(New York)

Asset allocation as it has traditionally been conceived has taken a beating over the last few years, and especially since the start of the pandemic. The old 60/40 allocation model has been cast aside for years, and investors are using many new techniques to allocate, such as factoring. However, one easy-to-implement and effective way to think about allocation is the balance of active and passive investments one holds. Active investments, when well done, can offer long-term outperformance. However, they also have more significant risks. Accordingly, this can be the risk/upside portion of a portfolio, while passive strategies, which are almost by definition more diversified, can be more of a hedge.

FINSUM: This not only makes sense in equities, but this consideration about active vs passive holds across different asset classes as well.

(New York)

Rollovers are obviously critical to almost all advisors, yet many don’t have seem to have gotten the memo: rollovers are changing significantly. The big change stems from the fact that Biden just let the new Trump era fiduciary rule go into effect, which was unexpected. According to the new rule, rollovers count as fiduciary advice. This is counterintuitive for many, as one leading industry lawyer, Brad Campbell from Faegre Drinker, commented “People have made the argument that rollovers cannot be fiduciary advice because it’s a one-time recommendation”. Here is the full analysis: “If you and the participant that you’re recommending rollover to, even though you advised them to do the rollover now, when you entered into that arrangement to give that advice, did both of you intend that you would meet again in the future to give more advice? To actually manage the assets or advise about managing the assets in the IRA? … If the answer is yes, we both intend to meet in the future, then DOL views it as an anticipated ongoing relationship. In other words, the beginning of an advice relationship that is fiduciary from the initial advice”.

FINSUM: This is pretty clear once you understand the logic, but on the surface it is a little hard to discern. Because no one expected this rule to actually go into effect since the election, many seem to be unprepared.

(New York)

Treasury yields have risen significantly over the last few weeks. So much so that equities have been absolutely hammered. This has stoked a lot more interested in bonds generally because yields are rising back to more palatable levels. However, thus far, corporate bonds have been getting wounded during the Treasury yield surge. Top bond indexes, like the SPDR Bloomberg Barclays High Yield Bond ETF and the iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF, have each seen major selloffs, with over 1% losses in a single day. Many analysts think that the rise in yields may curtail some corporate debt issuance.

FINSUM: So the immediate view for corporate debt is bearish, but in the medium term it is much brighter. As yields stabilize at higher levels there will be stronger investor demand, and coupled with less issuance, you will have a tight market.

(New York)

Most bitcoin investors know it, but few else do: the bitcoin industry is ultra energy intensive as bitcoin mining takes mountains of electricity. Because of this, the surge in interest in ESG is casting a pall over the bitcoin frenzy. One research analyst summarized the situation very nicely, saying “Many companies have cozied up to Bitcoin in order to associate themselves with the digital currency’s technological mystique … As ESG funds start to flee Bitcoin, its price will begin a downward spiral. Stay away”.

FINSUM: This makes absolute sense. Bitcoin is highly energy inefficient, and therefore the combination of ESG considerations and likely government regulations make bitcoin look quite unattractive over the long term.

(Washington)

Reg BI has been in the spotlight recently. With incoming SEC chief being grilled by Congress before potentially being appointed, there is a lot of anticipation about where things might be headed. Some think Gensler will move quickly to alter Reg BI, while others (including us), think that he might move slower because of potentially more pressing issues like meme stocks and bitcoin. However, one change that may come quickly is a simple but important one: changing the regulation’s name. There is a loud call for the SEC to change Reg BI’s name because many say it is “grossly misleading” since it is not a true fiduciary rule. Gensler could potentially make this change much more easily than actually modifying the rule, so it makes sense this could be an immediate measure to appease critics.

FINSUM: What we find interesting here is that calls to change the name are not just coming from fiduciary rule advocates and the like, but also from brokers. The latter seem to be having some trouble with the clients thinking they are fiduciaries when they aren’t, which can then lead to big blowups/lawsuits.