Asset management approach: Why it’s changing
05 September 2017
Asset management firms that favour the risk-adjusted return characteristics of an intrinsic programme have every reason to stick to their guns, as John Wallis of Brown Brothers Harriman explains
Image: Shutterstock
Attend the recent conferences or read the latest industry commentary and you will hear stories of oversupply and falling revenues compelling beneficial owners to be more flexible in the collateral they accept, adopt term structures to lock in trades, or consider higher yielding cash reinvestment options. These changes would increase risk for the beneficial owner, and while that may be appropriate for some lenders, asset managers are asking if they also need to be making similar changes.
The first step in putting these developments into context is to recognise that securities lending is effectively two markets. The first—and by far the largest—segment is the general collateral market where the overriding goal is to maximise revenue. To achieve this, large volumes are lent at low fees with a flexible approach to accepted collateral. Industry-wide, 90 percent of securities on loan are priced at 50 basis points or less, according to IHS Markit, so it’s easy to see why this part of the market occupies so much air time. However, very few asset managers are general collateral lenders. This type of lending is usually favoured by sovereign wealth funds, insurance companies and some pensions whose time horizons and liquidity constraints are dramatically different from a mutual fund.
The second securities lending market is the ‘specials’ space, which focuses on the few stocks that command the highest fees (for example, 200 to 2,000 or more basis points). Often referred to as ‘intrinsic value’ lending, this type of trade can generate 90 percent of its revenue from lending just a few stocks—often less than 5 percent of a fund’s assets under management.
Those stocks are in high demand, meaning lenders do not need to compromise on the quality of collateral they accept. In the US, this means cash, reinvested in short-term, highly liquid money market funds and, in Europe and Asia, collateral is typically G10 sovereign bonds.
Many asset managers prefer this nuanced approach that prioritises risk-adjusted returns as they balance revenue, daily liquidity and risk. By lending a smaller proportion of their assets, it is easy to see how registered funds account for 40 percent of lendable assets across the industry, yet comprise just 15 percent of assets on loan, according to the sixth edition of the International Â鶹´«Ã½ Lending Association Market Report. This leaves 85 percent of the securities lending industry serving lenders who are not registered funds, so it is not surprising that so much industry commentary seems not to apply to them.
The market is seeing record levels of oversupply and lenders need to be more flexible with collateral and term structures to maintain balances and revenues. But does this apply to asset managers? If they are a general collateral lender, yes, particularly if they are lending large volumes of high-quality liquid assets, such as government bonds. The current fees of 15 basis points anticipate lenders accepting main index equities as collateral and term structures of one to three months.
However, for the majority of asset managers, following an intrinsic value approach, collateral flexibility and term structures will add little value in terms of revenue or improved distribution. For example, look at the market utilisation levels of the stocks you have on loan and the percentage of your holding you have on loan. If market utilisation is high and your entire inventory is lent, then the stocks you are lending are probably in such high demand that you do not need to compromise your collateral standards to improve your loan distribution. If this is the case, your agent will have no excuse for not achieving the highest market fees.
Intrinsic value lenders are often encouraged to rethink their stance, ease their collateral standards, and lend more at lower fees. Every lender should review their stance periodically. However, asset managers that favour the risk-adjusted return characteristics of an intrinsic programme have every reason to stick to their guns—market noise to the contrary is largely addressed to a different area of the market.
The views expressed are as of 18 August 2017 and are a general guide to the views of BBH. The opinions expressed are a reflection of BBH’s best judgement at the time and any obligation to update our views as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise is disclaimed. BBH is not affiliated with Â鶹´«Ã½ Lending Times and does not monitor or maintain any of the information available on the external website mentioned nor represent or guarantee that such website is accurate or complete, and it should not be relied upon as such. IS-2017-08-18-3176
The first step in putting these developments into context is to recognise that securities lending is effectively two markets. The first—and by far the largest—segment is the general collateral market where the overriding goal is to maximise revenue. To achieve this, large volumes are lent at low fees with a flexible approach to accepted collateral. Industry-wide, 90 percent of securities on loan are priced at 50 basis points or less, according to IHS Markit, so it’s easy to see why this part of the market occupies so much air time. However, very few asset managers are general collateral lenders. This type of lending is usually favoured by sovereign wealth funds, insurance companies and some pensions whose time horizons and liquidity constraints are dramatically different from a mutual fund.
The second securities lending market is the ‘specials’ space, which focuses on the few stocks that command the highest fees (for example, 200 to 2,000 or more basis points). Often referred to as ‘intrinsic value’ lending, this type of trade can generate 90 percent of its revenue from lending just a few stocks—often less than 5 percent of a fund’s assets under management.
Those stocks are in high demand, meaning lenders do not need to compromise on the quality of collateral they accept. In the US, this means cash, reinvested in short-term, highly liquid money market funds and, in Europe and Asia, collateral is typically G10 sovereign bonds.
Many asset managers prefer this nuanced approach that prioritises risk-adjusted returns as they balance revenue, daily liquidity and risk. By lending a smaller proportion of their assets, it is easy to see how registered funds account for 40 percent of lendable assets across the industry, yet comprise just 15 percent of assets on loan, according to the sixth edition of the International Â鶹´«Ã½ Lending Association Market Report. This leaves 85 percent of the securities lending industry serving lenders who are not registered funds, so it is not surprising that so much industry commentary seems not to apply to them.
The market is seeing record levels of oversupply and lenders need to be more flexible with collateral and term structures to maintain balances and revenues. But does this apply to asset managers? If they are a general collateral lender, yes, particularly if they are lending large volumes of high-quality liquid assets, such as government bonds. The current fees of 15 basis points anticipate lenders accepting main index equities as collateral and term structures of one to three months.
However, for the majority of asset managers, following an intrinsic value approach, collateral flexibility and term structures will add little value in terms of revenue or improved distribution. For example, look at the market utilisation levels of the stocks you have on loan and the percentage of your holding you have on loan. If market utilisation is high and your entire inventory is lent, then the stocks you are lending are probably in such high demand that you do not need to compromise your collateral standards to improve your loan distribution. If this is the case, your agent will have no excuse for not achieving the highest market fees.
Intrinsic value lenders are often encouraged to rethink their stance, ease their collateral standards, and lend more at lower fees. Every lender should review their stance periodically. However, asset managers that favour the risk-adjusted return characteristics of an intrinsic programme have every reason to stick to their guns—market noise to the contrary is largely addressed to a different area of the market.
The views expressed are as of 18 August 2017 and are a general guide to the views of BBH. The opinions expressed are a reflection of BBH’s best judgement at the time and any obligation to update our views as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise is disclaimed. BBH is not affiliated with Â鶹´«Ã½ Lending Times and does not monitor or maintain any of the information available on the external website mentioned nor represent or guarantee that such website is accurate or complete, and it should not be relied upon as such. IS-2017-08-18-3176
NO FEE, NO RISK
100% ON RETURNS If you invest in only one securities finance news source this year, make sure it is your free subscription to Â鶹´«Ã½ Finance Times
100% ON RETURNS If you invest in only one securities finance news source this year, make sure it is your free subscription to Â鶹´«Ã½ Finance Times
