OppenheimerFunds Launches an International Growth and Income Fund

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

OppenheimerFunds, launched the Oppenheimer International Growth and Income Fund (Ticker: OIMAX). The fund is managed by Robert Dunphy, co-portfolio manager of Oppenheimer International Growth Fund, who joined the firm in 2004.

“We’re delighted to build on the success of our Oppenheimer International Growth Fund which celebrated its 20th anniversary earlier this year,” said Krishna Memani, Chief Investment Officer of OppenheimerFunds. “The fund seeks to expand on the success factors of the Oppenheimer International Growth Fund to investors looking for income in addition to long-term capital appreciation.”

The Oppenheimer International Growth and Income Fund will seek total return by investing in cash generative, dividend paying companies that may benefit from long-term secular growth trends. “Long-term investing must involve a disciplined investment process and the ability to look beyond index compositions or fleeting trends,” said George Evans, CIO, Equities, and Portfolio Manager Oppenheimer International Growth Fund. “Our strategy for this fund aims to do exactly that, to ascertain the true growth potential of companies.”

“Our investors want access to international companies that have structurally sustainable growth advantage, ignoring index biases,” commented Kamal Bhatia, Head of Investment Products and Solutions, OppenheimerFunds. “Designing products that can simultaneously participate in shareholder friendly income satisfies multiple client needs.”

OppenheimerFunds, a leader in global asset management, is dedicated to providing solutions for its partners and end investors. OppenheimerFunds, including its subsidiaries, manages more than $222 billion in assets for over 13 million shareholder accounts, including sub-accounts, as of September 30, 2016.

Managing Political Risk in Investment Portfolios

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

What should investors expect in the forthcoming months in terms of political agenda? Is the European Union in the eye of the storm, with countries such as Italy currently under the scrutiny of markets, or is it the US, where the outcome of the presidential election will decide whether the country will enjoy a fiscal stimulus or not? According to Unigestion, rising income inequality and the drop in GDP per capita in the Western world help explain the behaviour of voters. How should investors hedge their portfolios against this political risk? Most of these factors are potential sources of volatility, but what if a genuinely anti-market leader comes into power in a large Western economy? 

Political risk is everywhere these days: just look at the Brexit headlines, the US election debates and the drama around Brazilian President Rousseff. The resurgence of political risks is probably a result of a turnaround in the perception of what globalisation does to the world. Globalisation has been a rising trend since the end of World War II and it has accelerated since China joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 2000. It has been an economic game changer: China experienced double-digit GDP growth at a time when Western economies had entered a period of structurally slower growth. The public is now showing signs of frustration regarding this phenomenon: what seemed a necessary evil, greasing the wheels of the world economy, is now perceived as a “rip-off”, as Donald Trump put it during his first debate with his Democrat opponent, Hillary Clinton. Beyond the theoretical debate around free trade, the perceived loss of economic sovereignty in the developed world is fuelling the rise of anti-establishment parties. The Brexit vote was the first crystallisation of this anti-establishment sentiment, and this anti-establishment theme will play a significant role during the heavily loaded political agenda in the remainder of 2016 and into 2017. We think political risk – the rise of political parties challenging the 20th century’s economic solutions – needs to be cautiously monitored as it is likely to be a factor in the performance of many investments. 

Since many Trump fans are unlikely to openly admit to pollsters that they will vote for him, his real popularity is probably higher than the opinion polls suggest. Political uncertainty is therefore challenging for markets not because it brings about change but because that change is often preceded by a period of uncertainty. When listing potential hedges against political risks, investors typically think of gold, forex, equity volatility, bonds and the US dollar. 

On average, implied volatilities display a tent-shaped pattern around US elections, rising in the month preceding elections along with the build-up in expectations and then falling quickly thereafter as the event becomes “priced in” or passes. A long position in volatilities therefore would work as a shock absorber to any risk-oriented portfolio. Safe- haven assets offered little protection on average. In the case of gold, it actually shows a reverse tent shape, posting negative returns ahead of and after elections: volatility seems the best potential hedge for such short-lived episodes.

