Tag Archives: mutual funds

Long-term investors tiptoeing back into Emerging Markets

Posted By |
Franklin Templeton/Getty Images

By Andrew Ness, Franklin Templeton Investments

(Sponsor content)

The COVID-19 pandemic has tested health systems, social and economic structures throughout the world this year. Global financial markets took a hit during the severe downturn last spring, and emerging markets typically bore the brunt of negative sentiment as investors sought safety above all: first to be abandoned and slower to recover.

Over the past six months, a renewed appetite for risk has brought investors back to emerging markets. But as the second wave of the pandemic takes its toll on economic activity over the next few months, will they stay?

Defying stereotypes

Historically, emerging markets have been lumped together at the far end of the risk/reward spectrum, outperforming developed markets in good times but substantially underperforming in bad. The perception of unpredictable politics, unsatisfactory governance and unhealthy levels of debt has lingered since the 1980s. This misperception attracts speculators who ride the market up, make a quick profit and sell off just as quickly.

We would argue that this is a mistake. From our vantage point as veteran investors ― not speculators ― in the emerging markets, we see that traditional perceptions and today’s realities do not always match up. Closing the gap reveals long-term growth opportunities in resilient, but less familiar, businesses.

Which one is the mature market?

Emerging market businesses have evolved from the early days, when opportunities were limited and difficult to access, and the years when successful companies were primarily tied to the commodities boom. Today, companies domiciled in emerging markets are increasingly at the leading edge of technology and innovation. Corporate governance has improved, and global accounting standards have made company finances more transparent. Greater re-privatization and allocation of more private capital are signs that investors are making more long-term commitments to these markets.

No one has a monopoly on entrepreneurship, and as the pandemic has starkly revealed, some “developing” countries are proving more resilient and better able to manage the pandemic than their ostensibly more developed counterparts.

Emerging markets are not monolithic

While countries like China and India offer a large opportunity set, smaller nations such as Korea, Taiwan, Mexico and Malaysia also harbour great opportunity and have proven their resilience during the pandemic. For example, glove manufacturers in Malaysia have recently seen a dramatic surge in demand, driven by COVID-19. We believe it is important to keep an open mind and cast a wide net.

Emerging Asia, the first area to experience the pandemic, may also be the first to recover. In the last quarter, for example, stocks in China rose as its economic resurgence gained pace, with industrial production and retail sales beating growth expectations in September. Strong corporate earnings led Taiwan’s market advance and robust technology exports contributed to that economy’s third-quarter rebound. In Indonesia, the government relaxed coronavirus curbs in Jakarta and passed a job creation law aimed at reducing regulations and boosting investments: all in the space of a single quarter.

Beyond the pandemic

As the prospect of a vaccine providing immunity to COVID-19 grows brighter, those with a longer-term vision are looking beyond the pandemic to economic recovery and opportunities for meeting other global challenges: climate change, overpopulation, disappearance of habitat and biodiversity, among others. We think emerging market companies will be an integral part of the solution. Continue Reading…

A Q&A about Fixed Income investing with Franklin Templeton’s Jon Durst

Posted By |

Earlier this year, the Hub ran a blog by Franklin Templeton Canada entitled A cure for the headaches of Fixed Income investing, written by Ahmed Farooq, Vice President of ETF Business Development for the company. Franklin Templeton is a sponsor of the Hub. Today’s blog is a question-and-answer session between Ahmed’s colleague, Jon Durst, Vice President, ETF Business Development, that picks up where we left off. 

Jon Chevreau, Q1: Do you believe active management makes more sense in the fixed-income space versus the equity space? Perhaps it makes sense in both?

