“Financial repression” is here. And it is causing a headache for investors.
It may be little more than a buzz phrase in the markets but
a growing number of strategists believe it accurately encapsulates how
sovereign debt markets are being distorted by central bank and
government policies that keep interest rates at historic lows.
Real
bond yields, those adjusted for inflation, are at their lowest since
the 1970s in the US and UK. And if the effect of central bank action is
to prevent market mechanisms from responding to inflation, an element of
the repression, then this poses big questions for investors’ asset
allocation strategies.
Andreas Utermann, chief investment officer at Allianz Global
Investors, is unequivocal: “We are clearly in a phase of financial
repression. The central banks are clear about it: they are manipulating
the capital markets,” he says. “It will mean continual uncertainty.”
For banks, the big worry is that they become the captive buyers of sovereign debt.
Indeed, the evidence from Spain and Italy after the European Central
Bank’s provision of cheap loans in December and February suggests that
is already the case. Much of the billions of euros in cheap ECB money
was used to buy eurozone government debt, leading to a fall in bond
yields.
At the same time, the search for haven assets,
combined with “quantitative easing” in the US and UK, means that yields
are well below inflation rates in the government bond markets of
America and Britain, as well as Germany. Allianz, the German insurer,
holds, largely for regulatory reasons, 90 per cent of its assets in debt
instruments, with only 6 per cent in equities.
But, rather than keep pouring money into low-yielding debt, as
encouraged by central banks and governments, investors can escape the
repression, say strategists. One way out is to opt for equities or
corporate credit, so-called risky assets.
“There is a strong argument that when real yields are negative,
people look for assets where they can at least get a real return. You
want to get closer to real assets rather than IOUs,” says Hans Lorenzen,
credit analyst at Citi.
The problem for such a strategy is whether it makes sense over the
mid to long term. Mr Lorenzen argues that looking at the last big period
of financial repression from the post-war era when there were strong
equity returns and low credit spreads in the 1950s and 1960s could be
misleading. “For me it is the difference in growth. It was a very
different world. Repression wasn’t a problem for returns in risk assets
like credit and equities as growth was strong and default rates were
low,” he says of that era.
The world today is different. Growth in all developed countries, but
especially in Europe, is expected to be mediocre at best while
deleveraging or debt reduction is far more widespread through the
economy than it was after the war. That may not bode well for risky
assets.
Didier Duret, chief investment officer of ABN Amro Private Banking,
says an unconsidered move into risky assets is dangerous. “You need to
move away from the crowded trades,” he argues. He has been trimming
exposure to US equities, investment grade corporate debt – where yields
are close to all-time lows – as well as government bonds.
Rather, he suggests assets such as Asian corporate bonds. “You get
the same credit rating but you have an additional spread of 30-50 basis
points,” he says. In equities he suggests a “barbell” strategy, with
cylicals such as Taiwanese companies balanced by defensives such as
Malaysian stocks.
Mr Utermann proposes a “simple” two-pronged strategy. The first part
is to focus on equities that have strong cash flows and dividends. While
critics of this trade point to the large number of strategists
recommending it, Mr Utermann says most equity portfolios are constructed
at the moment with an anti-dividend bias.
Companies that have maintained dividends have performed poorly –
banks and utilities for example – while the best performers such as
technology groups have a bad track record on payouts, Apple’s recent
announcement notwithstanding. So he recommends ensuring investors have
real exposure to dividend companies.
His second piece of advice is to invest in emerging markets equities
and bonds without hedging to participate in what he anticipates will be
an appreciation of their currencies. “If you believe capital markets
will normalise, it will require a fundamental realignment in
currencies,” he says, arguing developed countries will see theirs
weaken.
The uncomfortable truth for many investors, however, is that
financial repression is likely to be a long-winded process with many ups
and downs. Mr Lorenzen argues that the two most likely outcomes are a
prolonged bout of inflation such as came in the 1970s after the last
period of financial repression, or a Japan-style scenario of low growth
and choppy markets.
“You can be in a long-term bearish trend but in the periods when
monetary policy is being loosened very aggressively you can have these
very strong rallies,” he says.
“The difficulty for investors is understanding the relationship
between the poor fundamentals and strong liquidity injections. In the
long run fundamentals will dominate but at times the liquidity will take
over.”
The richest one percent of this country owns half our country's wealth, five trillion dollars. One third of that comes from hard work, two thirds comes from inheritance, interest on interest accumulating to widows and idiot sons and what I do, stock and real estate speculation. It's bullshit. You got ninety percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth. I create nothing. I own.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Lou Manheim's Helpful Links
Lunch is for wimps
It's not a question of enough, pal. It's a zero sum game, somebody wins, somebody loses. Money itself isn't lost or made, it's simply transferred from one perception to another.
No comments:
Post a Comment