Active versus Passive net cash flow
I found the above chart in an article at marketwatch.com and it shows the net cash flows of both active and passive managed funds in the US over the last 10 years. As can be seen, whilst passive funds (or index funds) have had positive flows every single year, actively managed funds have had massive outflows the last four years and net outflows six out of the last ten. Now these numbers are distorted a little, in so far that actively managed funds manage many more assets than passive managers so proportionately the differences wouldn’t be as exaggerated.
Either way, this trend of moving from active to passive has occurred in Australia also. Particularly in recent years with the extreme volatility of equity markets. Retail investors and their advisers are abandoning actively managed funds in favour of passiveyl managed funds for three simple reasons…
- Simplicity…you know what you are going to get…the index minus some costs
- Transparent…there will be no hidden surprises thanks to bets gone wrong (think Challenger AUstralian equities and their bets on ABC Childcare and Babcock and Brown)…you know exactly where you are invested and in the case of the Australian equities you see the performance on the news every night
- Low cost…whilst I and many others believe it is possible to generate alpha, unfortunately managers find it very difficult to achieve alpha after their fees are taken out…this is particularly the case with bond funds
From an advisers perspective, using passive fund managers simply means the only concern is asset allocation and no action required should the key people leave the fund 452-style or the fund blows up performance-wise…increasingly advisers are realising this and they are focusing on their business and clients as opposed to wasting their time positioning themselves as investment experts.
With the expansion of exchange traded funds (ETFs) in Australia, and they are just index funds at this stage, and the MySuper recommendations from Jeremy Cooper, I can really only see massive growth for passively managed funds in Australia and significant funds outflow for the actively managed. This risk to massive flow to index managers is that prices can be inflated without consideration to value (tech boom to provide an exaggerated example and therefore providing opportunity for the active manager which is not a bad thing) but the chances of a bubble in equities in these risk averse times appears a long way off.
A short piece on the Euro Sovereign Crisis
The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) started out as a credit crisis. In simple terms, the credit crisis was a situation whereby banks stopped lending, credit markets stopped operating and the availability of money to many businesses (and individuals) became so scarce that those most exposed became insolvent. The survival of the biggest banks around the world was in question, companies had to lay off staff, sharp increases in unemployment reduced further spending which further reduced business profits and the vicious cycle was in play. The method used by governments to break this vicious cycle was to take the place of the failed (or failing) banking systems and they borrowed (and printed) money to inject into the global economy in an attempt to save the day. With the global economy returning to growth, albeit sluggishly, many governments of the world are left with extremely high debt levels and combined with high unemployment and weaker revenues, many show signs of difficulty in paying off these debts. The most well known and written about are the several Euro denominated countries including Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, and Italy.
The biggest holders of government debt are banks and there has never been an insolvent government that has had a solvent banking system. So, if the Greek Government becomes insolvent, so too do the Greek banks. Banks also lend to each other, so if one bank system becomes insolvent there is potential for this to ripple throughout the global banking system and produce another credit crisis…this is a worst case scenario and one of the main reasons for the extreme sharemarket volatility we have seen since the Euro sovereign crisis started at the end of 2009.
From an Australian perspective, this worst case scenario of another credit crisis could have a similar economic impact on our economy as the post-Lehman Brothers crisis and this is why our sharemarket has been effected in recent months like overseas markets. This has also resulted in increased concern from the Reserve Bank of Australia which has eased talk of the need to increase interest rates and the short term outlook for its cash rate appears to be one of stability. Current market expectations are for it to stay at 4.50% over the next few months (unless there is surprising inflation data).
In terms of currency the European debt concerns have produced weakness in the Euro which has meant it is cheaper for us to purchased goods and services in Europe. This currency effect should also assist the European economies exit their current economic mess. Of course a cheaper European holiday would appeal to many Australians which would be good for the European economies. Unfortunately, in countries, like Spain, where inflation in the years leading to the GFC has made them uncompetitive with Germany the rest of Europe, a weaker Euro does not help their competitiveness so countries like Spain will unfortunately experience years of deflation to be competitive again.
Moving forward, the European crisis is not over. The European Central Bank has produced a $1trillion package to assist governments in trouble but economies do not improve overnight. Euro sovereign credit spreads are high again, markets are volatile, and the strong prospect of a double dip recession in the US, could mean it is many years before we have clarity on the global economic recovery from the GFC.
Simple Economic Update
The month of July saw the return of strong sharemarkets both in Australia and overseas with the first positive monthly performance for four months. This return of confidence was largely due to investors reacting positively to the European Banking stress tests where 92% of European banks tested passed. Alongside of the good sharemarket performance was higher oil prices and a stronger Australian dollar. Whilst July was a good month for the riskier asset classes, at the start of August the Reserve Bank of Australia decided to leave interest rates on hold as their expectations of inflation and economic growth were in line with long term averages and the global outlook continued to show significant uncertainty.
