Announcer: You're listening to Wealthview, the podcast where we share philosophy, strategy and insights from some of Canada's top financial professionals.
Announcer: Hosted by Dean Colling, senior Wealth Advisor and Portfolio Manager at CIBC Private Wealth. Edited and produced by the Colling Group. And now on to the show.
Dean Colling: Welcome to Wealthview. I'm your host, Dean Colling. On this edition of Wealthview, we discuss how small and medium sized business owners can navigate the complex process of selling their business. Joining me today is Christian Davis, a managing director in CIBC's Mid-Market Investment Banking group, which provides M&A advisory services to private mid-market companies. Christian has over 18 years of experience working with shareholders as they grow their businesses, make acquisitions and ultimately sell or monetise their investment. Christian, welcome to Wealthview.
Christian Davis: Thanks, Dean. Thanks for having me.
Dean Colling: It's a pleasure. And, you know, you and I have known each other for a few years now and have worked on some client cases together. So it's been a pleasure and a long time overdue to have you on the, on the program. So, but before we get into the meat of mid-market private M&A, tell us a little bit about yourself and a little bit about the background of your group and what you do here at CIBC.
Christian Davis: Yeah. So I mean, I guess for myself personally, originally an engineer. Engineer as a, I did that for a number of years, and then have made my way into investment banking after doing an MBA and really landed in CIBC about 18 years ago now. And I landed in our Mid-Market Investment Banking Group, right. So this this team really is focused on providing advisory services to private companies and their owners. So ultimately we help owners, companies acquire other businesses, raise outside capital, so equity capital, growth capital, and ultimately help them sell their business. And that's really where we spend most of our time, is helping owners, shareholders, management plan for and ultimately execute on the sale of a company, that could be the full sale or a partial sale of the business.
Dean Colling: So how big is the group now?
Christian Davis: So our team is about 24 people across the country, five offices. We've really grown over the years. When I joined, I think we were probably closer to ten folks across the country and we'd be one of the most active teams in Canada. So in the mid-market space, and for us, that's transactions sort of 10 to 200, were we're doing sort of 12 to 15 transactions a year. So that does equate to being one of the most active groups in the country.
Dean Colling: And, you know, obviously you're an important part of our overall service offering to our clients, as a number of them are obviously private business owners. It's a large asset. It's an asset they've built with blood, sweat and tears over the years and have a significant amount of wealth locked up there. And, you know, as I alluded to earlier when we began the discussion, you know, you and I have been involved in a couple of transactions for clients where we helped unlock that value over time. And so it's a huge value add service that we bring to the table. And we thank you for that partnership, you know, that we've had with you guys over the long term. So, you know, the premise of today's discussion though, I want to go sort of high level and then bring it down to some more granular, you know, details about the anatomy of deals and what kind of things get done. But, you know, you mentioned recently your sort of 10 to 15 deals a year. Is that a normal amount? You're kind of giving us the average. And if have you seen that in the last couple of years or as we've come through Covid, did it get pretty anaemic? And then now it's starting to heat back up again? Give us the lay of the land and what's going on now overall.
Christian Davis: Mid-market private company M&A tends to be fairly stable, right? More stable than the public markets. If we kind of look at the last I'll say ten years or so, it's been a pretty great run for private company M&A. So volumes have come up over that time. Valuations have come up over that time. That's not a not a straight line. Certainly as we got into Covid we've run through a period where frankly deals stopped when Covid hit. Deals kind of all went went on pause. Then we saw '21 through '22, you know they accelerated, right. Lots of capital in the system, deals got done. And then sort of '23, '24 it was a bit of a return to normal right. So there was uncertainty in the system after Covid. And now we're back to what I would call a more normal deal environment. Right. So generally still a positive seller friendly deal environment. There's a lot of capital out there. I mean, we've seen that again over the last ten, even twenty years. A lot of capital in the markets are being moved towards private capital and private markets. And so you have a number of different types of buyers. And we'll probably chat about this, but private equity, family offices, a lot of capital here is chasing deals. But the volume of deals has gone up as well as you see baby boomers looking to sell and exit their business, overall remains a very positive market. As I said over the last ten years, is has been generally a trend upwards.
Dean Colling: Yeah, that's interesting that you say that it's you know, that it's a seller's market. And that's great news for business owners who want to sell. Um, the interesting question I want to have is obviously there's this, uh, push and pull with available capital that's out there and demographics. And, you know, I'd love you to talk to the audience about sort of the demographic play here because we all we know, ageing population, business owners are getting older. More and more business owners are looking to exit their businesses as part of a retirement plan. Have you seen sort of a supply demand mix as a result of that, or is it still sort of capital is superseding the supply side because of demographics?
Christian Davis: Interestingly, it feels as though I would say capital coming into the mid-market in particular, as well as the volume and has kind of been in balance to a certain degree. Right. So I would say there's probably more capital than volume. So valuations have tended upwards over the last ten years. But certainly the money is not silly money. So people are constrained in terms of investment as I think I mentioned here, valuations remain relatively stable, especially as it compares to the public markets.
Dean Colling: In comparison to the public markets, you know, we're talking about now a pivot in interest rate policy out to 2022. Very aggressive tightening stance. You know we've got you know 4 or 500 basis points of increases there. That's obviously a pretty big impact on valuation. Now we're coming down the other side of that. Have you started to see a significant, you say it's fairly steady, but have you seen any lifts in valuation as a result of lower interest rates, sort of lower discount rates?
Christian Davis: Yeah. So in the mid-market, again, I feel when interest rates started tightening, going up, we certainly saw an impact on financing. Right. And so that is going to have a direct impact on valuation, mid-market companies are not overly levered. So the impact is a bit muted. What I would say is the benefit here from you know, decreasing interest rate environment is the certainty of the environment. The outlook and the certainty that we're seeing now is positive to the dealmaking environment. People have a good feeling about, well, what's next year going to look like. Inflation is down under control. And that really helps to kind of align views on value between buyers and sellers.
Dean Colling: In that world. Are there any particular sectors that are bigger benefits or benefactors of that type of, you know, again, a lower inflation, lower interest rate environment over others?
Christian Davis: Certainly there is a couple sectors where they would use leverage heavily to roll up certain businesses, right, and so you've seen that in the dental sector. You've seen that in the vet practice where there was a lot of leverage used to make a number of acquisitions. That is one where I think we'll see activity pick up again as interest rates come down. Anything, any sector where you're making a lot of acquisitions and you're looking to really sort of use leverage, right.
Dean Colling: Cost of capital up. That's a big headwind for these guys in valuation. But obviously the environment is loosening up for that going forward. Tell us a little about, everybody, about the way you source deals. Obviously you're part of a big institution and your partners of ours. And you know, these are some obvious places. But walk through the wide spectrum of kind of where you guys source a lot of those deals from.
Christian Davis: So in CIBC, we really sit within our commercial bank, within commercial banking. We're partners with the wealth side of the business. So our deal sourcing is an internal warm referral network. It is a very long sales pipeline. We are getting to know business owners. We're getting to know the shareholders, trying to understand their objectives, really working with them to find out what the right path forward would be. And so the referral network for us is working with our wealth partners like yourself, private bankers and the commercial bankers to get to know the business owners, as I said, understand what they're looking for. No two transactions are the same. This is not a cookie cutter business. We'll run a process, we'll unearth options for shareholders, but we'll do it very distinct to what their objectives are. And so that's going to be a long sales pipeline. And that could be you know, we get to know people over two, five, ten or more years as they think about what the potential future of the business will be. Right.
Dean Colling: Yeah. And I can say, you know, from our experience, there were sort of 2 to 3 year time frames from start to wrap up. So yep, that's you know, that's a great service though, that's patient advisory being a part of this. This is a big, big transaction. And you know you can't do it without looking at all the details and taking your time. And that's a good way to do things. So let's actually go to the process itself. You know, in a case like, like our group where we have business owners who are looking to exit the business, we come to you, give you a call and say, hey, guys, um, Christian and team here's the case that I want you to take a look at, let me introduce you. Walk us through the anatomy of a deal. Maybe not to the deal part yet, but to the introduction to engagement, to preparation for sale, at least to that part.
Christian Davis: Yeah. There's many meetings, right, as you get to meet and understand what business owners are looking for. So often we're coming in to have a conversation with business owners to learn about the business, learn about where they're at in their ownership of the business. Learn about what is the future of the business. We, along with you, like to understand about family, about, you know, are their kids in the business? Are their brothers and sisters are their, you know, what is the history of the business and what is the legacy they're looking to leave with that business, if the path is really where there's a little bit of a potential for an exit, then we'll get into the meat and potatoes of what does the process look like.
Christian Davis: We'll help them think about what are the options on the table, what is best given their considerations. And we'll help them think about and understand what that could look like and partner with you to help them, the shareholders, think about what the the wealth side looks like, right. So it is really important to, from my perspective, for business owners to get their house in order. And that's both on the personal side and then also on the business side. So on the personal side, I think that's really where you come in to figure out, okay, we need to do an estate plan. What does it look like? Do I have any kind of philanthropic goals? What do I need to do to kind of button down my personal view on wealth. And then we're there to help, okay, what do you need to do to maximise value of the business if that's the right outcome for you?
Dean Colling: So you would imagine that most business owners typically would know at least a few options of who would be a buyer. Strategics, you know, competitors, maybe to a lesser degree a financial buyer. This is where obviously you, you and your team have a lot of access to sort of the private equity funds, et cetera out there that could come in and be interested with that. Do you find that from a business owner's perspective, when you meet them, that they are surprised by how much more you open up the potential buyer network to them, like more than they would have imagined would be interested?
