Category: Chart of the Week

Will 2017 Bring a Surge of IPOs?

Snapchat (SNAP) — which went public in early March — was the first venture-backed technology company to do so in 2017. The firm sold 200 million shares to raise approximately $3.4 billion, making it the largest tech IPO after Alibaba Group in 2014. As private companies like Uber, Airbnb, and Pinterest continue to use private markets to raise capital, how much longer can they wait before turning to the public markets?

This week’s chart shows total global IPOs going back to 2008. Compared to 2015, 2016 saw 32% fewer global companies entering public markets. As accelerated growth continues among private companies, many market participants expect lower corporate taxes and fewer regulations. These potential changes would likely lead to more IPOs in 2017. According to Renaissance Capital, U.S. IPOs were off to a solid start in the first quarter with 25 companies going public and raising $10 billion. If in fact IPOs do pick up globally in 2017, it will become a much stronger year for venture and private equity investment firms. These firms will be able to monetize investments following the IPOs, creating a financial windfall for investors. A broad market sell-off in 2017 could be the only thing standing in the way of a record setting year for IPOs.

Print PDF

ESG Update: Continued Growth in Supply and Demand

This week’s Chart of the Week is an excerpt from our recently released white paper, Bracing for Impact: How to Prepare for the Next Generation of Defined Contribution Plans.

Both the demand for and supply of ESG investment opportunities have surged over the past several years. This week’s chart depicts the rise in institutional ESG assets. The value of sustainable, responsible and impact investing assets in the United States rose by an unprecedented 116% between 2012 and 2016 according to the Forum of Sustainable and Responsible Investment.

From the demand side, signatories to the Principles for Responsible Investment, a set of investment principles that enable incorporation of ESG considerations into investment practices, grew in combined assets from less than $6 trillion in 2006 to nearly $60 trillion by the end of April 2015. In response, the supply of ESG strategies in the market continues to increase as well, with investment firms offering ESG products in both the traditional and alternative asset classes.

Regulatory changes, new research, and shifting investor demographics have fostered increased interest in ESG investing, and plan sponsors should be prepared to adapt their investment options to accommodate the changing landscape.

Print PDF

What Will Drive Real Estate Returns in the Coming Years?

Core real estate investments have flourished since the financial crisis. The NCREIF Property Index (NPI), since returning six consecutive double-digit annual returns through 2015, delivered an 8% total return in 2016. Despite lower projected absolute returns compared to what we have experienced over the last six years, real estate remains an attractive investment relative to other asset classes.

This week’s chart illustrates the historical 1-year trailing total returns of the NCREIF Property Index (NPI) going back to 1979 broken down by the three main components of total return: dividend yield, cap rate shift (also known as cap rate compression / expansion), and net operating income (NOI) growth. As seen in the chart, the slowdown in total returns since last peaking in the third quarter of 2015 has been dominated by the cap rate shift effect as cap rates level off at their current historically low levels. NOI growth, on the other hand, has been relatively stable since the slowdown and will be a critical component of future real estate returns going forward as overall fundamentals for the asset class remain strong. Despite lower projected absolute returns, real estate is still an attractive investment relative to other asset classes and should deliver positive returns to investors again in 2017.

Print PDF>

March Market Madness: No One Knows Who Will Win

Historically, two indices have moved hand-in-hand: the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index and the VIX Index. The former is a measurement of uncertainty surrounding economic and political policy on a global scale, while the latter is a gauge of the volatility level for the S&P 500 index. The relationship between the two should not be surprising: as uncertainty increases, equity volatility rises. What is surprising is the recent divergence of the two. While global economic policy uncertainty surged to recent highs, market volatility is close to 20-year lows. Since the late 1990s, the 3-month rolling correlation between these indices has hovered around 60%; a divergence of the two to this extreme has not been seen in recent history. So what has caused this disparity?

One answer could be the election of Trump, which could explain the directionality of both indices. The contradictory nature of White House statements versus direct quotes from Trump himself oftentimes leaves the public unsure of what to expect next, as it relates to policy direction. Meanwhile, markets have climbed from the “Trump Effect,” which reflects optimism about the successful implementation of new business-friendly policies. An alternative explanation could simply be that company earnings have been sufficiently strong to support current valuation levels. Though there is global policy uncertainty domestically and internationally — notably due to the populist movement in Europe — strong earnings have more than offset this policy uncertainty and thus driven markets higher and perceived risk lower.

