helped things. On a trade-weighted basis, the Australian Dollar has risen by 45% since January 2009, leading to calls from industry for the RBA to intervene in currency markets. The strong dollar is a huge headwind for the Australian manufacturing sector in an increasingly globalised world. The RBA is hoping that a reduction in interest rates will a) spur household consumption and b) have some impact on the strength of the currency.

On the currency front, the RBA rate cuts have had minimal impact. The trade weighted index rose over the course of 2012 by 1.7%. Ouch. On the consumption front, unfortunately for the RBA and the heavily indebted Aussie consumer, the banks haven’t been playing ball. The chart below highlights the spread differential between variable mortgages, variable term loans, and the standard credit card rate over the RBA’s cash rate.

The chart scaring every Aussie consumer

Despite a record low cash rate of only 3.0%, the spread between the rate charged on personal loans and credit cards is at a record highs. Banks aren’t passing on the full cuts in the official rate. In the variable home loan space, the spread has been steadily rising since October 2007. It is particularly important to have a look at the variable mortgage rate as around 80% of home loans in Australia are variable rate mortgages. Overall, the chart shows that the transmission mechanism of monetary policy in Australia is becoming increasingly muted, presenting greater challenges for the RBA.

Central banking isn’t the easiest job in the world at the best of times. Due to high rates of indebtedness and home ownership, the RBA has previously found that moving interest rates could quickly stimulate the economy if needed. The last thing that central bankers need is a further handicap on their ability to deliver their inflation targets. But that is exactly what is going on in Australia right now and the RBA should be concerned.

jim_leaviss_100

Le cocktail économique explosif français : croissance en berne, manque de compétitivité et tour de vis budgétaire.

This post was originally published on 5.10.2012 in English and has been translated for our French readers.

Depuis le début de l’année 2011, la croissance économique de la France s’est révélée extrêmement décevante, en passant d’un rythme annuel de près de 2,5 % à tout juste 0,3 % au second trimestre 2012. Certes tous les pays de la zone euro ont été à la peine durant cette même période, mais la croissance française s’est néanmoins laissée distancée par celle des états du cœur de l’Europe. En Allemagne, la croissance du PIB est ressortie au minimum à 2 % pendant tous les trimestres (à l’exception des deux derniers) et s’établit aujourd’hui à 1 %. Les indices des directeurs d’achat pour le mois de septembre ont fait apparaître une divergence plus prononcée : les PMI des secteurs manufacturier et des services ont à nouveau reculé en France, tandis qu’ils ont progressé en Allemagne.


Evidemment, cela pourrait être pire – la Grèce, le Portugal, l’Espagne et l’Irlande ont enregistré une croissance économique bien plus faible et -élément peut-être le plus dommageable- des taux de chômage bien plus élevés. En Espagne, le taux de chômage s’est envolé de 8 % en 2007 à 25 % aujourd’hui, franchissan même la barre des  50 % chez les jeunes. En France, le taux de chômage global n’est  « que » de 10,3 %. Et l’autre grande différence est que les marchés obligataires pensent que la France fait partie du « noyau dur » de la zone euro, non de sa périphérie. A ce titre, examinons les CDS à 5 ans (le coût en points de base pour assurer une obligation souveraine contre le risque de défaut) ; celui de la France s’établit à 110 pb par an, contre 300 pb pour l’Irlande, 325 pb pour l’Italie et 370 pb pour l’Espagne. Pour autant, et même s’il reste toujours beaucoup plus important que le CDS de l’Allemagne (54 pb), l’écart entre les emprunts d’états allemands et français s’est toutefois sensiblement réduit depuis le mois de mai, de plus de 1,4 % à 0,75 %. Cette baisse témoigne en partie de l’atténuation perçue des risques de défaut/d’éclatement de la zone euro après l’annonce du président de la BCE, Mario Draghi, de son engagement à faire tout ce qui était nécessaire pour sauver l’euro et de son programme d’achat d’emprunts d’État à court terme émis par des pays en difficulté ; mais, cette amélioration relative coïncide également avec l’élection de François Hollande en mai qui est ainsi devenu le premier président français de gauche de ces 20 dernières années.


