Despite the downturn in China markets in the second half of 2015, Chinese fund management companies (FMCs) saw revenues and profits rising in 2015. Many FMCs saw double-digit and even triple-digit net profit growth during the year.
This is one of the key findings of a research initiative by Cerulli Associates entitled Asset Management in China 2016. This research initiative is divided into three parts: two quarterly strategic overview reports followed by our annual report scheduled for release in the third quarter of 2016. This key finding was presented in the second strategic overview, released this month.
Cerulli’s research shows that six FMCs reported net profits of more than RMB1 billion in 2015. China Asset Management was the most profitable with RMB1.41 billion in net profit, followed by ICBC Credit Suisse Asset Management with a net profit of RMB1.29 billion for 2015.
For the largest 20 managers in China, the average net profit margin was 30.4% in 2015 while the net profit yield–which measures how much managers earn in basis points for each renminbi they manage–was approximately 28.5 basis points. Fullgoal Fund Management showed the best net profit yield last year at 56.9 basis points.
Institutions continue to play a big part in growing FMCs revenues and profits. «Institutional investors are estimated to have contributed one-third of assets under management as at end-2015. We understand that they prefer one to-one segregated accounts because such accounts are more flexible in active management and in using leverage,» says Miao Hui, senior analyst with Cerulli who leads the China research initiative.
Institutional investors also welcome «customized mutual funds,» or funds launched for specific investors that meet the minimum number of subscribers, with lower leverage allowed. Still, it will be hard for FMCs to sustain 2015’s profit levels in 2016. «While institutional investors’ participation in capital markets is expected to grow in 2016, FMCs’ profits will be hard to maintain under current volatile market conditions,» Hui adds.
Foto: mark yang . Los bancos centrales y la definición de la locura
Con frecuencia se dice que la definición de locura es hacer lo mismo una y otra vez, esperando un resultado diferente. Esto parece ser una lección que los bancos centrales no han podido entender.
Durante el auge de la crisis financiera de 2008, las autoridades monetarias globales han recurrido a todos los frenos para evitar un desastre, incluyendo tasas más bajas /tasas cero / tasas negativas, proyecciones positivas, la operación Twist, la flexibilización cuantitativa, financiamiento para planes de préstamos, y ahora la posibilidad del «dinero helicóptero.»
Con seguridad, los bancos centrales merecen un aplauso por su creatividad y uso flexible de los instrumentos de política monetaria cuando la economía mundial se fue en picada. Aunque es imposible demostrarlo, sin duda podría haber sido peor de no haber actuado de manera decisiva. Ya sea mediante el enfoque del Banco de Japón, las iniciativas de Mario Draghi, o la política de «boca abierta» de la Reserva Federal, dichas acciones extraordinarias enviaron una sólida señal. Un mensaje lo suficientemente poderoso como para cambiar el sentimiento en momentos en que se necesitaba con urgencia.
¿Qué sigue a lo «extraordinario»?
Hoy, sin embargo, ese mismo mensaje puede estar haciendo más daño que bien. Aunque debajo de lo esperado, la recuperación/expansión global atraviesa por su 8o año. En este contexto, la política monetaria extraordinaria parece no conectar con un mundo que ahora crece lentamente y no está en crisis. Los consumidores y las empresas no entienden de los matices técnicos de las tasas negativas o el dinero helicóptero, pero reconocen que las políticas extremas sólo se justifican ante una perspectiva extremadamente grave. Esta desconexión no lleva a los consumidores a los centros comerciales ni anima a los CEO’s a invertir en proyectos de capital. Después de ocho años, las políticas que una vez aumentaron la confianza ahora la desaniman, diluyendo o posiblemente descompensando los mismos beneficios que las tasas bajas ofrecían originalmente.
Los efectos secundarios
Si la política extraordinaria está socavando la confianza, ¿es hora de un cambio? La normalización de la política monetaria, obviamente, conlleva sus propios riesgos: aumentar las tasas de interés o relajar la compra de activos podría desacelerar aún más la economía global e incluso causar una próxima recesión. Aunque reconocemos este riesgo, creemos que los bancos centrales han llegado a un punto de inflexión en el que los efectos secundarios negativos de la política extraordinaria ahora parecen ser mayores que sus beneficios. Estos efectos secundarios incluyen:
1. Mayor probabilidad de burbujas de activos 2. Aumento de pasivos y presiones en el balance de los bancos, compañías de seguros, y fondos de pensión 3. Mayor tendencia de los individuos a ahorrar más para compensar la disminución del retorno 4. Menos ingresos por intereses para el gasto de la generación baby boom 5. Pérdida de competitividad y eficiencia ya que las tasas anormalmente bajas permiten que empresas «zombi» se mantengan operando indefinidamente. 6. Una excusa conveniente para los reguladores de eludir sus responsabilidades para implementar las reformas estructurales y proporcionar estímulos fiscales.