Christian Davis: Most business owners think like, as you as you expect, a business owner running the business day to day. And so they think about who's competitive in their space, who do they see at the trade shows? Most business owners aren't thinking like a seller. I would say that's, I'm never really surprised when we ask them, well, who do you think will buy the business? They come up with a few names, but it's a very short list, and in some cases that's correct. There's probably only a few buyers for a business, but they are typically surprised when we can come up with a list of 30, 40, 50 strategic buyers for a business. And again, not getting into private equity, or a financial buyer that are kind of reputable buyers. And I think this is key, right. It's about being buyer who can, you know, has the capital to do it, has the wherewithal to do it, to do a transaction, has maybe done it before, you know, these are the things that are going to help you get to a successful close. Whereas often business owners are thinking about, well, who do I see at trade shows? And maybe it's another private company that looks a bit like them. It's usually not the right buyer for the business. It's going to be someone who's larger, maybe public, maybe has some equity behind them and has a strategic imperative to make acquisitions because that's going to be a key factor in them being the ultimate buyer.
Dean Colling: How important are the soft factors of a deal? Obviously everybody wants to maximise value. So that's an important, probably the, obviously it will always be the first and number one piece of the deal. But you know in a competitive bid process where price is going to be there, how much does the others like fit and culture and you know, uh, you know, anything else softer on the outside, how much does that matter?
Christian Davis: Soft factors matter in every single deal, i would say to a varying degree, right. And everyone will say, yes, let's get price down first and then let's figure out the soft components. I would say nine times out of ten, the business owner has been with the employees for a long time, It's family. Again, nine times out of ten, ensuring that buyer has nothing but sort of growth in mind and it's going to be positive to the business is very important. Ensuring culture is a fit is very important. We tend to try to push these a little bit further down the road in terms of process. We don't want to assume too many things in the process before you get bids on the table. So where we're really trying to figure out is it a fit, is in the middle of the process, right? So we've had conversations with them. We've an ability to interact in two ways and interview the buyers and understand what they're looking for, because we've definitely found that shareholders tend to have an assumption around potential buyers and what they might do with the business, how they would treat it. But in reality, they find that once they get to know them and kind of hear their vision for the business, often that can be quite helpful. But nine times out of ten, yes, price is important, but I would say they'll take a, you know, a lower price if it's a better fit. Yeah.
Dean Colling: And I imagine again, as you said earlier, it's family. This is a legacy that they've created. You know, they want to see it continue and shine after they've departed the business itself. So I can imagine that is very important when we talk about the process itself. Before we get to sort of valuation, I think we'll talk about that in a minute, in terms of the types of valuations you see, the type of deal structures you see, payouts and earnouts and all that thing. How surprising is it to business owners when maybe they engage a professional group like yours to say, okay guys, here's what you need to do to get ready.
Dean Colling: Is that a big deal for most clients or most business owners? Are they, oh my goodness, I can't believe how much cleanup and dress up and shine up I have to do to this business to get it to that point. And then maybe on a follow up to that, you know, is that some value add that you bring to the table and saying, hey, not only are we going to help you clean up, but this effort will create additional value for the business itself. Maybe talk about that process and how that works.
Christian Davis: Yeah, I mean, as you as you can as you can imagine, every business owner is different, right? 100%. This is where we say the value is derived in having processes in place and then documentation in place in order to drive a quick and efficient process. Right. And so that's part of it. One is, is just making sure that you've got all your I's dotted and your t's crossed. You wouldn't believe how many business owners where they tell you everything's fine and then you're in kind of final diligence documentation. And most of their contracts aren't signed, right. And they can't find their lease or it's, you know, signed by one party, not the other. So I would say, incredibly important to to get your ducks in a row.
Christian Davis: And if you want to rewind even further, I mean, I think it's not only making sure your documentation is in place, it is helping to ensure you are measuring and have the systems in place to help garner the data that a buyer will want, right? A business owner often will react to the business kind of on instinct or on on kind of gut feel. They know the business day in and day out. But I think where we come in is we help them think about what does the third party want to see? How can you prove to another party that you've got either consistency of sales or the repeatability of sales, and that is going to help drive value ultimately. And so rewind a bit further and we're there to help them try to think about what can they do now to drive value ahead of a sale.
Dean Colling: So in going a little bit deeper on the process itself, and obviously, as you mentioned, sort of getting all that data in place so that the buyer can see and have confidence in the fact that the lease is, as it says, or there's contracts, as they say, with all the transactions you've done over the years, you probably have come up with this. You know, common mistakes list that most business owners either have done prior to the lead up to a transaction, or doing during the preparation process. What are some if you got that list, what is what are some of the key mistakes that the business owners may run into?
Christian Davis: Yeah, yeah, there's definitely a list and there's definitely a few things on the list, but the one that I tend to see quite often is business owners, shareholders, not sort of empowering their management teams early on in the process. You know, they'll try to do a lot themselves and leave their management team out of it. And so twofold. One is really you get a better view on the business and you get a better forecast and story out of the management team, but then they feel like they're inside the tent rather than outside the tent. And I think that is crucial. I think everyone wants to ensure that there's no talk around the office, and it's confidential. Time and time again, where you try to leave your management team out until the last minute. Does you a disservice. And it's never been a bad thing.
Christian Davis: Every time you tell the management team, you have to position it appropriately. But it's always been a positive. So I'd say, I would say that's certainly one. The other is really not leaving enough growth for the buyer. Right. And again this is about maybe trying to figure out the right time to sell a business, but ensuring that you're leaving meat on the bone and you've got the right story in place for the buyer. Maybe I'll add the biggest, I guess the biggest issue through a process is often around the business performing through the process. And it might go back to the management team. But if you're trying to do everything yourself and you're not involving everyone, often you can take your eye off the ball and that's when performance might suffer through a process.
Dean Colling: Yeah. And that's that's a good lead in into sort of transaction structures and valuation, let's talk a little bit about that. Because obviously these are not just single dollar figures. Somebody cuts a check, everybody shakes hands and leaves. There's transition periods. There's earnout and performance incentives. I'm sure in that transition, management's got to stick around for a while or if not forever. And you know as an owner leaves. So let's walk through that. Let's say you get through the process and you get to this kind of valuation level, walk through maybe for us what a typical deal might look like. Do these things change over time? Do they change industry wise? And then maybe what the back end of these deals typically look like.
Christian Davis: Maybe I'll start with valuation. I think in their, valuation, I would say in our industry, mid-market is, tends to be focused on earnings, right, in some form. So a buyer is really buying the future earnings of a business, the future cash flow of the business. And that's true whether it's a private equity group or a strategic. And they'll have different control over what those earnings are going forward. But they're really buying the earnings of the business going forward. And we're looking at that as EBITDA. Right. Cash flow is, you know, in some form the same as earnings before interest tax and depreciation, it's not, but that's the metric, the rule of thumb that we kind of look at. So when we think about valuation we're typically looking at a multiple of EBITDA in certain industries, yes, multiple of sales. That's more technology software where really the cost structure is limited, sometimes in high growth consumer goods. But for the most part you're looking at a multiple of of EBITDA. And so maybe quickly, you know what drives that multiple, it can change by industry. But really again you're looking at the cash flow. And so you're looking at okay, how good is that cash flow, how repeatable is that cash flow.
Christian Davis: That's one piece. How fast is it growing, right, that's sort of another piece. And then how big is the cash flow, how big is the business? A business that's with $1 million in EBITDA and a business with $10 million in EBITDA, all else being equal, the larger is going to be valued higher. And again, that's about systems and kind of de-risking that business. So valuation is typically a multiple of EBITDA. You know the bigger the bid-ask spread between a buyer and a seller, right, that's where you get into structure. So maybe I'm going to touch a little bit on on structure. And I would say most deals as you said, the seller would love to have 100% cash on closing. And that's not that's certainly not unheard of. And lots of transactions that can happen. I'd say there's hold backs and escrow but essentially it's sort of 100% cash on closing, where there is significant growth in the business, or you want to get paid for some upside in the business, that's where you'll you'll tend to see some earnouts or deferred contingent consideration. And so that's where there's an earn out. If you hit these numbers then we'll pay-
Dean Colling: That's seller initiated to say, hey, I'm selling you a growthy business here, I want to give it to you, but I also want to share in the next couple of years of growth if we hit our targets. Is that-
Christian Davis: Yep, yep. That's accurate. It tends to come out after a couple discussions on purchase price. So you sort of ask for a purchase price and everyone gives you a number. And then through diligence either you're as a seller pushing the buyer to give you more, and we'll share in that risk to kind of get the upside or it's here's the number that we've got on the table. And the purchaser is saying, well, as I dig under the hood, I'm a little less certain around the, your forecast here. So why don't we take a portion of this purchase price and make it contingent so that, I mean, it's usually one or the other. And again, that's driven off of a bid-ask spread, usually in higher growth businesses as you moved, I would say down market and the smaller businesses, often it's not an earn out, but there's a vendor take back or a vendor note. It's really vendor financing that you often see in the smaller transactions. And that's because the buyer will, they don't have a really big balance sheet, they may not have enough capital. And so there's a bit of a gap in the cap structure. And that will typically come as a vendor note.
Dean Colling: Okay, and that makes sense. If we look at sort of these deals long term in terms of payouts, and I want to actually talk about just a nuance that maybe a lot of listeners wouldn't necessarily know when these negotiations are happening. And you get to that point where, you know, you've narrowed it down to, you know, one or a couple of buyers that are very interested and ready to put a deal together, or maybe even just one in this case, is it often that you're in the same room as the buyer buyer team and there's a live negotiation going on? Or is this usually a back and forth over the course of, you know, a few weeks, you know, and negotiating via email.
