Standish Mellon Asset Management Company LLC, the fixed income specialist for BNY Mellon Investment Management, announced that Vincent Reinhart will join the firm as Chief Economist.
Reinhart, who will report to David Leduc, Standish’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Investment Officer, is a recognized leader in economics and the investment management industry. He will serve as a key resource for Standish’s investment team and support developing the firm’s macro framework which is a key part of Standish’s investment process across all strategies.
«We are delighted to have someone of Vincent’s caliber and expertise to further strengthen our global macroeconomic research platform. He will provide additional scope to our team based investment process and will support our focus on developing innovative fixed income solutions,» said David Leduc.
Reinhart succeeds Tom Higgins who passed away late last year. «2015 was difficult as we said goodbye to a dear friend and remarkable colleague, but we find ourselves fortunate to add Vincent to the team,» continued Leduc.
Prior to joining Standish, Mr. Reinhart held the roles of Chief U.S. Economist and Managing Director at Morgan Stanley and is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). In addition, Reinhart worked at the Federal Reserve for twenty-four years where he was responsible for directing research and analysis of monetary policy strategies and the conduct of policy through open market operations, discount window lending, and reserve requirements. Reinhart received his undergraduate training at Fordham University and has graduate degrees in economics at Columbia University.
«I am excited to be able to join Standish, a firm with an impressive history, strong team and excellent investment capabilities,» stated Reinhart. «I look forward to working with my new colleagues to meet the needs of our clients and to help them navigate ever changing market conditions.»
In 2015, global convertible bond issuance totaled USD 82 billion, a very decent level, although slightly down in comparison to 2014 and 2013. Overall, the past four years have seen a supportive dynamism in the primary activity across the major convertible bond markets, with repeated but also first-time issuers adding to the global convertible bond supply.
While the volume of the primary issuance is an important element of the renewal of our market, selectivity remains the key pillar. Our philosophy leads us to primarily focus on accessing cheap option characteristics and strong bond-floors. This answers to one key objective: capturing the convex potential of the asset class.
This implies to differentiate between the most expensive convertible bonds – for which the convex potential is considerably limited – and those which, in contrast, display strong drivers of convexity: cheap implied volatility, high credit quality, strong upside potential. Thus, in the latter part of 2015, our preference went to the Brenntag and FCT-Iren new issues, rather than to the latest deals from Vodafone and Total, whose pricing terms at issuance appeared relatively less attractive to us. Similarly, in January, while we found strong value in the Safran 0% 2020 new issue, we did not participate in the Technip 0.875% 2021, which displayed, at issuance, a higher implied volatility level for similar credit quality profile.
In the long run, convertible bonds’ convex potential is what has enabled the asset class to deliver enhanced risk-adjusted returns relative to equities. We were glad to see that this attractive feature was equally evidenced in the shorter term. Over 2015 market ups and downs, the Stoxx Europe 50 NR posted a volatility 3 times higher than European convertible bonds (represented by the Thomson Reuters Europe Convertible Index €-hedged) for an equivalent yearly performance.
CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrFoto: EvelynGiggles, Flickr, Creative Commons. La consolidación de la industria europea de fondos no parará aunque el mercado acompañe
La consolidación de la industria europea de la gestión de activos, tanto en términos de número de entidades como de número de productos, continuará en el futuro y ni siquiera un entorno de mercado propicio detendrá esta tendencia. Así lo creen Detlef Glow, responsable de Análisis para EMEA de Lipper Thomson Reuters, y Christoph Karg, especialista de contenido de Alemania y Austria, autores del informe ‘Launches, Liquidations & Mergers in the European Mutual Fund Industry: Q4 2015’ (Lanzamientos, liquidaciones y fusiones en el mercado europeo de fondos en el cuarto trimestre de 2015).
Aunque reconocen que la consolidación podría ralentizarse, debido a que un volumen más abultado de activos bajo gestión supone más ingresos para los promotores, explican que aún existen factores que apoyan esa tendencia. “En los últimos años ha habido varias fusiones entre gestoras que llevaron a duplicidades en los rangos de productos de las entidades que necesitaban borrarse para lograr economías de escala”, algo que podría continuar.
Además, “aún hay mucha presión sobre las gestoras con respecto a la rentabilidad, que el año pasado llevó a depurar los rangos de productos. Esta presión podría incluso incrementarse, una vez el nuevo marco regulatorio se aplique totalmente”, puesto que, según los autores, no todos los costes derivados de la regulación se podrán pasar a los inversores y será un problema para la industria.
