A Strong Decade for Private Markets, Led by Growth

While it has been a very strong decade for private market returns, not all private market strategies have provided the same level of risk-adjusted returns. Growth-oriented strategies like Growth, Private Equity, and Venture Capital have delivered the highest 15-year horizon IRRs and with lower standard deviation than other lower-returning strategies like Real Estate, Infrastructure, and Oil & Gas. We believe these growth areas are better positioned to generate higher IRRs within closed-ended funds given their large opportunity set, accelerated ability to deploy capital, opportunities to drive operational improvements, and ability to generate attractive exit opportunities.

Asset allocation mix is of increasing importance as investors seeking higher return potential within portfolios look to scale up their illiquid allocations. The last decade shows that not all private markets investments are equal. We believe Growth, Private Equity, and Venture Capital are likely to continue to be the most attractive strategies for investors looking to maximize the returns generated from their illiquid allocations. Manager selection also remains a critical investment decision within private markets strategies, where there is typically a wider range of performance dispersion than in more traditional public market asset classes.

Print PDF > A Strong Decade for Private Markets, Led by Growth

 

The opinions expressed herein are those of Marquette Associates, Inc. (“Marquette”), and are subject to change without notice. This material is not financial advice or an offer to purchase or sell any product. Marquette reserves the right to modify its current investment strategies and techniques based on changing market dynamics or client needs.

The Labor Market Is Healing, but More Slowly Than Expected

GDP growth turning positive in the first quarter, May unemployment down to 5.8% from 14.8% in April 2020, and the S&P 500 reaching a new all-time high in May are all signs of economic recovery. More than 22 million jobs gained over the past 10 years were wiped out by COVID, and as of May, 13 months after the April 2020 bottom, 66% of those jobs have been recovered. While the same degree of recovery took 22 months following the Global Financial Crisis of 2008, the recent increases in payroll have actually fallen short of expectations.

Nonfarm payrolls increased 559,000 in May, falling below expectations for 675,000. This follows an even larger miss in April, when an increase of 278,000 jobs fell well below expectations for 1 million.¹ At the same time, the number of job openings has mounted to 9.3 million,² a record high and 2.3 million more than before the pandemic. Labor supply is not keeping pace with demand. According to the May Consumer Confidence Survey, 46.8% of consumers ­­— up from 36.3% — say that jobs are “plentiful,” and only 12.2% — down from 14.7% — say that jobs are “hard to get.” The labor participation rate is down to 61.6%, the lowest level since 1976, excluding the recent period since the coronavirus outbreak.

From here, vaccination rates, wage growth, and the expected September expiration of additional unemployment benefits will dictate employment trends. Jobs progress will in turn influence how the Federal Reserve approaches raising interest rates and tightening monetary policy. Meaningful progress has been made, and these factors, among others, will continue to shape the economic recovery.

Print PDF > The Labor Market Is Healing, but More Slowly Than Expected

¹ Bloomberg
² As of April, latest available

 

The opinions expressed herein are those of Marquette Associates, Inc. (“Marquette”), and are subject to change without notice. This material is not financial advice or an offer to purchase or sell any product. Marquette reserves the right to modify its current investment strategies and techniques based on changing market dynamics or client needs.

Volatility in Crypto

Bitcoin has been under pressure over the past month while Ethereum has held up relatively well, resulting in a large discrepancy in returns between the two largest cryptocurrencies. After a surge in prices from late 2020 through early 2021, a number of factors have weighed on Bitcoin more recently. China reiterated its restrictions on cryptocurrencies and proposed punishments for companies involved in mining Bitcoin in the Inner Mongolia region. Mining rigs have a large energy footprint and have since been banned in order to lower China’s overall energy consumption. China accounts for more than 65% of the world’s total Bitcoin mining due to its cheap energy costs. Elon Musk, a prominent voice in the crypto space, also announced that Tesla would no longer accept Bitcoin as a form of payment due to environmental concerns.

Ethereum also dropped in May, but is still up 83% since March, a stark difference from the -19.8% return of Bitcoin. Ethereum has benefited from increased interest in the underlying technology. Decentralized finance focuses on using Ethereum-enabled smart contracts to optimize transactions. The rise of non-fungible tokens or NFTs has also contributed to Ethereum’s gains. NFTs are digital assets, secured by the Ethereum blockchain, that represent unique ownership of virtual items like art and sports memorabilia. NFT trading volumes in the first quarter of 2021 were up 15X quarter-over-quarter.¹

Cryptoassets are an emerging asset class and this level of volatility should be expected. We recommend interested investors remain diligent and only pursue investments that are appropriate for their risk tolerances.