Christian Davis: Good question. It's, so, it used to be we were live and you would have full deal teams together, and you'd have breakout rooms and side sessions and try to get to a to a deal, a final deal in one day. And I'll say this is after a lot of diligence, this is after, you know, a lot of meetings. But when you're down to the short strokes that used to happen and I would say that's probably pre-COVID thing and maybe, maybe it's just our team. We haven't really had that live kind of single day, we're not leaving here until we've got a deal. You know, maybe it's the advent of of more virtual meetings, but I haven't I haven't seen that in a little while. So I mean, if it makes sense, I'll kind of just go quickly over kind of the process and how you even get to that point. Right. So really, I'll kind of give a sort of a quick and dirty in terms of what a typical sell side process with multiple buyers looks like. You know, it's going to be a 6 to 12 month process from start to finish. There's a preparation phase before you go out to market. That's a few months depending on how prepared the business is. But we're putting together marketing materials to go and solicit interest.
Christian Davis: Right. And so once that's prepared and we've agreed on the buyer list because that's very much a bespoke buyer list, then we go out on behalf of the company to solicit interest. And so we're having those conversations getting them to tell the shareholders what their view on value is. And that's an initial range. Typically it's between X and Y depending on a bunch of factors. And once we get those initial bids, those expressions of interest, we then will narrow the list and figure out who's going to come through and actually meet the management team or the ownership team, because that's really where you get to see each other face to face. The buyer gets to understand the business a little bit better, you know, directly from the seller and probably go on a management tour as well. So they get to kind of really get their fingers dirty a little bit, the nails dirty. Once they do some more diligence, then they're going to come in with the LOI. And this is really the bid, right? This is the bid where they say we've done diligence. We're confident that we can close in a deal that looks like this, So here's the purchase price, Here's the deal structure, here are the terms, here's what what's important to us.
Christian Davis: And if you give us the green light we're going to finalise diligence and get to the finish. And so the negotiation really is around that LOI. And kind of as you talk about like, can we get to a deal term that makes sense, so the negotiation is there. That's where we've got the power as a seller to kind of usually push one one buyer against another. And hopefully then you can kind of move then towards close, the rubber hits the road when you get into the purchase agreement. Right. So it's all great, the LOI is, you know, a fairly small document. It kind of lays out some terms, but it's not everything. So then when all the lawyers get involved and you're really parsing sort of the legal aspects of representations and warranties you're giving. What, how long are those going to survive? How much does your your escrow and your hold back? And there's quite a bit of nuance in there, but that's where you're down to a list of, you know, ten issues, right? There's an issues list. And that's where you're doing mostly on virtual calls these days, but that's when you kind of trading these issues at the very last minute to kind of agree, the final deal.
Dean Colling: Once you get an LOI, what's the conversion rate to done deal?
Christian Davis: Typically, yeah I would say, I would typically say, I mean you're kind of 80%, 90%, something has to go wrong typically once you're signed LOI, right. And so that it could be that something is uncovered, right. What was told wasn't what was discovered or some net new information comes to light. Or more typically if the business really doesn't perform. But it's for the most part, you know, it's something that you can get to close, right.
Dean Colling: Yeah. And I and I was curious to know your team's responsibility on behalf of the seller to vet the short list of potential candidates. Obviously, you know, there's always a lot of tire kickers that can come out there. And in just terms of efficiency, use of time, you know, how much of that do you guys do at the initial stages to say, you know, are in a real possibility? We're not going to bother or, you know, just shorting, shortening something that's, you know, much larger down to something that's manageable.
Christian Davis: Part of it is experience. I mean, again, every buyer list is going to be different, but private companies don't tend to buy private companies. So we need to make sure that the buyers have done this before. They have capital. They have the wherewithal to do something. Now granted, that's not always going to be bullet-proof. What drives them to kind of certainty is making them spend money, right? So working a process so that the buyer is spending money on third party advisors to due diligence, that shows that they're serious. They're looking to to close, also ensuring that they've got the capital. Maybe we can we can hear from their lenders and other kind of equity providers as well.
Dean Colling: You know we've talked about strategic or competitive buyers. That's probably a very narrow list, it's got to be a good fit. But let's talk more about the financial buyer. So public company or a private equity firm. One of the deals you and I did was with a a private company being acquired by a public company. Let's talk about that first because it's an interesting thing that listeners might be, might find valuable is to see sort of the delta or the difference between public company valuations or a dollar of earnings in a sector or an industry that's public versus that same business that's private. Talk about that, and maybe how the sort of the arbitrage goes on in a public to private acquisition, typically.
Christian Davis: You'll see the arbitrage by the public company is that they're going to pay you less than what they're trading for, right? So, you know, the hope is that they're going to get $100 of EBITDA for less than the market's paying them for it. You'll see certainly cases where they'll will pay more. The goal will ultimately be that through synergies there's going to be, you know, accretive to the business over time, right. So certainly public companies are looking for accretion to their kind of current trading multiple. The deal that we worked on together, it was interesting right. So just kind of touch on, we had public companies that were at the table, we had a lot of companies that were backed by private equity, right.
Christian Davis: So these are strategic sort of competitive players in the market. But they've got a large private equity group in behind them. And we had private equity groups that were just looking to buy the business, the company as a standalone platform. So we had sort of all three in the mix, and that was one where they were able to really compare and contrast. You know, strategic is important. We always like to say you want the buyers to see you as not only a nice to have, but gets you up to a need to have and then a have to have. And the have to have is really where they want to ensure the other people don't get you, right. So it's not only that they want you, but it's they want someone else not to have you. So that's really if you can do it where the value is created.
Dean Colling: Put it, just for the listeners as well, put the lenses of a private equity, you know this is a strictly financial buyer. They are just looking at the financial metrics of that business and the capital that they have. How do they approach something like this, like any well, any private business really.
Christian Davis: So private equity, I mean, it's really been a boon for, I guess, private shareholders, private company owners in Canada and North America, around the world in that business owners tend to, you know, they've built a great business. They're probably de-risking as they as they get older, they probably have a little bit more investment they could do. But yeah, they'd like to spend a bit more time away from the business as well. So there are opportunities in the business that that maybe haven't capitalised on. And so that could be growth opportunities. It could be different investments. It could be building out more governance, could be making acquisitions. And they didn't want to do that because, well, that's additional capital they'd have to outlay. So private equity typically is coming in to invest in a business. And they're looking to buy, say, 60 to 80% of that business, but have either the management team or the existing shareholder ownership group retain some equity. So they've got skin in the game. Private equity is not looking to run the business, but they're looking to partner with the the management team or the ownership team to drive that next stage of growth.
Christian Davis: And so they'll bring capital for that next stage of growth. So you're, as a business owner, you're able to kind of continue to run the business, grow the business, but de-risk your own capital. Again, private equity will bring to bear a little bit of governance, maybe some acquisitions, something that you wouldn't do as a standalone private equity group. If it's done correctly, they'll grow a business from two, five million of EBITDA to a business with ten, fifteen, twenty, and as I said before, the multiple on those businesses will be higher all else being equal. So private equity likes businesses that have built a long track record, a good kind of solid business with good customer relationships, probably diverse customer relationships, you know, a good reason to be in the market, like moat around the business. But there's still a lot of meat there. There's still things that can be done to really kind of take that business to the next level.
Dean Colling: And typically what have you seen in terms of life cycle of private equity involvement in these businesses? Obviously they've got their own investors to answer to, they have liquidity objectives, they need to sort of realise value. How long are you usually seeing private equity partners involved in a transaction or business, is it 5 to 10 years, is it any longer than that, they typically cycle out after that point?
Christian Davis: Yeah I mean I think I think that's about right. I would say private equity funds again, the typical one will have a bit of a ten year sort of lifespan. And that ten year lifespan will be for the equity group to make acquisitions, put money to work, grow those businesses and then sell it and realise on that capital and return it to their investors. So that's a ten year span. So people would typically say their investment period in a business will be three to seven years, I would say in Canada it's probably, yeah, four to seven yeah. It's probably been a bit longer through Covid right, I think everyone's seen those hold periods go up. You probably see in the US private equity world a little bit shorter. They tend to come in a bit more aggressive, make a lot of investments early on in the, in their hold period and will be opportunistic on that exit.
Christian Davis: I find it's probably a little bit longer in Canada. You know it's five to seven, can be ten years. The good news for business owners is there are more groups now that have a longer investment horizon. So it could be family offices. It could be groups that have a longer sort of fund life. And so we're seeing folks that have kind of fifteen, twenty, twenty five year investment horizons and they'll they'll come in and make acquisitions of businesses that have a lower growth. Right. They're okay to have one that's going to be around for twenty years. They want to make sure it's around for 20 years, but it doesn't need to be growing at kind of 20% a year. They can make the math work.
Dean Colling: Fair enough, yeah. Um, so as we sort of wrap up here, I kind of want to get your view of maybe the next 12 to 24 months in terms of, you know, again, this lower rate environment, for the most part, a fairly solid economic footing here. Corporate earnings are decent. Um, you know, we may get some regulatory environment changes in the years ahead with various governments in both Canada and the US. Um, you know, what do you think the landscape for mergers and divestitures are in maybe the coming 12 to 14 months. Do you think this is going to ramp up, do you think valuations will be better, is it still a seller's market for the next couple of years?
Christian Davis: And volumes again are driven off of the baby boomers needing to exit, right? So that's a big piece of it. So the number of businesses that have a succession event coming in the next ten years, next probably five years is considerable. And most of those are not going to be internal, right. So we're seeing more and more business owners think about a third party exit. And we could get into all the reasons why. But it's complicated to transition a business from first to second to third generation. It's very complicated. And more and more it's, you know, a rational and reasonable decision to to bring in a third party. So I think the volume and the supply of businesses is going to be there. I think you made a great point, interest rate environment has come down. We're looking to see that growth doesn't stall too much. We still need to see a bit of growth. But the certainty and the outlook right now is pretty positive, and I think that is what's going to drive volume. Again, it's making sure that investors are comfortable with where the businesses are going, and I think that's going to be. I think we'll see an alignment between buyers and sellers in the next kind of 12, 18 to 24 months. So I think generally a positive time.