Otro factor que podría acelerar esa consolidación en el número de fondos disponibles para los inversores en Europa es la volatilidad, si continúa a lo largo del año en la línea de lo que ha pasado en diciembre y enero.
A lo largo de 2015, la industria europea lanzó 2.162 nuevos fondos, mientras liquidó 1.573 y fusionó 1.127 en otros productos, de forma que el número de fondos disponibles para el inversor en el Viejo Continente disminuyó en 538 fondos durante el año pasado. Así las cosas, a finales de diciembre de 2015 había 31.931 fondos de inversión registrados para la venta en Europa. Luxemburgo era el primer domicilio, con 9.174 productos, seguido de Francia (4.572 fondos). En el último trimestre del año pasado, 704 fondos desaparecieron del mercado (444 liquidaciones y 260 fusiones) y solo se lanzaron 563 fondos.
“En un entorno en el que la industria ha recibido muchas suscripciones, sorprende que sea tan cauta con respecto a los lanzamientos”, dicen los autores, si bien ello se debe a las causas mencionadas anteriormente (fusiones entre entidades y presión regulatoria y para obtener rentabilidad, principalmente).
Foto: theaucitron
. Cambian las necesidades tecnológicas del family office
El recientemente publicado informe “Technology in the Family Office: Navigating New Solutions”, de Family Office Exchange (FOX), identifica un cambio en las prácticas recomendadas en relación a la tecnología de los family offices. El trabajo reporta la forma en que el rápido desarrollo de la tecnología y la aparición de la nube ha cambiado la percepción tradicional de la tecnología de los family offices y por qué deberían éstos cambiar su manera de considerarla.
En el pasado, era necesario que las oficinas fabricaran a medida su infraestructura tecnológica para lograr que ésta satisficiera sus necesidades específicas. Era caro, un proceso difícil de manejar y podía impedir que una oficina se adaptase ágilmente a las cambiantes necesidades de las familias.
En los últimos años, sin embargo, dos significativos avances en la tecnología de la gestión de patrimonios han tenido un impacto positivo en la selección de productos tecnológicos e inversión: la entrega de aplicaciones de wealth management a través de Internet, la nube y la funcionalidad. Gracias a la nube, las oficinas pueden ahora mantener sus propias plataformas “holísticas”, aprovechando la gran variedad de aplicaciones para wealth management y servicios financieros para diseñar un modelo de servicio que se adapta a sus necesidades particulares.
“La velocidad de los desarrollos tecnológicos, unido al enorme incremento en las tasas de adopción de éstos por parte de los family offices en su día a día, ha creado un sentido de urgencia en éstos”, dice Steven Draper, senior technology consultant en FOX y autor del documento. “Las soluciones basadas en la nube tienen el potencial de cambiar la forma en que los profesionales de los family offices interactúan con sus clientes.Este cambio requiere una adaptación de la mentalidad de las firmas en relación a sus inversiones en tecnología: tienen que eliminar los sistemas y procesos obsoletos para seguir el ritmo de las prácticas de negocio modernas en cuanto a eficiencia, seguridad, niveles de servicio y ejecución”. Para diseñar e implementar estas nuevas infraestructuras basadas en la nube, los family offices necesitan un experto que entienda sus necesidades particulares de su negocio y de los servicios que presta, concluye el documento.
Michael Dobson, Chief Executive since 2001, will step down from the role and be succeeded by Peter Harrison on 4 April 2016. Peter Harrison joined Schroders in 2013 as Head of Equities, becoming a Board member and Head of Investment in 2014.
He has had a long and successful career in asset management and has a deep knowledge of Schroders’ culture and values, having joined the firm as a graduate in 1988, re-joining Schroders in 2013. Andrew Beeson, who has been Chairman for the last four years and a member of the Board since 2004, will retire from the Board on 4 April 2016. The Board is pleased to announce that Michael Dobson will become non-executive Chairman, effective 4 April 2016. The Board is mindful of the UK Corporate Governance Code’s provisions and believes these appointments are in the best interests of the company and its shareholders. Succession planning has been a long-term priority for the Board and these appointments have been made after careful consideration and in consultation with major shareholders. The Chairman has written to all shareholders to explain the reasons behind these decisions and a copy of the letter is part of this release, together with a statement from Lord Howard, the Senior Independent Director, who led the selection process for the new Chairman. Massimo Tosato, Executive Vice Chairman and Global Head of Distribution, will retire as a Director of the Company and leave the firm on 31 December 2016. He joined Schroders in Milan in 1995 before relocating to London in 1999, was appointed to the Board in 2001 and has held a number of senior positions within the firm. Ashley Almanza, who joined the Board in 2011 as a non-executive Director and is currently Chairman of the Audit and Risk Committee, has informed the Board that due to his commitments as Chief Executive of G4S plc, he will not seek re-election and will leave the Board at the forthcoming Annual General Meeting (AGM) on 28 April. Rhian Davies will become Chairman of the Audit and Risk Committee at the conclusion of the AGM.
