eFront’s latest quarterly data shows that LBO funds have maintained a high level of performance, with risk and time-to-liquidity decreasing significantly
October 21, 2019 – eFront, the leading financial software and solutions provider dedicated to Alternative Investments, has published its latest Quarterly Private Equity Performance report, showing that private equity funds globally have maintained a high level of performance, despite falling from the record level seen in 2017. Sharply reduced selection risk and shorter time-to-liquidity signal strong activity and a solid exit and refinancing environment.
- LBO fund performance dipped from the record levels seen in 2017
- eturns reached 1.437x in Q2 2019 – a net excess performance of 0.101x when compared to the ten-year average of 1.336x
- Investment risk fell between Q4 2018 and Q1 2019 – at 1.308x, the current level is close to the lowest points seen over the past 10 years
- For time-to-liquidity, the downward trend initiated in 2015 reached a bottom in 2018, and since then has stabilized at around 2.7 years
- For the US, active LBO funds are performing well when compared with the historical average, but the correction in valuations has moved more recent vintages down towards the average
- Active Western European funds divide into two groups, with vintage years 2010-12 on track for outperformance, while funds of 2013-16 have less certain performance
So far in 2019, private equity funds globally have maintained a high level of performance, despite continuing a retreat from the peak achieved in 2017 (Figure 1). This is a moderate convergence towards a multiple of 1.4x. In retrospect, 2017 was an historic year, and the decline since has been only modest, with 2018 the second best and 2019 positioned to become the third best performing years this decade. However, the second half of the year might change this perspective, and 2019 could ultimately see a stabilization or even an increase in performance.
Since 2013, returns have followed a pattern of either stabilizing or decreasing slightly over the first half of the calendar year. Nevertheless, the performance of active LBO funds remains very slightly above the five-year average of a 1.434x money multiple. Excess performance reaches 0.101x when compared to the ten-year average of 1.336x.
Source: eFront Insight, As of Q2 2019
If the performance of active LBO funds has decreased, so has the risk. Selection risk (between the top and bottom 5% funds) fell between Q4 2018 to Q1 2019, and has since stabilized. At 1.308x, the current level is close to the lowest points of Q2 2017 and Q1 2012 (Figure 2).
A slightly lower level of performance and a sharp decrease of selection risk hint at a wave of investments in the first half of 2019. These additions to the fund portfolios are booked at purchase price minus costs and reduce the dispersion of performance between fund managers.
A longer perspective shows that the dispersion of performance of fund managers has been declining since 2010 on average. This is not a straight decline as the spike of 2016 shows. Nevertheless, after a period of stabilization in 2018, dispersion risk is on the decrease, nearly matching the historically low level of 2017.
Source: eFront Insight, As of Q2 2019
Looking at time-to-liquidity, since 2015 a pattern has emerged, with a drop recorded during the first quarter of each year and an increase over the three following quarters (Figure 3). 2019 seems to match this pattern, even though the first quarter decrease is not as sharp as witnessed in the three previous years. The general downward trend initiated in 2015 seems to have reached a bottom in 2018, and since then the time-to-liquidity has stabilized at around 2.7 years.
Market conditions seem to be supportive of a higher rotation of companies in portfolios. Interest rates remain low and industrial buyers can acquire portfolio companies thanks to abundant and fairly cheap liquidity. Moreover, the current market environment is supportive of dividend recapitalizations, which reduce significantly the time-to-liquidity. Dividend recapitalizations might explain the stabilization of time-to-liquidity just above the threshold of 2.5 years needed by fund managers to apply their skills and create value in portfolio companies.
The long-term average of time-to-liquidity is now down to 3.12 years and 2019 seems on the verge of equaling or even exceeding the decrease of time-to-liquidity when compared with this long-term average. This in turn fuels more frequent and larger fund raising, as the capital distributed to fund investors can then be recycled in the next generation of funds.
Source: eFront Insight, As of Q2 2019
Tarek Chouman, CEO of eFront, commented:
“Q1 2019 provided a welcome improvement of the multiples of active funds, after a challenging Q4 2018. Q2 2019 moderated this improvement. Whether this is a pause, or the start of a deeper trend remains to be seen. Overall, active LBO funds have maintained a high level of performance. Selection risk has decreased significantly, as well as time-to-liquidity, both hinting at a wave of new investments during that period. Recurring low interest rates and high levels of liquidity are also supportive of exits and dividend recapitalizations.
