Alternatives
The IMF estimates that the private credit industry is now over $2 trillion in size, with 75% of it located in the US. It now rivals the leveraged loan and high-yield credit markets in size. Private credit offers borrowers more speed and flexibility and provides higher returns and less volatility to investors.
While the advantages are clear, the IMF warns that as lending moves away from regulated financial institutions to private markets, systemic risks will increase. With private credit, there is less transparency, price discovery, and information about credit quality. Additionally, there is less information about how various players in the ecosystem are connected. Therefore, the IMF doesn’t see near-term risks but believes that as private credit keeps growing, there will be a need for greater regulation.
On average, private credit borrowers tend to be smaller and have weaker balance sheets than companies raising money through syndicated loans or public markets. This means more downside risk in the event of rising rates or a negative economic shock.
Currently, the IMF estimates that ⅓ of private credit borrowers’ financing costs are higher than earnings. It also warns that lending standards have weakened amid increased competition among lenders due to the influx of capital in the sector.
Finsum: The private credit industry has experienced rapid growth over the last few years and now rivals the size of the high-yield credit and leveraged loan markets. Here’s why the IMF is concerned that continued growth could lead to systemic risks to financial stability.
Grayscale has been a pioneer in terms of bringing crypto investments to a wider group of investors with the launch of Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) in 2016. For some time, it was the primary vehicle to get exposure to the asset through traditional means. However, the SEC’s approval of bitcoin ETFs means that the landscape is more competitive, with offerings from leading asset managers at lower costs.
Now, Grayscale is launching a spinoff version of GBTC, which will have a much lower fee of 0.15% vs. 1.5% for GBTC. The new ETF, Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust (BTC), will have the lowest fee among all spot bitcoin ETFs. At launch, about 10% of GBTC’s assets will be moved to BTC, which means GBTC shareholders can convert holdings into BTC without having to pay capital gains taxes.
With the launch of several spot bitcoin ETFs, there were net outflows from GBTC despite bitcoin’s impressive gains over the past few months. Previously, gains in bitcoin would coincide with a surge in inflows into GBTC.
The success of new bitcoin ETFs from Blackrock, Fidelity, Bitwise, and Ark also shows that there is strong demand for low-cost ETFs in the crypto space. In contrast, GBTC was structured more like a mutual fund.
Finsum: Grayscale is launching a spinoff version of its Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC), which will come with significantly lower costs as the asset manager looks to compete with the launch of several bitcoin ETFs.
The prospect of integrating alternatives can be daunting for many advisors due to the complexities involved, including numerous strategies, managers, and differing operational and tax processes. Nonetheless, there are key considerations for advisors navigating this terrain such as understanding that not all alternatives are alike, categorized broadly into growth, income, and diversifiers, allows for tailored allocations to meet client objectives. Also accessibility to alternatives has increased substantially, with platforms like iCapital and CAIS democratizing access and simplifying investment processes.
Additionally, the inadequacy of the traditional 60/40 model has led advisors to seek non-correlated strategies to bolster portfolio resilience, particularly during market dislocations. Historical analysis indicates that adding a 20% allocation to alternatives in a 60/40 portfolio can enhance returns and lower volatility, supporting the case for inclusion.
Shifting perspectives on longevity and retirement planning diminish the importance of liquidity, making less liquid investment opportunities, like private equity, viable options for younger investors. Overall, as accessibility to alternatives grows and traditional strategies face challenges, advisors are primed to deliver superior performance and resilience to clients through diversified portfolios.
Finsum: Advisors have more options and opportunities in the alt space than ever and should pass those uncorrelated returns on to investors.
More...
The number of alternative investment options continues to increase, and many now consider it an essential ingredient to optimize portfolios. However, there are significant challenges that come with evaluating these investments, given that there is more complexity and advisors have less experience with the asset class.
The benefits of alternatives are higher returns, especially in high-rate, high-inflation environments, and less correlation to equities and bonds. The two biggest drawbacks of alternatives are reduced liquidity and price discovery. There are additional potential tradeoffs, such as limited transparency, higher fees, and restrictions on redemptions. Further, some alternatives use leverage or derivatives, which can increase tail risk during certain periods.
Therefore, it’s important to study how the investment performed during periods of market volatility, such as 2020 or 2008. With some illiquid investments, the asset may look like it’s outperforming until actual transactions start taking place at lower levels. Many skeptics contend that the diversification and volatility-mitigating effects of alternatives are overestimated due to the absence of mark-to-market pricing.
Another consideration is that evaluating alternatives has a qualitative element. This includes studying the reputation and track record of the management team. Overall, advisors and investors should understand that many of the traditional tools and methods used to evaluate public investments are not suitable for alternatives.
Finsum: Alternative investments continue to grow and are increasingly a core part of many investors’ portfolios. However, there are many unique challenges that come with evaluating these investments.
Over the last few years, Wall Street banks have been losing market share to private lenders. Recently, they have been looking to win back business by serving as intermediaries between private lenders and companies.
Previously, leveraged buyouts were financed by a combination of high-yield bonds and/or leveraged loans, arranged by a major bank or group of banks. And this accounted for nearly a third of investment banking revenue on Wall Street.
However, private lenders have muscled in on this line of business, forcing banks to adopt and come up with their own strategies to remain viable. Banks like Wells Fargo and Barclays have partnered with private credit funds to source deals, advise lenders, and help companies navigate the right steps to secure financing.
Banks also have preexisting relationships with many privately held companies. According to Barclays, private credit funds have $430 billion in uninvested capital. Since the 2008 financial crisis, banks have had more stringent capital requirements. This means it is more desirable to advise and provide services to borrowers rather than take on additional balance sheet risk.
It’s also helping Wall Street banks get through a dry period for deals due to high interest rates, impeding M&A activity. They are able to collect fees from lenders and borrowers. Typically, direct lenders will split fees with the banks that originate the deal, between 25 and 75 basis points.
Finsum: As private lending has displaced a major chunk of Wall Street’s investment banking revenue, banks are adapting by serving as intermediaries for private lenders and borrowers.
- Rowe Price made an aggressive bet in 2020 by increasing exposure to equities in its target return funds, as equities were crashing due to the pandemic. At the time, the asset manager was criticized for this move; however, it’s paid off in spades, with the S&P 500 hitting new, all-time highs earlier this month. As a result of its success, T. Rowe Price now has the third-most assets in terms of target-date funds behind Fidelity and Vanguard.
Further, T. Rowe Price has remained up to 98% invested in its target-date funds, which is higher than its peers. According to an analysis from Cerulli, retirees hold up to 55% of their portfolio in equities at T. Rowe Price. Compare this to Fidelity and Vanguard, where equity allocations are 38% and 30%, respectively.
Despite its recent success, some continue to believe that T. Rowe Price’s target-date funds are taking on too much equity risk. According to Ron Surz, the president of Target Date Solutions, “80% of assets should be risk-free at retirement. Virtually all target date funds are way riskier than the theory they follow." However, some believe that higher allocations to equities are necessary given that lifespans are increasing, which increases the risk that retirees could outlive their savings.
Finsum: T. Rowe Price is pursuing a more aggressive strategy than its peers when it comes to equity allocations in its target-date funds. So far, it’s worked well, but there are some skeptics.