“Political risk is on the rise, yet markets show little sign of pricing this in. There are fundamentals explaining its rise, and most of them will remain with us for an extended period of time: globalisation, lower standards of living and limited government leeway to change these fundamentals, fuelling popular frustrations. The US elections and later the Italian referendum are the next two events that investors should follow cautiously, especially as next year will feature potential anti-establishment votes. We recommend using forex and equity volatility to hedge this risk as these are the assets that show the strongest connection to such episodes of heightened volatility and the drying up of liquidity. The only caveat is that these approaches ought to work provided the political risk creates only short-term shocks, and not a longer-lasting blow to markets.” They conclude.

S&P Global Names Maria R. Morris to Board of Directors

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

S&P Global announced that its Board of Directors has elected Maria R. Morris to its Board, effective immediately.

Morris is Executive Vice President of MetLife, Inc., responsible for the company’s Global Employee Benefits business, and is interim head of MetLife’s U.S. business. As head of Global Employee Benefits, she is responsible for expanding the business in more than 40 countries through local solutions, partnerships with multinational corporations and distribution relationships with financial institutions.

“Maria has demonstrated exceptional business leadership at MetLife,” said Charles E. “Ed” Haldeman, Jr., Chairman of S&P Global. “Her business and financial acumen and understanding of international markets further strengthen our talented Board of Directors.”

“We are delighted Maria is joining our Board and look forward to benefiting from her deep operational experience managing large, global enterprises,” said Douglas L. Peterson, President and Chief Executive Officer of S&P Global.

Morris joined MetLife in 1984, holding a number of senior leadership roles. She has served as interim Chief Marketing Officer, Head of Global Technology and Operations, Executive Vice President for Employee Benefits Sales; Vice President and head of MetLife’s Group and Individual Disability businesses, and head of the Dental business.

Morris serves on the Boards of Directors of MetLife Property and Casualty Insurance Company, the MetLife Foundation and the American Council of Life Insurers.  She is also a member of the Board of Trustees for the Catholic Charities Archdiocese of New York and is Vice Chair of the All Stars Project, Inc.

The addition of Morris brings the number of S&P Global Directors to 12. Morris’ nomination follows the appointments of Rebecca Jacoby in 2014 and Monique Leroux last month. These women are leaders with critical experience in finance, investing, technology and global business operations.  Their appointments underscore the Company’s commitment to inviting diverse backgrounds, perspectives, skills and experience into the Board room to guide the growth and performance of S&P Global.

Don’t Cry Over the New Politics: Price it In, and Address its Real Concerns

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

If you want a picture to sum up how the politics of globalization have changed since the financial crisis, watch Canada’s trade minister, Chrystia Freeland, holding back tears last week as the Parliament of Wallonia refused to ratify the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between her country and the European Union.

CETA had its origins in October 2008. Back then, the executive European Commission would have expected to pass this agreement unilaterally. They felt the need to seek ratification from national parliaments because, since 2008, we’ve had the Great Recession, the Eurozone crisis, controversy over a similar E.U.-U.S. trade deal, Brexit, and the rise of Donald Trump. Belgium couldn’t ratify until all of its regions were onboard, the Wallonians weren’t having it—and so 75 lawmakers held the interests of 500 million Europeans and seven years of painstaking negotiation in the balance.

It’s tempting to dismiss the Wallonians as benighted protectionists blind to the wider benefits of trade and globalization. The more sober response is to acknowledge the very real difficulties globalization has created for working people in the developed world, and the very real controversies surrounding the new arbitration tribunals created by these new trade agreements, which some argue undermine democracy in favor of big business.

Investors need to acknowledge and understand these issues because debate around them will establish the context against which capital operates over the next generation.

Polarized Debate Obscures Real Issues

In the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote and the run-up to next week’s U.S. presidential election, those debates around sovereignty, trade, globalization and immigration have not been very helpful. It’s difficult to make a reasoned contribution. Positions get simplified and polarized. You’re either for or against immigration. You’re asked to vote to leave or remain in the E.U.

