Indexology^® Blog

The second quarter of 2019 reinforced the upside potential of S&P MARC 5% Excess Return (ER) Index diversification, which compliments traditional risk management benefits. With the equities and fixed income components having good, but not stellar, Q2 performance, we have to look to gold to understand the driver of the S&P MARC 5% (ER) Index’s performance. Gold, as measured by the S&P GSCI Gold, started the quarter primarily in negative territory but turned positive toward the beginning of June and rose significantly on the back of a dovish Fed.

With all three component indices within the S&P MARC 5% (ER) Index ending positive on the quarter, much of the gain in gold occurred between June 19, 2019 and June 20, 2019, when the Fed released its newest policy statement and, just as importantly, its interest rate projections. The lift in gold contributed significantly to the performance of the S&P MARC 5% (ER) Index for Q2 2019, with the weighted return for the single day contributing 1% to the S&P MARC 5% (ER) Index.

When looking at the relative returns of the components of the S&P MARC 5% (ER) Index versus the index itself, you can observe that the diversification still held in Q2 2019, though the index also managed to capture relatively sizeable shifts in any given asset class. This can best be seen toward the right side of the chart, where the outsized relative performance caused equities and fixed income to underperform the S&P MARC 5% (ER) Index, despite each being positive for the quarter (see Exhibit 3).

Looking at the rolling 252-day performance for the 63 days in the quarter, we can see that for any of the 252-day periods, the return of the S&P MARC 5% (ER) Index would have been positive despite the inconsistencies in most of its components. It is also worth noting that, because of the diversification of the index, during the past few observation periods ending in June 2019, the S&P MARC 5% (ER) Index also outperformed each of the individual asset classes over the 252-day period.

Commodities markets resumed their upward trajectory in June. The S&P GSCI was up 4.4% for the month and up 13.3% YTD. The Dow Jones Commodity Index (DJCI) was up 3.1% in June and up 6.9% YTD, reflecting its lower energy weighting. A recovery in petroleum prices and an impressive rally in gold were the main drivers of the broad commodities indices’ performance over the month.

In the oil markets, bearishness regarding the state of the global economy was tempered by fears regarding a possible disruption of oil exports from the Gulf region and prospects for a renewed production deal from OPEC. Tanker attacks in the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman over the course of June undermined global shipping security and escalated the dispute between the U.S. and Iran over its nuclear program. The S&P GSCI Petroleum ended the month up 7.2%. At the start of July, a deal was reached between members of the OPEC Plus group to extend the existing oil output cuts of 1.2 million barrels per day for nine months.

The S&P GSCI Industrial Metals reversed its course from the prior two months, rising 2.0% in June. Over the first six months of the year, the S&P GSCI Nickel rose an impressive 19.1%; the rally was largely attributed to the long-term prospects for the use of nickel in electric vehicles and falling exchange-held inventories, and was in spite of the fact that the well-documented supply gap in the refined nickel market is expected to shrink over the second half of the year. The S&P GSCI Iron Ore moved significantly higher, by 14.9% in June, due to another drop in port inventories and additional Chinese government stimulus. An agreement between Trump and Xi Jinping to restart trade talks following a meeting at the G20 Summit also contributed to the strong performance.

The other metal to record double digit percentage gains was the S&P GSCI Palladium, which jumped 15.7% in June due largely to investor demand and is now close to reaching an all-time high. The S&P GSCI Gold increased 8.0% for the month. The exhilaration that was associated with the strength of the global economy a year ago has been replaced with growing financial market turbulence, a plethora of geopolitical flashpoints, and a string of economic releases that have fallen short of expectations. It would appear that few central banks wish to find themselves on the wrong side of the U.S. Fed, suggesting that lower interest rates are on the horizon. Gold tends to perform well in these circumstances.

The S&P GSCI Agriculture ended the month up only 0.3%, with some of the recent weather-induced exuberance taken out of the grains market on the last day of the month, following the release of the USDA’s Acreage Report. The S&P GSCI Coffee was up 2.2% in June, with prices buoyed by the threat of a cold snap in Brazil, which could pose a threat to crops.

The rollercoaster ride continued in the lean hogs market, with the S&P GSCI Lean Hogs down 10.0% in June. The latest U.S. hogs and pigs report indicates that pig and pork supplies in 2019 will be well above last year’s levels. The June 2019 hog inventory was up 4% year-over-year and the breeding herd expanded by 1%. This is the highest June 1 inventory of all hogs and pigs in the U.S. since estimates began over 50 years ago. At the same time, U.S. pork exports to China have been lackluster due to the ongoing trade spat between the two nations, and despite the devastation caused to the Chinese domestic industry by African swine flu.

The S&P/ASX 200, widely considered a performance barometer for the Australian equities market, comprises 200 of the most liquid and highest market capitalization stocks listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX). Nevertheless, the performance of this index is not solely influenced by Australian economic activities, but also by global economic conditions, depending on the individual securities’ geographical revenue exposure. As of May 17, 2019, 64% of S&P/ASX 200 members’ revenue was sourced domestically, while 36% of their revenue was exposed to foreign markets such as the U.S., Europe, New Zealand, and China (see Exhibit 1).

