Pubblicato in: Banche Centrali, Finanza e Sistema Bancario

Investitori liberal a parole ma investono nei bond di stati ‘forti’.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-04-26.

 2016-11-30__Aminali_009

Una cosa sono le parole ed una del tutto differente sono i fatti.

È invero molto raro trovare qualcuno, persona fisica o giuridica, i cui atti siano coerenti con quanto affermato.

Si dica pure che gli investitori sono cinici, ma ci si ricordi sempre che investono del proprio, e che si assumono in solido tutti i rischi connessi agli investimenti.

*

«Dictatorships are on a hot streak in the bond market»

*

«In the past year, sovereign notes from emerging markets under autocratic rule have returned 15 percent on average, compared with just 8.6 percent for securities from developing countries considered democratic»

*

«For all the ugliness that often comes with authoritarian governments …. they often can be very rewarding for bondholders willing to turn a blind eye to those things in exchange for the stability that they can foster»

*

«On April 12, Venezuela’s creditors reaped large returns when President Nicolas Maduro made good on $2.5 billion in debt payments even as he struggles to come up with enough money for food imports»

*

«Two days earlier, El Salvador, a democracy for the last quarter-century, defaulted as a feud between the president and an opposition party …. left the government unable to make a $29 million payment to a local pension fund»

*

«Investors typically view the bonds of an autocratic regime very negatively and assign a very high default probability…. But in an autocratic regime, the government remaining in power is considered more important than people’s welfare. Since a bond default likely will raise the risks for the government to be thrown out, the ruling party will do its best to prevent a credit event»

*

«Over the past year, investors in sovereign dollar bonds from Venezuela pocketed 55 percent returns»

*

«Venezuelan debt has returned more than 770 percent since the socialist Hugo Chavez was elected president in late 1998, beating the emerging-market average of 462 percent»

*

«The last default from a country currently classified as not free was Russia. With Brent crude trading close to $10 per barrel, the country defaulted on about $40 billion of its local debt in August 1998, sparking a rout in the ruble that saw the currency lose more than half its value over the next six months»

*

«Obviously, investors love Russia with Putin in power»

*

«It’s not necessarily the case that it’s a necessary and sufficient condition that there be democracy»

* * * * * * * *

Se si volesse essere pignoli, Freedom House non è poi quell’acqua di rocca che vorrebbe far credere.

«Freedom House is a U.S.-based[4] 501(c)(3) U.S. Government funded non-governmental organization (NGO) that conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom, and human rights. Freedom House was founded in October 1941. Wendell Willkie and Eleanor Roosevelt served as its first honorary chairpersons. It describes itself as a “clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world”. The organization was 66–85% funded by grants from the US government from 2006–15» [Fonte]

È un ricettacolo di liberals che spesso appiccicano etichetta di “non-democratico” ad uno stato di cui vogliono deprimere il rating. Diciamo che non sono viole mammole. Poi, ovviamente, in alcuni casi hanno ragione. Insomma, occorre leggere quei report con molto buon senso. Ecco i titoli di alcuni report:

Paraguay: President Tries to Force Re-Election, Troops Surround Congress

Hungary: Government Threatens University with Closure

Mexico: Five Journalists Murdered in Six Weeks

German Proposal Would Limit Social Media Debate

U.S.-China: Make Human Rights a Priority with Xi

Venezuela’s Supreme Court Usurps the National Assembly’s Legislative Powers

Il giudizio espresso sulla Russia è da manuale. Un governo che governa è ‘autoritario‘:

«In Russia’s authoritarian government, power is concentrated in the hands of President Vladimir Putin. With loyalist security forces, a subservient judiciary, and a legislature dominated by his United Russia party, Putin is able to manipulate elections and inhibit formal opposition. The government also has strong control of the media environment, and has been able to retain domestic support despite an ongoing economic slump and strong international criticism. The country’s rampant corruption is one notable threat to state power, as it facilitates shifting links among bureaucrats and organized crime groups.»

* * * * * * * *

L’investitore richiede a chi abbia emesso dei bond esclusivamente di essere solvibile, sia nel pagamento delle cedole sia nel rimborso del capitale a termine. Ma questa caratteristica è riscontrabile solo in stati i governi dei quali siano stabili, ossia con una forte maggioranza coesa, se a regime parlamentare, con un saldo e robusto governo se governati in altra maniera. Come i governi si regolino all’interno non è affare che riguarda l’investitore.

Da questo punto di vista una dittatura ben radicata sarebbe l’ideale.

Un altro discorso sarebbe quello sui rating. Qui i rating riportati in altro sito.

La Federazione Russa ha rating BBB+, esattamente come l’Italia oppure il Marocco, oppure ancora la Spagna. Nemmeno poi così tanto male.

*

Il mondo è pieno di ipocriti, di sepolcri imbiancati, e taluni anche molto male.

Ma i monte titoli degli ipocriti sono pieni zeppi di bond di paesi che Freedom House considera tirannici.


Bloomberg. 2017-04-20. The Bond Market Prefers Dictators to Democracies

– El Salvador defaulted last week, while Venezuela paid bonds

– Political gridlock poses risk to market-friendly governments

*

Dictatorships are on a hot streak in the bond market.

In the past year, sovereign notes from emerging markets under autocratic rule have returned 15 percent on average, compared with just 8.6 percent for securities from developing countries considered democratic, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. They also have better returns over the past two years, though beyond that the advantage fades.

