Q4 Performance Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BEAM | Q4-2018 / Annual Performance Review February 7, 2019 8888 University Drive | Burnaby | British Columbia | Canada | www.beedie.sfu.ca/beam Agenda I. Executive Summary Blake Coombes Portfolio Manager II. Fixed Income Update Carl Davies Portfolio Manager III. Equity Update Philip Tashin Portfolio Manager IV. Going Forward Blake Coombes Portfolio Manager V. Questions VI. Appendix I. Executive Summary Blake Coombes | Portfolio Manager [email protected] I. Executive Summary BEAM Overview - Objectives 1 To preserve inflation-adjusted invested capital To outperform the equity benchmark by 150 basis points and outperform the fixed 2 income benchmark by 40 basis points on a rolling 4-year average Use ESG as a tool to conform to SFU endowment responsibilities and the UN’s 3 principles for responsible investment Provide an engaging educational experience that trains the next generation of 4 responsible and ethical finance professionals 4 Program has been a positive educational experience Alumni well prepared for first job placements Alumni Feedback Alumni Placements Other How valuable was BEAM in getting your first job? 24% Investment Banking 4.5/5.0 41% Consulting 10% Equity How was your overall experience in BEAM? Research Asset 10% Management 14% Other placements include: 4.7/5.0 ▪ Private Equity ▪ Technology ▪ Sales & Trading ▪ Corporate Finance ▪ Accounting ▪ Corporate Development ▪ Public Sector 5 Successfully recruited 12 new members New interview process contained team-based project Round 1 Round 2 All were invited for Round 2 interview Candidates separated into teams and Individual interviews were conducted presented a buy/sell recommendation on a assessing technical and behavior skills along company (2.5 hours allotted time) with market knowledge Moving Forward 9th Cohort Contracts Signed First Meeting Cohort Training Interviews Complete In Progress Jan. 18-19 Jan. 25 Feb. 1 Feb-Mar 6 We are not meeting our client’s expectations Performance Since Inception(1)(2) 2011 - 2012 2012 - 2013 2013 - 2014 2014 - 2015 2015 - 2016 2016 - 2017 2017 - 2018 Cohort Cohort Cohort Cohort Cohort Cohort Cohort 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Jun-12 Jun-13 Jun-14 Jun-15 Jun-16 Jun-17 Jun-18 Mar-15 Mar-13 Mar-14 Mar-16 Mar-17 Mar-18 Dec-16 Dec-12 Dec-13 Dec-14 Dec-15 Dec-17 Dec-18 Sep-18 Sep-12 Sep-13 Sep-14 Sep-15 Sep-16 Sep-17 Portfolio Return Benchmark Return (1)Total portfolio benchmark is composed of S&P/TSX Total Return Index (60%); FTSE TMX Canada Universe Bond Index (38%); 91-day T-Bill Index (2%) (2)Assumes inception date of July 1, 2012, which marks the date at which the portfolio was fully constructed 7 Compliance summary Current IPS Guidelines and Constraints Compliance General • Asset Mix within IPS Range ✓ • Limits on equity security holdings ✓ • Micro Cap, prohibited ✓ Equity • 7 Sectors, with 50% allocation relative to benchmark ✓ • At least 25 stocks ✓ • 15 largest stocks, at most 70% of equity value ✓ • Less than 5% per issuer, excluding federal and ✓ provincials Fixed Income • Allocation limits based on bond ratings ✓ • Duration within ± 1 year of the DEX ✓ 8 II. Fixed Income Update Carl Davies | Portfolio Manager [email protected] Underperformed Fixed Income benchmark by 36 basis points Relative Return Tracking Error Information Ratio YTD-2018 (0.36%) 0.22% (1.64) 2.0% 1-Year Portfolio vs. Benchmark Total Return 1.5% 1.35% 1.0% 0.99% 0.5% 0.0% (0.5%) (1.0%) (1.5%) (2.0%) Portfolio Benchmark 0.1% 0.0% (0.1%) (0.2%) (0.3%) (0.4%) (0.5%) Dec-17 Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18 Apr-18 May-18 Jun-18 Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18 Source: Bloomberg 10 Note: As of December 31, 2018. Underperformance from Curve Change and Allocation Poor duration and allocation decisions Active Curve Return Active Return Attribution 6M Selection 0.26% 1Y Allocation (0.39%) 2Y 3Y Total Excess (0.13%) 5Y 7Y Curve Carry (0.01%) 36 basis point underperformance 10Y Curve Change (0.22%) 20Y Total Curve Return (0.23%) 30Y (0.40%) (0.30%) (0.20%) (0.10%) 0.00% 0.10% 0.20% (0.50%) (0.40%) (0.30%) (0.20%) (0.10%) 0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.30% Curve Carry Curve Change Total Source: Bloomberg 11 Note: As of December 31, 2018. Fixed Income portfolio strategy Strategy creates lumpiness in allocation Strategy Rationale Implications Quoted spreads on inventory are large 1. Invest in provincials, municipals and Decreases trading costs due to lower so prefer to trade most liquid names corporates; trade federals quote spreads only Ceteris paribus, positive active yield Having a higher yield requires taking 2. Maintain positive active yield equals outperformance more risk 3. Invest only in corporate bonds Investing on only the short end provides maturing in <7 years and hold to Minimizes default and illiquidity risks less yield compared to the long end maturity 4. Generate alpha through good Strategy 1 does not allow for fluidity of Creates lumpiness in YoY allocation selection and duration decisions allocation performance 2018 Allocation Timeline (1) 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Dec-17 Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18 Apr-18 May-18 Jun-18 Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18 Federal Provincial Municipal Corporate Note: As of December 31, 2018. 