Can both sentiments concurrently be correct? This trend certainly hasn’t been the case in recent years, however, the divergence has continued since Trump’s inauguration. Only time will tell if one of these indicators is truly victorious.

What Do Falling Correlations Mean for Active U.S. Equity Managers?

The Implied Correlation Index measures the average correlation of the stocks in the S&P 500 index. When the index is high, individual stocks are more likely to move in tandem with the broad index; when it is low, return dispersion among stocks in the index will be higher.

The Implied Correlation Index measures the average correlation of the stocks in the S&P 500 index. When the index is high, individual stocks are more likely to move in tandem with the broad index; when it is low, return dispersion among stocks in the index will be higher.

Looking at the 1 year chart above, the correlation downtrend is easily visible. With low correlation levels, opportunities should be present for active managers to find alpha and begin outperforming their benchmarks once again. With higher return dispersion, active managers will have an increased opportunity to pick winning stocks. If correlations continue this pattern, it should be easier to identify successful active managers rather than those who have ridden the macro trends of the market in recent years. If nothing else, falling correlations within the index provide an opportunity for active managers to recover from general underperformance versus the benchmark which has plagued them in recent years.

Diverging Market Opinions (aka The Bears vs The Bulls)

This week’s Chart of the Week examines a recent phenomenon seen in valuations for both bonds and equities. U.S. stock prices rose quickly over the last year and a half with the S&P 500’s P/E ratio climbing to 21.8, surpassing its 20 year average. Meanwhile the Bloomberg Barclays Aggregate Index saw its option adjusted spread (OAS) fall below its 20 year average to .43%. OAS is a primary metric for valuating bond prices and this tightening suggests that bond prices are relatively expensive.

This is a rare situation as it is counterintuitive for both indices to be valued highly at the same time. Highlighted in the gray bars on the chart are the months when this occurred. During the late 90s equity valuations hit historic highs with the tech bubble. Treasury rates during this time were as high as 7%, so even though spreads were low the total yield on the Agg was still relatively high. Today’s environment is much different with Treasury yields around 2%. Excluding a transitory period in 2003 this was the only other time when this happened.

What makes this so unusual is bond and equity prices typically move in opposite directions of each other. Stock valuations increase when investors are confident in the markets and want to take advantage of a strong economy. Bond prices typically rise during “risk off” periods when investors look to be more defensive. The fact that both are rising seems to suggest there is increasing polarization of opinions in the financial markets. Since there is so little precedence for this situation it is difficult to know what to expect, but something almost certainly will have to give. Only time will tell who will win: the bulls or the bears.

Do Emerging Market Equities Have Further Upside?

Through the end of January, emerging market equities are up 25.4% on a trailing 12-month basis. This asset class has benefitted from several changes to the macro-economic environment: stronger commodity prices, more stable currencies, and a better growth outlook. In addition to these favorable changes, company fundamentals have also shown strong signs of improvement. This week’s chart displays earnings per share (EPS) of the MSCI Emerging Markets Index.

Through the end of January, emerging market equities are up 25.4% on a trailing 12-month basis. This asset class has benefitted from several changes to the macro-economic environment: stronger commodity prices, more stable currencies, and a better growth outlook. In addition to these favorable changes, company fundamentals have also shown strong signs of improvement. This week’s chart displays earnings per share (EPS) of the MSCI Emerging Markets Index.

Since 2013 earnings have been on a sharp downturn but based on forward estimates they appear to have bottomed in 2016. Not surprisingly, much of the initial resurgence has come from the commodities space, however, improved earnings revisions have broadened to other sectors. This is a promising trend for investors and supports further upside potential for this asset class.

Are High Yield Bonds Overvalued Right Now?

High yield bonds enjoyed significant tailwinds in 2016:
During the year, the price of oil stabilized.
U.S. shale oil exploration and production defaults and bankruptcies worked their way through the pipeline and most are now behind us.
Trump’s win, with his promises of tax cuts and infrastructure spending, boosted investor confidence.
OPEC’s production cut agreement further added to the risk-on sentiment.

High yield bonds enjoyed significant tailwinds in 2016:

  • During the year, the price of oil stabilized.
  • U.S. shale oil exploration and production defaults and bankruptcies worked their way through the pipeline and most are now behind us.
  • Trump’s win, with his promises of tax cuts and infrastructure spending, boosted investor confidence.
  • OPEC’s production cut agreement further added to the risk-on sentiment.