François Hollande a été élu sur un programme promettant d’augmenter la pression fiscale sur les riches. Il a également promis de limiter le déficit budgétaire de la France. Dans ce contexte, le projet de loi de finances pour 2013 présenté la semaine dernière n’a guère surpris les français en prévoyant des efforts de rigueur répartis comme suit : un tiers en impôts sur les ménages, un tiers en impôts sur les entreprises et un tiers de réduction des dépenses publiques. Selon les estimations de Goldman Sachs, le taux des prélèvements obligatoires en pourcentage du PIB augmentera de 44,9 % à 46,3 %. Mais, même ce tour de vis budgétaire relativement agressif (et les projections sont basées sur une croissance du PIB supérieure à un niveau jugé possible par beaucoup, surtout au regard de ce même durcissement budgétaire et du climat d’austérité) n’empêchera pas le ratio dette/PIB de franchir le seuil des 90 %. Pour rappel, ce seuil des 90 % est celui qui, selon Rogoff et Reinhart, compromet significativement la capacité d’une économie à croître. Toutefois, si la rigueur budgétaire « fonctionne », la France devrait alors renouer avec un budget équilibré d’ici 3 ou 4 ans.

Mais, revenons à la capacité de la France à combler son déficit budgétaire par la croissance. La compétitivité de l’économie française est un point qui continue de nous préoccuper. Le déficit de la balance des opérations courantes de la France est considérable, ressemblant ainsi plus à celui de l’Espagne ou de l’Italie qu’à celui de pays du coeur de l’Europe comme l’Allemagne ou les Pays-Bas (mais, il n’est pas aussi important que le déficit de 5,4 % du Royaume-Uni, la raison principale pour laquelle nous pensons que la livre sterling est extrêmement surévaluée).


Dans un modèle économique typique, un pays accusant un tel déficit de sa balance des opérations courantes dévaluerait sa devise afin d’aider ses sociétés exportatrices. Mais la monnaie unique de la zone euro ne le permettant pas, c’est donc une dévaluation interne qui doit plutôt se produire. Depuis la création de la monnaie unique, l’économie allemande a surperformé, principalement à la faveur de la vigueur de ses exportations. Ceci n’a pas été une coïncidence – après l’effondrement du mur de Berlin, les entreprises allemandes ont convenu avec les syndicats (une sorte de néo-corporatisme dans le cadre duquel le gouvernement, les sociétés et les salariés sont des partenaires sociaux au sein d’un système capitaliste) de limiter la croissance des salaires et ce faisant, d’empêcher la délocalisation de l’activité manufacturière en Orient où la main-d’œuvre est meilleur marché. Ainsi, au cours des 12 années écoulées depuis la création de la monnaie unique, le coût du travail en Allemagne a augmenté de moins de 25 %, contre 65 % en Grèce, 55 % en Espagne et 40 % en France. Par rapport à l’Allemagne, le coût du travail en France s’est donc renchéri de 15 % ou plus, une détérioration significative de la compétitivité du pays parmi les États du « noyau dur » de l’Europe.


Il est clair qu’une « dévaluation interne » intervient en Grèce et en Espagne où les coûts du travail connaissent une véritable chute (alors que le chômage s’envole). Je n’affirme pas qu’il s’agit là d’un élément positif – à moyen terme, cela va permettre de stimuler les exportations à mesure que les usines se délocalisent dans les régions où les coûts sont moins élevés ; mais, à plus court terme, le frein que cela aura sur la croissance espagnole et grecque pourrait bien s’avérer être le médicament qui tue le patient au lieu de le guérir. Mais si jamais il y a des capitaux à investir dans des usines, des équipements et des hommes en Europe, et si l’incertitude se fait moindre, prendront-ils le chemin de la France ou d’une Espagne restructurée et à plus bas coûts ?

Et une austérité budgétaire musclée et affirmée publiquement ne semble pas être une politique qui donne des résultats probants – à l’image du Royaume-Uni où moins de 10 % des réductions de dépenses projetées par la coalition sont effectifs à ce jour ; pour autant, l’impact psychologique sur l’économie a été sévère et depuis le début de la crise du crédit l’économie britannique a sous-performé non seulement les États-Unis (où de bonnes vieilles mesures de relance keynésiennes ont été mises en œuvre), mais également la zone euro considérée par beaucoup comme une région économiquement dévastée qui, néanmoins, a surperformé le Royaume-Uni de près de 2 % du PIB sur la période (et qui dans son ensemble présente aussi un ratio dette/PIB inférieur).

