Why Wall Street’s Ho-Hum Reaction to Iran? Déjà Vu 

Stocks haven’t suffered much or taken long to recover in past conflicts.

Stock investors have a good reason to shrug off the threat of war with Iran: Historically, armed conflicts haven’t led to punishing market downdrafts that lasted a long time.

Tuesday’s mild 0.28% loss in the S&P 500 marked the second time in three sessions that stocks went down. Any military escalation “may be unlikely to have a material impact on US economic fundamentals or corporate profits,” said John Lynch, chief investment strategist at LPL Financial.

According to LPL’s research, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has fallen an average of only 2% during 16 major geopolitical events, including the Gulf War, Iraq War, and 9/11. Over the following three and six months, the Dow rose 88% of the time, with average increases of 5% and 7.9%, respectively.

The broader-market gauge S&P 500 dropped an average 1.2% on the initial day of a military or terrorist event, hit bottom at -5%, 22 days later—and recouped the lost ground 47 days after that, said Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist at CFRA. As Stovall put it, “Surprisingly, the effects typically dissipated fairly quickly as investors concluded that they would not result in a global recession.”

Want the latest institutional investment industry
news and insights? Sign up for CIO newsletters.

The worst market impact resulted from Japan’s attack on US naval forces at Pearl Harbor on Sunday, December 7, 1941. Stocks dropped 3.8% the next day and sank 19.8% in toto, CFRA data indicates. The market took 143 days to reach its bottom, and 307 days to recover.

That lengthy period makes sense. Americans initially were scared that their homeland would be invaded. By June 1942, the US defeated the Japanese navy at the crucial battle of Midway, and it became clear that the nation’s territory was safe.

The second worst military-related market rout, after Pearl Harbor’s, stemmed from the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The worst-case scenario at the time was that Iraq would keep going and also take over Saudi Arabia. That would have meant that a big chunk of the world’s oil would be in the hands of anti-Western dictator Saddam Hussein.

At the time, the first-day stock loss was 1.1% and the total was 16.9%. The bottom was reached at 71 days and recovery took another 189. Complicating the problem was that the US had entered into a recession a month before Iraq’s invasion.  Quick action of US forces and their allies, who rushed troops to the Persian Gulf, and the unwillingness of Hussein to extend his incursion eventually quieted fears down.

The 1990 incident is instructive, because back then, the prospect of cutting off Mideast oil to the West was terrifying. Nowadays, though, such a problem is not as daunting. Today, thanks to fracking, the US actually is an oil exporter.

Related Stories:

A Warren Win Wouldn’t Necessarily Bring a Bear Market, Says Bernstein

When Will the Party Be Over for Oil?

CalPERS Cuts Investment Ties with Iran, Sudan

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Riskier Pension Investments Have UK Watchdog Group on Alert

Moves to counter low yields can expose plans to greater losses, less stability.

The search for yield amid low interest rates and a low return environment has led some UK pension plans to seek out riskier and more illiquid investments to earn their targeted return.

The Pensions Regulator (TPR), the UK’s watchdog for work-based pension plans, has published a report on leverage and liquidity to better understand the potential risks for defined benefit pensions, and to help inform the Bank of England’s Financial Stability Report.

In its 2018 Financial Stability Report, the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee (FPC) presented its assessment of risks from leverage in the non-bank financial system. It said that the use of leverage by non-bank financial institutions could support financial market functioning. It also said, however, that “it can also expose non-banks to greater losses and sudden demands for liquidity, which can give rise to financial stability risks.” 

The FPC said that the Bank of England would work with TPR to enhance the monitoring of possible systemic risks that might arise.

For more stories like this, sign up for the CIO Alert newsletter.

The regulator’s preliminary analysis shows many plans are well-diversified and aware of the risks that can come from leverage and liquidity. But it also shows some plans are pursuing riskier investment strategies in search of extra returns, which TPR said could be damaging in the event of adverse economic shocks.

“We believe that some of these strategies introduce additional risks which may not be adequately rewarded, and which may amplify market impacts in the event of adverse shocks,” Fred Berry, TPR’s head of investment consultancy, said in a release. “We also believe that some of the longer term illiquid investments may not adequately allow for the risks that climate change may introduce.”

One of the key finding of the report was that the pension plans surveyed held £244 billion within pooled investment holdings, 33% of which was in equities, and 22% of which was in credit. Bonds accounted for 60% of all plan assets, half of which were inflation-linked government bonds.

Interest rate swaps were held by 62% of plans, and accounted for 43% of all leveraged investments, and swaps accounted for 66% of derivative contracts outstanding. The report also found that 45% of all plans had increased their use of leverage during the last five years, and 23% had increased their use of leverage in the last 12 months.

The survey covered 137 of the UK’s largest 400 defined benefit pension plans, which had combined assets worth nearly £700 billion.

“We believe that some of the survey data shows a potential for concentrations of risk within individual plans,” Berry said. “We will analyze the survey responses in more detail and consider how we can use the findings to help trustees to improve their risk management practices further.”

Related Stories:

State Pension Funds Adjust to ‘New Normal’ of Lower Returns

UK Court of Appeal Upholds TPR Powers in ITV Case

Changing RPI to CPIH Will Have Big Impact on UK Pensions

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

«