Lord Howard, the Senior Independent Director, said: “We are delighted that Peter Harrison will succeed Michael as Chief Executive. Peter has great experience of the investment industry and a deep knowledge of the firm, its culture and values. Michael Dobson is the outstanding candidate for the Chairman role and the Board’s unanimous choice. Michael has been an exceptional leader of the business for over 14 years. During that time, profits have reached a record level in excess of £600 million, assets under management have tripled and significant value has been created for shareholders. Schroders has built a highly diversified business with an exceptional pool of talent, and the firm is well placed for the future. Michael will be involved in supporting the firm’s relationships with its major clients, shareholders, strategic and commercial partners and regulators. On behalf of the Board, I would like to thank Andrew Beeson for his significant contribution to Schroders over the past decade including the past four years as Chairman. We wish him the very best for the future. Although he will not be retiring from the firm until the end of this year, I would also like to take the opportunity to recognise the enormous contribution Massimo Tosato has made to the firm over 21 years as head of our highly successful global distribution business working closely with Michael Dobson as a Director of the Company for over 14 years. He will leave to pursue his entrepreneurial ambitions with our very best wishes.”
Andrew Beeson said: “It has been a privilege to serve on the Board of Schroders for over 11 years. As I look back on my time at the company I believe it has never been in a stronger position than it is today. Michael and Peter will make a formidable team and the firm could not be in more capable hands. I would like to thank Ashley for his contribution to the Board and in particular as Chairman of the Audit and Risk Committee. The appointment of Rhian Davies last year anticipated the need to have a successor for Ashley as he had indicated his executive commitments might prevent him from committing to Schroders in the longer term. As Chairman, Michael Dobson will be reviewing the composition of the Board and will lead the search for new non-executive Directors.”
Ashley Almanza said: “I have enjoyed my time as a Director of Schroders. It is a company I admire greatly. I am fully supportive of the changes announced today and I wish Peter and Michael every success in their new roles.”
According to Detlef Glow, Head of EMEA research at Lipper, assets under management in the European mutual fund industry faced net outflows of €42.6 bn from long-term mutual funds during January.
The single fund markets with the highest net inflows for January were France—driven by money market products (+€21.7 bn), Switzerland (+€1.7 bn), Norway (+€1.2 bn), Germany (+€1.0 bn), and Belgium (+€1.0 bn), while Luxembourg was the single market with the highest net outflows (-€33.5 bn), bettered by Ireland (-€13.6 bn) and the United Kingdom (-€12.2 bn).
Equity Eurozone (+€1.9 bn) was the best selling sector for January among long-term funds.
In terms of asset types, Bond funds (-€20.2 bn) were the one with the highest outflows in Europe for January, bettered somewhat by equity funds (-€19.7 bn), mixed-asset funds (-€5.3 bn), and “other” funds (-€0.08 bn) as well as commodity funds (-€0.04 bn).On the other side of the table alternative UCITS funds (+€2.2 bn) saw the highest net inflows, followed by real estate products (+€1.0)
Amundi, with net sales of €8.2 bn, was the best selling fund group for January overall, ahead of Credit Mutuel (+€3.4 bn) and Natixis Global Asset Management (+€2.5 bn). Legg Mason Western As US Mor-Backed Securities Acc (+€0.7 bn) was the best selling individual long-term fund for January.
Foto: LinkedIn / Foto de Londres de Jack Torcello. Chris Justice, nuevo COO y responsable de Janus para el mercado europeo
Janus Capital International ha nombrado a Chris Justice nuevo Chief Operating Officer y responsable de su negocio en Europa. Justice deja su base en Hong Kong, desde donde ejercía de responsable de iniciativas estratégicas APAC y EMEA, para trasladarse a Londres, donde seguirá reportando a Augustus Cheh, presidente de la firma internacional de Janus Capital.
Desde su nuevo puesto, será responsable de diseñar y ejecutar la estrategia de negocio de la firma en EMEA y trabajará codo con codo con Jamie Wong y Sylvain Agar, director de Institucionales y de Intermediarios financieros, respectivamente, para la región.
