Friday, March 12, 2010
   
Text Size

Advertisement

Latest Comments

Locking in a real long-term return

In addition to managed fund products, TIBs can be purchased directly from the RBA. http://www.rba.gov.au/fin-services/bond-facility/index.html Specialist fixed interest b...

Where the best offshore opportunities are

I am struggling to include or add to any global share exposure in client portfolios, largely based on 10 year returns in international equities being close to NIL. What m...

Dollar higher? How right can you be?

We have taken the view that attempting to predict the near-term direction of currencies, particularly for long-term investors, is extremely difficult.

In our diversified funds, around half of our overseas growth asset exposure is hedged back to the Australian dollar, with the remainder unhedged. Naturally, hedged global equities have performed considerably better over the past year than unhedged, given the strength in the $A, but that has not always been, and will not always be the case.

Nevertheless, we do have the ability to adjust the proportion of hedged vs unhedged exposure in our funds from time to time, and have recently done so – reducing our hedged global equity exposure in favour of unhedged.

One of the key factors behind the decision is valuation. Against the US dollar, the $A is trading significantly higher than purchasing power parity (PPP) estimates of fair value – around US93c against a fair value in the high-60s. Over time, the A$ has tended to trade around PPP estimates, such as those published by the OECD, but deviations from fair value can persist for some time.

Perhaps the best way to think about the A$ now is a balance of risks approach. If I am prepared to buy the $A at US93c, how right could I be? The currency has momentum behind it, and we could easily see a test of parity with the US$. However, a substantial move beyond that level would, in our view, be difficult to maintain. On the other hand, if I decide to buy the $A at US93c and I get that wrong, how wrong could I be? History suggests I could be US30c (or more) wrong. I have no idea where the currency is heading in the next month or even the six months or twelve months. However, we get paid to make judgements about asset allocation with a medium to longer term view in mind. On this score, it’s hard to see the $A remaining at or higher than current levels over the medium to longer term.

Of course, there are some very good reasons to be positive about the currency. The Australian economy’s exposure to what will arguably be the fastest growing region of the world over the next decade or more is one reason to believe that maybe we could sustain a higher $A. Working against that however, is the likelihood that PPP estimates are likely to move lower over time, as Australia’s inflation rate remains higher than that of other developed economies.

Another reason for optimism is related to the aggressive monetary response by the US authorities to the crisis, in particular the aggressive injections of US$ liquidity into the financial system and outright purchases of US Treasury securities by the Fed which effectively amount to ‘printing money’. There is a concern that such efforts will diminish the role of US$ as a reserve currency, produce higher inflation and debase the currency.

While these concerns have validity, the US authorities are not alone in taking extraordinary steps to rescue their economy and financial system. In other words, if I want to sell the $US, what am I going to buy? Swiss Francs? Yen? Sterling?! Even the European Central Bank has recently got in on the act with its measures to help finance the Irish Governments’ bail-out of its financial system. The solution for traders seems to have been to buy a) gold and b) currencies where the authorities are NOT debasing the currency.

The list is short, but includes Australia, Canada, and NZ.

On balance, we certainly are prepared to accept that the $A could sustain higher levels against the $US and other currencies over time – just not as high as those we are currently seeing.

Brian Parker is investment strategist for MLC

Comments (0)Add Comment


Write comment

This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.

busy

Special Reports

LICs get boost from ETF popularity
An overlooked investment vehicle is getting another look-in, as planners begin to reassess the benefits of listedinvestments. Simon Hoyle reports.
It’s all about the company you keep
Planners whose thinking on fixed income extends no further than managed funds and government bonds might be doing clients a disservice as other opportunities present themselves. Simon Hoyle reports
ETFs on the up-and-up (and up)
After a slow start, the issuers of exchange-traded funds in Australia are convinced they’re on the cusp of rapid growth and widespread acceptance by financial planners and their clients. Simon Hoyle reports.

Stocks

Local Weather

73°
23°
°F | °C
Mostly Cloudy
Humidity: 47%
Fri
Mostly Cloudy
65 | 70
18 | 21
Sat
Partly Cloudy
65 | 71
18 | 21
Sun
Mostly Cloudy
64 | 73
17 | 22
Mon
Cloudy
62 | 76
16 | 24

Activity Stream

1 month ago
Phil Elliott uploaded a new avatar. Feb 10
Susan Rochester uploaded a new avatar. Feb 07
Jon Glenn added Groups application Jan 21
Jon Glenn added My Contacts application Jan 21
Jon Glenn added Friend's Location application Jan 21
2 months ago
Jordan Vaka created a blog entry Question the Critics...

Late last year, there was some criticism in both the mainstream press and financial planning circles, regarding the merits of commissions and fees (I know, criticism of financial planning - surprise, surprise). 

 

Many of the points make reference to a report by Roy Morgan research - Superannuation and Wealth Management - which revealed that in the four years between 2005 and 2009, financial planners from the six largest financial institutions - the big banks, AMP and AXA - directed more than 70% of sales into their own products.

 

This figure, expressed in isolation, does suggest that something is amiss and many of the commentators criticising this percentage express some doubts as to the ‘fairness’ of such a system. But how does this criticism stack up against other information?

 

How Terrible.

Let’s look at the reality of what institutional planners face:

  • legally, they're only allowed to recommend products on their employers Approved Product List (APL). Why would a bank have another banks products on its APL? That's effectively saying they don't have the best product. They’re not, generally, in the business of recommending other companies products.
  • if I go into an ANZ branch, I expect to deal with ANZ people telling me about ANZ products. I don't know if I'm unusual in this expectation, but it seems there're a lot of people that expect something else.
  • there are, or at least there were whilst I was there, targets for planners to achieve that normally relate to the volume of business they write. But before we persecute these bank planners, let's remember that most other financial planning businesses have similar structures in place. (If you ever get the chance, be sure to ask the most vocal critics of the banks for their remuneration and incentive structures for their staff.)

That's Just How It Is...

I'm the last person to defend the status quo. Logic dictates that it’s impossible for each bank to have the ‘best’ product for 70% of the clients they see - so I’ll accept that this part of financial planning could be improved. But I have an immediate suspicion of critics that adopt the slightest holier-than-thou tone in their remarks. 

 

Always question the criticism.

 

Dig deeper, and you’ll find that many of the people harping on about the evil of commissions and planners concentrating their product recommendations see nothing wrong with charging their clients percentage-based fees - something I have serious issues with.

 

The bigger issues, in my mind, are

  • the value that clients get for the fees they pay, and
  • making sure that the strategic advice (not the product) is at the forefront of the planners  mind.

Hypocrite, or Hypo-Critic?

As for this critic of the system, I've said it before - we do not charge new percentage fees or accept commissions on superannuation or investments. We do accept insurance commissions, for the reasons outlined in our Operating Principles.

 

I'm happily upfront about this situation with my clients and openly criticise those that charge percentage-based fees, because I can demonstrate to my clients the value we bring to their financial situation, and all of our advice is based upon the strategies they need, not the products we're selling.

 

Be sure to question the critics.


Jan 11
Ken Hoyle uploaded a new avatar. Dec 19
John Hall uploaded a new avatar. Dec 18
Jordan Vaka uploaded a new avatar. Dec 15
 

Advertisement




Online Users

0 users and 55 guests online

Login