Dean Colling: That's good to know. You know, and I can tell, you know, the listeners from an experience that engaging, you know, professional groups like yours in a process, and we walk through it, a little bit earlier about just taking it from initial stages to getting ready for sale. That process in itself can add a ton of value, but then having a professional auction process and bringing in a broader range of potential buyers that the business owner may not have even thought of certainly just helps push that valuation up. And it's been really, really successful with all the ones that I know we've done. So if we leave it, you know, maybe one thing for the listeners and of those who are actually business owners, maybe one or two things that you would think are the most important things that they should think about with their business at least early stage. They're thinking of perhaps selling in the next couple of years. What are some of the two, like just one or two, you know, little nuggets that they can think about, this is what I need to start doing today.
Christian Davis: So it's key to start early. And I would say it's not one to two years, it's probably longer. Surround yourself by the right advisors. So it has to be a wealth advisor to figure out, get a plan for what does it look like. If you get a knock on the door, you're on your back foot. You need you need to be thinking about this ahead of time. Say a financial advisor, a wealth advisor. Think about tax. You have to be thinking about what is the post succession event look like, right? It's going to be a very different world. Most business owners have, I would say, most of their wealth wrapped up in a business. Right. And so it's illiquid and it's changing to kind of a liquid wealth that's going to change your kind of family's view, your family's kind of financial horizon, I guess. So number one is surround yourself by the proper advisors. But two is start early. And to think like a seller, you don't need to plan to sell your business, but you should think about the business as if it were going to be for sale. So you know that is about the documentation. It's about making sure it's a clean business. It's about perhaps getting your books audited instead of notice to reader or a review, but planning the business so that it's ready for a sale if and when one is going to happen. Because you never know when someone's going to knock on the door and you want to be able to move quickly, but it's probably going to be a better business if you think about your business as if it's potentially going to be for sale.
Dean Colling: Yeah, that's really good advice, Christian. Thank you for your time today. That was a good chat. And we're going to have to do this again sometime soon. We'll we'll do an update on kind of market conditions. And maybe in the next conversation we can talk a little bit, maybe some specific deal structures get a little bit more into the weeds for for the listeners. But I think this gave them a really good overview of, you know, high level down to how do you get why you should start engaging groups to take you to the process. What are the things you need to think about? What evaluations look like? And again, I think the key message you made at the end there is again is think like a seller and prepare. Thanks again for your time. Great to see you and we look forward to talking to everybody on the next episode of of Wealthview.
Christian Davis: Thanks, Dean. Really appreciate it.
Announcer: Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed our show, please consider sharing the episode with your friends. Be sure to check out our website for new episodes every few months.
[The podcast opens on an introduction graphic with CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. The text reads: Wealthview, Hosted by Dean Colling, Senior Portfolio Manager & Wealth Advisor, October, 2024. On the left side of the screen are a group of graphics consisting of two speech bubbles, a stylized group of gears, and a bar graph with an arrow in an uptrend. The text on the left hand side reads: Philosophy, Strategy & Insights.]
Announcer: You're listening to Wealthview, the podcast where we share philosophy, strategy and insights from some of Canada's top financial professionals.
[A brief montage consisting of a street level view of traffic in downtown Toronto, high-rise buildings, Dean Colling speaking on a microphone, and a bird’s eye view of a four-way intersection plays on the left side of the screen.]
Announcer: Hosted by Dean Colling, senior Wealth Advisor and portfolio Manager at CIBC Private Wealth. Edited and produced by the Colling Group. And now on to the show.
[The screen fades to black, and transitions to a graphic on the left side of the screen consisting of a wave form that tracks the speech of the participants. On the right side of the screen is a headshot of Dean Colling, below Dean’s headshot is text that reads: Dean Colling, Senior Portfolio Manager & Wealth Advisor, CIBC. Below Dean’s headshot is Geoff Castle’s headshot, below Geoff’s headshot is text that reads: Geoff Castle, Lead Portfolio Manager, Fixed Income, PenderFund Capital Management.]
Dean Colling: Welcome to Wealthview. I'm your host, Dean Colling. On this edition of Wealthview, we're going to discuss interest rates and the end of one of the most aggressive tightening cycles in economic history. Joining me today is Geoff Castle. He's a portfolio manager at PenderFund Capital Management and the lead on their corporate bond fund. Geoff's been a professional investor for over two decades with a specific focus on credit analysis and business valuation. In his tenure as portfolio manager, he has received numerous industry awards for outstanding performance on a risk-adjusted basis. Geoff, welcome to Wealthview.
Geoff Castle: Hey, Dean, great to be here.
Dean Colling: Well, it's great to have you, and it is in particular, it's great because this is a unique day for us. Obviously, we're going to be talking about fixed income and credit markets today with you. And you know we've got a unique event today where this is a the changeover of what's been a very, very tight monetary policy regime around the world and particularly in the US. We had a big rate cut today in the US. That's going to be interesting. We're going to spend a lot of time on that. But before we do, why don't you give the audience a little bit of background on you and what brought you to this place today with Pender?
Geoff Castle: Thanks, Dean. So, you know, I've been an investment professional for over, I guess, 24 years now being in the business. And, you know, my background as an investor was I began as an equities investor with a company called AIC in 2000, which was at the time the largest privately held Canadian mutual fund manager.
Dean Colling: I remember those guys, yeah.
Geoff Castle: Yeah, and around about 2008, 2009, I became a credit guy, no longer an equity guy. And in 2015, I joined this little firm called PenderFund Capital Management in Vancouver as manager of the Pender Corporate Bond Fund, which at the time was a $100 million fund. And we were kind of facing some difficult markets back then. And as it turned out, those difficult markets had a lot of opportunity. We had some wonderful years of performance, and over the last ten years, we've grown that fund from about 100 million to 1.9 billion today. And, you know, our approach has generally been to find attractive yields relative to their risk of default of the issuer and find pockets of inefficiencies in the market, and credit markets being what they are that's been a really successful niche to be in. So you can get more than just the underlying yield that's available in the government bond market, but get some real interesting price discounts and some corporate bond structures. And that's helped us to deliver a really solid return for investors over the past ten years.
Dean Colling: Yeah. And many of our listeners, clients of ours, know that you and your fund represent a pretty sizeable position in our Colling Group Global Fixed Income strategy. The reasons we've brought you in and your team is, is for just what you said. This is sort of a real alpha, value added kind of credit analysis fund that, you know, you're seeking great value for companies that all of a sudden enjoy a better future, lower cost of capital and and a lift in bond prices. So it's been a real nice advantage to have in our overall strategy.
Dean Colling: Tell me how you approach the universe in, essentially in North America, in terms of sectors, and are you a sector agnostic, in terms of size, in terms of liquidity?
Geoff Castle: Yeah, so one of the things we look for in the bond market, look, there are thousands of issuers. I think there's something like 3000 issuers of bonds in US dollars or Canadian dollars, more than 100 million. So a big universe out there. So our approach to finding ideas is we look around sectors and indices for places and pockets in the market where you see things trading 2 or 3 standard deviations as widely kind of out of the normal level in terms of cheapness. And then when we get a market that we identify like that, you know, for instance, we might take a look at, you know, the oil and gas market, or it might be shipping or it might be recently kind of post-pandemic. There were a lot of kind of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies which are, you know, really, really cheap from the point of view of the enterprise value relative to, let's say, the sales of the company or the price to book or some financial metric. And then that will give us an area to start digging in, and then we'll say, well, let's get down to the issuer level and we'll find a name.
Geoff Castle: Let me give you an example. So this last year, one of the the nice performers we had in the fund was a company called Esperion. And it makes a kind of a cholesterol lowering drug. So for people to remember Pfizer in the 90s and 2000, they had this drug called Lipitor, which was a blockbuster of all blockbusters. It went generic, and Esperion's drug represents sort of the next step forward. And this drug was launched during the pandemic, and not a lot of people were going to the doctor in the pandemic to have cholesterol checks.
Geoff Castle: And so the launch was a bit of a flop, but the drug works. And then in subsequent years, as you know, more patients were doing more kind of like overall medicals. And the company itself produced some data on the effectiveness of the drug. You saw, you know, prescription counts come up and, and sort of a kind of a strong, you know, company performance by the company. So we're bond investors. What we saw was a bond where we thought the company was worth the, you know, far more than the debt. And yet the bonds, you know, late in 2023 were trading around $0.40 on the dollar, right?
Geoff Castle: And we looked at this, this company and what we thought the value was. We saw where the credit was and it just didn't add up. And so we made it one of our larger positions. And then, you know, as the good results continue to come and the market began to pay attention, you know, the underlying equity related to Esperion did well. But also the bonds went from sort of $0.40 on the dollar to where they are in the mid 90s. And so from the point of view of 40 going to mid 90s, that's, you know, over 100% return and you put a kind of a one and a half or 2% position there and that can, you know, in the context of a bond fund add up. So that's the kind of idea which, you know, it's a bond idea, but it's not necessarily something where the prevailing interest rate moving around, you know, 25 basis points really influences that much. It's just an opportunity in the capital markets to take advantage of an inefficiently priced security.
Dean Colling: At the beginning of that analysis you sounded like an equity guy at first, right? And as I say, maybe you're your old equity side, sort of identifying the opportunity, and then going in and looking at the balance sheet, and cost of capital and pricing, and see where you can see that value.
Geoff Castle: Yeah. I mean, you're looking for an undervalued capital structure. The nice thing about credit is you're playing like the less risky part of that capital structure. I often, you know, if you are familiar to going to the horse races, it's kind of like we're betting on the favourite to show, you know, as opposed to betting on the long shot that you do sometimes in the equity markets. And that has been a way to over time, now, obviously, you know, we have a lot of just regular kind of bonds that we think, you know, they're yielding 6% and maybe they're of a risk where they ought to be yielding 5.5%. And so we, you know, buy a bond a bit cheap to what it should be, and that's obviously a big part of what we do. You know, it all adds up in terms of total return of the fund.
