+1 Added to my documents.
Please be aware your selection is temporary depending on your cookies policy.
Remove this selection here

Investment flows: From fear to hope?

THE ESSENTIAL

Since tapering ended, investors have generally turned away from risky assets and towards safer ones.

For example, from the start of November 2014 to the end of January 2016, a net USD 131bn flowed out of US equities, while, at the same time, almost USD 112bn flowed into US bonds. Similarly, a net USD 23bn flowed out of the riskiest corporate bonds (high yield), while USD 33bn flowed into safer investment grade bonds. Lastly, a net USD 95bn and USD 34bn, respectively, flowed out of emerging equities and bonds, both of which are considered risky. When drawing a distinction between “taper tantrum” effects – which will most likely recede if the Fed stays on a cautious footing – and the emerging market slowdown, flows are likely to remain marked by lots of caution for as long as doubts on China and oil prices have not receded.

 

 

 

PUBLICATION

 

Since tapering ended, investors have generally turned away from risky assets and towards safer ones. After noting the inflows and outflows in the main asset classes in 2015, we will focus in particular on emerging markets inflows and shifts by Gulf sovereign-wealth funds, which are raising many questions. As for 2016, while drawing a distinction between “taper tantrum” effects – which will most likely recede if the Fed stays on a cautious footing – and the emerging market slowdown, flows are likely to be very cautious, as long as doubts on China and oil prices have not been resolved.

Pulling out of the riskiest asset classes

Throughout 2015, the markets were increasingly on high alert, resulting in outflows from the riskiest assets – including emerging assets, equities and US high yield bonds – and a return to the safest investments, such as sovereign bonds issued in developed economies.

This quest for safe havens has accelerated since tapering  ended  in autumn 2014 (see chart 1). As a result, from the start of November 2014 to the end of January 2016, a net USD 131bn flowed out of US equities, while, at the same time, almost USD 112bn flowed into US bonds. Similarly, a net USD 23bn flowed out of the riskiest corporate bonds (high yield), while USD 33bn flowed into safer investment grade bonds. And a net USD 95bn and USD 34bn, respectively, flowed out of emerging equities and bonds, both    of which are considered risky. Ultimately, amidst this across-the-board rush back into quality, only Japanese and European equities – both driven by very active central banks – stood out, with USD 66bn and USD 119bn, respectively, flowing in over the same period of time (see chart 2).

By sector, outflows from overcapacity-burdened emerging equities resulted in weaker inflows into  industry,  infrastructure and  basic  materials,  as  well as utilities, as power generators were hit indirectly by falling energy prices. In contrast, market participants poured into defensive sectors like healthcare and telecoms, but also, more surprisingly, energy, where the profiles of publicly listed majors ultimately brought on some bargain hunting (see chart 3).

Inflows into emerging markets being squeezed

Financial inflows into emerging markets collapsed in 2015, driven by China’s difficulties, falling commodity prices and the prospect of Fed rate hikes. Various approaches, from the broadest to the narrowest, point to the impact of this infamous taper tantrum.

Based on the broadest  definition of  the  balance of  payments1,  in  2015,  no less than USD 736bn flowed out of emerging markets, according to the Institute of International Finance (IIF), vs. USD 111bn in outflows in 2014 (see table). At the nadir of the 2008-2009 financial crisis or the 1998 Asian crisis, money continued to flow into emerging markets. So these are unprecedented amounts since these statistics began to be kept in 1978 (see chart 4).

Similarly, and also according to the IIF, when the balance of payments approach is narrowed to mere net portfolio flows (i.e., when excluding current account and foreign direct investment) into or out of emerging markets, these dropped by an estimated 86%, to USD 41bn in 2015 from USD 301bn in 2014.

And, lastly, based on the EPFR database, which measures mutual fund inflows and outflows, a combined USD 99bn flowed out of emerging equities and bonds, vs. USD 25bn the previous year. While the methodologies and, hence, the outcomes, differ from one approach to another (see box), the conclusions are the same: financial inflows into emerging markets shrank drastically.

This is  due above all to  China (USD -676bn  in  2015  out of  a  total  of   USD -736bn; see table), which, among other things, had to defend the yuan and cope with early repayment of local USD-denominated debt, following fears of new devaluations. Be that as it may, other emerging economies also suffered an increase in net outflows (from USD -11bn in 2014 to USD -60bn in 2015), driven by a weakening in their growth prospects and solvency. While this drop was especially serious in inflows from non-residents, which dropped 43%, from USD 700bn in 2014 to USD 401bn, in 2015, outflows from residents fell by 35% from their 2014 peak, due to the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian crisis.