When I travel through Europe today I tend to get asked, “When did Americans become so anti-trade and anti-immigration?” And of course the answer is they didn’t. But working and middle-class Americans have started asking whether the trade deals struck by their political representatives really benefit them, how such a vast number of undocumented workers get through the immigration system, and whether business still offers them and their children opportunity, rather than just exploitation.

These are perfectly reasonable questions. The share of GDP going to labor has declined relentlessly this century. Over the same period the number of “breadwinner” jobs paying at least $45,000 fell from 73 million to 70 million, while those paying $20,000 or less have grown from 35 million to 40 million. If it’s reasonable to ask these questions, they won’t go away after next week’s election, regardless of the result.

Less Technocracy, More Democracy

If anything, these concerns will receive more mainstream attention once the electoral temperature has cooled. That’s partly because the mainstream is learning that, when they don’t get a hearing, many voters will back populists despite knowing their solutions are as likely to hurt as to help them. It’s also because politicians recognize that they need to do more now that central banks are at the limits of their effectiveness—and perceived to be part of the problem, into the bargain.

This is relevant for investors in two big ways, one short-term and one longer-term.

First, the transition from economies being driven by central-bank technocrats with their forward guidance, to economies being driven by politicians with their restless constituents, represents a meaningful increase in market risk. The Wallonia incident shows how a little extra democracy can throw a lot of extra sand into the wheels of global capitalism, and the premium for that kind of risk is already starting to be priced into markets.

Second, it’s worth remembering that addressing these concerns may be painful for providers of capital today, but real solutions to them are essential to capital, trade and globalization in the longer term. Disappointment with opportunity in today’s economy will continue to drive the debate around trade and immigration for years to come.  These are complex issues requiring thoughtful and balanced solutions, not rancor and hyperbole. 

It makes sense to “turn the channel” on the current political noise and focus on economic fundamentals, as Joe Amato has advocated in recent posts. But as you do, keep in mind the real issues behind the sound and fury—issues that require real solutions, which will have a real impact on the economy and your investments over the coming years.

Neuberger Berman’s CIO insight

Where Can You Find the Wealthiest Individuals in the World?

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

Estados Unidos repite como país con más riqueza privada del mundo mientras Mónaco lidera la renta per cápita mundial
CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrPhoto: Kurt Bauschardt . Where Can You Find the Wealthiest Individuals in the World?

According to New World Wealth’s latest study, the United Stated is the wealthiest country in the world, followed by China and Japan. For them, total individual wealth refers to the private wealth held by all the individuals in each country. This includes all their assets (property, cash, equities, business interests) less any liabilities. Though they exclude government funds from their figures.

Ampliar

 

One thing to note is that Australia only has 22 million people living there, making its 9th place quite impressive. New World Wealth also highlighted that China was the fastest growing W10 country over the past 15 years (in terms of US$ wealth growth).

Besides the richest countries by total assets, the firm also ranked countries by per capita wealth. The wealthiest people in the world are found in Monaco, Liechtenstein and Switzerland.

Ampliar

Only Australia, the United States and the UK showed up in both lists.

 

Wine Investment Fund Posts 32.2% Four-Year Net Return

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

The Malta-domiciled Wine Source Fund, investing in a diversified portfolio of international fine wines and spirits, has recorded a net return of 32.2% since its inception four years ago (as at 31 August 2016).

The fund, also registered under the Alternative Investment Fund Manager’s directive of the European Union has outperformed wines and spirits’ industry benchmarks. The Liv-ex 100 and the Liv-ex 1000 indices have reported cumulative net returns of 7% and 15.6% respectively over the same period.

The Wine Source Fund’s portfolio currently comprises more than 1,000 different wines and spirits from the world’s top producers, primarily located in France, Italy, Spain and the US. Over half of the fund’s investments are made in Bordeaux and Burgundy wines while spirits account for almost 10% of the portfolio. Also the Wine Source Fund holds Macallan Lalique bottlings of aged whisky.

