Tag: investing

Re-emerging Risks

I started the week chatting with one of the leading experts on globalisation, or deglobalization’ as it is now. He is a little older than me (he won’t mind me saying) but we share much the same formative experiences, notably an internalising of the way the world worked in the 1990’s and 2000’s.

Back then, the big project was the construction of the euro, to the chorus of debates on global imbalances, fiscal strength (Hans Tietmeyer the former Bundesbank chief would be horrified by Western economic policy today). Elsewhere in the late 1990’s forward guidance of monetary policy consisted of analysing the size of Alan Greenspan’s briefcase and there was a healthy debate on whether central banks should act to burst asset bubbles (today central banks seem to trade those bubbles).

The point of this reminiscence is twofold.

The first is to demonstrate that compared to previous decades (and indeed the long-run of economic history) today’s economic landscape is an aberration, out of kilter with most long-term expectations of how economies behave.

The second point is to illustrate that for very long periods, economies follow regimes of behaviour where very different norms can endure for some time. It is often the correction of these norms that triggers large scale shifts in asset allocation, and volatility. One marked echo of market behaviour today, with the early 2000’s is that the equity risk premium (the benefit of owning equities over bonds) has fallen to its lowest level since 2000, and the performance of smaller companies (to very large ones) is the weakest it has been since 2001.

In general, the 1990’s and 2000’s were periods of rising expectations, whereas today that is not generally the case across countries. A notable feature of the sense that ‘things were on the up’ in the 1990’s was the growth of emerging markets.

Indeed, that period has given us at least two economic miracles – the rise of China as an economic and geostrategic power, and the rise of small, emerging states (Singapore and the Emirates). Neither of these ‘miracles’ is given enough credit by the West for what they have done in such a short space of time.

Specifically, last week was highly instructive in the case of emerging economies – three elections registered high market volatility. Mexico has elected a new president amidst fears that the institutions of the state, and its democracy will be further undermined, combined with a leftward tack on economic policy. The peso reacted badly.

India surprised most commentators (the consensus view on Modi has been far too bullish) by failing to ‘ordain’ Modi’s third term in office with a wholesome majority. While this may be positive from the point of view of India’s democracy, it means that the Modi economic steamroller has less momentum.

Then, the failure of the ANC to regain their majority in South Africa should not be a surprise given the failure of that economy to grow much in the last fifteen years (GDP per capita is at the same level as it was in 2010).

In the cases of India and Mexico, markets appear to be pricing democracy very differently – less of it in Mexico is bad, but the checking of Modi’s near absolute power is also bad (at least for the notion that he could have forced through another round of government spending).

Similar to governments across many emerging countries, investors appear to be torn between the strong man model and the Western oriented rule of law one. This is just one parameter where emerging economy governments will be forced to choose – another is between the US and China, and a further one is how to build an economy (and cities) around new technologies and in a more efficient way.

Of the three countries, South Africa is a depressing warning to others, and I see very little hope that it can put in place a coherent developmental model. What is more reassuring is that there are plenty of examples of countries that have made the journey from emerging markets to stable economies – Poland, the Czech Republic and the Baltic states are good examples, and the cohort of Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia is on its way. Other emerging economies like Nigeria and Argentina are ‘experimental’.

What is also interesting is that emerging markets show that investors are becoming more sensitive to political and institutional risks (institutional investors in Turkey have all but given up). In this respect the important question is whether they start to more severely price in the macro risks associated with some of the developed economies.

If my notional 1990/2000’s investor was to return to the marketplace today, he/she would be confounded by valuations, low volatility and miniscule credit risk, and might start to believe that markets should treat the developed world economies with the same mercilessness it has shown to emerging markets this week.

