Why Investors Should Prefer Democracies...

In my Money Week column this week, I've been looking at why investors should prefer democracies to autocracies. Here's a taster....

For anyone investing in the Middle Eastern markets, the last few weeks have been a heck of a ride. The Dubai market, one of the more developed in the region, plunged all the way back to 2004 levels during the past month. The Saudi market was shakier than a palm tree in a hurricane. The Egyptian stock market closed as the country ousted its long-serving President Hosni Mubarak, and won’t re-open for another week.
Right across the world, investors have pulled back from emerging and frontier markets. The darlings of the global investment community until a few weeks ago, they are now about as popular as Colonel Qaddafi in Benghazi.
There is a lesson to be learned from that. It is far better to invest in democracies than autocracies. In the last few years, the markets have fallen for the idea that autocratic governments are more stable and more efficient. There may be some truth in that in the short-run. In the medium-term, however, a revolution will destroy your investment. In practical terms, that means avoiding China and much of the Middle East, staying suspicious of Russia, and focussing instead on India, Eastern Europe and South Africa as well.
Before the tidal wave of change swept across the Middle East investors could be forgiven for believing that the nature of the regime didn’t make much difference to the case for putting money into a country. True, the people in charge of a country might be a shady bunch of gangsters and thugs, but so long as oil was being pumped, minerals dug out of the ground, and new factories getting built, it didn’t matter very much.
Emerging and frontier markets have been booming for the last ten years, pretty much regardless of whether the government in question was stable or not. According to calculations by IJ Partners, the Pakistani market rose by 449% in the last decade, measured in dollar terms. The Egyptian market rose by 430% over the same period. That was a better performance than gold or oil, and way better than traditional stock markets. The FTSE-100 was only up by only 12% over the same period and the S&P 500 by just 2%. And yet Pakistan is widely regarded as a failed state. And the Egyptian government has just collapsed.
The premium that investors used to demand to invest in emerging markets all but disappeared over the 2000s. We all know the reasons for that. Growth has largely ground to a halt in the developed economies. It was only by taking on more and more debt that the illusion of prosperity was maintained. The frontier markets offered far better prospects. They were growing fast, they had healthy demographics, and usually high savings ratios and low deficits as well. They looked a far more attractive home for your money.
But investors forgot the one thing that in the past kept them out of emerging markets – political risk. After all the 400%-plus gains you might make in a market such as Egypt don’t count for much if the bourse then gets shut down, and a new revolutionary government seizes foreign assets. You can only invest where there are secure property rights – and that ultimately depends on a stable government.
That lesson is being re-learnt very quickly. Globally, investors poured $95 billion into emerging markets funds during 2010. In the first week of February alone, as the Middle East crisis broke, they pulled more than $7 billion of that back, the biggest withdrawal in more than three years. Where once investors were piling indiscriminately into new territories, now they are abandoning them just as rapidly.
Neither is the right response.
What investors need to do is discriminate between stable and unstable emerging markets – and remember that in the medium-term it is only democracies that offer security.
There is a temptation to look at an autocracy and think it is rock solid. After all, a leader such as Mubarak hung around in power for three decades. Dictators are usually pro-business and anti-union. There is none of the messy business of populist politicians demanding tax rises, or threatening to take control of foreign investments.
But it is an illusion. Under the surface, terrible tensions are always building up. When they break to the surface, there is violence and chaos. A very radical, anti-capitalist regime can easily emerge.
It is far better to focus on the democracies – and avoid the remaining autocracies. True, the democracies might appear messier. But so long as there is a commitment to free speech, fair elections, and property is protected, over the medium-term they are far more stable. It is very rare for a democracy to be thrown out by a revolution – and it is very rare for an autocracy not to be.
So, be wary of China. True, it has great growth prospects. But it is still ruled by an authoritarian Communist Party that shows little sign of relaxing its grip on power. There are tensions between regions that are growing at very different rates. The whole of the Middle East looks off-limits as well. States such as Saudi Arabia and Dubai will face their own revolutions in time, no matter how wealthy they might appear to be. And stay suspicious of Russia. It is slowing slipping from democracy back towards autocracy, and that will make it less stable in the medium-term.
Against that, India has been a remarkably successful democracy for a very long time, particularly considering its size and relative backwardness. Brazil is a reasonably free country and so are South Africa and Turkey. Nearly all of Eastern Europe, although its markets have not shone in the past couple of years, is far more democratic than anywhere in the Middle or Far East.
There will be bumps along the way, and elections that hit the markets. But over the medium-term, it is only countries that have already created functioning democracies that offer any chance of decent returns.

How China Will Change Investment....