About 40% of the portfolio is made up of assets purchased directly from producers at preferential prices, hence differentiating from competitors according to the managers of the fund.

The value of the wines appreciates monthly at a fixed rate and the fund sells them at the cumulative index price to fine dining establishments around the world through its affiliate, Wine Source Group.

Philippe Kalmbach, CEO of wine services provider Wine Source Group and co-manager of the Wine Source Fund, said: “The fund’s performance highlights how we have a unique head start in identifying investment opportunities through our daily dealings with producers and international fine dining establishments. These first-hand market insights led us to fine tune our strategy by investing in select markets and benefiting from favorable price dynamics in an overall quite challenging environment.”

The Eagerly-Awaited Tax Bill Has Been Submitted to Colombian Congress… Finally

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

Credicorp Capital’s, Daniel Valendia, Director of Research and Chief Economist, together with Camilo Andres Durán, Macro and Credit Analyst evaluate the consequences of the eagerly-awaited tax reform in Colombia.   

The Minister of Finance, Mauricio Cárdenas, finally submitted the long-awaited tax bill to Congress. According to the government, the proposal indeed represents a structural tax reform as it incorporates modifications to tariffs of direct and indirect taxes, the widening of tax bases for both corporates and individuals, measures to fight evasion and avoidance, and actions to simplify the tax code.

Therefore, according to the MoF, the submitted tax bill aims not only to raise new, fresh revenues to fill the fiscal gap created by the sharp drop in oil prices, but also improve the quality of the Colombian tax system in order to foster investment and formal employment. 

The tax bill came broadly in line with the overall proposal presented to the government by the Tax Experts Commission ten months ago as the main recommended changes were addressed (particularly the increase in VAT from 16% to 19% and the cut of the corporate tax to 32%), which is favorable, in their view. Likewise, some points of the reform would be implemented gradually (i.e. in several years), which is consistent with the fiscal rule and their long-held view.

The government expects the proposed bill to increase tax collection by 2.7% of GDP by 2022, above their estimate of 2.0% of GDP.

In any case, Credicorp Capital continues to acknowledge that the risk of dilution remains non-negligible after the ‘no’ victory in the peace deal’s plebiscite. Having said that, Valendia and Durán maintain the hypothesis that political incentives remain aligned for the approval of a tax reform: i) the 2017 budget, which excludes fresh revenues from a tax reform, represents no growth in real terms with investment falling 10%; thus, a tax reform would allow to introduce budget additions, which should be in the interest of Congressman; ii) considering that presidential elections will be held in May-18, political parties including those favored by the plebiscite’s results (e.g. Centro Democrático) will likely prefer to have the fiscal (big) issue solved by then.

In addition, Credicorp Capital believes that the tax bill submitted to Congress already incorporates the possibility of some dilution, providing the government room to negotiate with all political forces. Credicorp Capital would expect the current sovereign rating of BBB to be held should the size of a potential dilution not be significant.

The proposed tax bill would affect both their current 2017 GDP growth and inflation forecasts (2.7% and 3.8%, respectively) mainly as a result of the VAT increase while improving economic prospects in the longer term through higher competitiveness. Likewise, it could impact their current call for a rate cut cycle by the BanRep starting in December 2016 – first quarter 2017 to some extent, although maybe not material as the effect on inflation is a one-off. Credicorp Capital will estimate the potential effect of the proposed changes on macro variables and valuation models for Colombian equity issuers, and provide the results in upcoming reports. Undoubtedly, the debate in Congress and potential modifications to the bill will be relevant for the results:

The size of the reform. The proposed tax bill aims to increase tax collection by 2.7% of GDP by 2022 while additional resources for 0.6% of GDP from higher formalization would be also expected, so that total fresh revenues could amount about 3.3% of GDP by that year. For 2017, the increase in tax collection would be close to 0.8% of GDP, in line with the required decrease in fiscal deficit by 0.6% of GDP according to the fiscal rule.

