Showing posts with label Investing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Investing. Show all posts

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Looking to Frontier Markets for Next Big Thing in Investing

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
Emerging-market portfolio managers specialize in finding the next big thing. But after the transformation of many economies in Asia and Latin America in the past two decades and the strong returns and mainstream popularity of their markets, what’s left to be found?

How about stock markets in Africa, the Middle East and Asian countries like Vietnam, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka? Investment advisers who focus on the developing world contend that many of these so-called frontier markets, especially in Africa, offer similar opportunities to the fledgling markets of earlier generations.

“Africa is going to be the next big growth story that’s largely undiscovered,” said Larry Seruma, manager of the Nile Pan Africa Fund, a U.S. mutual fund that holds shares in companies that are based in the region or that do substantial business there. “It can supplant Brazil, China and Russia if its potential is realized,” he said.

That’s a big if, and contemplating Africa’s many problems only makes it seem bigger. There is desperate poverty, disease and hunger, compounded by other scourges that limit opportunities for Africans to improve their lives: political instability, deficient education systems and in some cases longstanding military conflict.

But the case for the region and frontier markets elsewhere is precisely that they have just set out on the path to economic and social progress and still have a long way to go. That is the same journey made by the big emerging economies of today. It’s barely four decades since Chinese farms were decollectivized, for instance, and less than two decades since Brazilian inflation was running at more than 40 percent a month.

“Frontier markets are often in a much earlier state of economic development than larger emerging markets and may have only recently opened to foreign investing,” said Mark Mobius, one of the pioneers of investing in the developing world, who directs emerging-market operations at Franklin Templeton, the fund management company. “This helps explain their high growth potential. Newer markets typically have more room to grow, and the search for growth potential amid acute global volatility is encouraging many investors to expand their horizons.”

A recent report by Citigroup identified 11 economies expected to show exceptional growth through the middle of the century, including two of the usual suspects, China and India. Most of the others are frontier markets — Bangladesh, Iraq, Mongolia, Nigeria, Sri Lanka and Vietnam — or else minor emerging markets that managers of frontier portfolios sometimes invest in, like Egypt and the Philippines.

Advocates of investing in places like these expect them to become the markets of tomorrow. As for today and yesterday, well, that’s a different story. The MSCI frontier markets index lost about two-thirds of its value during the global collapse of 2008 and 2009.

That is slightly worse than MSCI’s indexes of global emerging and mature markets, but where frontier markets really suffer in comparison is in the period since then. The recovery in frontier markets has been much shallower, leaving the index at less than half of its 2008 high, while the other two indexes have recovered nearly all of their lost ground.

Pradipta Chakrabortty, a manager of the Harding Loevner Frontier Emerging Markets Fund, attributes the weakness, particularly in Africa, to the political turmoil of the Arab Spring revolts and to a run of economic and financial hardship, not there but to the north.

“Africa has a lot of capital coming in from Europe,” he explained. “In 2010 it started flowing into frontier markets, but the recovery got nipped in the bud because of the sovereign debt crisis.”

Mr. Chakrabortty pointed out, though, that some deep-pocketed investors continued to funnel money into frontier markets. Chinese enterprises are making huge purchases of industrial and agricultural assets in places like Africa and Vietnam.

Whenever other investors decide to join them, there are three themes that fund managers expect to drive returns for years to come: growth of a middle-class consumer society, with all the products and services that are its trappings; production and export of natural resources; and development of infrastructure, including the transportation and communication networks required for the success of companies involved in the other two themes.

Mr. Chakrabortty finds some of the best opportunities these days in Africa and the Middle East and in Vietnam and Bangladesh, where labor is less expensive than elsewhere in Asia. His portfolio is heavily invested in consumer-oriented stocks like Safaricom, a Kenyan telephone service provider, and Equity Bank, also in Kenya. Other selections include Squire Pharmaceuticals in Bangladesh and First Bank of Nigeria.

Mr. Mobius sees encouraging prospects for frontier markets pretty much everywhere. He said he was “optimistic about the long-term growth potential in many countries” in Africa and added that “we must not overlook Latin American countries such as Colombia and Peru, the countries in Eastern Europe, such as Romania, and countries in Asia such as Vietnam, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.”

Mr. Seruma focuses on Africa, but he does not feel the need to invest there to capture the continent’s promise. His portfolio includes holdings like African Oil, which has discovered reserves in Kenya but has a stock listed in Canada, and Tullow Oil, which is listed in Britain and has energy assets in Ghana and Uganda.