Apart from the Utilities sector, where revenue was not exposed to foreign markets, all other sectors were exposed to foreign markets at varying degrees. The Information Technology sector had the highest foreign revenue exposure (63%), followed by Health Care (56%) and Materials (52%). Foreign revenue exposure in the Health Care and Information Technology sectors was dominated by the U.S. and Europe, while foreign revenue in the Materials sector had the highest market exposures to China and the U.S. In contrast, revenue in the Real Estate and Financials sectors was predominantly domestic, with only 13% and 24% coming from foreign markets, respectively (see Exhibit 2).

When domestic and international macroeconomic conditions diverge, investors may want to manage the geographical revenue exposure of their portfolios to capture more favorable returns or to lower the risk of macroeconomic shocks. Based on the S&P/ASX 200 Australia Revenue Exposure Index and S&P/ASX 200 Foreign Revenue Exposure Index,[i] which comprise S&P/ASX 200 companies with high domestic and foreign revenue exposures, respectively, we observed that Australian companies with different revenue exposures had short- and long-term performance divergence historically (see Exhibit 3).

Over the long term, the S&P/ASX 200 Australia Revenue Exposure Index outperformed the S&P/ASX 200 since the index’s inception (November 2010) until January 2016, while the S&P/ASX 200 Foreign Revenue Exposure Index outperformed the S&P/ASX 200 most of the time since February 2016. Based on the return attribution analysis for these two indices relative to the S&P/ASX 200 (see Exhibit 4), the performance differences were not solely explained by sector allocation biases, but also by stock selection within sectors, especially for the S&P/ASX 200 Foreign Revenue Exposure Index.

Compared to the S&P/ASX 200, the S&P/ASX 200 Australia Revenue Exposure Index had the highest active weights in Financials and Consumer Staples and had the largest underweights in Materials, Health Care, and Industrials historically. The total sector allocation bias of the index had a dominating effect on its performance relative to the S&P/ASX 200. The underweight in Materials and overweight in Financials were the major drivers of the index outperformance, while the underweight in Industrials dragged the index returns.

On the other hand, the S&P/ASX 200 Foreign Revenue Exposure Index had the biggest overweight in Materials and Health Care, which had a contrasting impact on the index’s relative return, while the underweight in Financials and Industrials both dragged down the return of the index. Unlike what we observed in the S&P/ASX 200 Australia Revenue Exposure Index, the overall stock selection effect was much more pronounced than the total sector allocation effect in explaining the S&P/ASX 200 Foreign Revenue Exposure Index performance versus the S&P/ASX 200. Stock selections in Consumer Discretionary and Materials were positive contributors to the index’s relative return, indicating that companies with high foreign revenue exposure had performed better than their peers in these two sectors for the overall examined period.

In summary, managing geographical revenue exposures for portfolios resulted in significant performance differences in the Australian equities market and was observed in more than just sector allocation differences. Constructing a portfolio based on quantitative revenue exposure measures is an alternative way for investors to implement their active views on macroeconomic conditions.

[i]   The S&P/ASX 200 Australia Revenue Exposure Index is designed to measure the performance of companies within the S&P/ASX 200 universe with higher-than-average revenue exposure to Australia. Similarly, the S&P/ASX 200 Foreign Revenue Exposure Index is designed to measure the performance of companies within the S&P/ASX 200 universe with higher-than-average revenue exposure to countries, excluding Australia. Index constituents are weighted by the product of float-adjusted market capitalization and targeted geographic revenue exposure percentage, subject to the single stock cap of 10%.

Taking a cue from Frank Sinatra, the S&P 500® was riding high in April, shot down in May, and got back on top in June.  But the current bull run is feeling its age, and we may be witnessing a change in its stride.  Coming into the end of the quarter (all figures are as of June 25^th), here’s my take on the current market drivers.

Notwithstanding a surprise move down in the next couple of days, the S&P 500 looks set to end Q2 with a solid gain after the best June in decades.  However, the rebound from May has not been a typical “risk on” rally.  Concerns over slowing global growth, trade disputes and geopolitical tensions have boosted defensive assets and the fixed income markets are pricing in a sharp loosening in policy on both sides of the Atlantic.

Low Volatility Outperforming Despite Market Gains

The S&P 500 Low Volatility has been a shining star in U.S. equities both this quarter and over the last year.  Including the 100 stocks from the S&P 500 with the lowest 12-month trailing volatility, “Low Vol” does not typically outperform during large market upswings, but when the market declines, Low Vol typically declines by less.  Historically, the benefit of capturing less of the downside and more of the upside has compounded, giving Low Vol a better long-term return despite the decrease in risk.  More recently however, Low Vol has outperformed in the market upturn, which has given an unusually defensive feel to the rally.