VAT from 16% to 19% from 2017 onwards. The tax bill proposes to increase the VAT tax by 3pp to 19% as soon as in 2017, in line with the recommendations of the Experts Commission. Credicorp Capital expected a gradual implementation to avoid a material impact on both inflation and private consumption. That said, Credicorp Capital thinks that this decision was made considering that basic products such as food and education will continue to be excluded/exempted vs. a low but positive tariff proposed by the Commission (5%). In any case, Credicorp Capital does not rule out that a gradual implementation in the VAT hike may be the result after the debate in Congress. In that sense, the final one-time impact on 2017 inflation can be much lower than thought at first glance; likewise, the government estimates that the impact on the 2017 GDP will come primarily from lower private consumption growth by 0.3pp vs. the scenario without tax reform.

New home sales. The sale of new housing units exceeding COP 797 million will have a 5% VAT rate. At the same time, the government stressed that the social interest housing programs for low income individuals will not have any VAT.

Corporate taxes. Under the proposed tax reform, the corporate tax structure in Colombia will be simplified as there will be just one enacted tax compared to four different schemes under the current regime. In that sense, the wealth tax will disappear by 2018 as originally planned. Major firms (i.e. those with a net income above COP 800 million) will have a corporate tax rate of 34% in 2017 with a surcharge of 5% for a total rate of 39%. The corporate tax rate for 2018 will placed at 33% with a surcharge of 3% for a total rate of 36%. Finally, the corporate tax rate from 2019 onwards is expected to decline towards 32%. Recall that under the previous tax reform, the corporate tax rate for 2017 and 2018 was placed at 42% and 43%, respectively. Last but not least, the new tax reform considers an exemption of VAT tax on capital goods; in other words, companies will have a tax benefit for investing in new technologies, machines, and the overall expansion of the business.

The government also plans to foster job creation. The new tax reform sets a decline of the employer’s contribution towards health and pensions for those with a salary above 10 times the monthly minimum wage. The government’s total goal in terms of formal employment with the reform is the creation of 255,000 jobs.

Tax on dividends. The tax bill includes this provision as it was expected. Accordingly, local individuals will be charged (starting in 2017) with a tax rate of 5% if dividends reach between COP 17.8 million and COP 29.7 million per year, while the rate may increase towards 10% should dividends exceed COP 29.7 million. Meanwhile, the tax on dividends for foreign investors will be placed at 10%. Importantly, local firms will not be subject to the tax on dividends.

Income tax for individuals. The structure will be simplified through maintaining only one system (ordinary rent) vs. three currently (ordinary rent, IMAS and IMAN). As expected, the tax base would be increased for individuals, so that the income tax will be paid for those earning above COP 2.7 million per month vs. COP 3.5 million currently from 2018 onwards. Likewise, the cap to exemptions for individuals will be 35% of the total income with a maximum amount of COP 104 million. Overall, the reform aims to make the system more progressive.

Evasion. Among other measures, the tax bill proposes imprisonment between 48 to 108 months for those omitting assets or declaring non-existent liabilities above COP 5 bn and a penalty equivalent to 20% of the value of the non-declared asset or non-existent liability. Likewise, more inspectors will be hired in DIAN.

Financial transaction tax (4×1000). As broadly expected and in line with the Experts Commission recommendation, the 4×1000 tax will be permanent.

The non-profit organizations regime (ESAL). This measure aims to reduce tax evasion and avoidance through the use of this scheme, and to control the proper fulfillment of the social function of such organizations. Currently, non-profit organizations operate under a special tax regime. This regime will remain ahead, although a stricter classification and verification of such entities will be implemented. In particular, the DIAN will oversight non-profit organizations and the compliance of the requirements to remain under the special tax regime.  The government will create an information system in which non-profit entities should declare their organization charts, payments to executives, donations, investment programs, current and future projects, among others. Any direct or indirect distribution of income to shareholders or founders of these entities would be prohibited due to their non-profit status.

