Category: Chart of the Week

Upping the Trade Ante: The U.S. Increases Tariffs on China

On May 10th, the United States increased tariffs from 10% to 25% on $200 billion of Chinese imports after trade talks broke down. The increase was initially planned for January 1, 2019, but the U.S. delayed the tariffs in order to see if a resolution could be reached by May 1st. China retaliated on May 13th with an increase in tariffs on $60 billion on American goods, effective June 1st.

Since the announcement, U.S. and Chinese equity markets have been down 0.9% and 6.1% through May 17th. In particular, there are a number of companies and industries caught in trade crosshairs:

  • Apple: China accounts for almost 20% of Apple’s revenue and hundreds of its suppliers are located in China. Concurrently, Chinese consumers have been moving away from more expensive iPhones towards cheaper Chinese brands like Huawei.
  • Semiconductors: Intellectual property disputes were key to the breakdown in trade negotiations. Many semiconductors are made in China and are used in mobile devices. An increase in tariffs could raise prices for consumers, which may lead to higher inventories and lower investment in innovation.
  • Materials: China owns 90% of rare earth supplies, which are used in advanced technologies. These materials may be subject to future tariffs.

Fortunately, the United States has taken some steps to lessen the blow of tariffs. First, the Trump administration delayed making a final decision on whether to impose tariffs on auto imports from the European Union and Japan. Second, the administration reached a deal with Canada and Mexico to end U.S. and retaliatory tariffs on steel and aluminum. This removes a major roadblock in the possible passage of the USMCA trade agreement, which would replace NAFTA, by Congress. However, our trade with China is greater than our trade with Canada or Mexico.

Recently, consumer confidence hit a 15-year high, but the survey was taken before the May 8th trade announcement. While the Street is crossing its fingers that a deal can be reached by the G20 summit in late June, we are more concerned with how a prolonged dispute can affect business investment and eventually, consumer confidence.

Print PDF > Upping the Trade Ante: The U.S. Increases Tariffs on China

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.

Are Low Default Rates a Reason to Reach for Higher Yields?

As indicated in Moody’s 2018 Annual Defaults Report, recent default rates on corporate debt have been significantly below long-term historical averages. Is this as positive for forward returns as one would think?

This week’s chart of the week shows recent corporate default rates against the longer-term averages and the return/risk ratio. As expected, the default rates are lower across the board and especially so in the sub-investment grade space. B rated debt has the largest change in default rate at 9.3%, leaving the trailing 5-year default rate at nearly half of its longer-term average. Lower default rates have been great for returns, so what’s the risk?

Just as equity analysts extrapolate recent high company earnings growth into the future, the risk is that credit analysts extrapolate the unordinarily low default rate into the future. The recent economic environment has been hospitable for low default rates with steadily increasing corporate margins and an increased ability to pay down debt. As some investors move into more volatile and lower quality debt to chase the higher yield that these bonds offer, the return per unit of risk decreases because the default rate increases by more than the additional yield benefit. If default rates were to increase and revert to the mean, lower credit rating bonds would be hit especially hard.

However, active investment managers strive to mitigate some of these risks. They can tilt their portfolios to higher quality bonds or choose bonds that they believe are rated incorrectly by rating agencies, thus lowering their portfolio’s default rate. In total, the recent low default rates have been great for trailing returns, however the future environment is uncertain and the strategy of reaching for higher yield may not perform as it has in recent history.

Print PDF > Are Low Default Rates a Reason to Reach for Higher Yields?

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.

Hedge Fund Favorites Rebound to Start 2019

This week’s chart shows the performance of Goldman’s portfolio of hedge fund favorites, which draws from over 800 fundamental-driven hedge funds’ top 10 long equity holdings. This hedge fund index is constructed with approximately 50 holdings commonly held in the top 10 by fundamental hedge funds.

In the fourth quarter of 2018, top hedge fund holdings gave back all their first half gains and underperformed the S&P 500 for the year. These popular holdings were positively correlated with growth and momentum factors. They were also heavily weighted toward the technology sector which helped them outperform during the first half of 2018.

As the calendar flipped to 2019, hedge fund performance has rebounded strongly, finishing the quarter with the strongest performance since 2006. Sector weights to information technology, communication services, and consumer discretionary drove outperformance from the most widely held hedge fund names. This strong start to 2019 was much needed for hedge funds, as 2018 returns failed to meet investor expectations. Of course, this represents only one quarter of the year and investors will be following hedge fund performance closely for the remainder of 2019 to see if this pattern continues.

Print PDF > Hedge Fund Favorites Rebound to Start 2019

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.

U.S. Equities Rally as Outflows Persist

This week’s chart looks at Morningstar fund flow data among the broad category groups of U.S. equity, international equity, taxable bond, and municipal bond. Since January 2018, U.S. equity funds saw cumulative net outflows totaling $123 billion, while international equities had positive cumulative inflows of $30 billion, taxable bonds had positive cumulative inflows of $97 billion, and municipal bonds had positive cumulative inflows of $32 billion. Negative fund flows within U.S. equities continue to persist in 2019 despite strong year-to-date gains.