Aclaro, no pedimos condiciones monetarias más estrictas o agresivas, sólo un distanciamiento de las políticas ultra acomodaticias que han hecho poco para impulsar el crecimiento en los últimos años. Cabe destacar que no todos los bancos centrales se enfrentan a las mismas ventajas y desventajas. Varios países y regiones se encuentran en diferentes puntos del ciclo, por lo que cada uno tendrá que decidir cómo ponderar la reacción en cadena. En EE.UU., sin embargo, un crecimiento levemente más fuerte y la inflación permiten a la Fed un mayor margen de acción que muchos otros bancos centrales. Si bien el Comité Federal de Mercado Abierto (FOMC) probablemente no aumente las tasas esta semana, la reunión es una oportunidad importante para transmitir una estrategia de salida que inspire más confianza.
Columna de Natixis escrita por David Lafferty, CFA
Germany’s Oktoberfest is famous the world over for its traditional costumes and, most of all, its one-litre “Maß” mugs of beer. But have you thought about what beer can teach you about the world of finance and economics?
Hans-Jörg Naumer, Head of Global Capital Market Analysis and Thematic Research at Allianz Global Investors and his team prepared an infographic that compares the number of Okoberfest Maß that EUR 10 buys versus what that same money will have become if invested in German equities back in 1960. The result, Pint-sized economics!
“As our research shows, the equivalent of EUR 10 in 1960 would have been more than enough to buy an entire round for you and nine friends. But thanks to inflation, the price of a Maß has gone from 95 cents in 1960 to EUR 10.50 today – not even enough for one drink. Yet if you had skipped your drinks in 1960 and invested EUR 10 in German equities, you would now have EUR 395. That would buy you an inflation-busting 37 Maß at Oktoberfest. Prost!” Concludes Naumer.
Foto: enki22
. Las firmas de real estate tienen perspectivas positivas, a pesar de la caída del volumen de ventas
La gran mayoría de las empresas de real estate tienen perspectivas optimistas para el futuro en lo que a rentabilidad y crecimiento de la industria se refiere, de acuerdo con el 2016 Profile of Real Estate Firms elaborado por la Asociación Nacional de Realtors (NAR), de Estados Unidos. Las expectativas de rentabilidad han bajado con respecto al año pasado, debido principalmente a la escasez de inventario y al aumento de los precios de las viviendas, pero los operadores de esta industria siguen confiando en su rentabilidad global a futuro.
«Por segundo año consecutivo, la mayoría de las empresas de real estate tienen previsiones positivas con respecto a su rentabilidad: hay un 91% de ellas que espera que sus ingresos netos aumenten o no varíen con respecto a 2016 el próximo año», declara Tom Salomone, presidente de NAR y propietario del broker inmobiliario Real Estate II, en Coral Springs, Florida. «A pesar de lo positivo de las perspectivas, el bajo inventario y los altos precios han conducido a una disminución global del volumen de ventas de la firmas en los últimos 12 meses. Los altos precios frenan a los compradores de primera vivienda, y el bajo inventario implica un menor número de ventas en un momento en que hay mas agentes inmobiliarios».
En 2016, el 64% de las empresas espera que la rentabilidad (ingresos netos) de todas las actividades de real estate aumenten en el próximo año, frente al 68% que lo hacía el año pasado. El 67% de las firmas del sector comercial y el 70% de las grandes enseñas -las que tienen cuatro oficinas o mas- esperan que la rentabilidad mejore, frente al 75% de 2015 y el 65% de las del sector residencial.
El 43% de las empresas espera que aumente la competencia el próximo año por parte de firmas no tradicionales, bajando desde el 45% de 2015. El 46% espera que crezca la competencia por parte de empresas virtuales (creciendo desde el 41% de 2015), mientras que sólo el 17% espera que la mayor competencia venga de empresas tradicionales.