In my Money Week column this week, I've been looking at how the rise of China as the world's largest stock market will change investment. Here's a taster....

Any serious investor will already be comfortable with the emerging markets. They know the BRICs - Brazil, Russia, India and China - are doing a lot better than the traditional developed economies. They probably have some money in a fund specialising in those stocks. They might even have dipped into what the investment industry calls the frontier markets – places such as Pakistan, Tunisia, or Vietnam.
But over the next twenty years, the amount of attention they will need to pay to them is going to vastly increase. The emerging markets are going to stop emerging. They are going to turn into the establishment.
The mood of the global markets used to be set in London or New York. Over the next two decades, it will increasingly be set in Shanghai, Moscow on San Paulo. That is going to change the way the markets operate, the signals that suggest you should buy and sell, and the way that investors get rewarded. It will make investing a lot more scary, and the markets will be a lot a more volatile. But you need to get on the right side of that trend, or end up getting badly burned.
Last week, Goldman Sachs published a set of long-range forecasts for global stock market capitalisations. It predicted that by 2030, the value of emerging market
stocks would rise more than fivefold to $80 trillion. Their share of world equity capitalization would, the bank forecast, rise to 55% from 31% today. China will be the world’s largest market. Its total value, Goldman predicts, will increase to $41 trillion by 2030 from just $5 trillion today. It projects that the US market will be worth $34 trillion by then, making China easily the worlds biggest.
That will be a big change. Right now, the US stockmarket still accounts for almost 30% of global market capitalisation. China is just 7.2%, only a little ahead of the UK at 6.6%. Brazil accounts for only 2.8% of the world markets, just slightly more than Switzerland (although there are 205 million people in Brazil, compared to 7.6 million in Switzerland).
There is nothing very controversial about that. The emerging market economies are growing at a far healthier rate than either the US or Europe. The International Monetary Fund predicts the emerging economies will grow at 6.4% next year, compared with 2.4% for the developed world. They keep on growing at double or triple our rate every year. Nor is there any reason to expect that to slow down. The demographics of the developing world are in far better shape. So are government finances. And they still have a lot of catching up to do to match living standards in the West. It’s hardly a surprise that their stockmarket will overtake ours. A hundred years ago, New York surpassed London in importance. Fairly soon, Shanghai will overtake New York.
The interesting question is how that will impact on the way the markets work.
We are used to a world where the dominant investment themes and ideas are set mostly in New York, and partly in London. The Dow Jones index might just be thirty companies. Its rather strange composition might well mean that it isn’t even a very accurate reflection of the American economy, never mind what was happening in the rest of the world. As a general rule, however, if you knew what was happening to the Dow, you’d have a pretty good idea where the rest of the world’s markets were heading. Likewise, the FTSE is an oddball mix of companies, largely dominated by oil and mining companies, plus a big bank and drugs company. It doesn’t tell you much about the British economy. But if mining stocks are all the rage in London, you can be certain they will soon be just as popular in the rest of the world as well.
The themes in New York and London dominate the global markets everywhere. If dividends are in fashion in the U, they will be growing in importance globally. If stock buy-backs are a more popular way of rewarding investors in London, that will be replicated around the world.
Expect all that to change in the next twenty years. What will count is the mood in Shanghai, Moscow or San Paulo. The one number you really want to know won’t be the Dow: it will be the change in the Shanghai Composite. It will be the way those markets are developing, the way that money is flowing through them, and the demands that investors are making, which will set the tone for the global markets. European and American markets will take their cue from the emerging market, not the other way around.
That may well turn out to be scary for investors. It’s dated to portray the Shanghai index as an old-fashioned gangster market, with some mysterious Mr Chan sitting in a dark basement dictating whether it rises of falls with a click of his fingers. But it operates to very different rules to the stock markets of the West. It is heavily manipulated by the government. It has no clear and transparent rules governing what firms can be listed, and what they need to disclose to investors. It is not fully open to foreign investors. And the Chinese, who make up the bulk of investors, are inveterate gamblers, who have always thought stock markets should be casinos without the neon lights and cocktail bars rather than places where you try and seriously analyse a company’s likely future earnings. The critics who point out the New York and London market promote a casino culture, treating stocks like gambling chips, haven’t seen anything yet.
The stock market right now is volatile, short-termist and self-interested. But as it comes to be dominated by Shanghai and Moscow it is going to get a lot more so. The market will be dominated by the state, because that is the way that business works in China and Russia. It won’t be very interested in small investors, because they don’t count for very much in any of those markets. Nor are the standards of honesty likely to be the same.
There is no point complaining about that, however. It is where the money will be. The rules of investment are about to change, and investors need to make sure they understand that. Because one thing is always true: if you don’t understand the rules, then you haven’t much chance of winning the game.

