Fund managers have been tripped up by global stocks and bonds falling in tandem in the first quarter.
The FTSE All World stocks index, including dividends, dropped 5.1 percent in the first three months of the year, reflecting rising benchmark interest rates and the outbreak of war in Ukraine.
At the same time, soaring inflation and tighter monetary policy took a 6 percent bite from the Bloomberg Global Aggregate Bond index, leaving those shying away from stocks without a reliable bolt hole.
The two key markets underpinning global finance are seldom correlated and such moves tend to be rare and brief. This year’s quarterly slump — the worst synchronized decline since both benchmarks have been available — is enduring enough to leave investors questioning how to balance risks in their portfolios.
“The first quarter was challenging,” said Seth Bernstein, chief executive of AllianceBernstein. “There was nowhere to hide for investors.”
For years, a 60/40 balanced approach has been the mainstay of investment portfolios, where investors allocate 60 percent to equities, for capital appreciation, and 40 percent to bonds, to potentially offer income and risk mitigation. This worked well over the past decades as equities surged in a near-straight line to record highs and interest rates fell to new lows, firing up bond prices. But this model now faces some serious strain.
“Conventional portfolios are in big trouble,” said Duncan MacInnes, an investment director at Ruffer. “Cross-asset correlations are much higher than they were and there is an illusion of diversification across the industry. Everyone is doing worse than they thought they would.”
The classic 60/40 portfolio generated an 11.1 percent annual return from 2011 to 2021, according to Goldman Sachs, or 9.1 percent a year adjusting for inflation. But fund managers warned that these kinds of returns from a balanced portfolio do not look sustainable over the next decade.
Stocks are near all-time highs, valuations are stretched and US equities are increasingly concentrated in the six biggest technology names — the so-called FAANGM companies: Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google and Microsoft. Meanwhile, bonds are up against the challenges of ultra-low yields, inflation and the prospect of a cycle of rising interest rates.
Michael Hartnett, chief investment strategist at Bank of America, said rising inflation rates meant a third “great bear” market for US bonds was now underway. BofA is warning that long-term bond yields will rise above 4 percent during 2024 and increases in interest rates by the US Federal Reserve in response to higher inflation are also likely to drag down US stocks. BofA predicts the S&P 500 will fall below 4,000 this year, a drop of more than 15 percent from its December peak.
The war in Ukraine has heightened these pressures by pushing inflation still higher and compromising the growth outlook.
“From a purely economic point of view, Russia/Ukraine has exacerbated what was already an incredibly difficult position for policymakers,” said Ruffer’s MacInnes. “It has made a very difficult situation worse and exacerbated inflation because it called for more defense stimulus and acted as a brake on commodity supply.”
In this environment, fund managers are advising clients to diversify their investment portfolios — and temper their return expectations.
“A core problem for investors is that 60/40 doesn’t look like it has much return potential,” says Peter Van Dooijeweert, adding that this builds a case for diversifying into currencies, commodities, and so-called real assets like infrastructure and real estate. However, he cautioned that “it’s easy to say that you need to diversify but it’s not that easy to implement, especially as asset classes like commodities have had monster moves up and no one has forgotten crude was at negative prices only two years ago.”
As investors get to grips with the fact that the 60/40 strategy that has served them well for decades may now be broken, some are relieved that equities and bonds were only down 5 or so percent in the first quarter.
“If you look at everything that was thrown at markets in the first quarter, this feels like an OK outcome,” said Man Group’s Van Dooijeweert. “You had a major war, a huge commodities shock, a very hawkish shift in central bank policy, China markets collapsed and then rebounded and the nickel market closed. With all of that noise in the markets, I don’t think we’re doing that badly. It could be a whole lot worse.”
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2022
© 2022 The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved. Please do not copy and paste FT articles and redistribute by email or post to the web.
This article was legally licensed by AdvisorStream