“Should this marginally lower performance and sharply reduced risk seen since Q1 2017 be described as a ‘new normal’? It is too early to say, but there is a visible downward trend in terms of selection risk. The increasing maturity of the asset class and relatively benign macro-economic conditions can explain this risk-reduction phenomenon.”
Oil falls after surging past $65 on Texas freeze
By Stephanie Kelly
NEW YORK (Reuters) – Oil prices fell on Thursday despite a sharp drop in U.S. crude inventories, as market participants took profits following days of buying spurred by a cold snap in the largest U.S. energy-producing state.
Brent crude fell 41 cents, or 0.6%, to settle at $63.93 a barrel. During the session it rose as high as $65.52, its highest since January 2020.
U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures fell 62 cents, or 1%, to settle at $60.52 a barrel, after earlier reaching $62.26, the highest since January 2020.
Brent had gained for four straight sessions before Thursday, while WTI had risen for three.
“The market probably got a little bit ahead of itself,” said Phil Flynn, a senior analyst at Price Futures Group in Chicago. “But make no mistake, this selloff in oil doesn’t solve the problems. The problems are going to persist.”
Though some Texas households had power restored on Thursday, the state entered its sixth day of a cold freeze. It has grappled with refining outages and oil and gas shut-ins that rippled beyond its border into Mexico.
The weather has shut in about one-fifth of the nation’s refining capacity and closed oil and natural gas production across the state.
“The temporary outage will help to accelerate U.S. oil inventories down towards the five-year average quicker than expected,” SEB chief commodities analyst Bjarne Schieldrop said.
Prices dropped despite a decrease in U.S. oil inventories. Crude stockpiles fell by 7.3 million barrels in the week to Feb. 12, the Energy Information Administration said on Thursday, compared with analysts’ expectations for an decrease of 2.4 million barrels.
Crude exports rose to 3.9 million barrels per day, the highest since March, EIA said.
“The big nugget was the big jump in exports of crude oil,” said John Kilduff, partner at Again Capital in New York. “We’ll have to see what happens with that next week weather in Texas, but I have been looking for a pickup there for a while.”
Oil’s rally in recent months has also been supported by a tightening of global supplies, due largely to production cuts from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and allied producers in the OPEC+ grouping, which includes Russia.
OPEC+ sources told Reuters the group’s producers are likely to ease curbs on supply after April given the recovery in prices.
(Additional reporting by Yuka Obayashi in Tokyo; editing by Emelia Sithole-Matarise, Steve Orlofsky, David Gregorio and Jonathan Oatis)
GameStop frenzy sparks fresh investment in stock-trading apps
By Jane Lanhee Lee
OAKLAND, Calif. (Reuters) – The recent trading frenzy centered on GameStop Corp and other “meme” stocks is sparking a wave of investor interest in start-ups aiming to mimic the success of Robinhood Markets Inc, whose no-fee brokerage app has helped drive a trading boom.
Public.com, a direct competitor to Robinhood that boasts a host of blue-chip backers, said on Wednesday it had raised $220 million, valuing it at $1.2 billion on the private market. Another well-heeled rival, Stash, said earlier this month it had raised $125 million, while Webull Financial LLC, backed by Chinese investors, is also raising fresh funds after enjoying an influx of new users.
Robinhood, meanwhile, raised some $3.4 billion in the midst of the GameStop furor to assure its stability amid rapid growth and demands by its trading partners that it post more collateral.
The fresh investments are coming even as government regulators ramp up scrutiny of Robinhood and others involved in the GameStop trading. A U.S. congressional committee on Thursday grilled the chief executive of Robinhood and a YouTube streamer known as “Roaring Kitty,” among others, as it probes possible improprieties, including market manipulation.
Robinhood came under stiff criticism from some quarters for restricting trading in GameStop and other shares at the height of the frenzy, a move the company says it was forced to make due to requirements of partners that settle trades. It has also drawn scrutiny for a business model that relies on payments for sending trading business to partner brokerages, a practice Public.com and some other rivals are pledging to avoid.
Investors see rich opportunity in bringing easy stock trading to smartphone users globally, though the companies say they are also cognizant of the risks.
Stash, which doubled its active accounts to over 5 million by the end of last year, operates with only four trading windows a day to discourage rapid speculative trading, it said.
U.K.-based Freetrade.io told Reuters by email that its user numbers last year grew six-fold to 300,000 and by mid-February had reached 560,000. It said it had raised a total $35 million, including from crowd-funding rounds from over 10,000 customers.