1. Allocation shown does not include ETF exposure 12 Deeper dive on Curve Change Bear steepening thesis has not come true 2018 2Y-10Y Spread (%) 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 Percentage 0.10 0.00 2018 Portfolio Active Duration 0.40 0.20 0.00 (0.20) Years (0.40) (0.60) (0.80) (1.00) Dec-17 Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18 Apr-18 May-18 Jun-18 Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18 Note: As of December 31, 2018. 1. Allocation shown does not include ETF exposure 13 Active duration positive as of December 31, 2018 Current asset and rating mix Active Duration Active Yield Option Adjusted Spread YTD-2018 0.20(1) 0.12%(1) 11.87 ETF 6% Federal 16% AAA, 22% Municipal 4% AA, 32% Corporate 39% A, 33% Provincial 35% BBB, 7% Source: Bloomberg Note: As of December 31, 2018. (1) Active duration and active yield include ETF exposure in both the benchmark and the portfolio. 14 Dissonance between active weight and duration Inconsistency between active weight and duration due to strategy Active Weighting Sector Market Value Contribution to Duration Medium Medium Short Term Long Term Short Term Long Term Term Term (1-5 Years) (6-10 Years) (10+ Years) Total (1-5 Years) (6-10 Years) (10+ Years) Total Federal (21.65%) (1.22%) 4.22% (18.65%) (0.56) (0.16) 0.74 0.02 Provincial (1.07%) (0.20%) 3.21% 1.94% (0.11) (0.06) 0.35 0.17 Municipal (0.46%) 3.99% (0.83%) 2.70% (0.01) 0.25 (0.12) 0.11 Corporate 13.89% 7.81% (7.61%) 14.00% 0.41 0.47 (0.98) (0.11) (1) (1) Total (9.38%) 10.38% (1.00) 0.00% (0.28) 0.50 (0.02) 0.20 Active Contribution to Duration 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 (0.5) (1.0) Short Term Medium Term Long Term Source: Bloomberg, BlackRock Federal Provincial Municipal Corporate Note: As of December 31, 2018. Note: Contribution to duration and active weights include ETF exposure in both the benchmark and the portfolio. 1. Total duration does not equal the sum of Federal, Provincial, Municipal and Corporate duration due to rounding error 15 Projecting yield curve to shift upwards BEAM believes there is more room for the curve to shift upwards Yield Curve Projection (6 months) 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 1Y 2Y 5Y 10Y 20Y 30Y December 31, 2018 June 30, 2019 Period Current Projected Outlook Overnight 1.75% 2.00% ▪ Even with the excessive volatility in financial markets, BEAM continues to predict two more rate hikes before 2020, while the market expects an early 1Y 1.87% 2.15% end to the hiking cycle 2Y 1.92% 2.23% ▪ The Bank of Canada will be more data dependant going forward as the effects of the Canadian oil industry are reflected in the macroeconomic data 5Y 1.95% 2.35% ▪ Global growth concerns are premature and concerns reflected in the long end 10Y 2.01% 2.47% of the curve are misplaced; yield curve steepening will resume until neutral rates are reflected in the 30Y 20Y 2.15% 2.52% ▪ Economic data and BoC communication suggests more room for the curve to 30Y 2.20% 2.55% shift upwards 16 Maintain underweight duration position Current Initiatives Short-Term Curve Strategy Provincial Strategy ▪ Furthering underweight duration position should ▪ Decreasing overall exposure due to illiquidity risk curve flatness persist ▪ Continuing to hold long-dated names such as ▪ Adding active weight to sovereign exposure to allow Saskatchewan and Manitoba but decrease shorter for flexibility in duration moves term exposure in favor of corporates Corporate Strategy Long-Term Curve Strategy ▪ Building theses on telecommunications and ▪ Positioning the portfolio to have a greater active insurance issuers for potential BBB exposure weight in sovereign and corporate bonds ▪ Looking for value in sectors that have been hit ▪ Swapping out illiquid names to allow for duration exceptionally hard by volatility maneuverability ▪ Maintaining underweight duration position to minimize illiquidity and interest rate risks 17 III. Equity Update Philip Tashin | Portfolio Manager [email protected] 2018 was our worst year in equities The market was down and BEAM underperformed BEAM TSX TSX + 150bps Market Value as of $3,663,053 $3,915,015 $3,995,192 Dec.