Along with the outperformance of Low Vol, the performances of larger and smaller companies (which typically outperform in periods of strong economic gains) also sound a note of caution.  Over the past 12 months, the S&P SmallCap 600® has declined 9%, compared to a gain of 10% in the S&P 500.  Microcaps have struggled even more, underperforming large caps by a whopping 22%.

Trade Winds Blowing

The ongoing trade dispute between China and the United States has been top of the market’s mind for over a year now, and with Presidents Trump and Xi due to meet at the G20 Summit in the final days of June, the potential for a major repricing looks set to accompany us right up until the quarter’s end. (Pity those who will have to wait until the very end of the month to draft their reports!)

But who’s “winning” the trade war?  If we pick the more U.S./China trade-sensitive sectors, namely Industrials, Materials and Information Technology for our indicators, it seems that U.S. companies are having a better time of it than their Chinese counterparts.  So far this quarter, the former have all gained, the latter have all declined (all in USD terms, although a comparison in CNY would draw a similar conclusion).  While few believe that a final deal is imminent, the mood music shifted a bit after U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said that an agreement was 90% completed.  As ever, the devil still lies in the details.

Europe – Back to the Future?

European bonds and equities and have also jumped this quarter, with both the S&P Europe 350® and the S&P Eurozone Sovereign Bond Index rising 3% quarter-to-date.

Although the European bloc has managed to remain mostly out of the trade crosshairs (at least, for now), economic growth continues to look elusive. While the European Central Bank has long called for fiscal reforms and offered further stimulus if needed, their June meeting seemed to indicate that the second course was the more likely. Broadly speaking, the recent rally has a bit of a nostalgic feel to it: dovish central banks are driving the markets, leading to a “bad news is good news” mindset from investors

But have markets set themselves up for disappointment?  As ‘the bull market that everyone hates’ drags on, it appears that additional stimulus from central banks have already been priced in, leaving policymakers in a precarious position of either giving the market what it expects or leaving it wanting.  While some are waiting for more clarity, it appears others may be shifting into the safety of a shinier haven; the S&P GSCI Gold has soared into the quarter’s end, standing now with a gain of 9% since April.

Request to sign up for our daily market commentary by emailing chris.bennett@spglobal.com

In a previous blog,[1] we explored historical dividend payers in the Colombian equity market, focusing on the S&P Colombia BMI as the underlying universe, highlighting the number of dividend payers, market capitalization, and GICS^® sector distribution. Building on that, we now examine if the Colombian market has rewarded dividend payers over non-payers.

As a starting point, we formed hypothetical portfolios by grouping the underlying universe into dividend payers and non-dividend payers. Portfolios are float market cap weighted as well as equal weighted to remove any size bias. Each portfolio rebalances semiannually in March and September. The 10-year back-tested performance shows that both equal-weighted and float market-cap-weighted dividend payer portfolios outperformed non-dividend payers on a cumulative basis (see Exhibit 1).

The risk/return profiles of the hypothetical portfolios (see Exhibit 2) reveal that the dividend payer portfolios outperformed the non-dividend payer portfolios on a risk-adjusted basis. It is worth noting that the realized volatilities of the dividend payer portfolios were lower than the broad market as well as the non-dividend payer portfolios, for equal-weighted and float market-cap-weighted versions. The betas of the dividend payer portfolios were higher than those of non-dividend payers, coming in close to one. Therefore, the dividend payer portfolios were more sensitive to the market.

Similarly, dividend payer portfolios had higher maximum drawdowns than non-dividend payer portfolios. Exhibit 3 shows that the largest drawdowns for non-dividend payer portfolios were similar for both weighting methods. Although the dividend payer portfolios’ peak and trough dates were in line with the market, maximum drawdowns and recovery lengths were larger for capitalization-weighted portfolios.

Next, we looked at the average annual contribution to return over the 10-year period, broken down by sectors (see Exhibit 4). We can see that dividend payer portfolios followed a similar distribution to that of the underlying universe, with Financials being the largest contributor, followed by Utilities and Energy. This result is consistent with our previous blog, where we highlighted that these sectors were the largest contributors to dividend yield. For the Energy sector, which contains only one security, the free-float portfolio contribution was larger than the equal-weighted version.

For the non-dividend payer portfolios, Consumer Discretionary and Materials were the biggest detractors. Financials slightly underperformed and Industrials issues outperformed their dividend payer counterparts, while Consumer Staples had zero contribution, as all the Consumer Staples securities pay dividends. The Utilities and Energy sectors also added positively for all the portfolios, while Communication Services contributed negatively to all portfolios.

Overall, the Colombian equity market has seemed to prefer dividend payers to non-dividend payers. This finding implies that dividend-based strategies are feasible, but market participants may want to address potential sector concentration issues.

[1]   https://www.indexologyblog.com/2019/05/22/examining-dividend-payers-in-colombia/