During August, sharemarkets returned to being quite volatile as talk about the US entering a recession in the second half of this year gained momentum. With the removal of US government stimulus programs under way, continued high unemployment, and a weak housing market, the US consumer continues to save more and spend less thus increasing risks of deflation. Deflation can be quite a destructive force on an economy because if the consumer expects prices to be lower tomorrow they will not spend today. This prospect of deflation has also resulted in strong demand in US Treasury Bonds and, at the time of writing, a 10 year US Government currently yields only 2.5% which is the lowest since January 2009 near the height of the GFC. The upside to this is an expectation of strong international bond returns for investors.
In Australia, the August company reporting season produced mixed results with the only consistent outcome being an outlook of caution. This added to local sharemarket volatility and like the US, investors appeared to move their money from shares to the safer Australian bond market where yields have dropped significantly.
Looking forward the outlook remains the same as it has for a long time…an expectation of continued sharemarket volatility which may produce buying opportunities. Unfortunately for all asset classes, whether shares, property, or bonds, expected returns over the next several years are expected to be low but if high returns are required then the acceptance and purchase of high risk assets will also be required.
Jonathan Pain slams fund manager benchmarking
Apparently Mr Pain is of the belief that equity managers should have benchmarks that are more aligned with their client’s needs and therefore, as far as I can tell, have more of a cash plus or absolute return benchmark. Perhaps I’ve misinterpreted the report but anyway…
…whilst on face value this sounds quite reasonable as it may be difficult to argue with aligning an investor’s needs with the fund manager goals, unfortunately it is not realistic.
Current standard benchmarks of equity managers are typically market cap weighted benchmarks such as the S&P/ASX200 or S&P500 indices and because of their market cap weighting they are effectively a reasonably accurate representation of the “Market Portfolio”. William Sharpe showed many years ago that the “Market Portfolio” represents the maximum achievable diversified portfolio (with a few assumptions I won’t bore you with) and by definition contains no idiosyncratic (or non-market risk) and contains only market risk….and…this is why the market-cap index is used as the benchmark for a fund manager. When you invest in equities you are accepting market risk and if you are an active manager you are also accepting non-market risks (or risks specific to your active bets) that may win or lose or go up or down.For an active fund manager to display skill they must show that, over a specific period of time, their active equity bets must produce a risk-adjusted return that is greater than the market’s. Markets go up and markets go down and to compare an equity market return to an absolute return benchmark is ‘relatively’ meaningless.
Now I do agree with the need to align the benchmark with a client’s needs and I believe this what the strategic asset allocation is for. The asset allocation must be designed with the aim of achieving a return goal over a specified time period and of course at the minimum possible risk. Aos a result the portfolio is designed with the client’s needs in mind and over time, as the portfolio moves, the needs must be revisited and the portfolio’s asset allocation adjusted to meet those needs (or return needs)…unfortunately the commonly used risk profile approach has little consideration of these issues and fails to adjust a portfolio appropriately after significant market movement (e.g. why accept additional risk if you don’t need it and the goal is almost reached).
Fear Creeping Up and may be appearing in Oz
Source: Bloomberg
After another down day in US Equities markets we can see the VIX is starting to creep up…it increased overnight by a little more than 7% and currently stands at 27.5. If the VIX is one thing it is certainly volatile. Whilst the chart shows that over the last 12 months the VIX has moved from 24 to 27.5, it has been as high as 46 and as low as 15..so after more than halving after reaching a peak of 32 it then more than triples to 46 before more than halving again to its most recent bottom of around 21.5…what a wild ride and whilst its an indicator of fear in equity markets there would certainly be a lot of fear in buying or selling the VIX contracts.
Either way, I must say I’m looking forward to seeing an investible Australian version of the VIX indicator that will hopefully be sufficiently liquid so we can efficiently buy and sell volatility. The Australian options market, in my opinion, is still quite illiquid, so having an efficient method of taking a position on sharemarket volatility should be good. I must say, like many, I’ve had little idea about market direction but I’ve been far more confident (and accurate) in my expectations of market volatility…the Australian VIX should be, at least, fascinating and I do expect there will be a new range of structured products that will appear…and let’s hope they’re priced appropriately…well…I guess you can’t have everything.
Australian Government Bond Yield Curve – August 2010
Source : RBA
The above chart shows the Australian Government Bond Yield curve the day after each of the RBA’s interest rate increases this year (i.e. 4 March, 8 April, and 6 May), the end of the financial year and through to last Friday. Since 8 April the yield curve has continued to flatten suggesting the outlook for our economy isn’t quite what it was. With the European sovereign crisis still hanging around (Spreads of the high risk Euro countries have started widening again), poor economic data coming out of the US, and China’s rate of growth slowing the international economic environment is looking decidedly weak. Locally, the RBA’s own fiscal tightening has reduced any expectation of inflation and there are signs of our housing market slowing (e.g. weak levels of home loan approvals). All in all there are many risks in the system and it appears our government bonds have been in strong demand so much so that the yield is below the current cash rate for maturities that are up to 3 years away…so much for the term premium…unless there is the expectation of lower cash rates and a weaker economy.
