The largest sovereign wealth fund in the world, Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global, resembles an index fund and is not making the most of its tracking error boundaries according to a review of the active management of the fund by a team of specialists.

The academics who reviewed the NOK11.95 trillion ($1.36 trillion) fund as a directive from the Ministry of Finance, said there was an opportunity to think more strategically and redirect the mandate of the fund towards active ownership.

They said the Ministry of Finance needs to specify the priority in the mandate and that having two goals (active ownership / net zero and active management) is difficult to execute when you just have one instrument (the portfolio).

Rob Bauer, Professor of Finance at Maastricht University, said GPFG which is managed by Norges Bank Investment Management had the complexity of an active fund, with more than 200 strategies and hundreds of investment staff, but the performance features of an index fund.

The academics looked at active management from January 1998 to September 2021 by evaluating sub strategy performance. They found overall the fund returned 7.03 per cent annualised since 1998 with a benchmark of 6.83 per cent, and while there was some evidence of added value in certain strategies overall it behaved like an index fund. Furthermore its tracking error has been 0.3 for the past four years but the mandate allows a tracking error of up to 1.25 per cent. The tracking error across the entire timeframe was 0.6.

The committee’s report urged the Ministry of Finance to investigate why NBIM does not take full advantage of its tracking-error limit and whether any operational impediments or structural barriers play a role.

Related, the committee recommended there be less emphasis on factor models in evaluating the fund’s performance and more focus and emphasis on the qualitative assessments of the organisation such as governance quality, long-term mindset, and creating the appropriate culture for successful execution of the strategy.

The analysis by the academics – which included Charlotte Christiansen from Aarhus University and Trond Doskeland from the Norwegian School of Economics alongside Maastricht’s Bauer – found some evidence of value-adding strategies, particularly in equities. At the total equity level annualised active returns were 0.36 per cent and gross active returns were 0.47 per cent. Security selection strategies, net of costs, were the biggest contributor with positive active returns of 1.27 per cent. In fixed income net gross active returns were 0.13 per cent.

However there was not enough persistence of value add to make a difference to a fund the size of Norway.

“We propose a bold change. This could be not just a requirement to beat the benchmark but perhaps a basis points minimum deviation from the benchmark. The mandate is not ambitious at the moment,” Bauer said in an interview with Top1000funds.com, while also acknowledging the difficulty of a fund the size of GPFG beating a benchmark.

A minimum target of outperformance would force NBIM to take a bit more risk, he said.

A new active ownership mandate?

The limited value add from active strategies combined with an increasing focus on sustainability presents an opportunity to revamp the fund’s mandate to focus on active ownership, according to Bauer who reiterated that combining active management may conflict with the ambition to execute effective active ownership strategies.

“The issue of active ownership is complicated. If you want to address issues of climate change and net zero it is difficult to combine that with the objective of having active management. The portfolio managers on the floor may want something different to what is being asked by politicians who represent the Norwegian people, and someone has to prioritise,” he says.

Christiansen agrees with the mixed messaging demonstrated by the lack of integration between the active investment management and the active ownership.

“This problem is generic for all pension funds – choosing whether to be active/beat the benchmark or have active ownership/net zero. Can only one make investment decision but how do you reconcile the two? Someone needs to have the decision and it needs clarity in the mandate.”

In the report the academics said: “We urge the Ministry of Finance to provide clarity in the mandate on the objectives and prioritization of active ownership strategies, as well as on what parts of this prioritisation are NBIM’s purview versus which are prescribed in the mandate.”

Complexity of benchmarks and the future of real estate

In conducting the review the committee also revealed that the current benchmark gives rise to some potential conflicts of interest as some objectives target active returns (trying to achieve a positive alpha) and others target total returns (diversification of the whole portfolio). Adding a net-zero-emissions targets to the portfolio would add more conflicts of interest to the mandate.

Specifically there was some opacity in the asset class benchmarks which made it difficult to examine. In addition real estate is not in the benchmark but is instead measured against stocks and bonds.

Christiansen says stocks and bonds were not the right performance measure for real estate investments.

“Norwegians like to promote the fact they own properties on some of the well-known streets in London, and it seems like they are quite proud of that. But they measure the performance of real estate against stocks and bonds, to us that is quite strange,” she says. “A quarter to a third of their people are working on real estate and that is mostly unlisted, but they don’t measure returns against an unlisted benchmark, that makes it very difficult to come up with some good information. The finding would be that performance is very bad because unlisted real estate has lower returns than stocks and bonds, but it’s not the right performance measure.”

The committee advises that if the Ministry of Finance deems unlisted real estate to be important for diversification purposes then real estate should be reinstated to the benchmark.

Unlisted real estate is a long term strategy which means attracting good people and retaining them is a long term exercise. The removal of real estate from the benchmark in 2017 could signal to that team that real estate is not an important asset class in the long term. That may lead to people leaving and difficulty to attract new personnel, Bauer said.

The CIO of Canada Pension Plan Investments, Edwin Cass, shares insights on the benefits of leverage, the impact on liquidity and the governance structures for success.

As CalPERS adopts a new asset allocation that adds 5 per cent  leverage to the entire portfolio, board members gathered key insights on how the strategy will work including the lessons from Canada Pension Plan Investments which currently applies 22 per cent leverage to the portfolio.

Edwin Cass, chief investment officer of Canada Pension Plan Investments (CPPI Investments) shared the experience of the C$541.5 billion Canadian fund where a seasoned leverage strategy adds diversification and maximises returns without increasing risk.

Cass explained to CalPERS’ board members that many people associate the use of leverage with increased risk. Although leverage can be used to increase risk, CPP Investments’s use of leverage leaves its risk tolerance unchanged.

The Canadian fund invests based on a mandate to maximise returns without undue risk or loss and has an above average 85 per cent equity risk target – more than a standard 60:40 portfolio due to the fund’s long-term investment horizon and funding ratio.

Leverage is used to maximise return at its current level of risk – increasing the overall fund performance on a risk adjusted basis – by increasing diversification. Diversification, Cass told CalPERS board members, “is the one free lunch in investment.”