The trend of U.S. equity outflows over the span of this bull market is nothing new but it is surprising to see fund outflows persist in the face of such a strong recovery off the December 2018 lows. As an example, the S&P 500 recently hit a record closing high of 2,945.83 on April 30th, surpassing the previous record closing high of 2,930.75 logged on September 20th, 2018. With the bull market turning ten years old on March 9th, a non-euphoric sentiment among investors may be a factor keeping this historically long bull market going.

What is driving this recent rally? In the past few months, investors have reacted to a significant reversal in monetary policy, better than expected first quarter earnings, a strong first quarter GDP, as well as continued increases in corporate stock buybacks. However, caution observed in fund flows may prove warranted with such items as a technical yield curve inversion, weakening profit margins, U.S.-China trade deal, Brexit, and upcoming 2020 elections weighing on investors’ minds.

Print PDF > U.S. Equities Rally as Outflows Persist

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.

IPOs Are Coming

This year has seen a burst of unicorn IPOs paving the way for Uber’s IPO later this year. While Lyft, Zoom, and Pinterest shared Uber’s unicorn status, they have had very different rides post-IPO in the stock market.

The market’s appetite for IPOs appears strong after a bumpy end to 2018, but one of the most recent unicorns to go public, Lyft, has struggled. After going public on March 28, the stock is down 22%, and 28% from its peak. Some analysts have pointed out that Lyft may have misled investors by claiming it held 39% of market share, as another survey reported 29%. Though the IPO ‘pop’ is well known, this is usually followed by a slow decline, so Lyft’s stock price behavior is not shocking. Zoom and Pinterest took note regardless, pricing their IPOs a bit more conservatively. Lyft priced its IPO at over a 30% premium compared to its last pre-IPO valuation, while Pinterest and Zoom went with about 2% and 17%, respectively.

Performance aside, 2019 is off to a strong start for IPOs with many more either expected or suspected including Uber, Beyond Meat, Airbnb, Slack, and Poshmark. The rest of the year should bring its share of further IPO excitement as more large, private companies seek to bring their investors liquidity and raise additional capital.

Print PDF > IPOs Are Coming

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.

Global Central Banks React to Slowed Economic Momentum

In 2017 the global economy underwent a synchronized move upward and investors saw equities throughout the world generate double-digit returns. That momentum was lost in 2018 and most economic data points missed analysts’ expectations leading to downward revisions in GDP growth. As a result, several major central banks have taken steps to become more accommodative to help navigate the slowdown.

In the U.S., the Fed has put future rate hikes on pause and has communicated it will be patient on future adjustments. Based on Fed Funds futures, the market expects an eventual rate cut. In Europe, the ECB extended its no rate hike stance through the end of 2019. Additionally, the central bank announced its third targeted long-term refinancing operation aimed at avoiding a credit squeeze that could exacerbate the economic slowdown. In China, authorities organized a stimulus package including $298B in tax cuts to help boost domestic demand. Additionally, the country has reduced the bank reserve ratio from 17% at the start of 2018 to 13.5% as of 1Q19. Though still early, there has not been a marked improvement in global economic activity. However, markets have welcomed the more accommodative stances from these three key central banks and equity markets have rebounded from the tough 4Q 2018.

Print PDF > Global Central Banks React to Slowed Economic Momentum

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.

Higher Yields, Higher Returns

As bond yields are much higher today than they were only three years ago due to nine Federal Reserve rate hikes since the Great Recession, fixed income investors are encouraged by the higher yields that are expected to produce higher returns in the future. The Fed’s nine rate hikes, having raised the fed funds rate from the range of 0.00%–0.25% only three years ago to 2.25%–2.50% today, are expected to provide a general boost to annualized bond returns over the next five years.

Our chart of the week looks at the relationship between current yields in the bond markets and the expected future annualized returns for the next five years. We focus on the Bloomberg Barclays Aggregate Index (“Agg”) as that is the most common bond benchmark used by investors. The chart plots the starting yield of the Agg over the last five decades, from the 1970s to today, on the x-axis. The y-axis then shows the corresponding annualized returns of the Agg over the next five years.

We can see that there is a very linear relationship: the higher the yields at each starting point, the higher the returns for the next five years. As rates declined from the 1980s through the 1990s and 2000s to today in the 2010s, this relationship held true. There are a few outliers in the 1970s, however, as the Federal Reserve under Volcker at the time hiked rates to counter stagflation. But excluding some of these outliers in the 1970s, the chart shows a very strong linear association that higher returns over the next five years are a direct result of higher rates today.

There are secular forces at play, particularly the rising retirement trend across the world’s most powerful economies (Japan, China, U.S., and Europe) that may keep our current low-rate “new neutral” phenomenon a persistent reality for some time. However, the countering forces are new technologies that provide for more productivity. On the balance, fixed income investors are expected to benefit from generally stronger annualized returns over the next five years versus the last 10 years since the Great Recession.