Monotax (Monotributo). It aims to formalize the small retailers and to simplify the transaction process of their tax dues. Retailers could choose between this new regime and the current income tax, as the Monotax does not imply an additional charge. The MoF declared that the main target of this tax is to create benefits to small retailers rather than to collect high additional revenues for the government. Formalization would allow small retailers to have access to the financial system, and a better social security.    

Sugar-sweetened beverages and cigarettes additional tax. The cigarettes’ price in Colombia is among the lowest in the world; the target is to converge towards the region’s average. Thus, the specific tax on cigarettes will triple in 2017, and will be indexed to inflation (inflation + 4%) from 2018 onwards. Moreover, the sugar-sweetened charge will be COP 300 per liter. Those taxes add to the VAT in each case. 

The eagerly-awaited reduction of the TES withholding tax for foreigners was not included in the tax bill, contrary to expectations. Credicorp Capital believes that this was mainly due to concerns regarding financial stability, as foreigners’ share on the TES COP market has increased from 24.7% in February 2016 to 32.8% currently. Thus, the withholding tax would remain at 14%.

Spanish Sicav’s Are in the Line of Fire

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

Spanish Sicavs are under scrutiny following allegations that wealthy individuals are obtaining tax advantages through this type of investment vehicle.

Resident Spanish taxpayers typically pay capital gains tax rates of between 19% to 23%. However, those investing through a Sicav typically pay just 1%. Given this premise, all major political parties in Spain have pledged to revise regulation of Sicavs, which have become associated with tax avoidance strategies for wealthy individuals.

Sicavs, however, offer the same tax benefits as investment funds, which are used by more than 8 million investors, according to fund industry association Inverco. Thus, those fiscal advantages are not enjoyed by just a handful of wealthy families.

Investors using Sicavs or investment funds pay 1% tax on capital gains as long as they hold their investment, but when they sell their holding – whether in a Sicav or fund – they pay the same progressive tax rate of 19% (€0-€6,001), 21% (€6,000-€50,000) or 23% (over €50,000).

Sicavs in this case do not offer more tax advantages than popular investment funds – the difference is instead centred on operational issues. For example, major shareholders of a Sicav control strategic decisions on investments, while an investment fund is managed by a management team.

Collective Vehicle?

The minimum capital threshold for Sicavs in Spain is €2.4m, and it requires at least 100 shareholders. However, there is no maximum percentage a single shareholder can own. This supposedly collective investment vehicle can be therefore be controlled by a single family or wealthy individual by naming a series of surrogate investors, commonly known as “mariachis”.

Jorge Sarró, partner and head of Tax at Barcelona-based legal firm Rousaud Costas Duran (RCD) agrees that there are more Sicavs used as a tool for large fortunes rather than as an instrument of collective investment. “The figure of the Sicav, for its flexibility, taxation and low cost, is used as an investment vehicle from €2m or €3m to large fortunes,” Sarró says.

Spain’s Sicavs are generally linked to family groups, says Luis Rodríguez-Ramos, partner of the Tax Department at Ramón y Cajal Abogados. “This doesn’t mean these vehicles are not collective investments. In theory, you can buy Sicavs shares [on Spain’s alternative market MAB] and if there’s nothing available maybe the best solution, instead of demonising Sicavs, is to force them to issue paper so anybody can subscribe,” Rodríguez-Ramos argues.

As Sicavs are widely used by wealthy individuals and families to channel their savings, the collective nature of these investment vehicles has been questioned.

Political Pressures

Spain’s main political parties have all announced changes in regards to Sicavs, so this investment vehicle is facing increasing legal uncertainty.

While anti-austerity party Podemos has pushed to eliminate Sicavs, the largest opposition party PSOE and centrist Ciudadanos have opted instead for increased control. The ruling conservative
PP party, for its part, has suggested only those with a minimum participation of 0.55%, based on a minimum number of 100 shareholders will count as Sicav investors.

But this proposal has been criticised by industry players who say this measure is going to raise the minimum investment to the point of limiting private investor access to Sicavs.

“This formula will punish Sicavs that are genuine collective investment vehicles,” Sarró says.