CPPI borrows money and adds leverage to the portfolio to get access to less risky assets. Increasing the fixed income allocation this way helps mute tail outcomes, namely correlation which Cass said is capable of “sinking a portfolio.”

“The portfolio has a higher risk-adjusted return and is a bit more robust. The important part is not to increase risk but decrease bad outcomes,” he said.

There are different measures of leverage. Top of house at CPP Investments is a total financing leverage – the amount of money the fund borrows physically or synthetically to increase exposure to its balance sheet. Today it is applying 22 per cent leverage to the portfolio below a limit of 40 per cent set by the board.

Sources of leverage

CPP Investments uses different sources of secured and unsecured leverage over the long and short term. The sources of leverage have expanded over time – as you diversify your asset mix, so you diversify your sources of finance, he said.

Today, sources include commercial paper issued in the domestic, US and UK markets for terms out to 30 years. Elsewhere, it borrows in the repo market while around one third of its exposure comes through derivatives, short selling derivative contracts.

A team of around 25 people follow the market, analysing the cheapest way to borrow and where to find staggered maturities. Cass told CalPERS’ board members that it costs more to borrow over longer maturities, however on the flipside borrowing longer-dated means there is less maturity risk and CPP Investments doesn’t have to go into the market and rollover debt, a dangerous exercise when liquidity is scarce like in March 2020.

According to the fund’s data, financing costs were $1,217 million in fiscal 2021, a decrease of almost 50 per cent compared to $2,429 million for the previous year, attributable to lower effective market interest rates.

Cass explained that alongside important board approvals, it also looks to rating agencies to help it set a comfortable level of leverage that helps ensure it can maintain its AAA status and comfortably meet liabilities.

“Rating agencies are another check on risk management,” he said. Other lenses through which to view leverage include peer analysis. CPP Investment’s peers in Canada follow a similar model.

“We are at the low end compared to Canadian peers regarding the amount of leverage we use. We get comfort from looking at our peer organisations.”

He added that from a strategic perspective, the fund’s use of leverage is not dynamic. However, on a day- to-day basis it can fluctuate depending on where it sees opportunities in the market.

Liquidity

Next the conversation turned to governance and reporting leverage, particularly its impact on liquidity ratios. At CPP Investments, the board has insight of the total financing leverage program with a particular eye on liquidity levels.

The pension fund has floors to its liquidity coverage ratios, below which the organisation is put at risk.

Cass said his priority is to target a level of liquidity that does more than simply allow the fund to meet its liabilities. For example, he wants money on hand through cycles to re-up with private equity funds. Elsewhere, the variation margin in derivative contracts requires capital on hand.

He said that inflation doesn’t hold much of a risk for the fund’s leverage strategy. Sure, inflation increases borrowing costs, but the fund always ensures its financing costs are adequately compensated with expected returns.

Cass warned that taking on too much leverage would put the portfolio in harm’s way. He said that leverage and liquidity are linked, and March 2020 illustrated the importance of keeping enough liquidity on hand to help platform companies in the investor’s large private equity allocation.

At the large Canadian fund a special committee came into play to control capital going out the door and ensure liquidity levels through the 2020 crisis. It was stood down nine months later.

Cass concluded with a note on the importance of board oversight of a leverage strategy. He said investors should understand why they use leverage, ensure transparency, and anticipate how the portfolio will behave in times of stress.

He advised on a “crawl, walk, run” approach and reassured CalPERS’ board members that watching how the portfolio reacts to leverage will imbue confidence in the strategy.

 

Investors contemplating risk, return and impact in their portfolios will have read with a wry smile last week’s criticism of Unilever’s quest for purpose penned by one of the United Kingdom’s most influential fund managers . The consumer goods company is pushing its purpose credentials at the expense of the business, argued Terry Smith in his annual shareholder letter to his retail following.

“A company which feels it has to define the purpose of Hellmann’s mayonnaise has in our view clearly lost the plot. The Hellmann’s brand has existed since 1913 so we would guess that by now consumers have figured out its purpose (spoiler alert — salads and sandwiches),” he wrote, referencing the company marketing its mayo as a solution to food waste because it encourages people to eat leftovers.

For Piet Klop, the new head of responsible investment at €268 billion Dutch asset manager PGGM where he has worked for the last 12 years, the criticism comes as no surprise. Moreover, he acknowledges the management time that impact investing requires and agrees that in the short-term, Unilever may make more money for shareholders if it abandons complex impact considerations.

Yet he doesn’t buy the idea that steering capital into assets that reduce and mitigate negative impacts and increase the positive will end up costing asset owners. He is adamant that in the long-run, impact will pay since well-managed companies with a clear purpose that mitigate negative outcomes are simply better companies.

“You can’t wish away climate change or water scarcity,” he argues. “And I don’t believe in less return for more impact. Picture a Venn diagram and the circle of financial returns increasingly overlaps with companies’ social utility.”

Active impact

Klop has been one of the main architects of PGGM’s gradual embrace of 3D portfolios shaped around risk, return and impact which began with an actively managed €5 billion impact equities portfolio. Today, although PGGM’s giant portfolio means it will “always do a bit of everything” he does acknowledge a broad direction of travel around impact. So much so the fund is currently planning to tilt its broader passive allocation to companies that have a bigger share of their revenues mapped to the SDGs.

Reducing negative impact means the fund is “peeling off” of its traditional passive strategy with exclusions and benchmark adjustments  in a process that triggers obvious questions whether the strategy is still actually passive.

“One could argue that the next logical step is to go active to be able to account for both negative and positive impact,” he says.

Such a move would be in keeping with PGGM long blazing a trail in the area. Like its work measuring impact by pioneering revenue-to-impact modelling in partnership with UBS and others since 2015. The process, which explores the extent to which a company’s revenues map to the SDGs and real-world impacts, is an attempt to provide a solution to limited company reporting on SDGs and climate impacts. Today the proliferation of new companies going further and faster than PGGM developing revenue to impact models, gathering data and producing ratings for investors means PGGM’s work in the area has slowed. It’s an evolution Klop finds particularly satisfying.

“We are the in-house asset manager of the second biggest Dutch pension fund PFZW. We can throw our weight around a bit and point the markets to impact and 3D investing. Once this takes off, we are happy to get out of the way – we are not a data provider and don’t want to be”.