Why Humans Are Better At Investment Than Computers....

In my Money Week column this week, I've been looking at why humans are better at investment than humans. Here's a taster.


Two years on from the start of the credit crunch, it is easy to observe that not a great deal has really changed. The banks have gone back to paying big bonuses, the traders and dealers are as speculative as ever, and the hedge funds are still raking in fortunes.
Still, one corner of the capital markets has been hammered hard – the so-called-called ‘quant funds’.
A few years back, the intellectually super-charged hedge funds that used mind-bogglingly complex formulas to trade assets and make huge profits for their owners were the hottest sector on both the City and Wall Street.
But now the combined assets of the quant funds are down from around $1.2 trillion at the industry’s peak to around $470 billion now, a drop of more than 60%, according to data from the research firm eVestment Alliance. Around a quarter of the quant funds have closed in the last two years, according to figures from Lipper Tass.
In part that tells us that investing styles go in and out of fashion. Sometimes people want gurus, sometimes charts, other times they want geo-political trends, and so on.
But it also tells us something more interesting.
Despite the best efforts of thousands of incredibly bright people, and despite the billions of dollars at stake, no one has ever really managed to mechanize the markets. They remain stubbornly human.
The quants, as they became known in the markets, were obsessed with taking the human element out of their trading strategists. The scoured university campuses, taking astro-physicists and mathematicians blinking out of the library, and paying them hundreds of thousands to have a shave, put on a suit (or at least some Boss chinos) and sit all day in an office on Mayfair’s hedge fund alley.
Once installed, they came up with programmes that could trade on minute price discrepancies between different markets, and make a fortune on the results. Or the scoured the record books for past price relationships, and when they found them, built trading computers that could exploit them.
Sometimes they came up with interesting results. The price of oil, for example, expressed in gold has remained virtually static for generations: as soon as it deviated from that norm, there was a trading opportunity.
But, although they had some big successes in the bull market, the quants were undone by the crash. None of the complex mathematical models they built predicted the credit crunch. All the expensive computer programmes were about as useful as a bucket and spade in Birmingham. The quants reputation was largely destroyed. The reason the value of the funds fell so fast was because they preformed so poorly, and because disillusioned investors withdrew their money.
In fact, the markets remain impossible to mechanize. If you could build a programme that predicted the markets, you would make, quite literally, billions. Yet no one ever manages it. Indeed, the harder they try, the worse the results usually are. In the 1990s, another hedge fund, Longer Term Capital Management, which had more Nobel prize winners on board than Man City have expensive footballers, collapsed with vast losses and bought down the markets with it.
There are three reasons why the market remains so defiantly human – and so resistant to smart mathematical models.
First, the markets are chaotic. Computers are very good at capturing fairly straight-forward relationships. They are very bad at modeling complex ones. Chaos theory is one explanation for that. For example, a butterfly flaps its wings in China, and it causes a thunderstorm in Britain. There are so many complex inputs making up the way weather works, you can’t hope to capture them all. It’s the same with the markets. A mortgage defaults in Florida, and a month later The Royal Bank of Scotland is bust. They are inherently chaotic, and so incredibly hard to predict.
Secondly, computer programmes are very bad at capturing human reactions and emotions – and the more people are involved the worse they get. That’s why they are good at chess, but not very good at bridge or poker: both card games are essentially about judging what your opponent will do, whilst chess is mainly about crunching a lot of numbers. The markets are much more like a card game than a board game. Investment decisions, and hence the direction of the markets, are driven as much by emotion as anything else. Sentiment is strong some months, and weak in others, even if not very much really seems to have changed in the meantime. It is tough for any computer programme to understand that, let alone model it, and start building it into its predictions.
Finally, behavior changes. The way that investors behave and the markets respond, evolves all the time. It isn’t static, or predictable, like the way the moon revolves around the earth. It will be different today from yesterday, and different again tomorrow. The quant funds were building predictive models based on the way market behaved in the past. But, whilst interesting, they didn’t really discover anything very useful. Just because a price has moved in a certain way historically does not mean it will move the same way in the future.
The lesson is a simple one. The markets will remain an arena for great traders, with an instinctive feel for where assets prices are going. They can’t be predicted with any kind of precision by computer programmes, no matter how much brain-power has gone into creating them.
And all those astro-physicists who for a few years could drive around in Porsches as they got paid million by a hedge fund can go back to the dusty poverty of the university library.
Still, there is one comforting thought. You might find it fiendishly difficult to predict what any market will do in the next years. But the smartest brains from the best universities couldn’t do it either – the markets caught them out, the same way they usually do the rest of us.