Les perspectives de la France s’annoncent des plus difficiles sur le front budgétaire – générer de la croissance (ou faire défaut) a toujours été la meilleure recette pour réduire l’endettement public, et même un taux de croissance réel optimiste de 2 % par an (provisoirement fixé par le gouvernement à partir de 2014) n’est pas synonyme d’une réduction notable du ratio dette/PIB – nul doute que le niveau de 40 % à 50 % que nous avons l’habitude d’associer à une économie notée AAA ne semble pas être pour demain. Il se pourrait que la sensible contraction de l’écart entre les rendements des emprunts d’État de la France et de l’Allemagne (pays noté AAA pour le moment encore) se soit révélée excessive. Les risques économiques et sociaux potentiels futurs sont pléthores pour la France – n’oublions pas que le Premier ministre espagnol Mariano Rajoy a été élu sur un programme de consolidation budgétaire et qu’il a fallu moins d’un an avant que les Espagnols ne changent d’avis sur la question.

jim_leaviss_100

The toxic French economic cocktail: weak growth, poor competitiveness, fiscal tightening.

Since the start of 2011 French economic growth has been extremely disappointing, falling from an annual rate of nearly 2.5% to just 0.3% in the second quarter of this year.  Of course the whole Eurozone has seen weakness over the period, but French growth has lagged that of the “core” over the period.  German GDP growth was at or above 2% for all but the last two quarters, and now stands at 1%.  Purchasing Managers’ surveys for September show more divergence, with more falls in French manufacturing and services, whilst the German surveys strengthened.

German growth has tended to be stronger than French growth over recent years

Of course, it could be worse – Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Ireland have experienced much weaker economic growth and, perhaps most damaging, higher rates of unemployment.  Spanish unemployment has risen from 8% in 2007 to 25% today, with youth unemployment over 50%.  The French jobless total stands at “just” 10.3%.  And the other big difference is that the bond markets believe that France is part of the core, not part of the periphery.  Looking at 5 year CDS rates (the cost in basis points to insure a sovereign bond against the risk of default), France trades at 110 bps per year, compared with Ireland at 300 bps, Italy at 325 bps and Spain at 370 bps.  And whilst this is still much wider than German CDS at 54 bps, since May the spread between German and French government bonds has narrowed significantly, from over 1.4% to 0.75%.  Part of this reflects the perceived reduction in general Eurozone default/breakup risks following ECB president Draghi’s assertion that he will do whatever it takes to save the Euro and his plan to buy short dated government bonds of nations in distress, but this relative improvement also coincides with the election of Francois Hollande in May, when he became the first leftwing French president in two decades.

French government bonds have outperformed German government bonds so far in 2012

Hollande was elected on a platform of putting up taxes on the rich.  He also pledged to cap France’s budget deficit.  As such last week’s Draft Budget Law (PLF) for 2013 did not surprise the French population – there will be a fiscal tightening made up a third from household taxes, a third from corporate tax rises and a third from spending cuts.  Goldman Sachs estimates that the tax take as a percentage of GDP will rise from 44.9% to 46.3%.  But even this relatively aggressive tightening of fiscal policy (and the projections are based on GDP growth higher than many believe is possible, especially in light of that same fiscal tightening and a climate of austerity) doesn’t prevent debt/GDP from rising above 90% in 2013.  Remember that 90% is the level that Rogoff and Reinhart say delivers significant damage to an economy’s ability to grow.  But if the fiscal austerity “works”, France should be moving towards a balanced budget within 3 or 4 years.

But back to the ability of France to grow its way out of a fiscal hole.   Competitiveness is something that continues to worry us about the economy.  The French current account is sharply in deficit, looking more like Spain or Italy than the “core” of Germany or the Netherlands (but not looking as bad as the UK’s current account deficit of 5.4%, the most important reason we think that the pound is massively overvalued).