Challenges

Critics are quick to point to a myriad of complexities inherent in impact investment.

In liquid markets its difficult for investors to argue that their capital makes a difference to what a company does and doesn’t do given hundreds of other investors also hold the same security.

The idea of additionality, where investors aim to link the capital they provide to the impact it generates, is easier to support in private markets than in liquid markets. For example, infrastructure and private equity investors are closer to where the action is, have bigger stakes and more influence over what happens in terms of impact.  Still, in today’s world of free money, additionally is a high bar even in private markets.

“With record low interest rates, it’s super hard to maintain that without you something would not have happened,” he says.

But if additionality and affecting corporate change is a bridge too far, impact investors can find success via other routes: simply demonstrating their alignment with companies that generate revenues from solutions to the SDGs.

“Aiming for impact through alignment is no trivial evolution,” he says.

Klop is heartened by the growing number of asset owners signalling to the market that impact matters and by impact leaders going further still, building SDG indexes and tilts towards companies that make a bigger contribution based on revenues to positive real-world outcomes.

Ultimately, he would like to be able to calculate the impact from each euro or dollar invested to truly put impact on a level with risk and return. But until then, constantly improving the measurement of real-world impacts is still encouraging.

Of course Klop has many other priorities alongside integrating impact in his new role where he leads an advisory unit guiding PGGMs different front office investment teams on all things sustainable. His work to better account for climate and ESG risk factors is just one example.

“It’s a big job because everyone wants to be sustainable these days,” he concludes. “I recall the days when people weren’t all that interested in responsible investment and thought it was just something that would make life difficult.”

 

 

 

Henry Jones, who will resign as president of the CalPERS board on January 21, leaves behind a new mindset at the fund of tackling big systemic issues.

In his time on the board Jones, who is resigning due to health issues, oversaw huge growth and stability in the AUM of the fund as well a shift to focusing on big strategic issues pertinent to its member base including issues of sustainability.

During Jones’ time on the board the fund grew from a low of $179 billion during the global financial crisis in 2019 to just over $500 billion, a milestone it reached in December.

Jones was the first African American president of CalPERS, a position he is very proud of.

He talked openly with www.top1000funds.com about his own experience of racism and the need for investors to tackle race issues in their investments.

Last year he said CalPERS has a moral imperative to confront racism and economic inequality.

In a Sustainability in a time of crisis podcast Jones discusses how CalPERS, the largest pension fund in the United States, is tackling these issues internally and through its investment allocations, and also how the industry can collectively change the status quo processes and behaviours around systemic inequality.

“Mapping racism as a systemic risk means we should track this across the portfolio, but right now we don’t have the tools or the data. It is not unlike where we were on climate as a systemic risk, we didn’t have the information and had to build a data model and action plan with our partners. We need to do that with addressing racism and have commissioned research on this,” he says.

In August 2016 the CalPERS investment committee adopted the fund’s sustainable investment strategic plan which among other things identified corporate board diversity and inclusion as a strategic initiative.

Over the past few years CalPERS has engaged 733 companies on the lack of diversity on its boards and since 2017, 53 per cent of those companies have added a diverse director to their boards.

In his resignation letter to the board on the weekend Jones said: “It has been the honor of a lifetime to serve on the CalPERS Board of Administration these past 14 years especially as the only elected African American Board member and the first African American elected president. I have been completely committed to the community of retirees throughout the state of California as well as to the members of CalPERS; and, to ensuring that CalPERS practices the highest ethical standards in protecting and building on the investments and assets of our members.”

Jones served four four-year terms on the CalPERS’ board including two terms as president and three years as vice president. His last day on the board is this Friday.

Jones was previously chief financial officer at the Los Angeles Unified School District where he oversaw LAUSD’s $7 billion annual budget. He retired in 1998.

Jones was also appointed chair of the International Corporate Governance Network in September last year.

 

 

Markets could get bumpy as monetary policy normalises, and as the pandemic’s destabilising impacts continue to ripple through the global economy. Philip Saunders and Sahil Mahtani explore the investment outlook across asset classes and regions.

The fast view

  • Markets face a potentially difficult transition as monetary policy is normalised.
  • Consider hedging against the risk that inflation moves higher than policymakers anticipate. Duration should be kept short.
  • For defensive diversification, rather than traditional government bonds, consider cash, creditor-nation currencies and US dollars.
  • Consider also shifting away from parts of the market that have done well since the Global Financial Crisis, like growth equities. The equities of companies with pricing power, and that start with reasonable valuations, are best placed if prices continue rising.
  • Volatility may provide the chance to add exposure to longer-term thematic opportunities, such as those analysed in our Road to 2030 research project.

Global Outlook: Q&A with Philip Saunders
Philip Saunders, Co-Head of Multi-Asset Growth, assesses the outlook for global markets in 2022.

Date published: 23 November 2021
Authors:
Philip Saunders, Co-Head of Global Multi-Asset Growth
Sahil Mantini, Strategist, Investment Institute

01 Macro background: prepare for re-entry

Key points: The transition to normalised monetary policy makes the macroeconomic outlook uncertain. However, vaccine roll-outs should help underpin growth in 2022. China’s new willingness to tolerate weaker growth in the near term will weigh on regions that rely heavily on Chinese demand, like Europe. In contrast, the US is well positioned to sustain above-trend growth in 2022.

As every astronaut knows, re-entry can be the most dangerous part of a mission. Financial ‘normalisation’ – central banks’ return to conventional monetary policy after years of abnormally accommodative stances – may be a similarly difficult transition, potentially exposing markets to significant stresses in the year ahead.

But it was business as usual in 2021 from a policy perspective, with Western central banks sticking with super-easy policies. This was accompanied by a continuation of the ‘V-shaped’ recovery in markets and economies, despite some setbacks caused by new variants of COVID-19.

However, the dramatic recovery in demand has not been accompanied by an ability to supply it. Supply-chain disruptions have led to bottlenecks and sharply rising prices in many areas. Indeed, concern about inflation intensified as 2021 progressed, with market participants beginning to doubt that the surge in prices would prove as ‘transitory’ as the US Federal Reserve (Fed) and other central banks had suggested.