All of this fueled a 17.1% return for high yield bonds during 2016, as measured by the Barclays U.S. Corporate High Yield Bond Index. Of course, “bond math” dictates that returns for any sector of the asset class have a ceiling on price escalation, and high yield bonds may be in overvalued territory right now. As we can see in this week’s chart, spreads1  — which are a primary valuation metric for bonds — are tight at the moment, at 388 basis points on January 31 for the Barclays U.S. Corporate High Yield Bond Index compared with its ten-year average of 606 basis points. In other words, current high yield bond spreads are more than 200 basis points tighter than long-term average spreads. If we exclude the financial crisis years of 2008 and 2009, the long-term average spread is 508 basis points and current spreads are still considered tight. Current spreads are about as tight as they were prior to the shale oil crisis of 2014-2015.

High yield spreads typically compress to the point when a market correction occurs. This market correction typically features spread widening. Because of such tight spreads at the moment, as well as other fundamentals that we track such as aggressive use of proceeds and aggressive lower-quality issuance, spreads are more likely to widen than further tighten. As such, we recommend that clients reallocate to policy weights and maintain a cautious and conservative outlook for high yield bond allocations.

___________________
1 Defined as the excess yield above U.S. Treasury bond yields

Are Quant Strategies Poised to Replace Fundamental Managers?

As 2016 performance trickled in, the depth and prevalence of underperformance became very apparent. What made 2016 such a particularly difficult year for active management? Many have cited the tumultuous events throughout the year ranging from the market dip and subsequent recovery in the first quarter, to the Brexit, to the unexpected Trump victory. Rapidly reacting and adapting to these market changes – let alone capturing any alpha – was incredibly challenging.

As 2016 performance trickled in, the depth and prevalence of underperformance became very apparent. What made 2016 such a particularly difficult year for active management? Many have cited the tumultuous events throughout the year ranging from the market dip and subsequent recovery in the first quarter, to the Brexit, to the unexpected Trump victory. Rapidly reacting and adapting to these market changes — let alone capturing any alpha — was incredibly challenging.

Notably, quantitative strategies seemed to have an easier time reacting to these events than fundamental strategies. Quantitative, or “quant,” strategies rely heavily on statistical and mathematical screens and indicators which largely remove human emotion and judgment from the equation. These models arguably enabled portfolios to recognize the surprise market events of 2016 and adapt much more quickly than fundamental strategies. However, while quant strategies largely proved successful relative to their fundamental counterparts in 2016 during an array of smaller disruptive events, this pattern is not proven to hold during severe inflection points.

Will Investors Continue to Move Away from Active U.S. Equity Strategies?

This week’s chart shows asset flows between active and passively managed mutual funds and exchange traded funds (ETFs) in U.S. equities. Over the last eleven calendar years, active strategies experienced cumulative outflows totaling $864 billion, while passive strategies saw inflows of nearly $460 billion.

This week’s chart shows asset flows between active and passively managed mutual funds and exchange traded funds (ETFs) in U.S. equities. Over the last eleven calendar years, active strategies experienced cumulative outflows totaling $864 billion, while passive strategies saw inflows of nearly $460 billion.

Strong passive flows such as this can potentially have a negative effect on active performance since stocks are less able to differentiate themselves on fundamental factors. When passive strategies receive significant inflows, all stocks in an index are purchased and receive price support. This can have a material impact on stocks with limited trading volume, thus this is more of an issue for small-cap versus mid or large-cap. Within small-cap, passive inflows in 2016 totaled $7.6 billion while active outflows totaled $18.5 billion. The Russell 2000 Value posted the strongest return within the nine U.S. equity style boxes during 2016, while active strategy outperformance in small-cap value was especially challenged relative to the other style boxes.

With passive U.S. equity indices ranking in the top half or better of their respective peer groups in recent years, active strategies have largely lagged behind their benchmarks. This performance lag is a primary reason why asset flows have shifted to passive strategies. Since a passive strategy essentially owns the market, passive allocations have fully participated in the current bull market, while active strategy performance depends on how a particular fund’s bets fared relative to its benchmark. Passive investing represents a low-cost means of gaining exposure to an asset class and fees are often a small fraction of the fees paid for active management. With valuations at or close to all-time highs, active manager performance will be closely monitored in 2017 to see if their higher fees are justified in this current market environment.