As a result of this situation, more than 120 Spanish Sicavs have merged with an investment fund so far this year, compared to just three over the same period a year ago. However, recent binding responses from Spain’s General Directorate of Taxes (DGT) are limiting the investor advantages seen stemming from mergers, which seems to have slowed the merger momentum.

According to law firm Ashurst, Spanish Sicavs are planning to move to other jurisdictions for fear of greater tax pressures in Spain and also with the aim of finding more legal certainty. “Luxembourg has been chosen as the best destination, because its tax regime is advantageous. Luxembourg Specialised Investment Funds (SIFs) are taxed at a 0.01% CIT rate on net assets,” pinpoints a report from the firm.

The transfer to Luxembourg is usually done through a merger with a Luxembourg fund but, Sarró says, this alternative poses the risk of international tax transparency, especially following the final draft for the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) tax plan.

Patrick Dixneuf to Become Aviva’s New CEO in France

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

Patrick Dixneuf has been appointed as CEO of Aviva France, effective from 1 November 2016. Patrick Dixneuf will succeed Nicolas Schimel who, after four years as the CEO of Aviva France, will leave the organisation at the end of October.

David McMillan, CEO Aviva Europe and chairman of the Board of Directors of Aviva France, said: “I am delighted to welcome Patrick to Aviva France. Patrick has a clear mandate to set in motion the strategic ambitions of Aviva France, as well as to accelerate the transformation of the business. Patrick brings a wealth of international experience across several European countries, as well as a strong finance and operational background.”

Patrick Dixneuf said: “I’m proud to join Aviva France, a key business and strong contributor to the Aviva Group. I’m confident that, in collaboration with our employees, partners and distributors, we will be able to delight our customers both in a traditional and digital environment.”

Patrick joined Aviva in January 2011 as chief operations officer for Aviva Europe and member of the European Executive Committee. He has held a number of roles across the organisation, most recently finance design, innovation and change director at Aviva Group. Previously, he was CEO of Aviva Italy between 2012 and 2016, leading the turnaround and transformation of the business, bringing it back to growth. Prior to joining Aviva, he held a number of executive roles at Allianz and Paribas before it merged with BNP. He started his career at Alcatel in 1986.

Aviva’s asset management business, Aviva Investors, provides asset management services to both Aviva and external clients, and currently manages over £319 billion in assets.

 

Cohen & Steers Celebrates 30 Years

  |   For  |  0 Comentarios

Cohen & Steers is celebrating its 30th anniversary. Over the past three decades, Cohen & Steers has achieved its vision of becoming a leading manager of real asset strategies, building on its long-standing renown as a pioneer in listed real estate investing.

Marty Cohen and Bob Steers launched the firm in 1986 and listed Cohen & Steers, Inc. on the New York Stock Exchange in 2004. As of September 30, 2016, Cohen & Steers managed more than $60 billion in assets and employed nearly 300 people in five offices across the U.S., Europe and Asia. Since its beginnings as a specialist investor in U.S. REITs, the firm has expanded its investment capabilities to include other liquid real assets, including listed infrastructure, commodities and natural resource equities, as well as preferred securities and other income solutions.

In commemoration of the 30-year milestone, the co-founders rang the opening bell of the New York Stock Exchange on October 10, 2016. At its initial public offering on August 16, 2004, Cohen & Steers, Inc. debuted at $13 per share with $15 billion in assets under management (AUM). Twelve years later, as of October 10, 2016, shares traded at $40.69, with September 30, 2016 representing a quadrupling of AUM during that period.

“I am excited and humbled to be celebrating this special milestone,” said Bob Steers, the firm’s Chief Executive Officer. “Seeing the firm grow and evolve over the years has been incredibly gratifying and I look forward to the tremendous possibilities that lie ahead. Just as we saw the opportunity in REITs 30 years ago, we believe investors are just beginning to recognize the potential of real assets.”

Cohen & Steers’ strategies are available through a wide range of investment vehicles, including institutional accounts, U.S. registered mutual funds, European institutional and retail funds, collective investment trusts, as well as limited partnerships.