Maybe or maybe not…but either way at this point in time the market is not too convinced of a great deal of economic strength or inflation…so there appears to be a static cash rate for the moment.
Interesting Market Stat from Paul Krugman
The link to his blog is here…anyway…the stat is…
One thing you sometimes hear is that the game will be up when the ratings agencies downgrade U.S. debt. I wonder how many of the people saying this know that Moody’s and S&P downgraded Japanese debt in 2002, with Moody’s actually putting it below Botswana and Estonia.
And 8 years later, Japan can still borrow at less than 1 percent.
To put this comment into further context, Krugman is responding to all those who believe US debt is so high that the government may not cope. Whilst newspaper talk suggests Japanese debt is outrageous a less than 1% yield does not suggest any market concern whatsoever. Clearly the market is not concerned by US Government levels of debt either as current 10 year bond yields are around 2.60%…and that is an interest rate I would love to be paying on my loans!
I’m reconsidering my business card strategy
I currently have three business cards depending on which hat I’m wearing…this guy has it all sorted…click here
The often forgotten risk of active funds management
On Wednesday of this week (18 August), the portfolio management team of 452 Capital announced to Colonial that they are calling it quits (at an undisclosed date) and will no longer be managing their Australian Equity Funds. So of course, the Research Houses downgrade their ratings to Sell, Redeem, Hold etc (we moved to Sell) and the flood of redemptions begins. Apparently Colonial are installing the high quality team at Integrity, but at the end of the day Integrity is not 452 whether it be better or worse so investors will no longer getting what they pay to get and the natural outcome of redemptions continue.
The irony in Integrity taking over is that the founder of Integrity, Paul Fiani, left UBS a few years ago and this resulted in billions leaving UBS resulting in a disastrous tax outcome for investors.
Anyway…I believe the outflow from 452 just one day after the announcement was equivalent to around 2 month’s of their usual redemptions. As this continues the poor investors who truly want to stay, whether they like it or not, will ultimately be lumped with a very large distribution and return of capital that will be subject to tax. Not a good result at all.
The thing with active fund managers is that when you invest with one you are taking a bet on the success of the key investment decision makers and when they leave so too does the performance (whether that performance be judged by style or other)…for the passively managed fund whereby investment decisions are not any where near as reliant upon key individuals, this risk does not really exist and these difficult situations, for investors and advisers, are avoided.
I’m sure many advisers will receive some negative outcomes from some of their clients and this is quite unfortunate. From what I can tell, 452 started in 2003 and in the 7 years to the end of July 2010 they produced performance of 9.50%pa…unfortunately for their investors it underperformed the ASX200 Accumulation Index which returned 9.94%pa. 452 Capital had outstanding pedigree (Founded by former Perpetual guru, Peter Morgan) and received very high ratings from most of the major Research Houses (Lonsec, van Eyk, etc)…unfortunately none of that has helped the long term 452 investor and its time to look for a new home for the funds that are heading their way.
Advice about Advisers from the Reformed Broker
I love following other’s blogs and the Reformed Broker is one of them. At the time of writing his latest post provides some “free advice to the Hollywood set when working with an adviser” and I lay these points out for you below (I hope he doesn’t mind but please check out his blog…its excellent reading)…
1. Anyone who refers to himself as a “Financier“ is full of sh*t.
2. Your financial advisor is not supposed to play polo or wear designer sunglasses, nor should he ever have a popped up collar under any circumstances. He must never wear shoes without socks or wear a watch with a diamond bezel.
3. In truth, if an advisor or money manager’s opening shpiel is about all of the other famous people he works with, this should not make you feel comfortable. Its actually a giant red flag indicating that you are dealing with a starf*&%er and a social climber who is more concerned with himself than you.
4. Even your brother-in-law will rob you if you give up power of attorney. Go ask Billy Joel. Uma Thurman signed over Power of Attorney so that Ken Starr would do her taxes. That’s funny, my CPA never seemed to need signatory authority over my bank account to prepare my tax forms…hmmm.
5. Custody of assets is all you need to know. If your money guy needs to set up extraneous accounts in both your name and his, its a scam. If he asks you to transfer money into a financial institution that you haven’t seen advertise during The Masters, its a scam. If he tells you not to worry about receiving statements because he’s “taking care of everything”, its a scam. You get the idea.
6. Most important: Your financial guy is NOT supposed to party with you. He shouldn’t be at the same nightclub as you buying bottles, nor should he have a copy of Variety in his waiting area. The financial advisor is the guy you apologize to when you sleep through an appointment with him, hung over from an all-night rager. He’s not supposed to be there with you at the club, holding your hair while you vomit up Veuve Cliquot and Red Bull.
7. Almost forgot, young stars and starlets… if the advisor has a nicer home than you or your initial consultation takes place on his yacht – run, Forrest, run
All very true!