Dean Colling: And like, and obviously you're not looking at distressed securities per se. You're not going there in the sense that there's more of just undervalued, or will you dip into the distressed market every once in a while?
Geoff Castle: So we have, you know, sort of three buckets of, of, you know, kind of securities in the fund, sort of bucket one, which is the biggest bucket is things with very, very low levels of default risk and really kind of like either investment grade or if they're not investment grade, they're securities with a very, very low default risk that are kind of trading well and priced relatively tightly to the curve, we're looking for, you know, anomalies in there. We have kind of bucket two, which is sort of a mid-range kind of high yield. But there is a bucket three where we will look at a kind of distressed security, and in our fund we can even do things like walk a bond through bankruptcy. One of the secrets of the of the bond market that's not well known is that the highest returning segment of the bond market is actually in senior unsecured debt in the two years following it filing chapter 11. Now, by the way, Dean, you do not want to hold that bond in the two years prior to it filing chapter 11, because that's, you know, obviously a bond will go from 100 to a very low number, like $0.30 or $0.40 on the dollar.
Geoff Castle: But subsequent to a workout, what often happens is, you know, a bond like that going through bankruptcy, bought a low price, you'll get back maybe a piece of take back debt, you know, but you might also get some of your debt equitized. But the performance of the equity can actually do reasonably well if it's, you know, cheap and you can have a good total return from that. So I think the, you know, in the two years following a chapter 11, you know, studies show that there are, you know, as much as a 20% IRR on that debt in the first two years. So it's been, you know, a pocket where we don't do a ton of it, you know, we limit real distressed securities, never much more than 4%, or 5%, 6% of the fund. But it is an area where we've been able to generate some interesting returns.
Dean Colling: Yeah. That's interesting. And if we talk about the capital structure or various types of securities, I know you have done well with some convertibles this year. Do you get into the pref market at all? What other types of instruments do you bring into the portfolio?
Geoff Castle: Yeah, one of our the other sort of tools in our toolkit that other funds sometimes don't have is our ability to look at many different types of securities, often from the same issuer. So, you know, an issuer of bonds might also have a floating rate term loan, they might have preferred shares. You know, there would be you know, sometimes it would be a convertible bond in that structure. And so we think with the credit skill set, particularly if you're able also to kind of value an entity, then you can look at a variety of different types of securities. So yeah, we do get involved in convertible bonds. And sometimes, you know we typically will initiate those positions in the convertible bond in what we call a busted convert, which would mean that if it was issued, let's say the stock of the company that issued the convertible bond was trading at ten, they might issue a convertible bond with a strike price, or that it would convert into stock at, let's say, $12. Well, if the stock of that issuer falls to sort of $4 or $5, the bond might be still good from the point of view of credit. Like they can pay it off on maturity, but from the point of view of the option value of the convertibility, it would disappear.
Geoff Castle: And so it would be called what you call a busted convert. And it might trade at, let's say, $0.75 or $0.80 on the dollar to yield, let's say, 7% to its maturity date. But if you come upon an issuer like that, at which point when the related equity, like the whole company's value is undervalued, maybe it's gone through, its industry has gone through, a downturn or a cyclical dislocation or something of that nature. There's always the outside chance that you can have it stock go back up and the convertible bonds go back into the money. So you might have signed up thinking you'd get 7% just getting that thing paid out at 100 maturity, but you could get more than that. And one example recently for us in the corporate bond fund was we were invested in a company called Novavax. And Novavax, many listeners will remember that from the pandemic, it was one of the 4 or 5 companies that had a Covid-19 vaccine. And of course, as the pandemic ended, the prospects for Novavax and a bunch of other vaccine makers diminished significantly. And we looked at that, you know, Novavax late last year and saw a convertible bond, you know, priced in the 50s to yield over 20% to its 2027 maturity.
Geoff Castle: And, you know, had a lot more cash than debt, and there was a whole number of reasons why we thought it might pay out at par. A bunch of different things happen, I'm not going to go through the entire rigmarole as a story. But ultimately, what happened is that, you know, in about May of this year, a company called Sanofi came along and bid, you know, three times the market cap of Novavax at the time for its main product. They weren't even buying the company, they were just buying its main product, and that caused the stock of the company to move to such a point where the convertible bond we bought in the 50s actually went into the money, that you could have converted it and put it into stock, and made money at the level of the stock was trading. So we got out of that position around 109 cents on the dollar. So we made you know around about 100% on that position. And that's kind of one of the, you know, sort of hidden opportunities within a convertible bond. Sometimes the stock does its thing. And. You know, we were comfortable, again, we were taking the base level return, but if it happens that way we'll we won't turn away the extra money.
Dean Colling: Take me through the portfolio diversification, in terms of sectors and position sizing and things like that. And is there any sectors that you, as a rule, avoid or just some you know you prefer over others?
Geoff Castle: Yeah, we are like, from the point of view of sectors in the market, we are diversified across a number of different sectors and a few different geographies as well. I'll say our approach to it is not necessarily what a lot of people's approach to sectors diversification is. So, for instance, one of my first meetings in the investment business back when I was a wet behind the ears telecoms equity analyst at AIC, there was a guy from the Dresdner RCM Global Telecom Fund came into Burlington and he was going to have lunch with me. And so the night before, I studied up on his fund, and I noticed that his number one position in the fund was Nippon Telephone and Telegraph. So I sat down at lunch and I said, hey, I read about your fund and your number one position was NT&T, can you tell me all about it? And the guy looked at me straight in the eye and he goes, Geoff, I don't know a damn thing about NT&T, it's just the largest weight in my index, so I market weighted it. So, we don't do that, but suffice it to say, that is how some people diversify by sector. What we do is we hold a relatively small number of positions, 80% of the fund is in the top 60 issuers within the fund. And some of those issuers are things like McDonald's and Loblaw, which I don't toss and turn a lot at night, you know, worrying about their results. So we have about three dozen issuers of some significant size, we think we have value at risk, and those we do diversify by sector just because we like to take some different bets.
Geoff Castle: But we know the intimate details of each of those names, and we are in contact with management and we follow things along that develops in that company, so that when you see a press release coming to that company, hopefully you've understood what they were doing before, and it doesn't come as a surprise to you to say, oh, they were trying to sell that division and they were successful, that's interesting to see. So you have a level of understanding which you can't do over-diversified, but you're going to find sometimes some sectors have more opportunities than others. So you know, when the price of oil was negative, you remember that?
Dean Colling: Oh yeah.
Geoff Castle: -$38 a barrel? The day that the price of oil hit -$38 a barrel, we were buying the first lien secured term loan of Chesapeake, which is a Texas based oil producer, between $0.30 and $0.40 on the dollar. You know, that thing was worth over 100, you know, less than a year later. You know, sometimes a sector goes into one of those issues and you have to look at yourself and say, is the price of oil going to stay negative for a long time? Probably not. But people are scared and those are where you get opportunities. And the thing about, you know, difficult times in the market is that rolls around from sector to sector. So you get a chance to get in a bunch of different sectors.
Dean Colling: And that's why we like it too. I mean we, this is a very alpha seeking strategy, but really from our due diligence with your group, take risk management seriously, and you know and it's shown in over the last I forget how many years we've had you in the strategy. But really drawdowns have been very, very limited. Let's switch gears for a second and talk about Pender as a group, your team, a little bit of background on the other folks on the team, other guys doing credit analysis. We'll give some of them credit as well. I know you're the lead guy, but I'm sure you don't do it alone. Can you tell us a little bit about that?
Geoff Castle: Yeah, I don't do it all myself. And without a really solid team at Pender, it would be impossible to do what we do consistently for as long as we have. So there's five full time people dedicated to Pender Corporate Bond Fund. In addition to myself, Parul Garg, who's been with me on the mandate for the past nine years. You know, in terms of area of speciality, she really focuses in on some of these distressed and distressed names, some of which we've talked about here and a big part of the team. Another person very important on the team is Emily Wheeler. Emily joined us about five years ago. She also works on, you know, some of the funky credit names we have within the core bond fund. But she also focuses a bit on the investment grade. We haven't talked much about the investment grade side of things, but it's a very important part of our mandate, trying to get a return in some less risky things, but still trying to optimise return there. And she and I work together on a side project, the Pender Bond Universe Fund, which is more investment grade. There are a couple of other analysts on our team and also outside of our own specific team. There were a couple of other mandates within Pender, where one is the absolute return fund that's run by my colleague Justin Jacobson, who's a very experienced credit analyst.
Geoff Castle: He runs a kind of absolute return long short hedge fund. There's analysts that support him. And then outside of that, obviously we have an equity team, and equity team relationship with a bond team is kind of funny because we were also a more conservative, we're kind of like the downers of the party in terms of not worrying about things going to the moon, but only going to 100. We have a conversation and a dialogue about opportunities that they see and whether we think the bonds are attractive in the situation. Likewise, we might throw one across the fence at them and say, here's where the bond might not be as attractive, but this company is doing really well. You maybe should should look at that on the equity side and that, you know, we're not such a big company that the equity team is on the third floor of building B, and we're on the 19th floor of building A, and we all kind of sit together. And it's really a great kind of environment to be part of a sort of an alpha seeking boutique.