Jon Durst, Franklin Templeton’s Vice President, ETF Business Development

Jon Durst: There are merits to active management in both equities and fixed income; however, I feel recently, it has been a heavy skew towards active fixed income in this current market environment, and for many reasons. Early in March 2020, we saw a 50bps cut in interest rates by the Fed in the US: it was the first unscheduled rate cut since 2008 and the biggest cut since the financial crisis.  There also appears to be a strong consensus on the street that rates will be “low for longer” going forward.  If you own a passive fixed income strategy, the goal is to minimize tracking error to the index and what it cannot do is to adjust or try to anticipate any type of market events, like interest rate changes or changing company fundamentals.

This can certainly be a worrisome event for most advisors if they buy their own bonds directly or passive fixed income products covering different sectors/regions, as they have to scramble and figure out if they should continue with the same fixed income allocations in their portfolio, as the onus of making any changes to their portfolio will be on them.

Active managers with years of experience can focus solely on their investment mandates and can adjust to different types of market events, such as shape of the pandemic recovery or the consequences of the Democrats winning the 2020 US elections.

Outsourcing in this market environment and buying active fixed income exposures that align with your client’s outcomes will hopefully provide a calming effect that is certainly needed.  Not to mention, active fixed income ETFs in particular are now often priced very similarly to passive indexed products, which is even more important in this low rate environment to help maximize clients cash flow.

Jon Chevreau, Q2: For income-oriented retirees, do you generally see more opportunity in corporate or government bonds?

Jon Durst: I do see more opportunity in corporates debt, as the yields are higher, they also tend to be less sensitive to interest rate movement, but the risk level and volatility do tend to slightly go up.

A passive aggregate bond strategy that encompasses both corporate and government debt in Canada yields around 2.55%, a pure passive Canadian government bond strategy at 2.11%, and a passive Canadian corporate strategy around 2.77%.  On the other hand, for example, an active Canadian corporate strategy FLCI – Franklin Liberty Canadian Investment Grade Corporate ETF, yields 3.12%. An active manager can select certain bonds over others, perhaps looking for higher coupons and/or YTMs, or overweighting certain sectors that will benefit from the pandemic trade or the Biden Presidency.

Jon Chevreau, CFO of Financial Independence Hub

Jon Chevreau, Q3:  How much exposure should Canadian investors have in US and international bonds and through what vehicle? On that note, what is your stance on currency hedging?

Jon Durst: We do need to think outside of Canada; even from a fixed income perspective, Canada’s total debt in comparison to the world is about 3-4%.  Also, there is no tax incentive to buying solely Canadian debt, unlike the Canadian Dividend Tax credit provided on distributions from Canadian equities.  There are many fixed income opportunities to take a look at – a solution based option via a Canadian Core Plus strategy is one – where you would still keep 70-75% in Canadian bonds and have an active manager select the 25-30% in the US and/or globally.  You could also consider a more broad-based global aggregate option, having the portfolio manager look for opportunities from a global stand-point, which offers the PM a lot of flexibility to diversify geographically and from a currency perspective.  Yields in different countries can vary significantly which can create a lot of opportunity for higher yields and capital appreciation, not to mention diversification benefits.

In terms of buying a pure-based exposure – in other words, buying direct US, EAFE or EM debt, either by purchasing individual bonds or a managed product — I find most advisors are still tippy toeing into pure US, EAFE or EM debt spaces: most still maintain a home country bias and the complexity of selection, weighting, and trading these exposures is difficult, to say the least. Those that see the value in investing outside of Canadian debt usually outsource this complexity by using active fixed income strategies that provide access to the US/Global exposure, in addition to Canadian bonds.

I am for 90-100% in currency hedging fixed income exposures.  With interest rates and yields being at historical lows, another level of worry should not be placed on how the global currencies are going to perform relative to the CAD$, especially in fixed income, which is supposedly the conservative component of a client’s portfolio.  In my opinion, currencies should be hedged out as much as possible in fixed income.

Jon Chevreau, Q4: Your blog back in February compared bond funds to GICs. Do you see a role for both and in what proportion?