Print PDF > Volatility in Crypto

¹CoinDesk, Nonfungible.com

 

The opinions expressed herein are those of Marquette Associates, Inc. (“Marquette”), and are subject to change without notice. This material is not financial advice or an offer to purchase or sell any product. Marquette reserves the right to modify its current investment strategies and techniques based on changing market dynamics or client needs.

Spreads Largely Pricing in a Full Recovery

Spreads for industries that were beat-up during the early 2020 COVID panic — energy, retail, and transportation — as well as for industries that proved more stable — financials, technology, and utilities — are now generally tighter than pre-pandemic levels in the bank loan and high yield markets. From here, spreads could tighten further as issuer fundamentals continue to improve, widen in a correction, or be volatile, blowing out and tightening back in throughout the economic recovery.

While a lot of progress has been made on the vaccination front, there is still more work to do. The fully vaccinated rate in the U.S. is currently 39%, not yet at 70% herd immunity. Globally, the fully vaccinated rate is only 5%, not even close to 70% herd immunity. While this leaves the economic recovery vulnerable, markets are forward-looking. In the bank loan and high yield markets, maturities have been pushed off, which is a positive, thanks to the large volume of issuance over the past year. Leverage levels of bank loan and high yield issuers are currently high, but due to decline, another positive, as earnings rise in the economic recovery. Use of proceeds from bank loan and high yield issuances¹ and aggressive issuance² are at benign levels, and defaults have been declining — more positive indicators. On the negative side, equity valuations are already at all-time highs and continuing to rise.

In summary, fundamentals are attractive, but valuations are not. We could potentially see spreads tighten further, but uncertainty is high, and we could also see a correction given the high valuations and frothy sentiment. While further spread tightening will be accretive to returns, it will limit short-term future price appreciation for fixed income strategies. Overall, this is a dynamic that bears watching, particularly as economic growth accelerates and the pandemic continues to fade.

Print PDF > Spreads Largely Pricing in a Full Recovery

¹ Such as towards refinancings (a sign of conservativism) versus acquisitions and LBOs (a sign of frothiness).
² Such as CCC bank loan and high yield issuance and 2nd lien bank loan issuance.

 

The opinions expressed herein are those of Marquette Associates, Inc. (“Marquette”), and are subject to change without notice. This material is not financial advice or an offer to purchase or sell any product. Marquette reserves the right to modify its current investment strategies and techniques based on changing market dynamics or client needs.

Can’t Buy a Thrill

In the spring of 1973, the lyrical geniuses Walter Becker and Donald Fagen of the musical group Steely Dan released the song “Reelin’ In the Years.” The third and fourth lines of the first stanza proclaim:

Well, you wouldn’t even know a diamond if you held it in your hand
The things you think are precious I can’t understand

At first glance, the reproving lyrics underscore the disagreement of value between two parties and one’s inability to recognize an object of high value. Arguably, value is subjective as the intersection of what the most pessimistic seller and most optimistic buyer are willing to accept. Fagen and Becker could have been students of economic policy, prophesizing the creation of Bitcoin more than 35 years later and critical of inflation, which would reach 6.2% in 1973 and 11.1% in 1974.¹ While I am hesitant to put Fagen and Becker in the same category as Keynes, Smith, and Friedman, I do believe their words inspire a debate on the meaning of value.

Gold has historically been accepted as an alternative to cash and a hedge against inflation. As expected, inflation has been on the rise this year, with the Consumer Price Index up 4.2% YoY in April, the highest in 12 years.² At the same time, contrary to conventional wisdom, gold has underperformed. Through May 14th, 2021, gold is down 3.4% YTD and up only 2.6% over the past year. Alternatively, the cryptocurrency Bitcoin is up over 50% YTD and over 350% over the past year. While there are a number of different factors behind Bitcoin’s latest rally, its status as “digital gold” may be one of them, with its finite supply and detachment from central bank policy particularly attractive right now.

The discussion around cryptocurrencies and inflation is a complicated one, given the nascency of the asset class and the limited data available given the general lack of inflation over the last several years. Making long-term decisions based on short-term information does not typically lead to beneficial outcomes. With that said, it is often hard to grasp the magnitude of innovation at its earliest stages. As the debate over the value of Bitcoin and the value of gold as an inflation hedge continues, we recommend investors be prudent and diligent in accounting for new data and information while weighing it against past lessons in uncertain periods.

Print PDF > Can’t Buy a Thrill

¹ World Bank, 1960–2019 data. “Inflation, consumer prices (annual %) – United States.”
² Cox, J. 12 May 2021. “Inflation speeds up in April as consumer prices leap 4.2%, fastest since 2008.”

 

The opinions expressed herein are those of Marquette Associates, Inc. (“Marquette”), and are subject to change without notice. This material is not financial advice or an offer to purchase or sell any product. Marquette reserves the right to modify its current investment strategies and techniques based on changing market dynamics or client needs.