Have a great week ahead,

Mike

Treasure Chest

John Maynard Keynes is very well known for his contributions to economics and policy making, but less so for his investing prowess. In the 1920’s Keynes worked as a portfolio manager for two insurance companies and from 1921 to 1946 ran the endowment (the ‘Chest’) for King’s College, Cambridge. Keynes’ investing performance is the subject of some fascinating research by David Chambers and Elroy Dimson.

Early in his career Keynes was what we might call a macro investor, focusing on commodities and foreign exchange. Later, he became more focused on stocks, and from the 1930’s Keynes beat the (stock) market by over 5% per year despite several close shaves with personal bankruptcy.

Viewed from the point of view of today’s stock market, what was unusual about Keynes’ style was that in the 1920’s and 1930’s equities were very much the preserve of retail investors, and not so much institutional managers. 

To that end, Chambers and Dimson remark that Keynes’ early allocation to equities was ‘as radical as the much later move to illiquid assets in the late 20th century by Yale’. Unsurprisingly, Keynes’ investing style, which was driven by strong macro-economic views and focused on a few, large and often concentrated positions (if he was investing today he would likely be heavily invested in mega-cap technology stocks) has influenced modern endowment managers, most notably David Swensen of Yale.

Swensen pioneered the move by large US university endowments towards private assets (notably private equity, but also infrastructure and venture), a strategy that has proven remarkably profitable. The top endowments, generally Ivy League schools and other top ranking universities like MIT, have consistently made double digit returns, spurred by annual §private equity returns in the very high teens.

However, the endowment model is coming under scrutiny, partly because some universities have overinvested in private assets at a time when capital distributions have slowed (my former employer Princeton University has effectively invested up to 40% of its portfolio in private equity and venture), and partly because universities themselves have adjusted their expenditure upwards whilst they have enjoyed generous disbursements from performing endowments.

Endowments in the US originally paid 4% of their value to universities annually but in some cases this has risen to 12% (in turn pressuring endowment managers to produce returns). Broadly, disbursements from endowments amount to close to 30% of university budgets with much of it spent on student financial aid. Given that cash distributions from private equity funds have slowed, the knock on to university spending is being felt.

Anyone who has visited a top-flight US university and witnessed the extent to which laboratories, sports facilities and student bursaries are well funded will appreciate the size of university budgets and the role that endowments play. In Europe, only ETH Zurich can match this level of financial backing.

The debate on endowment investing has been enlivened by the publication in February of the 50th NACUBO Endowment Study. In general, the nearly 700 endowments surveyed in the report hold less fixed income than I would imagine for a typical ‘balanced’ investor, more ‘foreign’ equities than US (this might explain some underperformance), and nearly 50% alternative assets (including a large slug of hedge funds).

Interestingly from the point of Keynes’ active management stance, nearly 50% of US endowments ‘outsourced’ their investment office function. Reflecting this, allocations to private equity, returns and return distribution tend to be better in the larger endowments that have well-equipped investment teams.

In turn this reflects the reality that private equity and venture are two of the asset classes (unlike equity and bond funds) where returns are highly dispersed (i.e. there is a large difference between the best and worst performing funds). As such, finding the best performing funds and gaining access to them has a cost in terms of investment research resources. To this end, I wonder if many universities have really been following the ‘endowment’ model as pioneered by Keynes and Swensen.

Indeed, one of the secrets of the performance of the Yale and Harvard models is that they have very good networks of alumni in the private investment industry, who willingly proffered the best advice and access to their alma mater.

Supporting this theory, Keynes had a similar network of former students around the world (notably in Africa – think mining stocks and commodities) who offered him advice, information and investment opportunities and he also had access to relatively sophisticated telegram technology, so that in some cases he had access to market moving information before others. Further, Keynes was unlike many investors today in that his colleagues at King’s had great faith in him and gave him enormous freedom to pursue his own investment style.

This ‘freedom’ has been all but quashed by benchmarking and technology in public markets (i.e. equity and bond funds) but still exits in private markets – the trick is to find the Keynes like managers.

Have a great week ahead,

Mike