France looks more like periphery than core on its current account deficit

In a typical economic model, a country with a current account deficit like this would devalue its currency to help its exporters.  The single currency zone of the Eurozone doesn’t allow this to happen, so instead an internal devaluation has to occur instead.  Since the creation of the single currency, the German economy has outperformed, with strength in exported goods leading that strength.  This was no accident – post the collapse of the Iron Curtain, German companies had come to agreements with trade unions (a kind of neo-corporatism in which the government, companies and workers are social partners in a capitalist framework) to have wage restraint and thus keep German manufacturing from heading east to the cheaper labour supply.  It meant that in the 12 years since the creation of the single currency, German labour costs rose by less than 25%.  In Greece they rose by 65%, Spain 55% – and in France by 40%.  Relative to Germany then, French labour costs had risen by 15% more, a significant deterioration of relative competitiveness within the core of Europe.

Spanish and Greek labour costs are adjusting, but France looks uncompetitive

It’s clear that the “internal devaluation” is occurring in Greece and Spain, with labour costs falling sharply (as unemployment rockets).  I’m not arguing this is positive – in the medium term it will stimulate exports as factories relocate in lower cost regions, but in the nearer term the drag this will have on Spanish and Greek growth could be medicine that kills its patient.  But if there is capital to invest in plant, equipment and people in Europe once, and if, uncertainty fades, would it go to France, or to lower cost, restructured Spain?

And aggressive, publically stated austerity doesn’t appear to be a policy with great results – look at the UK where we’ve done less than 10% of the spending cuts that the coalition have planned, yet the psychological impact on the economy has been severe, and since the credit crisis began the UK economy has underperformed not just the US (where they did some good old Keynesian fiscal stimulus) but also the Eurozone, which is widely regarded as an economic disaster area here despite it having outperformed us by about 2% of GDP over the period (and having a lower debt/GDP level too, if you took the region together as a whole).

So the challenges to the French fiscal outlook are enormous – delivering growth (or defaulting) has always been the most successful method of reducing government indebtedness, and even an optimistic 2% per year real growth rate (pencilled in by the government from 2014) doesn’t deliver a significant reduction in the debt to GDP ratio – certainly the 40% to 50% level that we used to associate with a AAA rated economy seems a long way away.  It may be that the aggressive tightening in French government bond yields to those of AAA rated (for the time being) Germany has gone far enough.  There are plenty of economic and social buy-in risks to come for France – let us not forget that Spain’s Rajoy was also elected on a platform of fiscal consolidation, and it took less than a year for its population to change its mind about that.

jamestomlins_100

European High Yield – stay in the game, but don’t bet the ranch.

We mentioned late last year that the high yield market had crossed into cheap territory as credit spreads went over 1,000bps. Historically this has proven to be a relatively robust signal to take a constructive view on the market, and it proved so once again. To use a poker analogy, it was like being dealt a full house – the odds were sufficiently in your favour that, even if you didn’t know exactly what would happen, it was worth making a reasonably big bet.

In what’s been a fairly rocky ride, the European high yield market has seen a total return of 20.1%* so far this year, which compares to a 15.8% rise in the S&P 500, a 10.4% for the Euro Stoxx 50 and 4.8% for the FTSE 100. In all honesty, this has been a stronger result than we anticipated, fuelled mainly by the actions of the ECB (most of this year’s returns coming in Q1 on the back of the LTRO programme) Mr Draghi’s commitment to “do what it takes” and other central bank injections of liquidity in what has been an otherwise lacklustre year for economic growth.

So far so good, but the real question is where to now for high yield? Can we see another few months of double digit returns?

To try and answer this, first let’s consider a few of the key valuation signals. In terms of all-in yields, the high yield market is not too far away from multi year lows. The European market is currently yielding around 7.3% to maturity** compared to a 10 year low of 5.3% in February 2005. There is some scope for yields to fall further on this basis, but the scale of the move will not be enough to generate the sort of capital gains we have seen in the last few months.

Merrill Lynch European High Yield Index Yield to Worst (%)

This means that anyone who buys high yield assets at this point in the cycle looking for large capital gains will probably be disappointed. To generate a further capital return of around 16%, for example, yields would have to fall to around 2% on average. Does this then mean high yield is a screaming sell ? No, not really. To think that high yield is a sell you have to be fearful of either a big rise in underlying government bonds yields, a major re-pricing of credit spreads or both.