El sentimiento de competencia ha alimentado el incremento de contrataciones desde la encuesta de 2015. 47% de las empresas –frente a 44% el año pasado- han declarado estar reclutando activamente agentes de ventas, siendo más frecuente en las empresas residenciales (51%) que en las comerciales (32%); y entre las firmas con cuatro oficinas o más (88%) que en las que solo tienen una oficina (39%).
Cuando se les preguntó por los mayores desafíos para los próximos dos años, las empresas citaron la rentabilidad (49%), mantenerse al día con la tecnología (48%), el mantenimiento de suficiente inventario (48%) y el reclutamiento de agentes más jóvenes (36%).
The debate points to a lurking problem for the markets
The level of discourse was so disappointing in last week’s U.S. presidential debate that it was tempting to move up the dial and watch pro football, where the combatants at least get to wear helmets. Personal attacks, rancorous exchanges, smirks and eye rolling…they epitomized why many voters have despaired over the choice they face.
What all this focus on personality obscures, of course, is the actual issues the country faces and the philosophical differences that could seriously impact how to solve them—whether low growth, suffocating regulation, federal debt, health care, income inequality or national security, to name a few.
Not all the issues have concrete implications for investors at this stage. In recent weeks, my CIO colleagues and I have taken turns considering potential drivers for the economy and markets. Erik Knutzen, CIO for Multi-Asset Class, talked about a global focus in U.S. earnings and whether weakness could contribute to new volatility in a market that is “priced to perfection”; Fixed Income CIO Brad Tank considered the potential impacts of Japan’s steps toward “helicopter money”; and I explored whether the two major U.S. political parties could work to improve the country’s dilapidated infrastructure.
Rating the Election’s Impact
As far as the election is concerned, it’s hard to tell what the impact will be. Over the last eight presidential election cycles, inauguration years have seen exceptionally strong returns for the S&P 500, with an average gain of nearly 20% and in several cases returns of over 30%. Only in 2001, in the wake of the tech bubble, did the year turn out to be negative. In part, this positive trend may be a function of stimulus leading up to elections, or reduced policy uncertainty, or simply a touch of optimism tied to the fresh start of a four-year term. It may be a simplistic idea, but elections ultimately have tended to be a catalyst for stocks.
Could this time be different? A key concern is negative voter perception of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, who have the highest unfavorable ratings of any presidential candidates in modern history.1 Regardless of who gets elected, residual anger on the part of the losing party could intensify already entrenched gridlock.
This ties into prospects for fiscal stimulus, ideally in the form of new infrastructure spending, or a deal to repatriate corporations’ overseas earnings. We remain skeptical on that front, and we believe that politicians could keep relying on easy money from the Federal Reserve to bail them out along with the economy. With minimal action in Washington, it seems likely that GDP could continue stumbling along at a 1%-2% pace in the coming year.
Softening Angle on Equities
Such meager growth of course provides little fuel for the stock market. Our Asset Allocation Committee recently downgraded its 12-month outlook for U.S. equities to “slightly underweight,” given rich valuations, a modestly higher rate forecast and potential volatility tied to earnings stagnation.
It would be tempting to minimize the potential impact of the presidential race, to “change the channel” and focus strictly on fundamentals that undoubtedly can sway the markets. But there’s a point where electoral combat and likely gridlock weigh on earnings prospects and growth trends. My “Hail Mary pass” would be that this contest will shake things up enough that politicians will work together, at least for a while, to deal with entrenched problems.
Hermes Investment Management has recently published its second and final paper from its annual Responsible Capitalism survey.
The annual survey of over 100 leading UK and European institutional investors found that the number of those who believe that the gender diversity of the senior management of an investee company is vitally important or important had more than doubled in 12 months. In 2015, only a quarter of investors placed importance on gender diversity, whereas in 2016, a total of 51% of investors agreed.
Harriet Steel, Head of Business Development, Hermes Investment Management, said: “To see the number on investors who place importance of gender diversity leap up by more than double is extremely encouraging and reflective of the high profile campaigns and initiatives introduced to increase gender parity. In our research we believe that the issue for investors appears to be risk, rather than high returns. Investors are growing increasingly aware of the link between ‘group think’ and poor corporate practice. Boards with more diverse composition tend to challenge senior management, be more innovative and make better decisions. These are febrile times and investors increasingly recognise that certain sorts of risk can fundamentally undermine the performance of their portfolios over time. Worse still, they may be accused of failing in their fiduciary duty.”