But it does not offer margin trading or riskier offerings. “These products encourage investors to behave as if they are gambling or speculating rather than investing,” a Freetrade.io spokesman said.
Interest in trading apps is soaring globally. In Mexico, trading app Flink launched seven months ago and already has a million users, according to co-founder and chief executive Sergio Jimenez. He said Mexicans can buy fractions of U.S. stock through the platform, but not Mexican stocks – yet.
“Ninety percent of them are investing for the first time,” said Jimenez.
Flink raised $12 million in a funding round in February led by Accel, an early investor in Facebook. Accel is also an investor in Public.com and Berlin-based Trade Republic Bank Gmbh, which allows European retail investors to buy fractions of U.S. stocks, according to Accel partner Andrew Braccia.
“The bigger story here is there’s just this global trend of… accessibility,” he said.
Start-up investors also see opportunity in the infrastructure behind the trading apps. DriveWealth, which serves Mexico’s Flink and 70-plus other online trading apps around the world, has hundreds more partnerships in the pipeline, according to founder and chief executive Bob Cortright. DriveWealth provides the technology to power digital wallets and trading apps, and also provides clearing and brokerage service to its business partners.
“This is this is only beginning,” said Cortright. “The fact that you could have a smartphone in your hand in India, for instance, and buy $10 worth of Coca-Cola stock at an instant, that’s pretty game-changing.”
Venture capital investments in U.S. fintech companies hit a record last year with $20.6 billion invested, according to data firm PitchBook. Globally, around $41.4 billion was invested in fintech companies in 2020.
(Reporting By Jane Lanhee Lee in Oakland; Editing by Jonathan Weber and Dan Grebler)
Analysis: Debt-laden world, rising bond yields – a toxic taper tantrum combo
By Dhara Ranasinghe and Karin Strohecker
LONDON (Reuters) – In May 2013, bond investors threw a tantrum after hints the U.S. Federal Reserve might slow the money-printing presses. A similar selloff now, with another $70 trillion added to global debt, could prove to be far more vicious.
A 2013-style “taper tantrum” was named as one of the top market risks in BofA’s February poll of fund managers who fear a pick-up in inflation expectations might soon persuade central banks to start withdrawing or “tapering” stimulus.
Some like former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers even predict this will happen sooner than anticipated if huge government spending sparks runaway inflation.
Such fears drove U.S. 10-year borrowing costs to near-one year highs on Tuesday. Equities slipped off record peaks; long-dormant gauges of Treasury market volatility flickered into life.
“Higher rates means higher rates volatility, means higher spreads and market selloffs as we saw back in 2013,” said Kaspar Hense, portfolio manager at BlueBay Asset Management who has pared exposure to Treasuries, expecting their 30-40 bps year-to-date yield rise to continue.
“There is no doubt the risks are greater this time around than 2013 because of the high leverage in the system.”
Global debt today stands at $281 trillion, according to the Institute of International Finance, versus $210 trillion in 2013. Companies and households too owe significantly more.
Economic growth and inflation can whittle away debt. Yet the very policies put in place to aid recovery can encourage more borrowing.
Debt is keeping central banks in “a loop of never-ending provision of liquidity and of very low interest rates,” said Steve Ellis, global fixed income CIO at Fidelity International.
“The only way to keep the plate spinning is keep refinancing costs low.”
Graphic: Debt levels on the rise since 2013 Taper Tantrumb – https://graphics.reuters.com/GLOBAL-BONDS/TANTRUM/bdwvknkrepm/chart.png
What bears watching is the “real” or inflation-adjusted bond yield that represents the true cost of capital. The 100 bps-plus spike in real U.S. yields of 2013 has not happened so far this time, sparing equities and emerging markets the fallout.
It also implies markets are not factoring a central bank response to higher inflation expectations.
That may be why, taper tantrum fears notwithstanding, BofA survey participants are holding equity and commodity allocations near decade-highs — with real yields near minus 1%, U.S. stocks still pay a 5% premium over bonds.
HIGHER, LONGER, WILDER
It’s not just the sheer weight of debt that makes markets more sensitive to interest rate moves.
After the interest rate collapse of recent years, just 7.8% of global government and corporate bonds on the Tradeweb platform yield 3% or more.
Global shares trade at 20 times forward earnings versus 12.5 times in May 2013.