In the case of government bond yields, we could well see a rise from current levels, however, the extent of the rise, in my view, will be limited. I don’t think we will see 10 year yields north of 5% for Treasuries, Bunds and Gilts anytime soon as governments and policy makers have made it very clear that they will continue to intervene in the markets to keep long term interest rates lower for longer. Nominal growth and the labour markets are the primary concern, not the risk of higher inflation. This means the potential move up in sovereign yields is likely to be limited and hence capital losses for high yield bonds due to this move will be relatively benign. To put this in context, the modified duration of the European high yield market is currently 3.1 years**, hence if government bond yields rose by 1% across the board, the capital loss would be around 3% all other things being equal. When you add back a credit spread of 6.7%, assuming that you are not hit by a wave of defaults (always a big ‘if’ admittedly), then the total return from high yield would still be positive.

The more important driver of returns for the asset class will be any move in credit spreads and what default rates are likely to be. In contrast to all-in yields in the previous chart, we can see from the chart below, that credit spreads are still a long way off their lows. The incremental yield over government bonds was at 7.4% at the end of August, compared to 1.9% in May 2007. As such, there seems to be plenty of scope for spreads to go tighter, with the potential for some capital gains as they do so.

Merrill Lynch European High Yield Index Option Adjusted Spread (bps)

Does this mean high yield is a screaming buy? Again, no. We have to look at credit spreads in the context of the economic reality for companies in Europe. Much of Europe remains in the grip of low or no growth and credit remains scarce. As such the price of credit (the spread) should reflect that reality. At the end of the day, investors should demand a credit spread that adequately compensates them for the illiquidity inherent in the asset class and a modest rise in default rates. With this in mind, spreads are extremely unlikely to go anywhere near the 2007 level of 1.9% any time soon. There is also the ever present threat of a macro-economic or political curve ball that prompts a general shift in risk appetite and push spreads wider. Nevertheless, when we look at fundamentals and consider the medium term valuation case I think high yield spreads are closer to “fair value” right now.

This leads us to the rather unsatisfying conclusion that whilst the high yield market may not generate big capital returns, there is a case for remaining invested. What I would say though, is that a more defensive approach within high yield portfolios is probably merited in the current environment. The risk/reward trade off between a more aggressive position and a less aggressive position has shifted in favour of the latter. In essence, this means dialling down the “beta” for want of a better phrase.

To revert to the poker analogy, betting on the high yield market right now is like playing a hand with two pairs – you might make money so it’s worth staying in, but it doesn’t feel like the time to go all in and bet the ranch.

*Merrill Lynch Euro High Yield Index total return from 31st Dec 2011 to 21st Sep 2012. Equity market returns year to date as of 21st Sep 2012. Source: Bloomberg, Bank of America Merrill Lynch

** Merrill Lynch Euro High Yield Index as of 21st Sep 2012, Source: Bloomberg, Bank of America Merrill Lynch

richard_woolnough_100

Climate change – bzirc monetary policy

As investors we get used to living within certain recognised bounds. For example, it has been commonly assumed that interest rates cannot be sub-zero. There has been the odd historical quirk when we’ve seen negative rates (Switzerland in the 1970s), but that’s more for amusement than general investment consumption. However, there now appears to be the potential for a major investment climate change.

There are already plenty of bond markets now living in the sub zero ice age, such as Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, Finland and the Netherlands. In these cases, the existence of negative rates could be down to the desire to express a currency or re-denomination view (as Mike previously wrote), so may be seen as a by-product of external factors and not of domestic monetary policy. However, there is now the potential for G7 monetary policy to enter the previously unbelievable reality of official sub-zero rates.

Many G7 economies have implemented very low rates and quantitative easing for a number of years, yet still appear to be in the economic doldrums with high unemployment, low growth and limited fiscal room. It could now be time for a significant change in the investment text book as central banks experiment with rates below zero.

Theoretically, a negative interest rate sounds simple – you put £100 in the bank and you get £99 back a year later if the rate is -1%. A  rational investor would of course have the alternative of simply keeping their cash under the mattress and not suffering the negative rate, although the incentive to behave rationally would be limited by the administrative burden and security risk of holding cash.  The central bank could simply limit this activity by basically not printing enough cash. Therefore the vast majority of money would have to be held electronically and could therefore suffer a penal negative rate. Implementation of sub zero rates is possible.