The Lasting Effects of a Temporary Trade Stoppage

In late March, one of the busiest waterways in the world came to a standstill after the Ever Given, a 1,300-foot container ship, became lodged in the Suez Canal. Nearly 30% of the world’s daily shipping container freight passes through the Suez Canal, and with supply chains already disrupted amid the COVID pandemic, the timing could not have been worse. While only a one-week stoppage, with approximately 7% of the world’s oil and 12% of global goods trade flowing through the canal, it is estimated that each day lost delayed more than $9 billion worth of goods.¹

In this Chart of the Week, we analyze the impact that the Suez Canal closure had on maritime shipping costs and the contribution to inflation. The chart above shows the daily price movement of the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index (SCFI). As one of many proxies for global trade and ocean freight health, the SCFI reflects the weekly shipping spot rates of Shanghai container exports along 15 major trade routes, including Shanghai to the United States (east and west coasts), Europe, South Africa, and South America. In contrast to the highly-cited China Containerized Freight Index (CCFI), the SCFI focuses solely on exports in these 15 individual trade routes, rather than nationwide import and export container transport, which would include more contractual and futures rates. Rates surged throughout 2020 amid increasing demand for goods over services and tighter supply. The blockage, which may take months to fully recover from, combined with pent-up demand and economic re-openings has exacerbated the imbalance and sent SCFI spot shipping costs up another 20% over the last month. Rising inflation has been an increasing concern for investors this year and, given current dynamics, we do not expect the contribution from higher global shipping rates to abate anytime soon.

Print PDF > The Lasting Effects of a Temporary Trade Stoppage

¹Lloyd’s List Intelligence

 

The opinions expressed herein are those of Marquette Associates, Inc. (“Marquette”), and are subject to change without notice. This material is not financial advice or an offer to purchase or sell any product. Marquette reserves the right to modify its current investment strategies and techniques based on changing market dynamics or client needs.

When Do Rising Rates Matter the Most?

The first quarter of 2021 saw the 10-year Treasury yield nearly double, which had a profoundly negative impact on growth-oriented and higher-valuation stocks. Generally, higher interest rates are expected to lead to lower equity returns and vice versa, all else equal. While the pace of change in the 10-year during the first quarter was enough to rattle investors, data from the last decade does not support an overall negative correlation between the movement in interest rates and equity returns. Since the Global Financial Crisis (“GFC”), monthly returns of the S&P 500 Index and monthly changes in the 10-year Treasury yield have exhibited correlations ranging from modestly negative to strongly positive. This is in stark contrast to the correlations from previous decades, when equity returns and interest rate movements tended to be strongly inversely related, as conventional wisdom would suggest. Roughly 75% of the monthly correlation observations from 1970 to the beginning of the Global Financial Crisis were negative, compared to less than 14% from the GFC to the present day. While many variables likely contributed to this disconnect, the absolute level of interest rates may be the most important factor.

Though it is difficult to precisely quantify the impact, the extremely low yield environment of the past decade has clearly been a boon to stock prices. During periods of low rates, investors tend to shun conservative assets like bonds and turn to equities for yield, otherwise known as the “TINA” effect (i.e., market participants believe “there is no alternative” to stocks in low-rate climates). This phenomenon manifests itself in the form of the equity risk premium (the S&P 500 earnings yield less the 10-year Treasury yield), which has indicated the relative attractiveness of equities for nearly two decades. Low rates also benefit stock price valuations, calculated as expected future cash flows of companies pulled forward to the present day using a discount factor based on the risk-free interest rate. When yields are low, the denominators in those present value calculations are also low, leading to higher valuations. So, despite rates ticking up during various periods in the last decade, stock prices largely continued to rise as rates stayed extremely low on an absolute and historical basis. It is also worth noting that during exogenous shocks like the GFC and COVID-19, both yields and equity prices saw dramatic decreases, contributing to the positive correlation over the last several years.

At higher absolute levels of interest rates, however, the data show a stronger negative correlation between yield changes and equity price movements. The idea that the absolute level of interest rates helps determine the extent to which movements in yields impact equities begs the question: Is there an inflection point at which increases in rates are more likely to lead to diminished equity returns? While there are many factors at play, a quadratic regression on the correlations observed from 1970 through today implies that negative correlations begin at a 10-year Treasury yield of around 5.8%. For investors, this may help allay concerns about the impact of future rate hikes, with the 10-year still below 2%. That said, the era of easy money that has persisted for more than a decade may be drawing to a close, and investors should consider the implications of increasingly restrictive monetary policy going forward.

Print PDF > When Do Rising Rates Matter the Most?

 

The opinions expressed herein are those of Marquette Associates, Inc. (“Marquette”), and are subject to change without notice. This material is not financial advice or an offer to purchase or sell any product. Marquette reserves the right to modify its current investment strategies and techniques based on changing market dynamics or client needs.