The Madoff Fall-Out...

In my Money Week column this week, I've been writing about what the long-term consequences of the Bernard Madoff affair will be for the investment industry. Here's a taster....

Not much in the financial markets can ever be stated with any real certainty. Still, here’s one prediction you can take to the bank. Bernard Madoff isn’t going to be back in the investment business any time soon.
On Monday, a New York court sentenced the world’s most accomplished fraudster to 150 years in jail. It is safe to say that he won’t ever be released.
That at least is some measure of justice. The full scale of Madoff’s fraud may never be finally known. At its peak, Madoff’s firm had $65 billion under management. In the court hearings, some allowance was made for redemptions, but it was estimated somewhere between $10 billion and $20 billion went missing. Since many of his investors came via discreet Swiss private banks, and they are likely to ever go public with the scale of their losses, we may never know exactly how much money disappeared.
His legacy won’t just be felt by the unfortunate investors who had money in the fund. It will ripple out into the entire investment industry. The Madoff affair has exposed whole swathes of the financial services industry to be built on the flimsiest of foundations, surfing on hype, promises and hot air. It has revealed often shockingly lax standards of checking and breath-taking naivety. It was the greatest Ponzi scheme in history. But it was also the greatest wake-up call, an event that is likely to shape the thinking of investors for years to come.
Fairly or unfairly, Madoff will be the lens through which anyone deciding what to do with their money will look at the financial markets. Here are five of the big, long-term changes we can expect to see as the dust settles on the Madoff affair.
One: Hedge Funds.
Madoff, of course, wasn’t really a hedge fund manager. He just banked all the money, and occasionally paid some of it back to people who asked for it. But that was how he described himself, and there is little question that he rode the boom in hedge funds over the past decade. Very few hedge fund managers are fraudsters like Madoff. Most of them are perfectly capable of losing their clients money whilst sticking scrupulously to the letter of every law. But many use similar marketing techniques. They wrap up their strategies in an air of mystery, the way Madoff did. They trade on contacts and social cachet to raise funds, just the way he did.
There is nothing fair about tarring them with the same brush – but then nobody ever claimed business was fair. In reality, the collapse of the Madoff scheme is going to make it very hard for anyone to go around claiming some secret but brilliant system for beating the markets. And that is going to make life much harder for the whole hedge fund industry.
Two: Private Banks:
It is probably no accident that much of Madoff’s money came from the private banks and the wealth management industry. For the last decade, private banking has been one of the most lucrative corners of the financial markets. Managing money for the wealthy has been an easy way for banks to lift their profits: they have more assets to play around with, and they are a lot less likely to complain about the fees.
The pitch from the private banks was that they could steer their clients through the treacherous minefields of the financial markets. That, however, is looking like a fairly ridiculous boast right now. Many steered their clients straight into Madoff’s fund, despite numerous warning signs. In the light of that, many of the wealthy are likely to decide that they can do without the fancy cheque book that comes with a private bank account. They can stick with the Bognor Regis Provident Mutual for their current account, and manage their own investments themselves – they aren’t likely to make as much of a hash of it as their private banker.
Three: Regulators:
The Securities and Exchange Commission in New York looks the most exposed from the Madoff scandal. It was warned about his firm, but failed to act. But regulators around the world are going to be studying how they missed the greatest fraud of all time for so long. The problem was clear enough: Too much box-ticking, and not enough looking under the bonnet by people who actually know how the markets work. If that lesson is learned – admittedly a big if – then the scandal could pave the way for an overhaul of the way the financial markets are regulated.
Four: Investors:
Nobody likes being ripped off. In the wake of the Madoff affair, anyone putting money into a fund is going to ask much harder questions. They’ll want to know where it’s being invested and why. Any kind of ‘too good to be true’ promise isn’t going to work.
The lesson that investors are likely to take away from the affair is that if you don’t understand it, don’t invest in it. That is going to make any kind of complex financial instrument a very hard sell.
Five: Scepticism:
Throughout the financial markets, Madoff’s overall legacy is likely to be a far greater level of scepticism. He traded on a sense of sophistication, of giving people access to a closed world, and deflected hard question with a sense that it was improper to ask too closely how the returns were generated. Right across the industry, everyone is going to be asking far harder questions, probing for weakness, and looking for potential frauds. Whether a firm is honest or dishonest, there will be far fewer places to hide.
In the wake of Madoff’s imprisonment, both investors and regulators are going to be a lot more dubious about the claims of money managers. That is no doubt a good thing. But at $65 billion, it was an expensive way to learn what should be a pretty simple lesson.