2016-03-08-tab

Selling pressure from Golf sovereign-wealth funds expected to continue

Falling oil prices led Gulf sovereign-wealth funds to sell an estimated 8% of their assets in 2015. With almost USD 2800bn under management, these sovereign-wealth funds sold an estimated USD 185bn to USD 250bn in 2015, based on various estimates from JP Morgan and the IMF, i.e., 7% to 9% of their assets.

As these countries’ budgets are generally in balance only when oil is  above $80/bbl., the selling pressure from sovereign-wealth funds is unlikely to lessen in the coming years, even if oil prices were to rally.

Selling pressure is expected to be especially heavy in equities. According  to State Street, the portfolios of Gulf sovereign-wealth funds are composed mainly of bonds (43% of the total) and equities (38%). The rest is in less liquid diversification assets (19%) such as private equity, real estate and infrastructure. Given the lack of liquidity of diversification assets and the protection offered by sovereign bonds ( Treasuries, Bunds, etc.), prices of which generally move in the opposite direction from oil prices, outflows are highly likely to be mainly from equity portfolios.

Flows remain on a cautious footing in 2016

During the first weeks of the year the financial markets were once again roiled by new lows in oil prices and a further depreciation in the Chinese currency. In turn, these events exacerbated outflows from the riskiest assets  and  the quest for safe havens. As a result, according to EPFR, from 1 January to 24 February 2016, US equities and emerging equities and bonds suffered overall outflows of USD 67bn. In contrast, US Treasuries, German Bunds, and money- market products received inflows that were almost equivalent, at USD 70bn.

However, regarding more specifically net inflows into emerging market portfolios, there was glint of hope from the Institute of International Finance, which, after seven consecutive down months, reported a virtual return to equilibrium in February (see chart  5).

Yes, one isolated statistic doesn’t make a trend but if this glint of hope is confirmed, it would corroborate the IIF’s forecasts from early this year that net outflows from emerging economies would recede by almost 40%, to USD -448bn in 2016 vs. USD -736bn last year. All told,  for this improvement to stay on track three conditions are necessary: for Fed policy to remain gradual and therefore not surprise the markets; for oil prices to begin to stabilise and then rise slightly; and for China to manage to reassure investors that its economy and exchange rate policy have been shored up. While the first two conditions look within reach, China should continue to cast a long shadow over the markets for several more months. In the meantime, these risky assets’ performances and flows are likely to remain volatile, leading to alternating cycles of fear and hope.

Differences in methodology between the institue of international finance and epfr

The financial flow statistics produced by IIF and EPFR feature major differences in methodology. Each of the two indicators may on occasion, lead to different outcomes as has been the case over the past two years.

  • The IIF indicator provides an estimate of portfolio inflows of non-residents into emerging markets based on the conventions of the balance of payments, while EPFR measures inflows and outflows in various types of mutual funds (equities, debts, ETFs, etc.) and covers almost 80% of asset managers. As a result, according to the IIF, a capital flow is a transfer of ownership of a financial asset between a resident and a non-resident of a given country, which is registered in the balance of payments capital account. However, the flows measured by EPFR do not necessarily cover exchanges between residents and non-residents of a given country. For example, if a Paris-based emerging equity fund has to sell Brazilian equities, the counterparty will not necessarily be a Brazilian resident. In this case, the transaction will not be recorded in the balance of payments. Similarly, if this fund receives inflows from a resident of Brazil and buys Brazilian equities from another Brazilian resident, there will be no flows within the meaning of the balance of payments.

 

1 Balance of the capital account, adjusted for changes in reserves, errors and omissions.

 

 

2016-03-08-1

 

 

 

 

Apart from Japanese and European equities, outflows from risky assets has been the rule since tapering ended

 

 

 

 

2016-03-08-2

 

 

 

The first signs of stabilisation in emerging market flows, but the resulting lull remains to be confirmed

 

 

 

2016-03-08-3

 

 

 

2016-03-08-4

 

 

2016-03-08-5

 

 

Publication (Download)

Article in English

Article en Français

Cross Asset of March 2016 in English

Cross Asset de Mars 2016 en Français

Back up

WANE Ibra , Equity Strategy
Send by e-mail
Investment flows: From fear to hope?
Was this article helpful?YES
Thank you for your participation.
0 user(s) have answered Yes.
Related articles