Investors have fanned out into higher-yielding junk-rated debt and the BofA survey found a record proportion holding above-normal risk exposure.
Finally, investors are loaded up on longer-maturity debt.
Duration — how long it takes to recoup the original investment — is now 8.5 years on the ICE BofA World Sovereign Bond Index, two years more than in 2013.
Graphic: Investor exposure to duration rises – https://graphics.reuters.com/GLOBAL-BONDS/oakveradypr/chart.png
Longer-dated assets also expose investors to higher ‘convexity’ in the price-yield relationship, meaning a small rise in yields causes outsize losses.
That’s been highlighted this year to holders of Austria’s 100-year issue where a 35 bps yield rise has knocked prices 20% lower. Similarly, a 40 bps rise in 30-year U.S. yields has translated into a 4% price fall.
Ellis estimates holders of 10-year Treasuries would lose 4.62% over a month if yields rise 50 bps from current levels. A similar rise would have caused a 4.46% loss in 2013.
Similarly, JPMorgan Asset Management calculates a 1% rise across the U.S. curve would cause total annual price returns on a 30-year Treasury to fall 19%. Two-year notes would suffer a 2% price loss.
NOT ALL BAD
Some say delaying the tantrum might make matters worse.
“It’s better to put up with the tantrum when someone is two than when they are 14,” said David Kelly, chief global strategist at JPMorgan Asset Management.
Graphic: Are markets gearing up for another taper tantrum? – https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/mkt/yzdpxwndrvx/tapertantrum1502.png
But most policymakers have made clear they will not hurry. Cleveland Fed President Loretta Mester for instance said the Fed was keen to avoid taper tantrums and wouldn’t withdraw support until the economy was stronger.
Central banks also are less keen than previously to tighten policy in response to a price surge, having repeatedly pledged low rates even if inflation overshootsm.
Scars from 2013 and higher global indebtedness will force central banks to “lean against” market tantrums, asset manager BlackRock reckons.
Finally, emerging markets which bore the brunt of past tantrums, appear better placed this time. Many countries, including those reliant on foreign capital in 2013, now run balance of payments surpluses.
“Positioning in emerging market securities and currencies is far below previous cycle peaks, especially 2013,” said Bryan Carter, head of EM debt at HSBC Asset Management, pointing to higher bond risk premia and cheaper valuations.
Graphic: U.S. yields and EM capital flows – https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/mkt/oakvermzxpr/US%20yields%20and%20EM%20capital%20flows.PNG
(Reporting by Dhara Ranasinghe, Sujata Rao and Karin Strohecker; additional reporting by Saikat Chatterjee; editing by Sujata Rao and Toby Chopra)
The potential of Open Finance and the digitisation of tax records
By Sudesh Sud, Founder of APARI The world is undergoing huge changes at the moment. Between coronavirus pushing the economy...
ECB plans closer scrutiny of bank boards
FRANKFURT (Reuters) – The European Central Bank plans to increase scrutiny of bank board directors and will take look more...
Where are we with Open Banking, and should we be going further?
By Mitchel Lenson, Non-Executive Chairman, Exizent Open Banking has the power to revolutionise the way we manage our money, but...
Oil extends losses as Texas prepares to ramp up output
By Ahmad Ghaddar LONDON (Reuters) – Oil prices fell from recent highs for a second day on Friday as Texas...
What will become of our banks and their channels in 2021?
By Mark Aldred, banking specialist at Auriga As we embark on the new year, 2020 will hopefully become distant but...
Three ways payment orchestration improves financial reconciliation
By Brian Coburn, CEO or Bridge, When Luca Pacioli, the 15th century Venetian monk, invented double-entry account keeping, managing financial...
Circular Economy must be top of the business agenda in 2021
By Andrew Sharp, CEO of CDSL, the UK’s leading appliance spare parts distributor The last year has been one in...
Analysis: Carmakers wake up to new pecking order as chip crunch intensifies
By Douglas Busvine and Christoph Steitz BERLIN (Reuters) – The semiconductor crunch that has battered the auto sector leaves carmakers...
Bitcoin steams to new record and nears $1 trillion market cap
By Tom Wilson and Stanley White LONDON/TOKYO (Reuters) – Bitcoin hit yet another record high on Friday, and moved within...
What does cybersecurity look like for the financial sector in 2021?
By Neill Lawson-Smith, managing director at CIS The landscape is changing incredibly fast, with cybercriminals using the most up-to-date technology...