Print PDF > Higher Yields, Higher Returns

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.

Will Opportunity Zones Encourage Investment and Economic Growth?

In an effort to attract capital and encourage long-term investments in low-income urban and rural communities, Congress reformed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 to establish Opportunity Zones nationwide, which could offer a tax break for investors. The chart above shows the number of Opportunity Zones in each state. Congress had tried similar approaches in the past with Empowerment Zones and Renewal Communities, but this most recent effort is receiving unparalleled levels of attention for its generosity to investors and lack of governmental supervision.

Under this program, investors can re-invest their unrealized capital gains into a Qualified Opportunity Fund within 180 days of realization to receive numerous tax benefits. These benefits include potentially excluding up to 15% of invested gains from taxation (10% if held for 5 years, 15% if held for 7+ years). An investment held for longer (at least 10 years) is permanently excluded from taxation. In addition, capital gain taxes can potentially be deferred until 2026.

Given the infancy of the program, many have pointed out flaws within the initiative, stating there is a disconnect between the social benefits from the investments — which will be difficult to measure — and the size of the potential tax costs, which are uncapped. However, it will be for some time until it can be determined whether the program is effective and advantageous for investors, given Congress has asked the IRS to begin reporting on the program’s operations in 2022. Ultimately, this program bears watching as it could be an attractive opportunity for investors and asset managers while also encouraging growth in depressed areas of the country.

Print PDF> Will Opportunity Zones Encourage Investment and Economic 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.

Should Investors Reduce Equity Allocations After Yield Curve Inversion?

The yield curve plots the relationship between U.S. bond yields and their maturities, and typically slopes upward: the longer you hold the security, the higher the return given various risks through time such as inflation, opportunity cost, and economic uncertainty. The yield curve, however, can be inverted when high demand for long-term Treasuries drives the price up and the yield down resulting in a downward sloping curve. Yield curve inversion often signals a pessimistic view of the economy in which investors look for protection against slow economic growth and higher-than-expected inflation. Furthermore, the previous four instances of curve inversion have been followed by a market correction, though it can sometimes be years before a market correction follows inversion.

Last Friday, the 10-year Treasury yield fell below short-term yields with maturities ranging from 1-month to 1-year in response to disappointing Eurozone data, geopolitical risks around Brexit, and Fed Chairman Jerome Powell’s remark on a global economic slowdown. Shortly after the yield curve inverted — especially after the negative yield spread emerged between 3-month and 10-year Treasuries (regarded as the Fed’s most sensitive measure of market sentiment) — the equity market sold off and the S&P 500 total return fell by 1.89%. This immediate reaction led some investors to believe the correction was already unfolding.

While it is impossible to determine at this point if the correction is already here, investors should take comfort knowing that the equity market eventually rebounds from these corrections and shows resilience after the yield curve inverts. Our chart above shows the subsequent 3-month, 6-month, 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year returns of the S&P 500 index after the primary inversion data point — the spread between the 2-year and 10-year Treasury yields — first went negative (thus inverting). For example, after the 10s/2s yield inversion on December 27, 2005, S&P 500 annualized total returns after 1 year, 2 years and 5 years were 15.6%, 10.7% and 2.2% respectively. Over longer time periods after yield curve inversion, such as 7 or 10 years, equity returns more closely resemble their long-term averages. The other primary takeaway from the chart is that shorter-term equity returns — 3, 6, or 12 months — feature significant disparity from the last four yield curve inversions, indicating each instance is different in terms of magnitude and timing after initial 10s/2s inversion. Thus, we do not recommend that investors reduce their equity allocations in an attempt to time the potential correction after inversion, and over the longer-term, equities are still expected to be positive contributors to portfolio returns, even if the yield curve is temporarily inverted.

Print PDF> Should Investors Reduce Equity Allocations After Yield Curve Inversion?

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.

Will Correlations Between Private Equity Strategies Continue to Converge?

Private equity and venture capital allocations have together benefited private capital investors as they have individually provided outperformance at different points throughout an economic cycle. While both are loosely correlated to public equity performance, venture capital investments have many similarities to growth allocations whereas private equity buyout investments have characteristics similar to value allocations. Buyout returns often depend on lower purchase prices and leverage to generate excess returns, while venture returns tend to be less price sensitive and a reflection of accelerating growth.

The lower correlation between the two assets classes was present for more than a decade, spanning from the 1990’s to the early 2000’s. During this period, an investor would naturally hedge against the heightened volatility in venture by investing in both asset classes to offset this risk. However, since the mid-2000’s these two asset classes have become much more correlated as they both have benefited from a strong, 10-year plus growth-oriented environment coupled with low fixed interest rates.

While correlations have tightened over the past decade, the “growthy” economic backdrop that has fueled this relationship will undoubtedly come to an end. When this occurs, we believe these two asset classes will provide a nice complement over time to investment portfolios in generating a higher overall return with less volatility.

Print PDF> Will Correlations Between Private Equity Strategies Continue to Converge?

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.