Dean Colling: Yeah. That's the vibe we got when we were doing our due diligence is that, you know, experienced enough group across absolute return, across credit, across equity. But idea sharing amongst all groups and that's that's pretty valuable to the end investor in your fund in particular. You know, at the beginning of our chat we talked a little bit about uh, today, obviously we had a 50 basis point rate cut by the US Federal Reserve, marking the end of a historical tightening cycle. Um, started back in 2022, and rates went up more than they ever had on an absolute basis, um, in terms of time and quantum. So, you know, this was fairly telegraphed, obviously most people felt there was either a quarter or a 50. Where were you guys? Were you in the quarter or the 50 camp or we don't care camp?
Geoff Castle: We weren't really orienting many investment decisions around whether it was a quarter or a 50. I would say that where we've been generally on on the fed was that we could see the slowdown developing the economy. I mean, you know, it's often said that, you know, monetary policy works with a lag. But I think that and maybe people hear that, but people forget it a lot. And so, you know, people are, I think, there's quite a lot of negativity around bonds last year when, you know, rates would be going up and up and up, and people were worried about inflation and bonds going up, bond yields going up further, therefore bond prices going down more. Um, at some point last year we realised, look this is going to have an impact. And actually if you take a look at, you know, one indicator the US composite leading indicator I think is it's declined. It's gone down for something like 23 months in a row. So we knew things were softening. And you can kind of see it now in unemployment and that kind of statistic as well. So we really were expecting the fed to come on on board with cuts for four or five, six months now. And we've seen some early indicators of that one thing.
Geoff Castle: If you watch the other central banks in the world, I mean, you see obviously the Bank of Canada got a head start on the fed, but so did you know 20 or 30 other major central banks, and you could kind of see the trend moving from all central banks in hiking mode, to most central banks in pause mode, to some of the of the early indicators of central banks kind of starting to cut. And now you're going to see, you know, kind of the herd of elephants all kind of moving together as they go into cutting mode. And, you know, we honestly, we didn't know how high things were going to go when they were hiking. And we don't really know how low things are going to go now that they've been cutting. Obviously here was a 50 basis point cut on one day. So it gets you off to a big start in the uh, in the US kind of yield curve. I mean, I think that we had looked at, if you look at what the market was saying, I mean, the market doesn't actually set the overnight rate. That's the Federal Reserve, but the market does set the rate all the way along the curve. So what you'd seen is, you know, you had yields in the kind of between 5 and 10 years as high as, you know, the high fours, low fives, uh, about a year ago that's already moved down to about three and a half, so you've already had quite a big move along the curve.
Geoff Castle: And I think this is what you're seeing, the market discounting future fed cuts and how low that goes. I'm not sure we're going back to, you know, 1% or 0.5% or something like that on the on the fed funds rate. I think that we might end up at a, let's say, a higher low versus where we were in 2020. And that might be honestly, the direction for the next 10 to 15 years that we kind of had, I think a blow off bottom in terms of yields back in 2020. And you remember we were talking about $17 trillion worth of bonds that were having negative yields, to me was the absolute blow off insanity low of the bond market rally that was 40 years long. And, you know, bond market moves in long cycles. You know, maybe we've got 15 or so years of a gradually rising, you know, yield curve with occasional counter-trend rallies, counter-trend declines like we're seeing in this year.
Dean Colling: Yeah, it was amazing back in those days where we would see brand new bond issuers buy, you know, governments or good solid, you know, investment grade corps with a coupon on their prospectus of zero, you know. And there was still a line up to buy them.
Geoff Castle: So we used to joke that, you know, you should get off a zero coupon perpetual.
Dean Colling: Yeah.
Geoff Castle: That's otherwise otherwise known as just taking their money.
Dean Colling: Yeah, exactly.
Dean Colling: It was just a weird situation. So, yeah, so here we are. And, you know, we've been saying that to clients and writing about it, we don't want a zero rate environment. There's, there's, we wrote a piece, uh, last year on the dangers of free money in a zero rate environment. We want something a little bit more normalised, but it's interesting to see maybe what your viewpoint on this is, is that because this is a monetary cycle that was born out of Covid, this was a very unique circumstance. I mean, this is not a normal economic cycle where things got overheated, and now we need to cut rates and or raise rates. Sorry. And then, you know, and growth slows as a result of that. This was just a absolutely new playbook that no central banker could really know what to do. And so, you know, we'll flood the system with money, and until you know, we're okay again, and then we'll pull it back out. Like how did you guys, can we, can we say this time it's different?
Geoff Castle: Well, you make a good point in that the things that drove inflation to their heights, I mean, central bankers were roasted for saying inflation was going to be transitory because, you know, the high inflation levels lasted, you know, more than three months. They lasted more like a year and a half. But in a way, they weren't totally wrong.
Dean Colling: I know.
Geoff Castle: Right. And so and there was the rare circumstances around shutting down the entire economy, the supply chain bottlenecks that kind of resulted, the unprecedented cash in the jeans kind of policy that most governments came out with, and then the kind of the, the bottleneck in terms of actually accessing product and so forth. I mean, that was a kind of unique circumstance. And if it was like super quick to kind of go up, it has also been kind of somewhat symmetrically quick to kind of fizzle out. That being said, I do think that this may have happened within the context of a longer term inflationary cycle, but the particular facts around this last year or two suggest that it may be a bit of a relatively short cycle, and maybe not as deep as people might have expected, given the inverted yield curve and, you know, a leading indicator that was declining. But, you know, maybe it is something that will prove to be a bit unusual from that point of view.
Dean Colling: Yeah. One of our viewpoints was as well, and you mentioned it earlier, about bond yields out on the curve at the sort of five and ten year rate. I mean, we always say and this is a credit to you, you bond guys, the bond guys are always the smart guys. They're really looking at it from a credit perspective. But had they had, you know, had the collective bond market felt that inflation was going to be a long term secular problem those yields wouldn't hung around there in the fours. They would have been far further up, nobody likes to get a negative real return on their on their bonds. And those rates would have gone higher if the bond market felt that inflation was going to be really, really sticky.
Geoff Castle: Well, the funny thing about the yield curve and again, you know, if you go back and think about what the yield curve looked like in the 70s and the 80s, one of the interesting thing is there just wasn't that much debt in the scheme of things, relative to the size of the economy, relative to the size of people's incomes back then. And as we went through, I kind of call this period the great barbecue, you know, sort of between the early 80s and the 2020s, early 2020s, where you take like the short term interest rates, go from 13% to 14%, basically to nothing all around the developed world. You did get, um, some strange phenomenons towards the end of that, and that was any hint of rising rates brought out central banks to basically print up a relatively unlimited amount of cash to buy down bonds at a certain yield. So we're not currently in North America in a yield curve control environment now, but we have been in the last the last decade. And if you take a look across the Pacific over to Japan, I mean, look at the reverberations around them, just backing off that stance to a degree for a long time. The most interesting thing about the Bank of Japan's, you know, the Bank of Japan would come out, they have the interest rate decisions, but they wouldn't just have interest rate decisions, was rather boring because it's zero again, but they'd also say how much money they were going to use to buy down the ten year JGB, down to a certain specific yield around like 0.1%.
Geoff Castle: And just backing off that stance to a degree has caused, you know, some some shaking around the market. So what I'm thinking is that as we go, you know, out of this kind of Covid driven cycle back to what I would call the regular cycle, we're still dealing with that huge, the huge levels of debt which exist both of the private and government levels in the West, and there still is a question of how that normalises and will that normalise without yield curve control. And I think if people believe that there would never be a yield curve control again, or the central banks would never buy their own bonds again, you might actually see a much higher long bond because, you know, people wouldn't think there's someone there to to back them up. But in a way, those tools which are kind of unpacked after the financial crisis, are still in the arsenal of central banks. And so I think that is keeping people from, you know, keeping the bond vigilantes, as they call them, away from too aggressively shorting bonds along the curve. But over time, I wouldn't be surprised if we see that the 40 year bull market kind of unwind a bit. And let's go back towards higher absolute rates over a kind of a 5 or 10 year horizon.
Dean Colling: Okay. Interesting. And so we're kind of talking a little bit of macro here, which I think if you ask any portfolio manager, they try to say that macro doesn't matter that much. But I want to know from you guys how much does the macro view have impact on your investment decisions or your strategic positioning in the portfolio?
Geoff Castle: Well, a lot of times it has no impact because we're looking, you know, very specifically like that case I talked about earlier with Esperion, which is more to do with what was happening with one drug company and selling their drug. Other times there are, you know, industries where the level of real interest rates, that is like the level of interest rate minus the level of inflation kind of comes to bear. So, for instance, if you take a look at the gold mining industry, you know, the price of gold tends to respond very well in periods when inflation is higher than the prevailing level of interest rates, or a situation you call negative real interest rates. And it tends to do poorly in situations where real interest rates are quite high. And so when you see, I think what we might see over the next couple of years is as rates come down, there has been a kind of underinvestment in certain commodity sectors, and some producer prices might go up and you might see a reignition of higher interest rates. And so it's interesting that, you know, the gold market is kind of sniffed that out a bit. And and, you know, we don't actually necessarily invest in the bullion, but you also see the gold miners where there are some very interesting securities, you can make a lot of money potentially. But we would look part of this thesis on those investments in, you know, let's say you take the Equinox gold convertible bonds.
Geoff Castle: Well, you know, if that strike price of the bond is like $6.50 or so and the stock goes to like $10, when obviously you're buying that otherwise is going to make you 4.5% coupon or so you might make, you know, 50% return or something like that. And so we pay attention to the macro as it relates to these particular sectors. I mean, another place we look at macro for would be something like the utility sector, where, you know, let me characterise that sector, the the profitability is more or less locked in. If you're running a regulated utility, as long as you invest your capital, the regulator allows you to earn a stated return on capital. It's not very exciting, from the point of view when large returns are available to corporates. But when the economy is in a bit of a profit slump, then utility type profits become relatively scarce and those securities can again do quite well. And again, there are convertible bonds in the utility area where you can actually again make more than just a coupon. And also just the yields on high quality credit, you know, might come down from six down to three or something like that. And so, so long as the profitability of the underlying issuer is not in question. And so, you know, utilities might be a really interesting sector to get involved in right now, if you believe the slowdown in the economy is going to continue.
