Tag Archives: radio

Pulling More Levers Across Emerging Markets

By Morgan Harting After five difficult years, signs of life are emanating from emerging markets. Investors seeking to rediscover the developing world might consider the benefits of pulling more levers across asset classes. Since the global market correction in January, investors have been taking a fresh look at emerging markets. The MSCI Emerging Markets Index has risen by 21% since January 21 in US dollar terms, through March 21, outperforming global developed stocks. Meanwhile, the J.P. Morgan Emerging Market Bond Index has advanced by 7%. Fund flows to emerging market equities and debt have been positive for several weeks following three years of net outflows for equities and one year of net outflows for bonds. Improving Risk-Adjusted Returns Yet for many investors, emerging equities still seem scary. They’re much more volatile than their developed market peers, so there can be a cost to accessing their return potential. That’s why a multi-asset approach can be very effective. By reducing risk significantly, it can help investors maintain exposure to the underlying long-term growth story that underpins the attraction of investing in the developing world. Our research compared the risk-adjusted returns of four approaches in emerging markets: 1) a cap-weighted equity index; 2) a skillful tilt toward better-performing equity countries and sectors; 3) a multi-asset approach that bolts together equity and debt indices; and 4) a portfolio that skillfully tilts toward the top-performing-quartile country and sector within each asset class. Bolting together emerging market stock and bond indices would have outperformed an allocation to passive equities – and generated stronger risk-adjusted returns than even a skillful stock picker could have achieved (Display). But an equally skillful multi-asset manager that tilted toward better-performing countries and sectors in stocks and bonds would have done even better, our research suggests. Click to enlarge Stocks and Bonds Move in Tandem Why does an integrated multi-asset approach work so well in emerging markets? Performance patterns can help answer this question. Stock and bond markets in developing countries are highly correlated, meaning they tend to move in the same direction. But emerging stocks are also much more volatile. As a result, when investors are optimistic about a country’s growth prospects or diminishing risk, capital inflows to local markets often fuel gains for both stocks and bonds. Conversely, concerns about financial stability or recession usually hurt both asset classes. Higher bond yields trigger an increase in the discount rate applied to company earnings, which pushes down stock prices. Take the recent example of Brazil, which slipped into recession last year. Investors sold both Brazilian stocks and bonds, which declined 41.4% and 13.4%, respectively. More recently, as investors became optimistic about a potential change in government, Brazilian assets have rallied, with stocks and bonds up by 29% and 12.7%, respectively, for the year through March 21. So combining emerging stocks and bonds in a single portfolio preserves the underlying risk exposure, but at a significantly lower level of volatility, in our view. And the reduction in volatility will often outstrip any reduction in returns, underpinning a dramatic improvement in risk-adjusted returns, as shown above. Dispersion Within an Asset Class Isn’t Enough Brazil’s recent volatility highlights the challenge. The emerging equity index spans 24 countries and nearly as many industries, affording an active manager ample opportunity to take active positions and outperform an equity index . Yet, when emerging stocks collectively face downward pressure, there aren’t enough places for an equity-only manager to hide. Last year provided a good example when the emerging equity index fell 15%. The quilt display below shows that India was the top-quartile segment in equities, falling 6%, while the worst quartile was Mexican telecom, down 31%. So even if a skilled manager put all of her eggs in the top equity quartile basket, the portfolio would have suffered significant losses. Click to enlarge Widening the opportunity set to include bonds could have dampened the downside risk. Even the worst-performing quartile of dollar-denominated government bonds – Tanzania – outperformed the best equity quartile. This dynamic is not unusual. The worst quartile of dollar sovereign bonds outperformed the best quartile of equities in 2011, and in 2008 as well. Combining emerging-market equities and bonds in a multi-asset portfolio gives a manager more options to find the right balance of returns. We believe this type of structure can provide a strategic advantage over bolting together independent equity and bond portfolios. It’s too early to say whether the tide has definitively turned in emerging markets. But recent enthusiasm might be a signal for investors who are underexposed to emerging markets to think about reentry. By pulling more levers from the broadest universe of securities in a portfolio of carefully chosen stocks and bonds, we believe investors can regain the confidence to return to emerging markets and capture smoother return patterns through the volatile conditions ahead. 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.