Inflation matters

Why the concern? The path of inflation matters because valuations across the asset-class spectrum assume a continuation of low real and nominal interest rates. After the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) in 2008, central banks were able to inject huge amounts of liquidity – often via unorthodox policies – without an inflationary backlash. The monetary and fiscal response to the COVID crisis has been on an altogether larger scale, and the impact in terms of asset-price inflation and cryptocurrencies is plain to see. But will central banks avoid having to tighten policy materially, deliberately weakening growth and causing asset prices to fall sharply, to prevent inflation expectations from becoming unanchored?

Vaccines may provide a shot in the arm

That’s not yet clear. At least we now have much better visibility on the process of social normalisation after the pandemic. We understand the disease now. And whereas zero-interest-rate policies persisted in 2021, ‘zero-COVID’ policies have been jettisoned – China being a notable hold-out – as it has become apparent that we are going to have to live with COVID and put our faith in mass vaccination. As immunisation programmes are rolled out more broadly, the world is opening up. This should underpin growth in 2022, especially in developing economies, many of which have so far lacked access to vaccines.

Monetary normalisation

The normalisation of monetary conditions, and the move away from zero-interest-rate policies, are yet to begin in earnest in the developed world. This is likely to add significant uncertainty throughout the year ahead. The Fed has already signalled its intention to taper its asset-purchase programme and end it by mid-year. It remains to be seen how other major developed-economy central banks will act.

In much of the emerging world, short-term interest rates have already begun to rise. But China has pursued a different course. It didn’t suffer as much from COVID-19 as other economies, due to its aggressive lockdown policy. So rather than quantitative easing, it deployed more conventional monetary, credit and fiscal measures. This mirrored the mini-cycles of Chinese policy loosening and tightening that characterised the post-GFC period.

A difference on this occasion is that policy tightening was initiated quicker and accompanied by more assertive macro-prudential policies, particularly in the property market. Chinese policymakers have evidently chosen to ‘fix the roof while the sun is shining’, using a positive growth environment and a surge in exports to introduce some potentially very significant policy adjustments.

China’s policy pivots

We refer to these policy shifts as China’s ‘five pivots’, and they represent the roll-out of President Xi’s policy priorities in the run-up to the twentieth Party Congress (scheduled for autumn 2022), at which he is likely to formally claim a third term as the General Secretary of the Party. State control is effectively being used to both reinforce and channel social and economic reform. The five pivots are:

  1. Curbing financial risks: This pivot led to the deleveraging campaign in 2018. It is also behind Beijing’s crackdown in recent years on shadow banking, local-government debt, peer-to-peer lending, cryptocurrencies and the caps on the leverage ratio for property developers.
  2. National security and self-sufficiency: The push on this front is captured by the catchphrase ‘dual circulation’, which refers to the goal of increasing reliance on the domestic cycle of production, distribution and consumption to drive China’s economy, rather than overseas markets and technologies. It is also reflected in the intense focus on technological independence and energy self-sufficiency.
  3. Anti-monopoly and regulation: 2021 has turned out to be a year of regulation. This pivot has led to crackdowns in various areas, such as education and the internet.
  4. Environment: This pivot gained notable momentum in September 2020, when President Xi said for the first time that China aims to achieve peak carbon by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060.
  5. Income/wealth distribution: The push on this front is captured by the term ‘common prosperity’. More specifically, the main theme here is ‘common prosperity for all and more equal wealth distribution’.

Clearly, the reaction functions of Chinese policymakers are changing in a material way. What is new is a willingness to allow growth rates to moderate in the medium term in pursuit of longer-term goals. They have been faster to tighten policy in this cycle and will probably be slower to loosen it than the consensus has been expecting. We believe that any significant loosening of policy is likely to begin in the first half of next year. However, the full impact of the prior policy tightening – which began in early 2021 – is now likely to be felt in the form of weaker domestic growth and in regions where there is a high dependence on Chinese demand. The latter include Europe, where that linkage is still not fully understood by market participants.

US growth will set the tone for tighter liquidity conditions globally

In contrast, the US is well positioned to sustain above-trend growth over 2022, even as growth in China and the eurozone slows. The US economy is relatively self-contained; consumers and corporates are flush with cash; banks are ‘under-lent’ (Figure 1); and supply constraints should gradually ease. Monetary conditions are also set to diverge, with the US finally moving to normalise monetary conditions while Europe remains stuck on hold and China eases.

In aggregate, given the continued dominance of the US in the global financial system, financial conditions overall will tighten, representing a material headwind for international markets. Financial normalisation – against a background of growth and policy divergence, and the distinct possibility of US inflation pressures persisting – is unlikely to be without bumps in the road, especially given elevated valuations across the asset-class spectrum.

Figure 1: US banks are ‘under-lent’
Ratio of US commercial bank loans to US money supply

Source: Richard Bernstein Advisors, Bloomberg, October 2021

02 Developed market government bonds: bumps ahead

Key points: Global liquidity conditions are likely to tighten internationally. Developed government bonds are expensive, and prospective longer-term real returns are poor given the interest-rate outlook.

We are already on notice that quantitative easing in the US will be tapered, and in all probability ended by June 2022 if not earlier. This will pave the way for increases in official interest rates. Our central case is that, although supply constraints should progressively moderate, price pressures are likely to remain uncomfortable for longer. This will force the Fed to normalise financial conditions more rapidly. Real rates will have to adjust from the current negative levels, and we ascribe a low probability to this being a smooth process.

The withdrawal of asset purchases – which have been running at about US$120 billion a month as part of the Fed’s response to the COVID crisis – implies a reset along the yield curve to the natural market-clearing levels. The Fed now owns over 54% of 10-20 year maturity treasuries, the buying of which has had the deliberate effect of suppressing long-term interest rates. As things stand, bonds are at historically expensive valuations, and prospective longer-term real returns are poor under most scenarios (Figure 2). The combination of firm economic growth and the removal of the Fed’s support suggests higher long-maturity US Treasury bond yields.

Although short-term interest rates diverge between countries, developed government bond markets tend to be highly correlated beyond maturities of about five years, with the US Treasury market setting the tone. So we can expect liquidity conditions to tighten internationally.

