Tag Archives: portfolio-strategy

4 Takeaways On Alternative Opportunities Today

By Marc Gamsin, Greg Outcalt Dispersion among asset classes and individual stocks and bonds will likely increase, and that’s only one trend reshaping the landscape and redefining alternative investing opportunities. Here are four things investors should consider. 1) Higher dispersion is creating fertile ground for long/short strategies. The environment, particularly in the US, is favorable for long/short strategies. To start with, corporate and economic fundamentals are strong. We’re also seeing more volatility and dispersion – bigger distinctions between security valuations mean more active-management potential. And even though the US equity market seems fully-valued overall, we still think there are misvaluations that make long/short approaches attractive. We particularly favor strategies that can leverage increased dispersion if there’s an uptick in volatility. These strategies should use bottom-up, fundamental analysis to exploit long/short idiosyncratic – or security-specific – opportunities. We also think strategies that can take advantage of the impact of divergence in central bank policies could benefit. Interest rates are low, markets for equity and credit financing are open, and there’s been a multiyear bull market. This combination has enabled low-quality companies to survive and go public, engage in financial engineering including undesirable buybacks, and increase their debt loads. These activities are increasing the available opportunities to take short positions. 2) The environment is strong for corporate deal making. Macroeconomic fundamentals, including low oil prices, low funding costs and strong corporate balance sheets, are fueling strong deal activity. This is creating an attractive environment for event-driven investing. Corporate activity is near record highs in a number of areas, including new IPOs, spinoffs and mergers. Many of these activities result in changes to corporate structure, balance sheet composition, incentives and management quality. These events, in turn, create potential both on the long and short sides. And because organic revenue growth is otherwise challenged in the low-growth economic environment, corporate deals continue to offer solutions that could be compelling for companies. We think the ability to invest across equity and credit markets is a key to capitalizing. 3) Relative value approaches face headwinds. The environment remains challenging for relative-value credit strategies, and volatility could be high. In terms of fundamentals, debt levels at US high-yield firms are at record highs, and the ratio of downgrades to upgrades is at a post-crisis high – both are concerns. These and other factors have limited the potential upside, particularly relative to the potential downside in price. What about liquidity and market structure? Liquidity in many areas is low, even as money flowed into credit-focused investments. We think this backdrop sets up the possibility of investors being forced to sell into a less liquid market if an unexpected event occurs. Offsetting some of this risk is what seems to be a sizable amount of cash on the sidelines, ready to prop up higher-quality issues if there’s a broad-based dislocation. Of course, the environment can change quickly if an economic downturn or market decline expands distressed credit opportunities. This would be especially true after a long bull market, in which weaker firms have been able to easily raise new debt and extend debt maturities. Strategies nimble enough to move into these areas of opportunity as they emerge could find a very rich opportunity set. 4) Some promise in emerging macro trends…with a caveat. Macro-level trends are becoming more prominent, creating more appealing opportunities than in recent years. There are mounting geopolitical risks, including tensions in Ukraine and Russia, the threat of ISIS and economic question marks in the euro area. Heavy government debt is combining with slower global growth, market volatility is rising, and central bank policies are diverging. In emerging markets, lower commodity prices are causing dislocations. And when the US Federal Reserve raises interest rates, it should boost the dollar and put downward pressure on longer-term bonds. This environment could provide the foundation for several long-term trends, creating potential for macro strategies. However, the long-term potential for strategies that haven’t yet experienced a low-but-rising interest-rate environment remains unknown. And the concentrated bets and high levels of leverage that these strategies often use continue to give us pause. The views expressed herein do not constitute research, investment advice or trade recommendations and do not necessarily represent the views of all AB portfolio-management teams. Marc H. Gamsin, Head and Co-Chief Investment Officer – Alternative Investment Management Greg Outcalt, Co-Chief Investment Officer – Alternative Investment Management