The Responsible Capitalism survey also showed that despite the gains made in gender, other characteristics of diversity lag behind in investors’ importance; such as race (30%), socio-economic (19%) and educational background (30%). As stated in the ‘Commonsense Principles of Corporate Governance’, recently endorsed by Warren Buffet and others: “Directors should have complementary and diverse skill sets, backgrounds and experiences. Diversity along multiple dimensions is critical to a high-functioning board. Director candidates should be drawn from a rigorously diverse pool.”
Steel continued: “In the Responsible Capitalism survey it was particularly encouraging to see that only a tiny proportion of investors now consider diversity of board experience (2.1%) and a Chairman independent of CEO (1%) to be ‘not important at all’. Given ongoing shareholder concerns over shared CEO/Chair roles at companies such as JP Morgan, corporate diversity is no longer being considered a ‘nice to have’, but a necessary part of responsible governance.
“Significant political and economic upheaval has prompted governments to look in increasingly greater depth at corporate governance practice. New UK Prime Minister Theresa May immediately took aim at non-executive board members ‘drawn from the same narrow social and professional circles as the executive team’, accusing them of providing insufficient scrutiny. Nineteen nations in the European Union now mandate that employee representatives sit on corporate boards, while US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has promised corporate governance reform. When diversity considerations draw the attention of policymakers, companies and investors must increasingly take note.”
To download the Responsible Capitalism paper, click here
Kareen Peetz - Foto BNY Mellon. La primera mujer en presidir BNY Mellon, Kareen Peetz, anuncia su retiro
BNY Mellon ha anunciado que su presidenta, Karen B. Peetz, ha decidido retirarse de la compañía a cierre de este ejercicio.
Peetz, primera mujer que preside BNY Mellon, se unió a la compañía en 1998 y ha desempeñado un papel fundamental en períodos de grandes cambios en la organización, incluyendo la superación de los desafíos posteriores a la crisis financiera y la adopción de un enfoque en la gestión de las relaciones con clientes más estratégico y orientado hacia el mercado y las soluciones.
Peetz ha sido reconocida constantemente por su contribución a la industria de servicios financieros y actualmente encabeza el ranking de American Banker de «Las 25 mujeres más influyentes en la Banca», como reconocimiento a su estilo de gestión, habilidades para el manejo de la crisis, su influencia e implicación con obras benéficas.
«El liderazgo, la experiencia en la industria y la colaboración de Karen se echarán en falta en BNY Mellon, que le está extremadamente agradecida por sus muchas contribuciones durante su mandato», declaró Gerald Hassell, presidente y CEO de BNY Mellon.
Peetz supervisa globalmente la gestión de clientes y las direcciones regionales, sus servicios de tesorería y sus funciones de supervisión regulatorias. Antes de ser nombrada presidenta en enero de 2013, dirigió el antiguo grupo de Financial Markets and Treasury Services de BNY Mellon, compuesto por los servicios de Inversiones Alternativas, Broker Dealer, Servicios de Asesoría, Corporate Trust, Certificados de Depósito y Negocios de Servicios de Tesorería.
There is an emerging trend among distributors of pairing multi-asset strategies, for regular income, with liquid alternatives to achieve additional returns.
For instance, banks are advising liquid alternatives to retail investors, which was once targeted at high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs) by certain banks. At a small-to-mid-sized Asian private bank, the advised allocation to liquid alternatives was 20%, while another global/regional bank’s recommendation was 40% for mass affluent clients.
Wealth managers are upbeat on liquid alternative products that are based on long-short or global macro strategies as they believe these strategies can provide investors returns that are uncorrelated to traditional asset classes. Structured products with option strategies as an income-generating idea are also often advised by wealth managers to investors with higher risk appetites.
However, according to a survey conducted for The Cerulli Report – Wealth Management in Asia 2016, retail investors in Asia may not be ready for liquid alternatives just yet.
The survey reveals that the appetite for such products remains low, as investment preference lies in cash and deposits, even as investors wish for 3% to 5% higher returns than their respective country’s one-year deposit rates and cite portfolio diversification as their top priority.