Figure 2: Future returns on US government bonds look weak
Current 10-year yields and subsequent 10-year total returns on US government bonds (1-10 years) (%)

Source: Bloomberg, October 2021

03 Currencies: back the greenback

Key points: The US dollar has the potential to extend its rally in 2022. In contrast, Chinese policymakers are likely to let the renminbi weaken. Tighter international liquidity conditions may weigh on emerging market currencies, particularly the major debtor nations.

The US dollar didn’t weaken to anything like the extent many commentators were expecting in 2021. Although the greenback is expensive on valuation grounds, it remains well below its pre-COVID levels (Figure 3). With growth and monetary policy set to diverge materially in 2022, the US dollar has the potential to extend its rally. Real interest rates should rise in absolute and relative terms, and returns on capital in the US should continue to act as a magnet for global capital. True, the US current-account deficit is likely to widen to record levels in these circumstances, which could eventually become problematic, but the correlation between current-account deficits and US-dollar weakness has generally been low.

We expect weaker growth to limit the eurozone’s ability to follow the US along the path of financial normalisation. Meanwhile, Chinese policymakers are likely to respond to emerging economic weakness by allowing the renminbi to weaken, as will probably be the case for currencies elsewhere in Asia. A stronger US dollar suggests tighter international liquidity conditions, which in turn is not supportive of emerging market currencies generally, and particularly those of the major debtor nations.

Finally, the Japanese yen is cheap. While monetary conditions in Japan are unlikely to tighten much, as a creditor-nation currency, the yen remains an attractive source of defensive exposure versus European currencies in the event of a more severe general market set-back.

Figure 3: The US dollar is below its pre-COVID level
Trade-weighted US dollar index

Source: Visual Capitalist, 2019. Please note that this figure has been redrawn by Ninety One.

04 Credit: will the fallen angels rise?

Key points: Tighter monetary policy and higher US Treasury yields will be headwinds for credit markets where credit spreads are at historic lows, but default rates should stay low and rating upgrades should continue. This may especially benefit credits downgraded during the pandemic. Investors should expect more dispersion in performance as inflationary pressures and supply-chain disruptions impact sectors in different ways.

Credit spreads reached new lows in 2021, due to a combination of positive economic momentum and supportive market technicals. In 2022, tighter monetary conditions and higher US Treasury yields are likely to be headwinds for credit, resulting in an asymmetric risk profile for the asset class. However, other credit-market fundamentals should remain broadly supportive. Default rates should be pegged close to historical lows in developed markets and rating upgrades should continue, particularly for those names downgraded during the pandemic. Indeed, many of the ‘fallen angels’ of 2020 have the potential to be the rising stars of 2022. Finally, market technicals should remain relatively balanced, with supply moderating from high levels.

Importantly, we expect dispersion in credit markets to increase from record lows, particularly as inflationary pressures, supply-chain disruptions and labour shortages create headwinds for certain sectors. With minimal scope for further credit-spread compression, credit selection will be key in 2022. Resilient carry ideas are likely to be the sweet spot, offering a balance of attractive returns while providing good downside protection should market volatility resurface. Accordingly, we continue to see value in areas such as structured credit, loans and select parts of the high-yield market.

Figure 4: Credit spreads are at historic lows
ICE BofA US High-Yield Index option-adjusted spread (%; not seasonally adjusted)

Source: US Federal Reserve, October 2021

05 Emerging markets: strong foundation, despite headwinds

Key points: Emerging markets are in a relatively strong position, and growth in 2022 should be supported by the continued reopening of economies. However, less accommodative financial conditions and weaker Chinese growth will be material headwinds.

Emerging markets face two major headwinds: tighter global financial conditions and weaker Chinese growth. However, emerging economies are in a better position to deal with rising global interest rates relative to 2013 and 2018. This is because most of them have already raised domestic rates, reflecting greater caution about inflation risks than policymakers in developed economies.

Combined with favourable inflationary base effects, this has given emerging markets a real-interest-rate buffer against higher global rates. In addition, emerging market growth will be supported by a continued re-opening of economies, the return of tourism, increased private capital expenditure and the restocking of goods. Finally, external imbalances – historically the Achilles’ heel of many emerging economies – are much less prevalent, especially as terms of trade have remained very supportive.

Weaker Chinese growth threatens to reduce demand sharply for raw materials and it introduces a high degree of uncertainty to the outlook. This may be a significant overhang for emerging market debt and currencies in the first half of 2022, with the potential to drive emerging market risk premia higher. But we will learn more about the magnitude of the downturn, and the Chinese policy response to it, as the year progresses. China has considerable scope to ease policy to support growth, but, given Beijing’s new priorities, it is unlikely that the response will match Chinese authorities’ actions in 2008/9, 2011 and 2015.

The year ahead will also feature some political uncertainty, with presidential elections in Brazil, Colombia and the Philippines. All of them could result in significant changes in policy. Finally, in 2022 we expect that the recent trends towards environmental, social & governance (ESG) and ESG-related investment will continue to gather pace. ‘That carries with it both opportunities and risks, as investors become increasingly discerning about countries’ policies and frameworks (see Peter Eerdman’s outlook for the emerging market debt asset class. See also the emerging market regional outlook by Grant Webster and Archie Hart).

Figure 5: Emerging market rates have reacted to Fed messaging much more than developed market rates
1-year forward real policy rates (%)

Source: Bloomberg, October 2021

06 Equity markets: from heady cocktail to… hangover?

Key points: 2022 could be a more challenging year for developed equity markets. ‘Long-duration’ stocks are the most exposed, given the potential for higher interest rates. Regionally, US and European stocks are both expensive, but the latter are more exposed to growth risks. Asia ex-Japan equities are well into a de-rating process already, and pockets of long-term value have begun to emerge.

With liquidity tailwinds turning into headwinds, 2022 promises to be a more challenging year for developed equity markets. In 2021, a heady cocktail of low interest rates and continuing liquidity injections, coupled with high and rising margins and strong earnings, represented a perfect combination for the asset class. We now enter a period of heightened uncertainty.