Jon Durst: In this environment, it can get even trickier: do you really want to lock into GICs for a certain period of time at a certain rate? Or want to be nimble and have liquidity? It’s a question on how to balance stable income that is locked in (currently at historically low rates) and/or including a short term bond strategy that can yield a little more in this environment and provide liquidity in the event of a requirement. I am beginning to see a fair number of advisors who have started to allocate to short term bonds funds as client GICs mature. Usually cash, GICs and short-term bond funds make up about 5-10% of a clients portfolio, but GIC investors are being compensated very little, so short term bond funds are being used for those with a higher need for income, and cash now being used for those with a 100% capital preservation requirement (not taking inflation into the equation).  GICs appear to be losing some steam.

Continue Reading…

Cost Matters: But does your Advisor care?

Posted By |
Advisor John DeGoey, author of STANDUP to the Financial Services Industry.

By John DeGoey, CFP, CIM

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

Perhaps the most conspicuous disconnect in the financial services industry today revolves around cost.  It should be noted at the outset that the cost paid by a client comes in two forms: the cost of advice and the cost of products used to construct portfolios.  Both matter a great deal.

The adage that many in the financial services industry use is: “price is what you pay; value is what you get.” I’ll leave it to you to do your own due diligence about both the cost of advice and the value provided.  Today, I want to talk about the confluence of those two factors as it pertains to product cost.  The combination of quality advice with low-cost products can be a powerful one.  Unfortunately, my experience has been that some otherwise excellent advisors remain dogged in their determination to use high cost products:  or at least to be indifferent to cost as a primary determinant when making product recommendations.

After over a quarter century in the business, my sense is that many advisors who work at brokerage firms with a “traditional” mindset (i.e., a firm that has historically recommended individual securities as building blocks) are more cost conscious if only because the individual securities that they sometimes recommend don’t have MERs.  Of course, individual securities can add to portfolio risk due to their reduced diversification, so there’s a trade-off to be considered.

Big price difference between Mutual Funds, ETFs and Seg Funds

For those advisors like myself that want their clients to have broadly-diversified baskets to get access to specific asset classes and strategies, the options generally boil down to segregated funds, mutual funds and exchange traded funds.  All of these options cost money, but the difference in price is often substantial.  Does your advisor care?

In a ground-breaking paper entitled “The Misguided Beliefs of Financial Advisors” released in late 2016, some American academics show that many advisors are essentially indifferent to product cost.  The paper also shows that advisors tend to chase past performance and recommend unduly concentrated portfolios,  but those very real problems are beyond the scope of what we’re looking at here. Continue Reading…

Investing ― not Speculating ― in Growth

Posted By |
Image courtesy Franklin Templeton; iStock

By John P. Remmert, Franklin Global Growth Fund

(Sponsor Content)

 

Growth stocks attract a lot of attention, especially when momentum markets take share prices to heartpounding new heights. But as growth investors ourselves, we think many investors may be missing the point.

A single-minded focus on momentum is little more than speculation. If you want to invest in growth, rather than simply speculate, sustainable earnings are the key to unlocking value.

Stocks are the longest-duration assets in the capital markets. It may be several years until a stock’s value is fully realized, and as the COVID-19 pandemic has starkly reminded us, a lot can change in the meantime. We think it’s important to develop a mindset with a long time horizon and we seek to own the stocks of attractive companies that will benefit from the secular shifts that we think will shape the fortunes of businesses for many years to come.

Technology crosses all sectors

Technology is increasingly at the core of every business, not just those in the technology sector. If anything, the COVID-19 pandemic has simply sped up adoption of existing trends like ecommerce, machine learning and big data analytics. Health care, especially drug discovery, has surged forward with the rise of machine learning, like the biotech company we’ve owned for years that is now at the cutting edge of COVID-19 drug treatments with an antibody therapy that could help reduce symptoms in severely ill patients.

