This is a very interesting chart of the efficient frontier from Fidelity for a number of reasons. On one level the return to risk locations for different asset classes are relatively stable, but there has been a mean reversion of returns during the fourth quarter that is pulling return to risk ratios back to long-term averages. Excess returns by definition cannot last forever. The fourth quarter was a correction to the long run and by the evidence in January perhaps an over-reaction.
What was keeping the dollar moving higher? A simple difference in monetary policy has been a key driver. With the Fed tightening through raising rates and engaging in QT, the reserve currency provider was out of step with the rest of the world. However, recent comments by Fed Chairman Powell and other Fed bank presidents have changed policy expectations.
There has been increased market talk about the next recession. Many are predicting it will occur this year albeit the dispersion of views is wide. To do a proper assessment for the cause of the next recession investors should go back to the causes of past recessions. This one will be different, but we should assume there will be common features with the past.
Most data are confirming. New economic data are always occurring, but these announcements just reinforce what we already know. First, a lot of economic data moves together, so there is limited added or marginal information. Second, there is a bias with investors that they look for or see confirming information to their existing view.
What is the chance of a recession this year? Many have tried to build systematic models to give a probability number. This has been a good advancement in thinking about macro forecasting, but the variability of forecast is unusually wide. Different inputs will give different probabilities and there is no consensus on what should be the right inputs.
It was a tough year for money managers. All asset classes underperformed cash and most were negative for the year. Equities were a return disaster for December. Hedge funds did not do well for the year. So what will investors do?
Risk parity was thought of as a portfolio strategy that would protect investors buffeted with uncertainty. Don’t think about dollar allocations, but risk allocations; it is a better way to manage a portfolio. Unfortunately, theory does not always work in practice. Using a simple benchmark of the average return for mutual funds with 50-70% equity allocation would have had slightly better returns than the 10% risk parity index and would have done much better than the higher vol indices in 2018.
We cannot forget that the zero bound on interest rates caused distortions in market price signals. Now in the US rates are above the zero bound so it seems like the concept of a shadow rate is not important; however, it is still relevant for many other central banks and it provides a good measure of where we have come over the last few years. Using the shadow rate as a historic measure of relative tightening, we can say that the Fed has actually been on a tightening policy since the end of quantitative easing.
One of our major themes for 2019 is that investors should more closely track monetary policy developments in China. The reasons are simple: the economy is big, its trade impact is global, and the PBOC at times has followed a monetary policy at odds with the Fed and ECB.
The end of the year is usually filled with reviews and facts about what happened and speculation on what may happen in the future, yet investors can be cluttered with too many facts. Some facts can be very interesting and great for conversations, but that does not mean they are useful for plotting a course for 2019.
The only hedge fund sectors that made significant returns in December were global macro and systematic CTAs. These are the divergence strategies that are supposed to generate returns when there are market dislocations. Macro and systematic managers, through casting a wide net across asset classes and going both long and short, should find opportunities when there are significant dislocations. The remaining hedge fund strategies lost money, but significantly less than the exposure to market beta. It was not a successful month for most hedge funds, but it was not as bad as exposure to equity beta. However, long duration Treasuries proved to be a better hedge.
Every Fed Chairman has their own variation on the market put strategy; Greenspan, Bernanke, Yellen and now Powell. We can call this new one the “everything on the table” put strategy where the guidance of yesterday tells us nothing of what might happen tomorrow. This may be a reluctant put. Powell may have tried to stay the course for tightening, but a bear market can change the mind of many a well-intentioned central banker.
With strong trends in both bonds and equities, managed futures generated good positive returns for December. The index average does not do justice to the positive performance for some managers. For example, the CS Managed Futures Liquid Index was up around 6% for the month or four times greater than the SocGen CTA index. All of the CTA indices from BarclayHedge reported gains except for Agricultural traders. Managed futures also did well versus other hedge fund strategies and proved to be uncorrelated during the December market disruption. Versus other hedge fund strategies within the Credit Suisse liquid beta universe, managed futures outperformed other strategies by 600 to 900 bps.