In the US, the trajectory of financial normalisation is likely to be determined by the Fed’s need to keep inflation expectations from becoming unanchored – the more negative the inflation outcome, the faster the normalisation process will be and the greater the risk of policy mistakes.

Another inflation-related uncertainty is the impact of higher costs on corporate margins and earnings. History suggests that, so long as demand remains constructive, corporates should be able to pass on rising input costs, thus protecting margins. However, this will largely be contingent on current supply issues, which threaten to undermine the ability of companies to achieve sufficient operating leverage, being resolved quickly. Headline market valuations provide little in the way of a cushion. Long-term capital-market return assumptions have been driven down to levels that imply very modest future returns. However, intra-market valuation spreads remain wide, and as a result pockets of valuation opportunity remain, particularly among higher-quality companies with more modest top-line growth profiles. Selectivity will be key.

Set against these potential negatives, the risk of recession – the primary cause of bear markets – still seems remote. The US economy in particular appears primed for further expansion, even if supply constraints and spiking oil prices cause growth to decelerate in Q4 2021 and Q1 2022. Consumer and corporate balance sheets are strong and banks have considerable scope to re-leverage.

We are unconvinced that it is especially useful to talk in terms of the conventional equity style labels. But if we must, ‘long-duration’ stocks are evidently the most exposed. They have been the primary beneficiaries of declining interest rates in the period of so-called secular stagnation in the West, and their valuations are the most extended. Indeed, many ‘growth stocks’ in particular would appear to have been lifted excessively by the common tide (Figure 6). However transitory the current burst of inflation proves to be, our medium-term expectation is that the US inflation rate will be somewhat higher on average than it was in the post-GFC period. Real rates are set to rise quite materially and, as remarked on earlier, the removal of quantitative easing will free the longer end of the US yield curve to adjust. The best defence against the risk of inflation continues to be pricing power, the most valuable characteristic companies can possess in an inflationary environment, together with a reasonable starting valuation.

Figure 6: Growth has outperformed value since the GFC
Relative performance of MSCI Value Index vs. MSCI Growth Index (a down-sloping line indicates growth outperformance, and vice versa)

Source: Bloomberg, October 2021

It is probably too early in the current profit cycle to advocate conventional defensives. In any event, some of these assets are set to experience interest-rate headwinds if our central case is correct. In light of this, earnings disappointments are likely to be punished severely.

Regionally, although the US equity market is expensive by most measures, its higher level of self-sufficiency makes it less exposed to growth risks, particularly those posed by a weaker China. The US also contains the greatest concentration of companies with true pricing power. This is one of the reasons it has proven resilient, despite its seemingly high valuation relative to other regions, even as inflation expectations began to rise in the latter part of 2021. We are mindful that negative developments regarding US corporate taxes could cause a short-term set-back. However, they have not had a lasting impact on markets in the past.

Europe ex-UK equities are both trading on high valuations and more exposed to weaker Chinese demand. Quality European stocks with genuine sustainability credentials, a rare area of genuine European technological leadership, may be better placed than average to mitigate short-term cyclical headwinds. We believe allocating to them is likely to be a more fruitful strategy than buying European financials based on a rates view, as the required industry consolidation in European banks continues to be a story of hope rather than expectation.

In Asia ex-Japan, equities are already well into a de-rating process, reflecting the impact of Chinese tightening. What we lack is earnings visibility in the region, as well as clarity on Chinese monetary policy and the impact of the ‘five pivots’. Nevertheless, pockets of long-term value have begun to emerge, such as in the aggressively de-rated Chinese internet stocks. Even though the effects of China’s new policy priorities are yet to become fully apparent, the valuations of a number of stocks have moved way in excess of a reasonable assessment of the potential hit to profitability – suggesting this may be a good time to consider a modest reallocation to the area. The Chinese government is treading a fine line between respect for capitalism’s dynamism and innovation, maintaining an adequate level of control, and a genuine regard for consumer protection. We do not believe those who suggest this is the end of controlled capitalism as we have known it for 30+ years in China. Absent another more draconian round of regulatory tightening, we think the resultant increase in the cost of capital in this space may prove to be a positive development, squeezing out profitless growth companies with questionable business models. We advocate selectively building positions in cash-generative companies with proven business models that are not reliant on the liquidity environment to fund their growth. That said, we would caution against a wholesale shift into the space ahead of the demonstrable liquidity support that has tended to precipitate inflections in Chinese investor sentiment.

07 Commodities: a materially different environment

Key points: After surging materials prices in 2021, copper, nickel and iron ore appear most exposed to sharp corrections. However, commodity prices may settle higher than before the pandemic. Energy prices are likely to stay higher, at least through the winter. In an uncertain environment, gold stocks may be a useful diversifier.

The combination of abundant liquidity, a surge in demand and supply disruptions created an extraordinary environment for commodities in 2021, many of which experienced outsized price gains (Figure 7). All three of these drivers are set to moderate significantly in 2022. Within metals, copper, nickel and iron ore appear most exposed to sharp corrections, particularly given Chinese property-market weakness. There is a reasonable chance, however, that prices will settle at a higher floor than was the case pre-COVID. For steel and aluminium, the prospects look brighter in the Western world as China reduces exports to conserve power and reduce emissions.

Energy prices have also been on a tear, underpinned by severe demand and supply imbalances. Liquid natural gas prices jumped to new all-time highs in 2021, and energy prices will likely remain at higher levels through the winter season, especially if cold weather hits, but should settle down during the spring. However, oil prices could be boosted by increased transportation demand as air travel opens up, and because OPEC seems reluctant (perhaps unable) to increase production much faster. The continuing withdrawal of capital from the oil sector, driven by financial institutions’ climate-change priorities, threatens a disorderly energy transition over the medium term, with energy prices remaining high and displaying considerable volatility.

The path from here is uncertain and – with governments trying to normalise financial conditions and growth prospects diverging internationally – it remains challenging to forecast precisely what issues may arise in 2022. But it seems easier to forecast that there are likely to be issues. In such an environment, and with inflation pressures persisting, gold’s appeal should increase once again after a dull year for the precious metal. At current levels, gold-mining stocks look attractive on both valuation and fundamental grounds, and may be useful for investors looking to diversify their portfolios.