His fund also owns developed-frontier hybrids like East African Breweries, which is half owned by the global beverage conglomerate Diageo, and Nestlé Nigeria. Among the pure African stocks he favors are Guaranty Trust Bank in Nigeria and Flour Mills of Nigeria, a producer of basic foods.

“As more capital gets employed” in the markets he follows, “you’re going to see returns catch up with the rest of the world,” Mr. Seruma predicted. As for how long it will take for them to become a big thing, he is uncertain. “You have to focus on the long-term growth story,” he said, “and be a patient investor.”



View the original article here



Peliculas Online

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

The Annuity Puzzle for Retirement Investing - Economic View

Dave can count on a traditional pension, paying $4,000 a month for the rest of his life. Ron, on the other hand, will receive his benefits in a lump sum that he must manage himself. Ron has a lot of choices, but all have consequences. For example, he could put the money into a conservative bond portfolio and by spending the interest and drawing down the principal he could also spend $4,000 a month. If Ron does that, though, he can expect to run out of money sometime around the age of 85, which the actuarial tables tell him he has a 30 percent chance of reaching. Or he could draw down only $3,000 a month. He wouldn’t have as much to live on each month, but his money should last until he reached 100.

Who is likely to be happier right now? Dave or Ron?

If this question seems a no-brainer, welcome to the club. Nearly everyone seems to prefer the certainty of Dave’s pension to Ron’s complex options.

But here’s the rub: Although people like Dave who have them tend to love them, old-fashioned “defined benefit” pensions are a vanishing breed. On the other hand, people like Ron — with defined-contribution plans like 401(k)s — can transform their uncertainty into a guaranteed monthly income stream that mirrors the payouts of a traditional pension plan. They can do so by buying an annuity — but when offered the chance, nearly everyone declines.

Economists call this the “annuity puzzle.” Using standard assumptions, economists have shown that buyers of annuities are assured more annual income for the rest of their lives, compared with people who self-manage their portfolios. One reason is that those who buy annuities and die early end up subsidizing those who die later.

So, why don’t more people buy annuities with their 401(k) dollars?

Here’s one part of the answer: Some people think that buying an annuity is in some way a bad deal for their heirs. But that need not be true. First of all, a retiree can decide to set aside some portion of a retirement nest egg for bequests, either immediately or at a later date. Second, if a retiree chooses to manage his or her own money, the heirs may face the following possibilities: Either they get financially “lucky” and the parent dies young, leaving a bequest, or they are financially “unlucky,” meaning that the parent lives a long life, and the heirs take on the burden of support. If you have aging parents, you might ask yourself how much you’d be willing to pay to insure that you will never have to figure out how to explain to your spouse, or whomever you may be living with, that your mother is moving in.

There are other explanations for the unpopularity of annuities, but I think two are especially important. The first is that buying one can be scary and complicated. Workers have become accustomed to having their employers narrow their set of choices to a manageable few, whether in their 401(k) plans or in their choice of health and life insurance providers. By contrast, very few 401(k)’s offer a specific annuity option that has been blessed by the company’s human resources department. Shopping for an annuity with hundreds of thousands of dollars at stake can be daunting, even for an economist.

The second problem is more psychological. Rather than viewing an annuity as providing insurance in the event that one lives past 85 or 90, most people seem to consider buying an annuity as a gamble, in which one has to live a certain number of years just to break even. But, as the example of Dave and Ron shows, it’s is the decision to self-manage your retirement wealth that is the risky one.

The most complex and unknowable part of that risk is in predicting how long you will live. Even if there are no medical advances in the coming years, according to the Social Security Administration, a man turning 65 now has almost a 20 percent chance of living to 90, and a woman at this age has nearly a one-third chance. This means that a husband who retires when his wife is 65 ought to include in his plans a one-third chance that his wife will live for 25 more years. (A “joint and survivor” annuity that pays until both members of a couple die is the only way I know for those who are not wealthy to confidently solve this problem.)

An annuity can also help people with another important decision: when to retire. It’s hard to have any idea of how much money is enough to finance an appropriate lifestyle in retirement. But if a lump sum is translated into a monthly income, it’s much easier to determine whether you have enough put away to afford to stop working. If you decide, for example, that you can get by on 70 percent of preretirement income, you can just keep working until you have accrued that level of benefits.

IN the absence of annuities, there is reason to worry that many workers are having trouble with this decision. Over the last 60 years, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the average age at which Americans retire has trended downward by more than five years, from 66.9 to 61.6. Of course, there is nothing wrong with choosing to retire a bit earlier, but over the same period, live expectancy has risen by four years and will likely continue to climb, meaning that retirees have to fund at least an additional nine years of retirement. Those who manage their own retirement assets can only hope that they have saved enough.

