Tag Archives: investing ideas

Considerations For Building A Currency Hedged Strategy

By Jane Leung It’s been nearly impossible to ignore the news about the dollar, especially for those of us who are taking advantage of the upcoming vacation season to travel overseas. The greenback’s movement also has implications for investors. One of the things I’m hearing most from colleagues and clients is that investors know they need to have a view on the dollar – whether it will go up or down – and also be very aware of their investing time horizon. Unfortunately, they’re still unsure of how to implement a currency hedged strategy in their portfolio. Of course, predicting exact currency movements is impossible, especially in today’s environment. On one hand, you have the Federal Reserve angling to boost interest rates, while on the other, central banks in Europe and Japan continue efforts to lower rates, thus weakening their respective currencies. So let’s focus on the variable that’s easier to measure: time horizon. Why Time Matters Investors seeking to limit the effects of currency risk on their portfolios have a number of hedging strategies to consider, but what to do depends on the investment horizon. A quick review of the numbers shows that there is a big difference in the risk/return ratio of hedged and unhedged strategies depending on how long you remain invested. The chart below shows developed market return/risk ratios and reveals that results vary significantly over time. Of course, it’s important to remember that currency returns are generally viewed, over the long term, as a zero-sum game. And, as we can see, over a 15-year period, hedged and unhedged strategies, as measured by MSCI (daily index returns from April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2015) produced nearly the same results. However, applying some form of currency hedged strategy may help reduce volatility. In the example below, at 10 years, there was a higher return/risk ratio for a hedged v. unhedged index. The differences keep becoming more pronounced as you look at shorter time periods. Over a 1-year time period, a 100 percent hedged portfolio would have resulted in a 0.8 risk/return ratio while 100 percent unhedged would have resulted in a -0.6 risk/return ratio. EAFE HEDGING How to Build a Hedged Strategy When deciding how much of your portfolio should be hedged for currency risk, a good rule of thumb is to think about developing an asset allocation and hedging “policy” at the same time. To clarify my point, I’m including a simple risk-and-return illustration. Low risk/low return investments such as cash and U.S. bonds reside in the left corner and the potentially high risk/high return investments such as unhedged international equities in the upper right corner. The orange dot is where a hypothetical investor may indicate her risk tolerance. HYPOTHETICAL RISK TOLERANCE Considerations for Investing Overseas When you think about international investing, it is also important to recognize the distinct characteristics of each country that makes up a foreign region. Some of these features may or may not be correlated with the U.S., and this can affect the decision of whether or not to hedge and, if so, how much. Take a look at the annualized volatility over 10 years for a variety of single countries and international regions, as represented by MSCI: ANNUALIZED VOLATILITY: 10 YEARS We can see from the graph above that the annualized volatility over 10 years was consistently higher for unhedged positions than hedged positions and that different countries and regions had different levels of volatility relative to each other. In short, your asset allocation should depend on how much risk you’re willing to take on any given investment. If you have a portfolio that is heavily weighted toward international investments, has high currency volatility or high correlation between the currency and the underlying assets, a higher proportion of currency hedged investments might be appropriate. If you are more risk averse, and your portfolio is more heavily weighted towards U.S.-based investments, has lower currency volatility, or low correlation between the currency and the underlying asset return, you may consider having a lower proportion of currency hedged investments. Whatever your risk tolerance, you may want to consider a currency hedge as a way to help minimize the effects of volatility over the long term, regardless of short-term dollar movement. This post originally appeared on the BlackRock Blog.