Within the information technology sector itself, we have invested in many US companies, as they tend to be global leaders with good corporate governance. But when we look at the pervasiveness of technology in other sectors, we find great opportunities in other countries and regions, like the South American stock we bought 10 years ago when ecommerce was non-existent; today the company is a market leader in ecommerce and has developed its own payment and shipping services to facilitate transactions.  Or the education company in China that was able to quickly move their business online when the pandemic hit, because they had been methodically investing in their online offering for years.

Supply chain links surprisingly strong

Although the pandemic and global trade tensions have put supply chains in the spotlight, in the long run, globalization still produces the best products at the cheapest price for the consumer. Continue Reading…

Yes, you can retire up to 30% wealthier

Posted By |

Questrade touched a nerve with financial advisors with a series of commercials highlighting how lower investment fees over time potentially means you can retire up to 30% wealthier.

Financial advisor extraordinaire Jason Pereira acknowledged that Questrade was right to go after do-nothing advisors who collect fat commissions, but he claimed the 30% wealthier promise was unrealistic and borderline illegal.

Mr. Pereira’s argument is a good one. Advisors like him (and others who put a client’s best interests ahead of their own) can add tremendous value for clients, but not in the way you might think.

The old school notion of a financial advisor is of someone who adds value through their stock-picking prowess. But that argument falls flat when you see the evidence that the vast majority of actively managed funds fail to beat their benchmarks.

Indeed, investors are better off buying the entire market as cheaply as possible using index funds or ETFs.

PWL Capital’s Ben Felix once told me, “investing has been solved … The way for advisors to add value is on planning, behaviour, and transformation.”

With that in mind, I can get behind the idea that financial advisors with this mindset do have a net positive impact for their clients, even after fees.

Which brings me to the point of this article. Canadians have $1.6 trillion invested in mutual funds, most of which are of the expensive, actively managed variety. Those actively managed funds aren’t adding value: the vast majority will underperform their benchmark. Furthermore, most bank-advised clients aren’t getting value in other ways: financial planning, goal setting and prioritization, behavioural coaching, etc.

Traditional advisors are still selling (and charging for) investment expertise, but failing miserably at delivering excess returns while offering little-to-no value for things that would truly make a difference for their clients.

The easy answer is to pair a fee-only advisor with a low-cost investment solution (either a self-directed portfolio of globally diversified ETFs, or through an automated portfolio with a robo advisor). This way, you get the planning, coaching, and behavioural nudges you need to succeed financially, plus the benefit of lowering your investment fees. Win-win.

But the sad reality is that financial inertia is powerful and it’s easier to keep your investments at your bank, along with your chequing, savings, and mortgage. I get it.

Retire up to 30% wealthier without moving your investments

What if I told you that you can still retire up to 30% wealthier without moving your investments to a robo advisor or a DIY investment solution? The answer is sitting right there on the product shelf at your bank: yet rarely if ever talked about by your financial advisor.

I’m talking about index funds. That’s right. Every big bank has a suite of index mutual funds available to investors. These funds charge between one-sixth to one-half the cost of the actively managed mutual funds that are typically sold to Canadian investors.

I’ve monitored and tracked the performance of big bank index funds and their actively managed mutual fund cousins for more than 10 years, and in every single case (when comparing to identical benchmarks), the lower cost index funds outperform the active funds.

So, all you need to do is walk into your bank branch, sit down with your advisor, and ask (no, demand) to move your portfolio from actively managed mutual funds to their index fund equivalents.

Below, I’ll show you the exact index funds to buy to build a 60/40 balanced, globally diversified portfolio of index funds at each of Canada’s five big banks. I’ll compare those index funds to the commonly sold actively managed “balanced” mutual fund.

RBC Index Funds

If you’re an RBC client, chances are you have the RBC Balanced Fund (RBF272) in your investment portfolio. The fund has nearly $5 billion in assets under management and comes with a fee (MER) of 2.16%. Returns have been decent, with a 10-year average annual return of 5.3%. Continue Reading…