We would also highlight that efforts to tackle climate change will continue to be felt in commodity markets in 2022 and beyond. Much uncertainty persists about the pathway to net zero from here, but we know at least that decarbonisation will be mineral intensive, because the world is switching from a fossil fuel-based power system to one which is essentially metals-based. Wind turbines, for instance, are 70% steel, while copper is required to generate and carry the electricity. It adds up to a complex backdrop for materials markets. We believe there will be many opportunities for commodity investors as the energy transition progresses, but they will not always be obvious. And those looking to capture them need to be active and careful, because supply/demand balances are volatile and long-term structural themes will continue to crash into short-term stocking cycles.

Figure 7: Commodities have rarely been so expensive (though resources stocks are well below highs)
Prices of fossil fuels and metals/mined commodities as a percentage of global GDP

Source: Bernstein Research (based on BP Statistics, Bloomberg, IMF, Bernstein estimates (2021) and analysis), November 2021

08 Geopolitics: too much to lose

Key points: Geopolitical risk is a consideration for investors for the first time since the Cold War. However, we think China has everything to gain from playing a long game, which reduces the risk of major geopolitical flashpoints in 2022.

With the ‘Chimerica’ model broken and the Biden administration pursuing an aggressive policy to frustrate China’s rise, geopolitical risk is a consideration for investors for the first time since the Cold War. Where Biden’s approach differs from Trump’s is in the consistency with which it is being pursued. The effect of this has been to accelerate reform on a number of fronts in China, most notably in technological innovation and more generally in China’s pursuit of self-sufficiency in certain sectors. Investors have begun to mull a serious escalation of geopolitical tensions between the US and China as a rising tail risk. We beg to differ. Unlike during the Cold War, today’s global economy is highly inter-connected. China’s exports to the US are booming and US corporates have been notably slow to shift their supply chains away from China. China itself is addressing some very significant domestic structural challenges and seems to have everything to gain from playing a long game.

09 Road to 2030: evolution

Key points: One year into the new decade, we provide an update on Road to 2030, our project to analyse the major trends driving markets and investment outcomes. We discuss how our views have evolved on: the rise of China; climate change; technological disruption; debt; and demographics.

In Road to 2030, our thematic asset-allocation project which we shared for the first time last year, we set out what we think will be the major global trends driving markets and investment outcomes this decade. With one-tenth of the journey to 2030 now behind us, here is how our thinking regarding our five structural macro themes has evolved.

1. The rise of China: When we first looked at this theme, it was clear that China was undergoing three distinct transformations. First, a shift from fixed-asset investment to consumption; second, a shift up the value chain as China seeks technological independence in select areas; and third, China’s outward economic expansion. The US response to this, focused on security and competition, is a crucial overlay to the global impact of these transformations.

Since we launched Road to 2030, China’s move up the value chain has continued unabated, even sped up, as the vast funds (over US$1.5 trillion) China intends to direct towards investment in semiconductor technologies, among others, show (see our recent work with Professor Chris Miller on Chinese technology policy). Xi Jinping has continued to highlight China’s reliance on outside nations for certain core technologies as a vulnerability.

Meanwhile, China’s shift towards a consumption-based economy has arguably been postponed (Figure 8); at least, this is what the 14th Five Year-Plan (2021-2025) promises – to keep the portion of the economy devoted to investment and consumption roughly the same. The US response has taken a more strategic bent through the AUKUS submarine alliance, which has only become more relevant after China’s hypersonic missile test in October 2021. Within China, it is now clear that the main story is not economic reform or political control, but both. The big-picture goals are to improve the quality of life for China’s people, and establish a more centralised, national-security-directed state.

Figure 8: China’s investment spending is unlikely to pivot towards consumption in the near-term
Gross fixed capital formation (% of GDP)

Source: Bloomberg, October 2021

2. Climate change: The key distinction in the climate-change theme is between physical risks — changes to the planet — and transition risks as businesses and households alter their behaviours. Climate-change modelling is complex, but it is generally agreed that the main physical risks over the next decade are extreme weather events rather than permanent changes in the environment. Transition risks are therefore the key investment risk — and opportunity — until 2030.

Globally, annual spending on decarbonisation is still at least US$2 trillion short of that required (a gap the investment industry has a major role in closing). Efforts to address climate change have continued to gather momentum, with many more countries and companies adopting net-zero transition commitments and plans in 2021. But we still believe the world remains merely at the foothills of a multi-trillion dollar investment spree over the coming decades, and that there is a major opportunity for investors to both generate returns and make a meaningful contribution to tackling the climate problem. The key challenges are to avoid the public backlash against environmental spending that is occurring in some Western nations, as well as localised approaches to decarbonisation that further disadvantage the poorest countries.

3. Technological disruption: Our key insight here is that technology is not a sector, but an enabler for new and existing businesses. We have therefore divided this theme into five functional areas. First is better healthcare, by which we mean more preventive therapies and new, potentially cheaper, treatments. Second is the growing abundance of goods and services. Third is the shift to a more flexible workplace. Fourth are innovations in personal mobility. Finally, we believe states are going to take a much more activist stance on their economies.

Invention and innovation are two different things. Inventions can occur at any time, but periods when innovations on these inventions diffuse widely and lead to technological shifts occur only periodically. These periods of technological diffusion often require strong economic growth, since that is when businesses and governments are in a position, and have a need, to invest. Given current high rates of growth and the shortages in semiconductors and all manner of other materials and goods, we may be in just such a period. Businesses are actively looking for new technologies to reduce their cost bases, and there is talk of an uptick in productivity growth from the sluggish levels of the past decade. The recent success of Tesla, which is worth more than all the other companies in the auto sector (at the time of writing), shows that the same drivers of technological growth (data, network effects and so on) in one area become decisive in markets previously thought of as traditional. That is the definition of diffusion.

4. Debt: The last four decades have seen an explosion in public and private debt around the world, facilitated by declining real and nominal interest rates and latterly by quantitative easing. Unexpected events like COVID-19 have accelerated the debt build-up, and there has been a shift in the attitudes of policymakers towards using fiscal spending to address the energy transition and inequality. As a result, debt stabilisation has taken a backseat to other priorities, certainly relative to the 2010s when austerity measures were pursued by a number of countries.

