Currency: a zero-sum game fiduciaries are forced to play

The biggest decision facing pension fund investment committees this year could well be their position on currencies, particularly the greenback and the euro. The currency decision is never an easy one to make and at the moment it seems particularly difficult as politics is overlaid onto market fundamentals.

Greg Bright*

Last week’s IMF annual meeting, for instance, seemed to focus on the political aspect of China’s managed currency and whether, if it was managed up a little more quickly, it would improve global imbalances. The US certainly thinks so but the Chinese are wary.

The problem for fiduciary investors around the world is that currencies can deviate from fair value as determined by economic fundamentals for long periods of time, sometimes years.

There are several reasons for this, one of which is politics. Even in free-float economies, central banks intervene constantly to buy and sell their own currencies as a means of smoothing out interest rate pressures and as another tool in monetary policy. Where the currencies are fixed or managed, intervention is more blunt. Currency levels can be simply changed or allowed to move with markets in a governed fashion.

Another reason is that a second group of market participants will also be investing in currencies for reasons other than to make a profit. They are the export and import businesses, which need to hedge. Their purchases and sales of currencies will reflect the businesses’ underlying customer and supplier base rather than their views on future valuations.

A third group, traders, including hedge funds and global macro managers, will go in and out depending on views on valuations, trends and money flows.

Sponsored Content

Then there are the long-term investors who mix up protection of underlying portfolios, as businesses do, with shorter-term investment opportunities, as hedge funds do.

Because currencies are a zero-sum game, unlike other asset classes, global investors are forced to have a view not only on their home currency versus major ones such as the US$ and euro, but also, to a certain extent, on cross currencies as well, depending on the fund’s underlying portfolios.

Currency, if it is an asset class – some people still think its characteristics are too different for it to qualify – is not a decision the fiduciary investor can avoid. The investor cannot have no view.

The view, of course, can be outsourced to an active manager, which is becoming increasingly popular, or can be decided and fixed according to some middle-of-the-road benchmark, such as 50:50 hedged against one currency or a basket of currencies. But it is still a view for which the fiduciary’s constituency will wear the consequences.

The China RMB valuation debate is likely to continue to rage through to the next G20 Summit in Seoul, November 11-12, and probably beyond. The theme of this summit is ‘The G20’s Role Post-Crisis’.

It should be noted that the RMB is currently at its highest level against the US$ since 1993, having risen 2.3 per cent since June when the People’s Bank (China’s central bank) announced it was relaxing the dollar peg.

The currency is a big issue in China – much bigger than the declining value of the US$ is in the US. There is a currency report, often front page, in the Chinese newspapers every single day. Usually these reports quote a Chinese official saying words to the effect that the world’s and US economic problems are not due to the supposed undervaluation of the RMB.

The odd thing about this is that China is not suffering economically through the global recovery process, so why should the Chinese care about what anyone thinks of the value of its currency? Trade’s not drying up. Investment’s not drying up. Domestic demand’s certainly not drying up.

One economist says that the local RMB commentary reflects more the sensitivity China has over how it is perceived by the West. It would rather publicly argue its position than show a visible shrug of the shoulders to the world.

*Greg Bright is the Beijing-based publisher of Top1000Funds.com

Leave a Comment

Sort content by

Big Bond Bust

In his editorial in the latest edition of the FAJ, Richard Ennis calls into question the role of advanced, aggressive fixed-income strategies, questioning the suitability of such techniques in the part of the investor’s portfolio that bears the brunt of providing downside protection.mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

CalPERS on path to improving risk intelligence

The CalPERS governance risk management initiative (GRMI) project team, led by Allen Goldstein of The Results Group, has reported to the board on phase II of the project, concluding with 17 preliminary observations of areas of improvement. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

DNB approves Shell recovery plan

The 10.6 billion ($15 billion) Shell Pension Fund’s recovery plan has been approved by De Nederlandsche Bank and includes a provision to increase employer contributions to 32 per cent, up from 5 per cent last year, on the back of a whopping -43.3 per cent return for 2008. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

TRS invests in PE, eyes opportunistic real estate

The $30 billion Teachers’ Retirement System of the State of Illinois (TRS) will commit up to $1.2 billion to private equity, and will focus on opportunistic investments in real estate including emerging manager initiatives, as it aims to reach its new long-term allocations in those sectors by year end. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Canadian funds delve into performance drivers

Four of Canada’s pension funds have established a professorship in pension management at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto with initial research to focus on a better understanding of the drivers of pension fund performance using the global databases of CEM Benchmarking. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Counterparty risk prompts changes in sec lending

More than two thirds of the institutions that made changes to their securities lending programmes on the back of the global financial crisis cited less confidence in counterparty stability as the driver, research has revealed, however less than 20 per cent suspended participation following the market volatility. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Previous