Graduado por la universidad de North Carolina at Chapel Hill en 1983, Justice inició su carrera en Bankers Trust Company en Nueva York, para después de cuatro años trasladarse a Hong Kong y trabajar para Orange Nassau / China Vest analizando, estructurando y dando seguimiento a inversiones en Hong Kong, Taiwán y China. De ahí pasó a Morningside Asia y posteriormente fundó la publicación en inglés South China Morning Post.
Su siguiente paso fue fundar Asiacontent.com (con más de 35 publicaciones locales en distintos países asiáticos) asociándose a Doubleclick, cuya filial asiática también lanzó. Por último, trabajó para Yilong Media Group, para Everlearn International Group y, antes de saltar a Janus en 2013, fue nombrado MD de Quam, en marzo de 2007.
Foto: Davesag, Flickr, Creative Commons. BNP Paribas IP recibe el premio de Agefi a la innovación por su ETF de empresas europeas con bajas emisiones de CO2
THEAM, la gestora de BNP Paribas IP especializada en soluciones indexadas o basadas en índices, ha ganado el premio a la innovación en 2016 (2016 Innovation Award) otorgado por la publicación Agefi, en su Grands Prix des ETF. El premio se ha centrado en un producto, el BNP Paribas Easy Low Carbon 100 Europe® UCITS ETF, y reconoce la innovación de los ETFs en la categoría de renta variable.
El premio, que fue entregado a la gestora el pasado 11 de febrero en la segunda edición del Grands Prix des ETF – organizado por la publicación financiera Agefi junto a la plataforma de análisis TrackInsight-, reconoce el papel pionero jugado por BNP Paribas IP, que en 2008 se convirtió en la primera firma en lanzar un ETF que invierte en empresas con emisiones bajas de carbono. Con Low Carbon 100 Europe® index como índice de referencia, BNP Paribas Easy Low Carbon 100 Europe® UCITS ETF replica la rentabilidad de las 100 mayores empresas europeas con las emisiones de CO2 más bajas en sus sectores respectivos.
Según ha anunciado la firma en un comunicado, el premio demuestra la capacidad de innovación de BNPP IP, que ayudó a modificar la tecnología del índice Low Carbon 100 Europe®, además del Euronext and Carbone4, en noviembre de 2015. Ahora es posible identificar compañías que hacen una contribución positiva a la transición energética, tanto a través de su capacidad operativa como de los productos vendidos a sus clientes, dice el comunicado. Según la gestora, el ETF combina inversiones responsables y una exposición diversificada a renta variable europea. “Invertir en el ETF significa invertir en una cartera con la mitad de emisiones de CO2 que en un índice tradicional europeo”, dice la firma en el comunicado.
Además, su rentabilidad ha sido buena: BNP Paribas Easy Low Carbon 100 Europe® UCITS ETF y el índice al que replica (Low Carbon 100 Europe) han batido al Stoxx Europe en cerca de un 12%.
El premio muestra el compromiso de la gestora de una economía baja en dióxido de carbono. Tras firmar el acuerdo de Montreal en mayo de 2015, implementar una política de inversiones ligadas a este elemento, firmar la “Portfolio Decarbonization Coalition” y publicar la huella del carbono en los fondos de renta variable en la línea Parvest en noviembre del año pasado, la gestora ha demostrado su capacidad de innovar y jugar un papel clave en este tipo de inversiones, asegura.
“Estamos muy felices de recibir este premio, que ilustra nuestro compromiso con las inversiones responsables. Nuestras principales iniciativas en los últimos años nos permiten ofrecer a nuestros clientes, tanto institucionales como retail, una amplia selección de soluciones de inversión pasadas en nuestro análisis e innovación”, comenta Frédéric Janbon, CEO de BNPP IP.
“El ETF bajo en carbono ayuda a financiar la transición energética invirtiendo de forma directa en compañías que son las más activas en reducir las emisiones de CO2 y que hacen una mayor contribución a limitar el calentamiento global a menos de dos grados”, añade Denis Panel, CEO de THEAM.
Liquid alternatives in a UCITS format are attracting interest from a wider range of investors, including insurers and pension funds, as a way to meet the transparency edicts of Solvency ll.
Cerulli Associates‘ report entitled European Alternative Products and Strategies 2016: Opportunity Knocks in the New Era finds that institutional investors are turning to retail-style alternative products as a cost-effective means to address regulatory pressure and to bridge the yield gap created by low-performing debt holdings.
More than 86% of asset managers surveyed by the global analytics firm predict an increase in demand for alternative UCITS funds over the next two years. Products with the UCITS stamp of approval are enticing conservative institutions in France and Germany into alternatives, as well as insurers EU-wide following the introduction of Solvency II.