Dean Colling: Does yield curve positioning and trying to sort of catch the tailwind of falling rates come into play? Or are you guys relatively, like how long have you been in terms of duration in the fund and where you positioned today?
Geoff Castle: Yeah, there's um, there's a measure in the market called the term premium, which is sort of a mathematically derived number, which essentially tells you whether you're getting paid a lot to extend duration or not. And in the absolute lows of the, you know, of yields in the summer of 2020, the phenomenon we saw is if you measure the term premium versus a ten year US Treasury, for example, you saw that the term premium was negative, right? So basically the market was basically paying extra for the added volatility that comes with ten years of duration. And you can kind of see how that turned out. If you bought a ten year US Treasury in August of 2020, yielding 0.5% over the next approximately two years, it declined in price, something like 22%. So imagine you took a client, you said you're going to make 0.5% a year in this investment I'm making for you. And the first two years you give them more than -40 years worth of returns. Now, look, if you if you held that that bond to its maturity in 2030, you would have over that time earned, I promise you, 0.5% US dollars per year.
Geoff Castle: But imagine taking that that 40 year drawdown first and having to explain that and people trying to understand who aren't necessarily in the bond market every day. So what we try to do with our fund is when the term premium is positive or higher, we try to take on a bit more duration. So what you've seen us do in the last couple of years is move our duration from around two to closer to four, kind of like 3.7, 3.8. And then when the term premium comes down, try to go back more towards the front end of the curve, where you're not relying so much on what happens with the overall term premium. Now, in corporate credit, you also have to overlay on top of what happens in the government curve, what the spread is. So we might actually, even if there wasn't much of a term premium in the government market, we might still, because of security, might be distressed, we might still buy a corporate bond. And that's only because, let's say $0.60 or $0.70 on the dollar, we think we might go to $0.80 or something like that.
Dean Colling: Yeah. And then that's that's kind of what we like about you guys as well is when we're building a strategy, a global fixed income strategy, you know, we look to your group to really not incorporate a lot of interest rate risk. This is more credit and relative credit value, and that's what you guys have been doing very, very well. Sticking with the macro theme, obviously we had an interesting day today as we just mentioned, and we've got something else coming up in a few weeks, six weeks or so. We've got a US election. How do you feel about that? And does that play into your view in terms of credit risk or just how the market will react in the next couple of months?
Geoff Castle: Yeah, it's obviously a big event that is probably on the minds of lots of investors. In a way it's kind of hard to, I mean, there obviously are some securities associated with each side of, of that election that are kind of aligned with the Democrats being ahead or the Republicans being ahead. I think as I look at that election, one thing that really sticks out to me in terms of what you hear the candidates saying is that on the on the Democrat side, you have essentially a lot of spending that is going to come along. So the expansion and maintenance of the welfare state, etc., which is quite popular, and you see kind of voters connecting with that on the Republican side, you don't see them walking away from spending, but you see a big commitment to cutting taxes. And they put both of those kind of propositions together, and one thing that seems to be a bipartisan policy seems to be basically expanding the budget deficit in the United States. You know, so that again, talking about why we think that, you know, yields in the bond market over the longer run may rise is because, you know, sooner or later, there are limitations to your ability to just borrow from the future in real terms. And it will, I think, you know, oblige future central banks and future US treasuries, and not just in the United States, but in democracies around the world of face similar issues, it will oblige them to do more of this unconventional monetary policy. And I think some of the winners there are basically scarce real assets which cannot be magicked into existence the way you can magic money into existence.
Dean Colling: If we think about the extension of that with deficits and spending and obviously money printing, what's your view on the US dollar and how do you incorporate any US dollar hedging or hedging within the portfolio?
Geoff Castle: Well, we in the corporate bond fund, we have some US dollar securities, we have some Canadian dollar securities. And what we do is we essentially sell forward a kind of a derivative basis of the US dollar to the CAD. And that essentially, if you own the Canadian dollar class, you more or less own like the local currency return, as opposed to seeing a big currency impact in in the fund and in the US dollar versions, we kind of do the inverse, we hedge out the Canadian dollar. You know, we don't take a view necessarily in the bond fund on currencies. But, you do watch the US dollar. So what has happened over the last few years is that as the United States has had a higher real interest rate that has propped up US dollar currency versus other currencies, and there's this thing called the dollar index, you know, ticker symbol DXY for those playing along at home. And you'll kind of see that has rallied versus other currencies quite significantly in the last 3 or 4 years. It looks like, if you take a look at some of the drivers of what was keeping the US dollar up there, outside of this relatively high interest rate, there weren't a lot of other drivers in that. The United States economy is running a huge trade deficit, they're running huge budget deficits, and there are other reasons why you might be a bit leery of the US dollar.
Geoff Castle: The last leg of that stool that was keeping it afloat was a relatively high interest rate curve. And now with the fed kind of in cutting mode, you know, we've kicked away that last leg of the stool. So what happens, you know, as a US dollar is potentially weaker going forward, is that you might see, you know, certain markets and segments, etc., kind of their backs against the wall, or returning, and making lower returns, suddenly turn around and do a bit better. And I think an analogous period to this time was back between 2002 and 2007, where a similar hiking cycle ended and you suddenly had a weaker dollar. And what you saw was a rally in like emerging markets, you saw a commodities rally, and you saw just a sector rotation away from, you know, large cap tech that had obviously ruled the roost in the early 2000s down to kind of meat and potato kind of value kind of companies and, and older economy. And, you know, the rest of the world's markets, which are full of kind of older economy companies kind of outperformed. And so there's places to look for credit opportunities along that line. And so with a decline in the US dollar leadership, that's the kind of idea that we're spending time kicking around as we think about how things might go going forward.
Dean Colling: So looking forward then with that in mind, and again, this is maybe not be a big part of the overall strategy, but do you believe in the soft landing narrative still, or do you think there's more risk to recession in the US in the coming quarters?
Geoff Castle: Um, yes, it's a good question. I mean, I think that because of the weirdness of this cycle, even though all the flags that tell you that we have a recession coming of some magnitude because of how long the yield curve is inverted, how high it is inverted, how long the leading indicator went down, there is a potential that it might be a bit more fleeting of a downturn than you have seen in some other cycles. And so, you know, the long, elusive soft landing may appear. That seems like a possibility. I mean, I think as someone who invests other people's money, you tend not to, you know, make your base case like the best possible outcome, right. You tend to say, you know, well, it's not cloudy right now, but I am going to Vancouver, so I should pack a raincoat, and I think this is the same kind of scenario. So we are being a little bit cautious. You know, we're holding a higher degree of investment grade in the fund that, you know, compared to what we would allocate under a sort of all systems go kind of economy. But we do recognise that, you know, a soft landing could be a thing. And, you know, that won't be bad for corporate credit mandate. But, you know, we're not necessarily just putting the pedal to the metal all the way because, you know, we have to have some humility against, you know, not knowing what might be coming down the pipe.
Dean Colling: My final question to you is, is the impact of credit spreads and where they sit today. I mean, when we're managing equity portfolios, we look at that as sort of canary in the coal mine, governments versus investment grade versus high yield, all relatively calm right now. They're benign. There's no, spreads are kind of a little tight actually. Um, you know, I don't know if you're seeing any value there or on the flip side, any risk because they are relatively normal or tight at this point.
Geoff Castle: Yeah. One of the interesting things about credit spreads that we see is that you're right. You have seen a market where the spread that is the extra yield that you get for holding a high yield bond compared to a government, a government bond of same tenure is, you know, between 3% and 3.5% has been for the better part of last year, which is historically, you know, on the lower end of things, not the record low, but on the lower end of things as they normally are. I think that this time around, there has been a bit of a change in the structure of, call it, the leveraged finance market. So the leveraged finance market, which is basically the high yield kind of market, is composed of three parts, one part is what you call high yield bonds, right, and we're obviously holding quite a few of those. Another part is syndicated term loans. So banks syndicate term loans, and you'll see these floating rate loans which you know we can also buy in the market and trade. And those two markets are each, if you add them all up about 1.5 trillion with a T. What has emerged over the past decade is a private credit market, which was, if you go back ten years ago, was around 100 billion, which is now also 1.5 trillion with a T, and a lot of the edgier borrowers and the deals that might push spreads in the high yield market, were those borrowers borrowing in that market higher have actually migrated over to that private credit market, where they actually are getting those higher yields in that private credit market. But because of the opacity of that market, you can't see what we think is actually going on very clearly.
Geoff Castle: But what we see is that is the kind of issuer which is being hit right now. And what is, you know, what are those loans are in the private credit market. A lot of them were made to leverage buyouts. You know, in the years 2020, 2021, 2022, when those leveraged buyouts were done, massive amounts of capital, but they were done at valuations that were extreme high, right? The highest EV to EBITDA multiples that we've seen in leveraged finance. And then they've done it, like, record terms of debt. So more debt to EBITDA turns than normally done, and we think that we are seeing a kind of spread blow-out happen. But you're not seeing it in the official kind of spreads which track the high yield bond market, because a lot of the issuers that are having problems are domiciled in this different market, where you have a bunch of private credit funds trying to paper things over and deal with these, uh, losses that are showing up in the system. So, yes, I think look, if you have a more serious recession, I think you're going to see spreads in the leverage loan market and the high yield bond market move higher, but maybe not as high as some of the blow-outs in the past, because just some of the more dangerous underwriting has been done in the thing that's grown the most quickly, which is often what happens in an underwriting cycle that goes bad. You don't want to be the person that gains the most share just at the end of the cycle, because that blows up real good.