For all the ugliness that often comes with authoritarian governments — the human rights abuses, the curbs on free expression — they often can be very rewarding for bondholders willing to turn a blind eye to those things in exchange for the stability that they can foster.

This isn’t necessarily a brand-new phenomenon, of course, but a pair of events last week served as a reminder of the outsize gains and losses it can trigger. On April 12, Venezuela’s creditors reaped large returns when President Nicolas Maduro made good on $2.5 billion in debt payments even as he struggles to come up with enough money for food imports. Two days earlier, El Salvador, a democracy for the last quarter-century, defaulted as a feud between the president and an opposition party — a “high-stakes game of chicken,” as Nomura Holdings Inc. strategist Benito Berber called it — left the government unable to make a $29 million payment to a local pension fund.

“Investors typically view the bonds of an autocratic regime very negatively and assign a very high default probability,” said Victor Fu, the director of emerging-market sovereign strategy at Stifel Nicolaus & Co. But “in an autocratic regime, the government remaining in power is considered more important than people’s welfare. Since a bond default likely will raise the risks for the government to be thrown out, the ruling party will do its best to prevent a credit event.”

Over the past year, investors in sovereign dollar bonds from Venezuela pocketed 55 percent returns. That’s more than the 34 percent from Ghana, the top-performing democratic nation. In fact, bonds from 10 of 15 governments labeled “not free” by Washington-based Freedom House returned at least 10 percent these past 12 months, compared with a third of bonds from emerging-market countries the watchdog organization labels as “free.”

Non-democratic states can take many forms, according to Freedom House. In Azerbaijan, President Ilham Aliyev succeeded his father and has clung to power via three questionable elections. Meanwhile, royal families in Qatar, Oman and Saudi Arabia are among the few monarchies still standing. In Egypt, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi rose to power after a coup in 2013.

Turkey, which Freedom House deems “partly free,” may be the latest example of bondholders benefiting from a turn toward one-man rule. The increasingly autocratic government under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has proven creditor-friendly, according to Fu, with its sovereign dollar bonds outperforming the emerging-market average in 2017 after a wave of credit-rating downgrades fueled a sell-off late last year.

Of course, the rally in bonds tied to dictatorial governments is in part a reflection of the recent hot stretch for the riskiest assets — democracies tend to have better credit ratings. While emerging-market notes from nations under autocratic rule have outperformed those under democracies by an average of 5 percentage points over the past two years, bonds from democratic nations have the edge over three years and five years.

Latin American Fault Lines

El Salvador’s debt troubles serve as a warning sign for investing in other Latin American nations that — on the surface — appear to be market-friendly.

New technocratic presidents have come to power over the past 18 months in Argentina, Peru and Brazil, but they did so under a period of heightened polarization that may pose risks to governability, said Sean Newman, who helps oversee $1.5 billion in emerging-market assets at Atlanta-based Invesco Advisers.

Argentina’s Mauricio Macri and Peru’s Pedro Pablo Kuczynski were sworn in with a minority in congress. And while Michel Temer’s PMDB party in Brazil holds the most seats in the senate and lower house, it must contend with more than two dozen other parties. These slim majorities or minorities in the legislature make bipartisan support essential to the passage of financial measures, including those related to servicing debt.

And the case of El Salvador highlights how quickly everything can go south amid gridlock. Fitch Ratings said the missed pension payment constituted a default on its sovereign obligations and S&P Global Ratings warned “selective default” looked inevitable. The government has said the money for its overseas bond payments has already been budgeted.

“This political gamesmanship really boils down to where the parties want to position themselves ahead of the election next year,” Newman said. “It’s certainly decreased our confidence in their ability to get rudimentary measures approved.”

Putin-Loving Investors

That’s less of an issue in Venezuela. Maduro and his allies have throttled attempts by the opposition-controlled congress to hold a recall election against him. And while the president would be an underdog in national elections next October, some observers question if they’ll even be held. Continuing to service the nation’s debt has been key to Maduro holding onto power and investors who have put their faith in him have profited mightily.

In fact, Venezuelan debt has returned more than 770 percent since the socialist Hugo Chavez was elected president in late 1998, beating the emerging-market average of 462 percent.

Under dictatorships, investors usually have better insight into who the actual policy makers are and how they’ll treat bondholders, according to Steve Hooker, a Hartford, Connecticut-based emerging-market money manager at Newfleet Asset Management LLC, which oversees $12 billion. That’s in contrast to democracies, where investors might need to get into the heads of dozens of politicians and bureaucrats who have a say in policy, he said.

Of the six emerging-market nations to default in the 21st century, none were categorized as full-out autocracies by Freedom House.

The last default from a country currently classified as not free was Russia. With Brent crude trading close to $10 per barrel, the country defaulted on about $40 billion of its local debt in August 1998, sparking a rout in the ruble that saw the currency lose more than half its value over the next six months. Eventually, out of that mess stepped a former KGB intelligence officer from St. Petersburg named Vladimir Putin.

“Obviously, investors love Russia with Putin in power,” Jim Barrineau, the co-head of emerging markets debt for Schroder Investment Management, said Monday on Bloomberg TV. “It’s not necessarily the case that it’s a necessary and sufficient condition that there be democracy.”

Annunci

Un pensiero riguardo “Investitori liberal a parole ma investono nei bond di stati ‘forti’.

I commenti sono chiusi.