3 Strong Buy Mid-Cap Growth Mutual Funds

Mid-cap funds are an ideal investment option for investors looking for high return potential that comes with lower risk than their small-cap counterparts. Mid-cap funds are not very susceptible to volatility in broader markets, making it an ideal bet given that the macroeconomic conditions have generally offered a roller-coaster ride in recent years. Meanwhile, when capital appreciation over the long term takes precedence over dividend payouts, growth funds become a natural choice for investors. These funds focus on realizing an appreciable amount of capital growth by investing in stocks of firms whose value is projected to rise over the long term. However, a relatively higher tolerance to risk and the willingness to park funds for the longer term are necessary when investing in these securities. This is because they may experience relatively more fluctuations than other fund classes. Below we share with you three top-rated mid-cap growth mutual funds. Each has earned a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #1 (Strong Buy) and we expect the funds to outperform their peers in the future. Columbia Mid Cap Growth A (MUTF: CBSAX ) seeks capital appreciation. CBSAX invests a major portion of its assets in companies that have market capitalizations in the range of the companies listed in the Russell Midcap Index. CBSAX invests in stocks that have the potential for long term, above-average earnings growth. The Columbia Mid Cap Growth A fund has a three-year annualized return of 9.5%. CBSAX has an expense ratio of 1.19% as compared to the category average of 1.28%. T. Rowe Price Mid-Cap Growth (MUTF: RPMGX ) maintains a diversified portfolio by investing a large chunk of its assets in companies having market capitalizations similar to those listed in the S&P MidCap 400 Index or the Russell Midcap Growth Index. RPMGX invests in companies having above-average growth potential. Though RPMGX focuses on acquiring common stocks of domestic companies, RPMGX may also invest in companies located outside the U.S. The T. Rowe Price Mid-Cap Growth fund has a three-year annualized return of 13.4%. Brian W.H. Berghuis is the fund manager of RPMGX since 1992. MFS Mid Cap Growth Fund A (MUTF: OTCAX ) seeks growth of capital. A large chunk of OTCAX’s assets is invested in issuers having medium market capitalization. These issuers have a market cap identical to the ones listed in the Russell Midcap Growth Index for the previous 13 months. The MFS Mid Cap Growth A fund has a three-year annualized return of 11.1%. As of February 2016, OTCAX held 103 issues with 2.59% of its assets invested in Ross Stores Inc. (NASDAQ: ROST ). Original Post

My ‘Wisdom’ On Smart Beta And Factor Investing

The latest installment from Tadas Viskantas’s series on “financial blogger wisdom” (is that an oxymoron?) asked a bunch of smart people (and also me) about smart beta. I was short: Smart beta and factor investing are the newest versions of high(er) fee active management promising the fairy tale of “market beating” returns in exchange for higher fees and usually delivering lower returns (after taxes and fees). Regulars know I am not a big fan of Smart Beta and Factor Investing (sorry to all my friends in the industry who love these approaches!). For the uninitiated, Smart Beta basically involves taking an index fund and changing it so it captures a “smarter” type of return. For instance, you might take a market cap weighted index fund like the S&P 500 and equal weight it so that it doesn’t expose you to the procyclical tendencies of the market cap weighted fund which will tend to be overweight the riskiest stocks at the riskiest points in the market cycle. The evidence that this is countercyclical is weak as Vanguard has shown and as I expressed in my new paper . Further, you will generally pay higher taxes and fees in these funds without a high probability of better results. For instance, the equal weight S&P 500 has a pretty mixed performance versus the market cap weighted S&P as it’s performed better on a 10-year basis, but underperformed on all periods shorter than 10 years. The nominal returns are slightly better over longer periods, but that’s only because the equal weight fund has a much higher standard deviation with 95% of the total correlation. So, the intelligent asset allocator has to ask themselves why they’d pay for 95% of the correlation while guaranteeing higher taxes and fees without a reasonably high probability of better risk-adjusted performance? Should you really pay higher fees for the empty promise of “market-beating returns”? I say no. The same basic story can be laid out for factor investing. There’s a great irony in the idea that the founder of the Efficient Market Hypothesis says you can’t pick stocks that will beat the market, but you can construct index funds that will be comprised of the stocks that will beat the market. The problem is no one knows what are the right stocks to put in a “momentum” index before they earn the momentum premium. And just like active mutual funds, no one should pay a premium for an asset manager who claims that they can construct an index that will be comprised of stocks that will benefit from “market beating” returns in the future. You just end up guaranteeing higher fees and taxes in exchange for the empty promise of market-beating returns. To me, these are just the new forms of “active” investing charging people higher taxes and fees for indexing strategies that won’t outperform.