In addition, hedge fund managers interviewed by Cerulli said that, although there had been fewer requests for UCITS products among institutional clients in the past 12 months when compared with offshore, AIFMD-branded alternative investment funds, and segregated accounts, they expected UCITS to be, along with offshore, the most likely format for new fund launches over the next two years.
«What was once the preserve of global and regional private banks is of increasing interest to continental institutions as well as EU insurers more generally,» says Tony Griffiths, senior analyst at Cerulli and co-author of the report. «One Swiss hedge fund manager told us it was surprised to find interest in the UCITS versions of its products among Swedish and Finnish institutions–two of Europe’s bigger buyers of offshore funds,» he adds.
Alternative beta -or risk premia- productsare also being sought, and implemented, by institutional clients as a cost-effective, liquid, and flexible means of securing portfolio diversification and achieving similar returns to hedge funds; a move that is stretching the definition of «alternatives».
«The balance of power is shifting to the investor,» says Justina Deveikyte, senior analyst at Cerulli and co-author of the report. «Lingering dissatisfaction with offshore hedge funds-sluggish performance, high fees, and minimal opacity -has influenced the rise in demand for alternative beta products,» she adds.
A number of alternative asset managers and hedge fund houses across Europe are evaluating or have already developed alternative beta strategies, while others are quite skeptical. There has been an increase in launches by alternative asset managers as they seek to meet growing demand and diversify business. This will invite greater scrutiny of performance.
It is “Super Tuesday” here in the U.S. Last week, all the talk in Europe was about “Brexit.” These newspaper buzzwords rarely figure in investors’ strategy meetings. But a new specter is haunting markets: the specter of political risk.
By Friday, February 19, the sterling-dollar exchange rate had been testing secular lows for a month. On top of policy divergence between the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve, negotiations over a new settlement between the U.K. and the European Union had introduced the risk of “Brexit”—Britain exiting the EU—into the trade. Many thought things were overcooked, and indeed the exchange rate pulled back in late trading as news of a deal trickled out from Brussels.
But then came Sunday night. Boris Johnson, the charismatic mayor of London tipped to challenge for the U.K. premiership when David Cameron leaves office, announced he would campaign to leave the EU. Sterling opened sharply lower on Monday, and as a surprising number of U.K. cabinet ministers joined the “leave” camp, it burst through resistance levels, falling almost 4% against the dollar in four days. “Brexit” was suddenly a market-moving risk.
We’ve witnessed something similar in the U.S. Even a month ago, a second-place finish in the Iowa caucuses persuaded many that Donald Trump’s bid for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination was finally choking. Trump, the Democrats’ Bernie Sanders and other “non-establishment” characters would grab the headlines. Volatility might erupt in certain sectors thanks to the rough-and-tumble of the campaign—witness biotech stocks after Hillary Clinton’s comments on drug pricing last fall. But familiar-looking figures would end up contesting the general election and no single party would get enough leverage on Capitol Hill to change current economic, and therefore market, realities.
We ourselves worked on that assumption until very recently. Three Trump victories and a Boris defection later, it no longer suffices: when these things move markets, asset allocators need to take them into account, too.
At the same time one shouldn’t lose sight of an important truth: politics makes for great blogs and cocktail-party talk, but the vast majority of it does not affect economic realities for the longer term. The market volatility it generates is often just noise. To put it another way, at this point we do not see any of these things as identifiable investment themes for the longer term, in the way that, say, the election of Shinzo Abe in 2012 has been. But they are risks that need to be managed.
How might asset allocators frame this problem? We see three potential courses of action:
Hedge specific risks, or make specific trades related to expected outcomes.
Reduce whole-portfolio risk exposure to take account of additional, generalized volatility.
Take contrarian positions when you believe pricing has gone too far.
When political risks begin to move markets, we believe it makes sense to do at least one of these things, but possibly to do all three at once, in different markets. Right now, we would suggest that so many risk factors are resonating—from “Brexit,” Trump and Sanders, through the rise of populism in Europe and the faltering of “Abenomics” in Japan, to loss of confidence in central banks—that identifying specific hedges is difficult. Alongside the oil price, concerns about China’s growth and flagging U.S. corporate earnings, these things add up to make us favor the second option, managing whole-portfolio risk until we get more clarity.
When there is more clarity, we may favor option one or three, double-down on option two—or possibly revert to a medium-term strategy of adding risk assets at appealing valuations. The important thing is the thought process, which we think provides a frame of reference for asset allocators who need to acknowledge the recent elevation of political risk in markets without being tugged this way and that by the daily headlines.
