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

SWFs eye offshore deals after quiet Q1

Hurt by mark-to-market losses and exercising caution in the face of an unforgiving investment environment, sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) made only 26 investments, worth $6.8 billion, in the first quarter of 2009 – their lowest deployment of capital since the fourth quarter of 2005. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Caisse pulls out of risky real estate after $5 billion write-down

Canada’s largest pension fund manager, the C$120 billion ($108 billion) Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec, has restructured its real estate group and ceased investing in the mezzanine and subordinated loans sector after suffering more than $4.5 billion in losses on its real estate and private equity portfolio in the first half of the

….. as 14-member international advisory board named

The CIC has named a 14-member International Advisory Council, which will advise the board and senior management on issues including portfolio development, strategy, and overseas investments. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

CIC to invest cash, as global portfolio returns – 2.1 % for the year…

CIC is poised to invest more than 80 per cent of the assets still allocated to cash in its $100 billion global portfolio, as it outlined in its first annual report to stakeholders it”cannot achieve its goals without productively deploying its capital”. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

UK funds lead charge on ESG

The £3.6 billion ($5.9 billion) London Pensions Fund Authority has recently beefed up its internal environmental, social and governance capabilities, resulting in more effective engagement, including with the Mayor of London. Kristen Paech talks to chief executive Mike Taylor about LPFA’s short, medium and long-term objectives for ESG and why the fund has taken matters

Reorienting retirement risk management

The Pension Research Council, part of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, recently hosted the 2009 Wharton Impact Conference, where leading academics, public pension sponsors and their advisors met to examine ways to reformulate and restructure retirement risk management. This is a summary of the proceedings, organised by Olivia Mitchell and Robert Clark.

Previous