From a central bank’s point of view this should be stimulative, as it would discourage saving and encourage consumption like any traditional interest rate cut. At the extreme you could create exceptionally low, zero, or even negative borrowing rates.

The challenges faced by central banks and governments are still there despite traditional and unconventional policy action. Maybe it will soon be time to use the conventional tool of cutting interest rates in an unconventional way by making them negative. The next step to be taken by the authorities might mean economies working in a below zero interest rate climate (bzirc monetary policy).

anthony_doyle_100

RBA slashes interest rates – the lucky country is getting nailed

Today the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) surprised markets by cutting official interest rates by 0.5% to 3.75%. Weaker inflation data out last week and a deluge of soft economic data has got the RBA rattled. We’ve discussed bubbles down under on this blog before and think that a combination of a falling terms of trade, a current account deficit, a deleveraging consumer, below target inflation, a softer labour market and a housing bubble will see the RBA retain a bias to cut interest rates further.

Dylan Grice from Societe Generale recently wrote a piece that rather nicely added to the debate:

“Australia has five of the world’s 15 most expensive cities (on a median price to median income ratio), has seen household debt levels explode in recent decades, and even has a current account deficit despite the windfall terms of trade improvement caused by the commodity bull market. This is not a robust base from which to weather a Chinese hard landing, if and when it comes”…”When you scratch the surface of the Australian ‘miracle’ you don’t just find an unmiraculous commodity super-cycle: you also find an equally unmiraculous credit super-cycle as well. A credit bubble built on a commodity market built on an even bigger Chinese credit bubble, Australia looks like leveraged leverage, a CDO squared.”

The RBA is hoping that interest rate cuts will boost the flagging economy. We are not so sure. The Australian economy has already received two interest rate cuts in November and December last year. The impact of these cuts on the real economy has been muted to say the least when we look at key consumer indicators like retail trade and consumer confidence.  The problem is the major banks have not passed on the interest rate cuts to the heavily indebted consumer. A standard variable loan in November 2011 was 7.80%. Today, the same loan will cost 7.55%. And it doesn’t look likely the banks will pass on today’s cut either (at least not all of it), as they are likely to continue to point to higher funding costs as a reason to retain higher interest rates and hence protect profits.

So what is happening down under? Here are a few key data points that have raised our eyebrows:

  • One in seven Australian taxpayers own an investment property.
  • Australian housing credit is at its weakest level in 35 years.
  • New home sales are an at 18 year low.
  • House prices are down 10% in real terms from the June 2010 peak and nominal prices have been falling for 15 months, which is the longest downturn in a decade.
  • 63% of property investors reported a taxable loss in 2009-10 according to the Australian tax office.
  • 74% of those making a loss on their investment property earned less than $80k AUD per year (the average full-time adult earns around $70k AUD per year).

The housing bubble shouldn’t be the only thing keeping the RBA up at night. At least until very recently, the Australian Dollar has held up surprisingly well in the face of falling bond yields, most likely thanks to the world’s infatuation with Australia’s debt. This doesn’t look sustainable.  Most recently, we talked about the worrying and dramatic rise in foreign ownership of the Aussie government bond market and figures recently released show that foreigners bought another A$16bn of Australian government bonds, the second biggest amount ever, eclipsed only by the previous quarter’s $20.8bn surge. Foreign ownership increased from 80.4% at the end of Q3 to a record 84% at the end of Q4 (see attached graph).

Foreign ownership of Australian government bonds is worryingly higher

But as we argued in January, if China wobbles or the Australian housing market starts to correct then the RBA will be forced to cut rates which will reduce the Australian Dollar’s appeal.  This interesting bloomberg article gives a great insight into what’s driving the flows – foreigners are piling into Australian government bonds as a carry trade and as a means to gain exposure to the currency.  If the yield pick up diminishes and/or the currency falls, then the huge number of foreign investors will start to leave, which will put further downward pressure on the currency.  Australia isn’t as bad as Ireland – the government won’t go bust as it can print its own currency, but the banking sector is obviously vulnerable.  It’s easy to see how a nasty downward spiral can quickly develop.

Page 1 of 612345...Last »