What’s Next for SPACs?

The ferocious appetite for Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) continued its momentum throughout the first quarter of 2021. Investors could not get enough of this asset class as a record amount of capital flowed into the space. Through March, 2021 has already seen more SPAC IPOs than all of 2020, with over 300 new deals coming to market. Similarly, gross proceeds thus far through April are already over $100B, well past the $83B that was raised throughout 2020. The space has gotten so hot that sports celebrities like Shaquille O’Neal, Colin Kaepernick, and Alex Rodriguez have all put their names on SPACs that have recently hit the market.

Can this momentum continue? The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) might have something to say about it. Earlier this month, the SEC issued new accounting guidance that would classify SPAC warrants as liabilities instead of as equity instruments, as they are currently classified. Warrants are given to capital providers like hedge funds that put up the capital for SPACs before an IPO, to offer the capital provider more upside once the company goes public. SPAC IPOs have since slowed, as affected SPACs would have to restate their financials if this becomes law. With this risk on the table, investors may begin to look elsewhere to put their capital to work, dampening this SPAC market frenzy.

Print PDF > What’s Next for SPACs?

 

The opinions expressed herein are those of Marquette Associates, Inc. (“Marquette”), and are subject to change without notice. This material is not financial advice or an offer to purchase or sell any product. Marquette reserves the right to modify its current investment strategies and techniques based on changing market dynamics or client needs.

PE Pursues Buy-and-Build

Add-on investments, a company acquired by a private equity firm to be added to one of its platform companies, have steadily increased in importance and popularity over the past two decades. In 2020, 71.7% of U.S. PE deals were add-ons, compared with 43.2% in 2002. After a dip in total deal count in 2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic, we expect 2021 will see the highest number of add-on deals on record. These buy-and-build strategies can take different forms. Some involve large-scale roll-ups in which a platform company acquires a large number of smaller, often founder-owned companies. Others include more opportunistic M&A transactions that allow portfolio companies to pursue specific product or operational goals. The growth of add-ons across two decades of various market cycles can be attributed to a number of advantages: multiple arbitrage, giving larger firms access to out-of-reach market segments, helping portfolio companies enter new geographical markets, and doubling down on more profitable end markets.

The holding period for add-ons has also evolved. Historically, private equity has held platform investments that included add-ons longer than other portfolio companies. In recent years, the median exit times for portfolio companies with and without add-ons have converged to roughly five years. We attribute this to both private equity becoming more skilled at executing these buy-and-build strategies as well as buyers being increasingly willing to pay for the unrealized potential of recently-completed add-on acquisitions.

Print PDF > PE Pursues Buy-and-Build

 

The opinions expressed herein are those of Marquette Associates, Inc. (“Marquette”), and are subject to change without notice. This material is not financial advice or an offer to purchase or sell any product. Marquette reserves the right to modify its current investment strategies and techniques based on changing market dynamics or client needs.

Weak Dollar, Strong EM

For U.S.-based investors, the movement of the dollar has a direct and indirect impact on emerging market equity returns. The direct impact is straightforward. Purchasing foreign-listed equities requires conversion to the local currency. On top of the change in the price and any dividends of the underlying stock, a weakening U.S. dollar creates a positive currency return, while a strengthening U.S. dollar generates a negative currency return.

The movement of the dollar also has an indirect impact on emerging market returns. This week’s chart looks at the performance of the MSCI EM Local Currency Index and the U.S. Dollar Index (DXY). The local currency index removes any direct currency impact, isolating price performance of the underlying stocks. The DXY measures the U.S. dollar versus a basket of trade partner currencies. Since 2000, the correlation of monthly returns between the local currency index and the dollar index is -0.40, meaning historically they have moved in opposite directions.

There are several reasons why a weak dollar is supportive of emerging market equities. A weaker U.S. dollar is generally positive for overall economic growth and emerging economies typically benefit from strong global growth. Many developing economies are also reliant on dollar-issued debt. A weaker dollar lowers the cost of borrowing, a positive for emerging markets companies and equity markets. The U.S. dollar weakened throughout most of 2020, with the DXY down 10% between February and December. Over that same time frame, emerging markets equities returned 19%. So far in 2021, the dollar is up modestly, with emerging markets pulling back more recently. Looking forward, we expect the historical relationship between the two to persist, positioning emerging market equity investors to benefit should the dollar weaken further.

Print PDF > Weak Dollar, Strong EM

 

The opinions expressed herein are those of Marquette Associates, Inc. (“Marquette”), and are subject to change without notice. This material is not financial advice or an offer to purchase or sell any product. Marquette reserves the right to modify its current investment strategies and techniques based on changing market dynamics or client needs.