Global Investing

Rotation schmotation

We’re at risk of labouring this point, but there has been some more evidence that this year’s equity rally has not been spurred by a shift away from fixed income. The latest data from our corporate cousins at Lipper offer pretty definitive proof that there has been no Great Rotation, at least not from bonds to stocks.

Worldwide mutual fund flows numbers for February showed an overall move into equity funds of more than $22 billion, and a net flow to bond funds of about half that. Over 3 months it’s a similar story, with a net inflow to equities of about $84 billion while bond funds sit close behind at about $75 billion. Little wonder then that there is some evidence at least of movements out of money market funds.

In fact, maybe HSBC called it about right last week. In a note, their cross-asset strategists reckoned a pick-up in economic growth might support a ‘minor’ cyclical rotation into equities from bonds, but a longer-term structural shift between the two asset classes as part of a ‘Great Rotation’ was less likely.

You can play around with the full interactive graphic by clicking on the image below. If you have any problems, the link is here: http://r.reuters.com/ryk34t

There are a few caveats to note: these data don’t include private institutional mandates and are an extrapolation from publicly-available performance and assets-under-management figures. Also, for ease of use, it’s all in dollars; do your own maths as you go.

What flows out, must flow in?

Much has been made of the flows into U.S. equities this month. Funds have rolled out the red carpet for a record $11.3 billion or so in net inflows over the first two weeks of the year, more when you factor in ETFs.

Just to cool the enthusiasm a little, it’s worth remembering that this comes after a torrid 2012.

Our graphic detailing Lipper’s latest estimated net flows in and out of various fund sectors shows combined outflows from U.S. equity funds and U.S. small cap funds reached a total of more than $150 billion last year. The fourth quarter alone contributed more than $50 billion of that.

Survival of the fattest?

Is there room only for the biggest, most aggressively-marketed funds in crisis-hit Europe?

Europe’s ten best-selling funds have attracted nearly a third of net sales across bonds, equity and mixed assets so far this year, as the grey bars show in the following chart from Thomson Reuters’ fund research firm Lipper.

TEN MOST SUCCESSFUL FUNDS’ NET SALES AS A PROPORTION OF ALL SALES

The numbers — which exclude ETFs — are even more staggering if looking at at the concentration of sales into groups/companies, rather than at fund level.

Winners, losers and the decline of fear

Lipper has released its monthly look at fund flow trends in Europe, and as ever, it throws up some intriguing results.

August saw bond funds again dominate inflows, pulling in a net 20.8 billion euros and just a tad down on July’s record. Stocks funds continued to suffer, as British equity products led the laggards with close to 2 billion euros withdrawn by clients over the month. North American equity funds and their German counterparts also saw big outflows.

Looking regionally, the Italian fund sector continues to show some surprising strength. Net funds sales there topped the table for the second month running. You can see Lipper’s heat map of sales and AuM below:

Funds will find a chill Wind in the Willows: Lipper

“Asset managers are emerging from their comfortable burrow to face a battery of lights.”

Sheila Nicoll, Director of Conduct Policy at Britain’s Financial Services Authority (FSA), had perhaps been reading Kenneth Grahame before her recent speech, and her words are likely to have sent a chilly wind through the willows of the UK funds industry.

The warning “poop poop” being sounded by the regulator has been getting louder and louder. Indeed the FSA may even be traveling faster than Labour Party leader Ed Miliband, who has recently suggested that he would impose a 1 percent cap on pension charges.

LIPPER-ETF tiddlers for the chop?

(The author is Head of EMEA Research at Thomson Reuters fund research firm Lipper. The views expressed are his own.)

By Detlef Glow

The exchange-traded fund (ETF) market has shown strong growth since its inception in Europe. Many fund promoters have sought to capitalise on this, seeking to differentiate themselves from rivals and match client needs by injecting some innovation into their product offerings. This has led to a broad variety of ETFs competing for assets, both in terms of asset classes and replication techniques.

Looking at assets under management, however, the European ETF market is still highly concentrated. The five top promoters account for more than 75 percent of the entire industry. On a fund-by-fund basis the concentration is even greater.

Lipper: Getting serious about giving

“Wouldn’t you rather your donations achieve a lot rather than a little? Then you’ll need to get serious and proactive. If you do it wrong, you can easily waste your entire donation.”

Caroline Fiennes is not one to pull her punches when talking about charitable giving, but the more I talk to her, or read her new book – ‘It Ain’t What You Give It’s The Way That You Give It’ – the more it becomes apparent that her philosophy is not all that different from that of a professional fund manager.

No self-respecting fund manager would invest in a company just because they were asked to. A fund manager will choose to invest (or disinvest) because they believe it will help their fund perform well and that the investment fits within their investment objectives. Fiennes, who advises companies and individuals on their giving, advocates a similar approach for any donor: be clear about your objective and find organisations that have done a good job of achieving this, not just the ones that market themselves well.

The ETF ‘Death List’

Our colleagues at Lipper have put together some eye-catching data on developments in the ETF industry. You can read the slides here.

Most intriguing is the idea of a slumbering cohort of 241 exchange-traded funds forming what Lipper calls a ‘Death List’; ETFs which are more than three years old, but which have failed to drive assets up to the 100 million euro-mark.

Detlef Glow, Lipper’s head of Research for EMEA, notes these funds might well be thought to be under review by their promoters, but he hasn’t spotted any particular trend towards consolidation. Why?

Lipper: Active vs. Passive, Round 3,462

Our team at Lipper spent much of the first quarter handing out awards to fund managers round the world who have delivered exceptional performance to their investors. Since then, I’ve had time to take a step back and assess just how good the wider European industry has been at outperforming over the longer term.

Active fund managers’ ability to out-perform their benchmarks sits near the heart of any discussion on the relative merits of active versus passive. In broad terms the argument against investing in an actively-managed fund is that one takes on the additional risk that the fund will significantly under-perform the index, a risk that is exacerbated over time by the additional costs associated with such a fund.

The argument against passive is that one not only misses out on the possibility of superior, but also that, in principle, one is guaranteed to under-perform the index.

The Naked Truth

Do independent asset managers perform better than bank-run funds?

Lipper was recently approached to analyse the difference in performance between funds operated by broader financial services companies (banks and insurers) and those managed by ‘pure play’ asset managers.

This research came in the wake of comments made by Peter Hargreaves, founder of IFA Hargreaves Lansdown, who said in September that many funds in the UK run by banks were “seriously crap”.

With the temperature apparently rising, it might be a little foolhardy to enter such a debate. Yet objective analysis is surely where independent fund researchers can best provide a useful contribution. Besides, it might be gettin’ hot in here, but I for one will not be takin’ off my clothes.