Regulatory Decision Confirms Attractive Value At Capstone Infrastructure

Competition Markets Authority released its summary decision, with management confident that dividends can be sustained under new rates. Management discussed additional levers to find value at Bristol Water, including new financing options, additional efficiencies and increased leverage. Overall, following the decision, valuation has been derisked and significant upside maintained. Nearly two months ago, we published a report on Capstone Infrastructure Corporation ( OTCPK:MCQPF ), a Canadian small-cap infrastructure company. The company has a variety of critical infrastructure assets, from solar, wind, hydro and biomass power generation, to natural gas co-generation, district heating and a water utility. The firm’s assets are geographically diverse, with the power assets located in Canada, the district heating business in Sweden and the water utility located in the U.K. The company has a market capitalization of just over C$300 million (US$230 million) and is traded primarily on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol “CSE.” Today, we would like to share some analysis of a recent regulatory decision that we believe adds considerable certainty to the future sustainability of Capstone Infrastructure and confirms the company as an attractive value play. At the time of publication of our initial report, one of the material risk factors to Capstone’s valuation was the pending U.K. Competition Markets Authority (CMA) decision in the appeal of a previous Ofwat regulatory decision for its Bristol Water business. This pending decision was a major factor in the decline in Capstone’s share price and has been a drag on the stock’s value for the past several months. We are happy to now see this decision released, and investors can largely put this concern behind them. The regulator’s press release and a summary decision regarding Bristol Water was released on October 6 , clarifying several factors for the business, including increased operating expenses, increased capital expenditures on a reduced scope, a higher return on equity and higher customer billing rates. While the company felt that the billing revenue side of the decision was disappointing, overall the decision will, in the view of management , enable Bristol Water to maintain its dividend level going forward. We agree that their approach to managing the lower rates does seem reasonable and that dividends at or very near the previous levels should be able to be maintained. The trading response to this decision has been fairly muted, perhaps because the outcome is not substantially different from the preliminary findings of CMA released earlier this year. But today we stand faced with more certainty about the short-term sustainability of the dividend, which at nearly 10 percent is underpinning a great deal of the company’s value today. In our valuation case presented in our original piece, we indicated that the impact of the Bristol Water decision would be plus or minus C$7 million on adjusted funds from operations. It seems that via management’s responses on the conference call, overall distributions from Bristol Water should be maintained at their previous levels, in line with our “mid-case.” With this uncertainty removed from the picture, we can tighten the 2017 share price target range from C$2.92-7.53 to C$3.82-6.56, maintaining our mid-case target of $4.90 per share. (thousands) Low Case Mid Case High Case Comments Start: 2014 AFFO $56,412 $56,412 $56,412 Impact of Cardinal ($36,000) ($36,000) ($30,000) Low case is with project financing, high case is without. Impact of Bristol $0 $0 $0 2015 Commissioned Wind $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 Skyway 8, Saint-Philemon, Goulais 2015 AFFO $25,412 $26,412 $33,412 2016 Commissioned Wind $2,500 $3,500 $4,000 2016 AFFO $27,912 $29,912 $37,412 2017 Commissioned Wind $0 $3,500 $4,000 Corporate Savings $2,000 $5,000 $10,000 Management projects $10 million in corporate SG&A, project cost, interest and tax savings 2017 AFFO $29,912 $38,412 $51,412 2017 Projected Share Count 96,408 96,408 96,408 Based on 93,573 outstanding at Dec 31, 2014, increased by 1% annually for DRIP 2017 AFFO per Share $0.31 $0.40 $0.53 Payout Ratio 80% 80% 80% Projected 2017 Dividend/share $0.25 0.32 $0.43 Projected Dividend Yield 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% Conservative dividend level based on peer group 2017 target share price (CAD$) $3.82 $4.90 $6.56 There are still risks present in this valuation of course, including Bristol’s inability to implement cash flow enhancements to the level that management currently anticipates, or potential schedule issues or underperformance on their new energy assets. Even if these risks materialize, however, we believe the downside is not much lower than where the stock is trading today. At a significant discount to book value, this is a true value play with considerable upside for investors. We believe there is considerable short-term upside here heading into the third-quarter results in early November, and of course stand behind our call for considerable upside into 2017. To summarize, this decision derisked the situation at Capstone Infrastructure, while in the subsequent trading days, the company has maintained a substantial discount to what we perceive as a fair value. With a dividend that we’re comfortable with calling sustainable at near 10 percent and future cash flow growth supported by a higher degree of regulatory certainty, Capstone Infrastructure is currently positioned as a fantastic value play for investors with a greater than 50 percent upside to our target price and a sustainable 10 percent dividend. Editor’s Note: This article discusses one or more securities that do not trade on a major U.S. exchange. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks.

Emerging Markets Vs. The S&P 500

By Jim Freeman, CFP ® The below chart shows how much emerging market equities have underperformed the S&P 500 (NYSEARCA: SPY ) since the financial crisis. It also shows how these stretches of underperformance and outperformance are not unusual. The key to success in investing in emerging markets is to rebalance and add to positions during periods of underperformance, and to rebalance and take profits during periods of outperformance. Having a dedicated allocation to emerging market equities and rebalancing back to this allocation systematically helps you accomplish this. See the graph below to see what would have happened to returns if an investor had held a 50/50 portfolio of emerging markets and the S&P 500 and rebalanced it back to 50/50 at the end of each year during this period. As you can see, the returns would have been 11.6%, or 1.5% better than those from the S&P 500. (click to enlarge) We normally allocate roughly 3-6% of a clients’ portfolio to emerging market equities. We use either the Vanguard Emerging Market fund or the DFA Emerging Market Core fund – both are highly diversified. The Vanguard fund holds 980 stocks, and the DFA fund holds 3,807 stocks. Many people believe emerging market equities will provide higher returns than the S&P 500 over the next market cycle, due to their recent underperformance. We would not be surprised to see this happen, since it is a well-established pattern, as the first graph illustrates. We plan to keep our clients’ allocation to emerging markets consistent, and we will also do tax swaps to lock in losses that can be used to offset gains in other areas of their portfolios. *The above graphs were taken from Ben Carlson’s blog, “A Wealth of Common Sense – Personal Finance, Investments & Markets”. Share this article with a colleague