Annuities may make some of these issues easier to solve, but few Americans actually choose to buy them. Whether the cause is a possibly rational fear of the viability of insurance companies, or misconceptions about whether annuities increase rather than decrease risk, the market hasn’t figured out how to sell these products successfully. Might there be a role for government? Tune in next time for some thoughts on that question.

Richard H. Thaler is a professor of economics and behavioral science at the Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago. He is also an academic adviser to the Allianz Global Investors Center for Behavioral Finance, a part of Allianz, which sells financial products including annuities. The company was not consulted for this column.



View the original article here



Peliculas Online

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Investing in a Racehorse Without Losing Your Shirt

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
On Wednesday, Orient Moon, his 3-year-old filly — a young female horse — was the favorite to win the third race. And for good reason. She was trained by Todd A. Pletcher, who has two horses in the Kentucky Derby on Saturday, and was ridden by Johnny Velazquez, who won the Derby last year. But seconds after entering the gate, she got spooked, threw off Mr. Velazquez and was scratched from the race.

“That’s only happened to me once before,” said Mr. Bolton, who paid $320,000 for the horse two years ago. “In two weeks, she’ll run again. But we would have won this race.”

I’ve been looking at investment alternatives to stocks and bonds and real estate that are enjoyable, if not always lucrative. Last week, I wrote about film.

I concluded after my day at the races that while putting money into moviemaking has its pitfalls, horse racing is probably the passion investment most fraught with risk and emotions. There is the joy of winning, of course, but also the sinking feeling that afflicted Mr. Bolton when his horse threw the jockey. And with the elation of a big victory come the dreams of high breeding fees, but smart owners know that the price paid for a horse has nothing to do with its fate.

“We’ve sold Derby winners for less than $20,000 and a Derby winner for $4 million,” said Nick Nicholson, president and chief executive of Keeneland, the premier auction house for thoroughbreds, in Lexington, Ky., which sold all three winners in the Triple Crown races last year.

Many people who get into the horse world after making money in some other field know that the sport has a high cost of entry. If they’re wise, they will realize there are many ways to make money in the sport that are aboveboard and far from the sordid schemes of racing horses to death at the lowest rungs of the sport.

But if these novice investors are not careful, they can just as easily end up overextending themselves and spending more money than they ever imagined on horses, with little in return.

“The toughest part of my job is to tell successful people attending their first sale that you need to go through a learning process,” Mr. Nicholson said. “All their lives, people have told them you can’t do it this way and they’ve become multimillionaires by going against the grain.”

Mr. Bolton, who grew up riding horses in Maryland, knew enough to know that he needed a plan. He went to college with Bill Farish, whose family owns the top-notch Lane’s End Farm in central Kentucky. He started off slowly in 1989 by buying fillies. He said he thought that if they did not race well, he might still be able to make his money back breeding them.

“I figured with fillies, if she got hurt she might be worth 50 cents on the dollar,” Mr. Bolton said. “That’s better than a colt who gets hurt and is worth nothing.”

The fees to breed male horses — known as colts until they mature into stallions — are where fortunes can be made. A stakes winner could fetch $20,000 to $50,000 a breeding session and be bred with 100 to 150 mares a year. For that fee, the owners of the mares get the foals at a far cheaper price than buying them at auction, along with the hope that the horse will go on to greatness.

This was what happened with Barry Irwin, owner of the racing syndicate Team Valor International. He bought a filly named Dalicia in Germany for $400,000, raced her a bit and then decided to breed her. Her first foal was Animal Kingdom, who won the Kentucky Derby last year. To establish the value of the horse for a syndicate, Mr. Irwin put Animal Kingdom up for sale at Keeneland’s auction for 1-year-olds, or yearlings, and bought him back for $100,000. He said the horse was now worth $6 million.

Still, after three profitable decades in horse racing, Mr. Irwin is cautious when people talk to him about buying horses to make money. “When you write your check to me, you’ve got to kiss that money goodbye,” Mr. Irwin said. “We’re going to do our best. We’re going to try hard. But that money could completely evaporate.”

How someone buys a horse matters for its investment potential. While everyone has a hunch about where and how to find the best horses — Mr. Irwin gets most of his horses from Europe — what all successful buyers share is an awareness of the risk involved with any one horse. These are animals, after all, and this Saturday one or more horses in the Derby will surely be scratched before post time.



View the original article here



Peliculas Online