Investing For Impact: A Brief Guide For The Perplexed

By Travis Allen and Anne Bucciarelli (click to enlarge) Discussions about investment strategies that take values or ethical principles into account can be confusing. Several different terms are used, often interchangeably; in fact, they may be converging. The most common terms we hear are socially responsible investing (SRI); environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles; and impact investing. SRI strategies usually employ screens to identify companies to include or exclude, based on the manager’s or the investor’s ideas about their social impacts. ESG strategies are similar but tend to focus on certain areas of concern: Environmental factors, including climate change, hazardous-waste disposal, nuclear energy, and natural-resource depletion; Social factors, including human and labor rights, consumer protection, and diversity; and Corporate-governance factors, including management structure, executive compensation, and shareholder rights. Some, but not all, ESG-oriented institutional investors are signatories to the United Nations-supported Principles for Responsible investment (PRI). Impact investing goes further: It seeks to invest (usually privately) in organizations having a positive impact in a particular area, perhaps to revive a blighted neighborhood. Investors often feel empowered by impact investing, but they should recognize the risks. These investments can be as risky as venture capital. Such investments may be best made with capital that exceeds your target financial capital (the amount of money you need to fund you long-term spending). Impact on Portfolios There are many ways to address SRI or ESG concerns. Some investment managers buy or create ESG screening tools to help them avoid investing in companies with undesirable practices or products. We think such tools may be useful but are rarely enough. AB integrates research into potential ESG issues for a company into all parts of our research process, from meetings with company managements, suppliers, and industry experts, to monitoring news reports, as the display shows: But assessing ESG issues can raise as many questions as it answers. For example, if you try to avoid investing in companies with high cardon dioxide emissions or abusive labor practices, do you have to check all the vendors of each company you consider? Many technology and clothing companies are now under attack for the actions of their suppliers, or of their suppliers’ suppliers. Investors should also recognize that both positive and negative screens limit portfolio managers’ flexibility and may affect portfolio returns. Investors with otherwise identical portfolios are likely to have different results, if one of them imposes restrictions on companies in certain industries. Some ESG advocates argue that companies with an ESG focus can outperform the broad market over time. Other people argue that narrowing the universe of potential investments is likely to detract from long-term returns relative to more diversified standard benchmarks. Perhaps the arguments of the ESG advocates are true, but it’s too soon to tell. While the number of managers that invest with a social lens is growing, few ESG managers have a statistically meaningful track record. Therefore, we think it is still too early to assess the relative performance of the ESG segment. Investors whose priority is a portfolio that reflects their personal values now have a range of choices to meet their social as well as financial goals. The goal for such investors should be to work with managers who share their philosophy about social issues, as well as risk and return. Disclaimer: The views expressed herein do not constitute research, investment advice or trade recommendations and do not necessarily represent the views of all AB portfolio-management teams.

Investing Basics: Asset Allocation For The Near Term

By Anne Bucciarelli and Heather George Stocks tend to perform best over longer-term periods, but over shorter time periods, stock returns can be all over the map. Bond returns are usually lower, but far more predictable. Since you can’t know for sure what will happen in the period ahead, the right asset allocation for you depends in large part on your time frame. If you plan to use the money fairly soon (say, in less than two years) for something important (such as a down payment on a house or a wedding), it generally makes sense to keep most of that money in risk-mitigating assets such as cash instruments or fairly short-term bonds. For longer-term uses, such as education for your children or endowing your spending in retirement, a greater allocation to return-seeking assets such as stocks makes sense, as the Display below shows: Cash rarely loses value in nominal terms: Cash (represented by 3-month Treasury bills) has delivered negative returns in less than 1% of all three-month periods and no two-year periods since 1926. By contrast, stocks (represented by the S&P 500) have had negative returns in 37% of 3-month periods and 20% of two-year periods. Moving just 30% of an all-cash portfolio into stocks dramatically increased the share of periods with negative returns materially vs. the all-cash portfolio. Cash is also highly liquid: There’s little chance that you won’t be able to withdraw your money when you want to, without accepting fire-sale prices or paying high transaction fees. But holding cash has a cost. Cash returns have been lower than inflation over many three-year periods, as well as about one-third of all 10-year periods since 1926. Given the very low interest rate and low inflation environment today, we expect the return on cash after taxes and inflation to be negative over the next three years, as the next Display shows: We expect the after-tax, inflation-adjusted return on bonds to be significantly better than cash over the next three years if market conditions are typical, represented by the diamond, or very good; we expect bond returns to lag cash only slightly if market conditions are very bad. Even more remarkable, in today’s unusual market conditions, we estimate that returns for a conservative portfolio, with 30% in global stocks and 70% in bonds, would be no worse than cash if markets are hostile for the next three years – and would be much better if markets are typical or very good. In sum, cash instruments are suitable if you need to put money aside for near-term needs, but when you’re investing for three years or more, holding cash is likely to mean forgoing significant gains. The Bernstein Wealth Forecasting System uses a Monte Carlo model that simulates 10,000 plausible paths of return for each asset class and inflation and produces a probability distribution of outcomes. The model does not draw randomly from a set of historical returns to produce estimates for the future. Instead, the forecasts (1) are based on the building blocks of asset returns, such as inflation, yields, yield spreads, stock earnings and price multiples; (2) incorporate the linkages that exist among the returns of various asset classes; (3) take into account current market conditions at the beginning of the analysis; and (4) factor in a reasonable degree of randomness and unpredictability. The views expressed herein do not constitute research, investment advice or trade recommendations and do not necessarily represent the views of all AB portfolio-management teams. Anne K. Bucciarelli – Director, Wealth Planning and Analysis Group Heather A. George – Associate Director, Wealth Planning and Analysis Group