While Asian investors seem to adopt a cautious approach to their investments, Cerulli notes that a lot of convincing needs to be done by asset managers and distributors.
The Alternative Investment Management Association (AIMA), the global representative for alternative asset managers, has announced a new Chairman and the formation of a new AIMA Council, the Association’s global board of directors.
Taking over as AIMA Chair is Simon Lorne, Vice Chairman and Chief Legal Officer, Millennium Management LLC. He replaces the former SEC Commissioner Kathleen Casey, who served as Chair of AIMA from September 2012 to September 2016.
There are four new additions to the AIMA Council – Robyn Grew, Chief Administrative Officer and GC, Man Group Plc; Han Ming Ho, Partner, Sidley Austin; Ryan Taylor, Partner and Global Head of Compliance, Brevan Howard Asset Management LLP; and Michael Weinberg, Senior Managing Director, Chief Investment Strategist, Protégé Partners.
The Council, who will serve from September 2016 to September 2018, is as follows:
Simon Lorne, Millennium Management LLC (Chair)
Jack Inglis, AIMA
Olwyn Alexander, PwC
Andrew Bastow, AQR Capital Managements (Europe) LLP
Fiona Carpenter, EY
Stuart Fiertz, Cheyne Capital Management (UK) LLP
Robyn Grew, Man Group Plc
Han Ming Ho, Sidley Austin
Tim O’Brien, Pine River Capital Management LP
Martin Pabari, CQS (UK) LLP
Christopher Pearce, Marshall Wace Asia Ltd
Henry Smith, Maples and Calder
Ryan Taylor, Brevan Howard Asset Management LLP
Philip Tye, HFL Advisors Limited
Karl Wachter, Magnetar Capital LLC
Michael Weinberg, Chief Investment Strategist, Protégé Partners
As well as Casey, Eva Sanchez of Citadel Europe and Choo San Yeoh of Albourne Partners are also stepping down from the Council.
AIMA Chairman Simon Lorne said: “I’m honored to be named as AIMA’s Chair at this important time in our industry’s evolution. I look forward to working with the outstanding firms and individuals who are the global face of our industry as we work together to best serve the interests of our individual and institutional investors around the world.”
AIMA CEO Jack Inglis said: “I am excited to have such a strong board to guide our work at AIMA, and I am very much looking forward to working closely with Simon Lorne, our new Chair, as we address the big issues facing alternative investment fund managers around the world. We are fortunate to welcome to the Council individuals with the skills and experience of Robyn Grew of Man, Ryan Taylor of Brevan Howard, Michael Weinberg of Protégé Partners and Han Ming Ho of Sidley Austin. On behalf of AIMA and all the membership, I also would like to pay tribute to our out-going Chair Kathleen Casey, who served the Association with such distinction these last four years, and Eva Sanchez and Choo San Yeoh, who have made such an important contribution to AIMA and the global industry over a number of years.”
CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrHelmer Arizmendy, foto cedida. Lombard International abre oficina en Miami
Lombard International anunció recientemente la apertura de su oficina en Miami, FL, ubicada en el 801 de Brickell Avenue. La nueva oficina será un centro para el equipo de ventas de Lombard Internacional que les permitirá alcanzar a los altos patrimonios de individuos, familias e instituciones en América Latina.
Según Helmer Arizmendy, quien encabeza la práctica en América Latina de Lombard International, la oficina de Miami servirá para acercarse a los asesores y altos patrimonios en Latam «Con esta nueva expansión, esperamos poder dar a conocer nuestras soluciones disponibles para ayudar a proteger y preservar la riqueza».
Esta apertura se lleva a cabo poco después de la expansión de Lombard Internacional en las Bermudas con el nombramiento de Phil Trussell como director administrativo senior para dirigir el crecimiento de sus operaciones de seguros de vida en la región. Además, a principios de este año Lombard Internacional abrió una oficina de representación en París y dos oficinas de corretaje en Asia.
«A medida que el número de individuos y familias de alto patrimonio sigue creciendo, América Latina es, cada vez más, un mercado clave para Lombard internacional», dijo Ken Kilbane, vicepresidente ejecutivo y jefe de Distribución Global en Lombard Internacional. «La apertura de esta nueva oficina consolida -aún más- nuestra posición como líder mundial en soluciones de ingeniería patrimonial para el mercado de alto patrimonio».