Eventually, however, we think the fiscal measures put in place by the pandemic will seem disproportionate as the economy normalises, and a combination of measures are likely to be implemented to stabilise these high debt levels: financial repression; competitive devaluations to boost exports; more austerity and taxation; reform and growth; macroprudential policies; helicopter money; and private debt forgiveness. Stabilising debt has of course been nobody’s focus during the pandemic, and as a result debts have mounted. It will become clearer over the coming year what countries’ strategies are for stabilising debt levels.

5. Demographics: We have split this vast and important topic into the impact of demographic trends on government budgets, on GDP and some idiosyncratic effects. As people age, pension liabilities will increase, as will healthcare costs, squeezing non-welfare spending. Older people are likely to dominate the political agenda and new products will emerge to address old-age care.

Our thinking on this theme has not changed much. We are convinced that demographics are in general deflationary, though there are short periods when demographics can become marginally less deflationary — as we anticipate in the US over the coming decade, supporting the case for US outperformance. Budgets delivered over the last year have emphasised the new roles of security and welfare in state spending. For example, healthcare spending is now 40% of UK day-to-day spending, a figure that will continue to rise. COVID has brought working-age labour-force participation down, but of course it is expected to rise again as conditions normalise.

China’s recent census (preliminary results were released in May 2021) appears to have been a catalyst, at least in terms of timing, for a host of reforms to make it easier for families to have children, including curbs on video games, after-school tutoring and (crucially) high property prices. As Western countries deal with the challenges of mass migration and the decline of fertility rates, perhaps China’s solutions will come to be theirs as well.

Explore Road to 2030

10 Conclusions

Markets face a potentially difficult period of transition. Risk premia across asset classes currently build in little in the way of a buffer as we enter a period of considerable uncertainty.

It is possible that inflation fears will subside relatively quickly as actual and artificial shortages moderate – the cure for high prices is, after all, high prices. This would provide central banks with greater room for manoeuvre. But if inflation pressures prove to be more persistent, the risk of the Fed being exposed as ‘behind the curve’ (i.e., as raising rates more slowly than prices are rising) is considerable.

The good news is that the current growth and profits cycle has probably not run its course; the pool of unengaged liquidity on private-sector balance sheets is substantial; and the willingness of governments to increase fiscal spending, despite high debt levels, has undergone a notable transformation in response to the COVID shock. Spending on the energy transition and to address inequality are the common themes here.

What should investors do? As noted in the fast view, we suggest the following:

  • There is a strong case for rebalancing strategic allocations away from parts of the market that have done well since the Global Financial Crisis, like growth equities.
  • The equities of companies with pricing power, and that start with reasonable valuations, are best placed if prices continue rising. Duration should be kept short.
  • There is a high probability that volatility will provide the chance to add exposure to longer-term thematic opportunities.
  • While hedging against more negative inflation outcomes makes sense, it should be remembered that the prices of many real assets are a function of the same forces that have driven conventional financial assets to their current levels.

Specific risks

Currency exchange: Changes in the relative values of different currencies may adversely affect the value of investments and any related income. Derivatives: The use of derivatives is not intended to increase the overall level of risk. However, the use of derivatives may still lead to large changes in value and includes the potential for large financial loss. A counterparty to a derivative transaction may fail to meet its obligations which may also lead to a financial loss.

Equity investment: The value of equities (e.g. shares) and equity-related investments may vary according to company profits and future prospects as well as more general market factors. In the event of a company default (e.g. insolvency), the owners of their equity rank last in terms of any financial payment from that company. Emerging market (inc. China): These markets carry a higher risk of financial loss than more developed markets as they may have less developed legal, political, economic or other systems.

General risks

All investments carry the risk of capital loss. The value of investments, and any income generated from them, can fall as well as rise and will be affected by changes in interest rates, currency fluctuations, general market conditions and other political, social and economic developments, as well as by specific matters relating to the assets in which the investment strategy invests. Environmental, social or governance related risk events or factors, if they occur, could cause a negative impact on the value of investments.

Important Information

This communication is provided for general information only should not be construed as advice.

All the information in is believed to be reliable but may be inaccurate or incomplete. The views are those of the contributor at the time of publication and do not necessary reflect those of Ninety One.

Any opinions stated are honestly held but are not guaranteed and should not be relied upon.

All rights reserved. Issued by Ninety One.

Climate action failure tops the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2022 as the number one long-term threat to the world. The pandemic has added further complication with the resulting divergent economic recovery threatening the collaboration needed on climate and other global challenges.

Respondents to the WEF’s Global Risks Perception Survey rank climate action failure as the risk with potentially the most severe impacts over the next decade.

For the next five years, respondents signal societal and environmental risks as the most concerning. However, over a 10-year horizon, the health of the planet dominates concerns: environmental risks are perceived to be the five most critical long-term threats to the world as well as the most potentially damaging to people and planet, with climate action failure, extreme weather, and biodiversity loss ranking as the top three most severe risks. Respondents also signalled debt crises and geoeconomic confrontations as among the most severe risks over the next 10 years.

Asked to take a view of the past two years, respondents to the GRPS perceive societal risks — in the form of social cohesion erosion, livelihood crises and mental health deterioration — as those that have worsened the most since the pandemic began.

Slower global growth, rising commodity prices, inflation and debt are emerging risks.

The report says that the economic fallout from the pandemic is compounding with labour market imbalances, protectionism, and widening digital, education and skills gaps that risk splitting the world into divergent trajectories. In some countries, rapid vaccine rollout, successful digital transformations and new growth opportunities could mean a return to pre-pandemic trends in the short term and the possibility of a more resilient outlook over a longer horizon. But many other countries will be held back by low rates of vaccination.

Demonstrating the global divergence the report showed that in the poorest 52 countries — home to 20 per cent of the world’s people — only 6 per cent of the population had been vaccinated at the time of writing. And that by 2024, developing economies (excluding China) will have fallen 5.5 per cent below their pre-pandemic expected GDP growth, while advanced economies will have surpassed it by 0.9 per cent —widening the global income gap.

The Global Risks Report takes views from nearly 1,000 risk experts and global leaders in busines, government and civil society.