Dean Colling: Well, interesting times to say the least, in particularly this year and the last three where we've seen tightening cycle now a cutting cycle. We've got an election coming up. We thank you again for your time today, Geoff. It's been a pleasure. And let's do it again sometime in the new year, and we'll do an update and see where we sit.
Geoff Castle: Dean, thank you very much. Thank you for your support of our project. And I really appreciate talking with you today.
Dean Colling: Great. We'll see you again soon. Thanks, Geoff.
[The microphone graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. On the left side of the screen are a list of disclaimers. The text reads: Credits; Music Provided by: Hot Coffee by Ghostrifter Official (soundcloud.com/ghostrifter-official), Licensed under Creative Commons – Attribution, ShareAlike 3.0 Unported – CC BY-SA 3.0., http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Disclaimers; This information, including any opinion, is based on various sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed and is subject to change. CIBC and CIBC World Markets Inc., their affiliates, directors, officers and employees may buy, sell, or hold a position in securities of a company mentioned herein, its affiliates or subsidiaries, and may also perform financial advisory services, investment banking or other services for, or have lending or other credit relationships with the same. CIBC World Markets Inc. and its representatives will receive sales commissions and/or a spread between bid and ask prices if you purchase, sell or hold the securities referred to above. © CIBC World Markets Inc. 2024.
CIBC Private Wealth consists of services provided by CIBC and certain of its subsidiaries, including CIBC Wood Gundy, a division of CIBC World Markets Inc. The CIBC logo and “CIBC Private Wealth” are trademarks of CIBC, used under license. “Wood Gundy” is a registered trademark of CIBC World Markets Inc. Insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services Inc. In Quebec, insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services (Quebec) Inc.
Dean Colling is an Investment Advisor with CIBC Wood Gundy in Toronto. The views of Dean Colling do not necessarily reflect those of CIBC World Markets Inc.
If you are currently a CIBC Wood Gundy client, please contact your Investment Advisor.]
Announcer: Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed our show, please consider sharing the episode with your friends. Be sure to check out our website for new episodes every few months.
[The podcast opens on an introduction graphic with CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. The text reads: Wealthview, Hosted by Dean Colling, Senior Portfolio Manager & Wealth Advisor, July, 2024. On the left side of the screen are a group of graphics consisting of two speech bubbles, a stylized group of gears, and a bar graph with an arrow in an uptrend. The text on the left hand side reads: Philosophy, Strategy & Insights.]
Announcer: You're listening to Wealthview, the podcast where we share philosophy, strategy, and insights from some of Canada's top financial professionals.
[A brief montage consisting of a street level view of traffic in downtown Toronto, high-rise buildings, Dean Colling speaking on a microphone, and a bird’s eye view of a four-way intersection plays on the left side of the screen.]
Announcer: Hosted by Dean Colling, Senior Wealth Advisor and Portfolio Manager at CIBC Private Wealth. Edited and produced by the Colling Group and now on to the show.
[The screen fades to black, and transitions to a graphic on the left side of the screen consisting of a wave form that tracks the speech of the participants. On the right side of the screen is a headshot of Dean Colling, below Dean’s headshot is text that reads: Dean Colling, Senior Portfolio Manager & Wealth Advisor, CIBC. Below Dean’s headshot is Mike Dolson’s headshot, below Mike’s headshot is text that reads: Mike Dolson, Partner, McCarthy Tetrault.]
Dean Colling: Welcome to Wealthview. I'm your host, Dean Colling. On this episode, we'll be talking about income tax. We'll be speaking about the change in the capital gains inclusion rate and AMT, otherwise known as alternative minimum tax. Joining me today for this discussion is Mike Dolson. He's a partner in McCarthy Tetrault's National Tax Group, who designs tax efficient strategies for high net worth individuals and large private corporations. Mike holds a Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of Western Ontario and a Master of laws degree from New York University, and is seen as one of Canada's foremost experts in tax strategy. Mike, welcome to Wealthview.
Mike Dolson: Hey, Dean, it's nice to be here.
Dean Colling: So I want to talk about a little bit about today is that capital gains inclusion, rate sort of the tax environment that we're facing um, in the next 12 months, you know, touch upon a little bit of AMT, alternative minimum tax, and maybe just some planning ideas and strategies, and the way we can think about things as investors and business owners in the years ahead. But before we do, obviously, it's a pleasure to have you here. You know, we were introduced by kind of a mutual friend who I will tell you not to embarrass you described you as the tax guru and, uh, obviously came highly recommended. And, you know, you've got, you've had a great career so far and find yourself now as an important tax partner at McCarthy's. But give the audience a little bit of background on you and how you got to this point and why you became a tax lawyer.
Mike Dolson: Sure. So, I mean, I never thought I was going to be a tax lawyer. I went to law school, I thought I was going to be a JAG lawyer, and obviously things change. Somewhere along the way, I sold out. Um, but, so I've been doing tax for the last 15 years or so. I started at a boutique tax firm in Edmonton called Felesky Flynn and I moved to McCarthy in the summer of 2023, so I've been here for about a year. I do primarily private company and high net worth individual work, although like everybody at McCarthy Tetrault, I do transactional tax work as well on deals. So an interesting mix of tax practice. And I think a lot of things that are probably relevant to the people who are listening to this podcast.
Dean Colling: Yes. And I know you've worked on a couple of our client, uh, situations as well. So we we've had first hand experience with some of the work you've done and it's been really, really good. You know, we talk about the last uh, few months, obviously, um, with this increase in the capital gains inclusion rate, how busy were you guys?
Mike Dolson: It was nuts. Uh, May and June were not a fun time to be a tax professional. I think the accountants probably had it worse simply because they're usually The front line of client inquiries, while also having to get your T2s filed. So they had a rough May and June. It was not peachy for the lawyers either. Very busy, a lot of crystallizations, a lot of questions about crystallization, a lot of fighting over spreadsheets about whether crystallization made sense. So June 25th was kind of a relief when that came around.
Dean Colling: Yeah, I hope all of our tax professional friends have a really, really good second half of the summer here. It's probably well deserved. And us too. We were certainly, uh, fielding a ton of calls on whether we should do this or not. And I think a lot of people are hoping that sometime in the future there might be a change to these policies. Um, but we will, we shall see. So why don't we start there? Let's talk a little bit about what happened. Let's summarize, uh, the changes that we saw, um, last month and get implemented. Obviously it was announced probably back in April, May, April ish, I guess. And then we had about, as we were talking about, 75 days or ten weeks to kind of digest this and really, it even came down to the kind of the last two weeks as to whether we knew exactly how this was going to lay it out, but maybe talk to the audience at a high level about what has happened and what the new regime, the tax regime, looks like.
Mike Dolson: Yeah. So what has happened is still actually interestingly in the process of happening, given the way that we do tax legislation in this country in the last couple of decades, is that measures have been announced and there's draft legislation, but it hasn't actually been enacted. It will be enacted with retroactive effect when Parliament returns in the fall. But what happened was that we had budget 2024 come out in late April. That was obviously the first heads up anybody got that this was coming in what appeared to be a relatively last minute inclusion in the budget. We had this announcement there was going to be an increase in the capital gains inclusion rate. Effective date was going to be June 25th. Everything after June 25th would be taxed at a two thirds inclusion rate as opposed to one half inclusion rate.
Mike Dolson: But the first $250,000 of annual capital gains or employee stock option benefits would not be included in that two thirds inclusion rate, so you'd still get the 50% inclusion rate for that first $250,000. And so that was an interesting ten weeks that we had notice, I think what everybody in the tax community inferred and CRA more or less expressly confirmed, was that the idea was that they wanted people to realize gains in that time period to accelerate gains. We believe that was a political decision to increase revenues in 2024. It's effectively trading future revenues for 2024 revenues. So everybody did that. I think there was a lot of looking at, are we going to realize capital gains after June 25th? How long after June 25th in Ontario and Quebec and British Columbia with our rates is about 5 to 6 years out was where the the present value of the tax liability would exceed the tax savings.
Mike Dolson: So if you were going to realize a capital gain within that time with a high likelihood, you were going to take steps to crystallize, if you were thinking you might, you would try to crystallize, with a, with some kind of an option to not realize the gain, or it would be potentially a rollover or not a rollover, and you could elect later to decide what you wanted to do. So that's what we were doing a lot of in May and June is that kind of stuff. Figuring out for people who had an asset that they thought they might sell, whether it made sense to to crystallize or not, people with marketable securities portfolios, you know, what their investment advisor should do? Should they basically liquidate everything and repurchase it so that they would realize their accrued gains and losses before June 25th. A lot of those conversations. So then June 25th, um, I guess the next, the next waypoint on the way to June 25th was June 10th, where we had finally, uh, two weeks before the deadline, draft legislation for the first time. So at that point, we kind of knew how the rules work. We had been speculating up until then. The draft legislation didn't change anyone's mind about what they were going to do, but it was nice to have that certainty in terms of how things would work. And then there was the final push to June 25th.
Dean Colling: What about business owners? As we know, that's a different situation. So, um, any gains in a business owners, uh, entity or entities is dollar one. What are your thoughts about that?
Mike Dolson: Yeah, I think there's been quite a bit written about that within the tax community. I think for the most part, we don't really understand the rationale for that, especially with private corporations. We're supposed to be integrated. So you would expect that you would have that $250,000 limit integrated with the corporation and the shareholder. What I suspect happened is that given that this did appear to be a last minute inclusion in the budget, and then with a ten week fuse, that there simply wasn't enough time to draft legislation that would cause that $250,000 to either be split between an individual and a corporation, or where a corporation has multiple shareholders, to figure out how that gain gets allocated between the multiple shareholders, in terms of whose $250,000 a year limit it grinds.
Mike Dolson: So I think it was as a rough justice rule. They decided that corporations, whether private, public, owned by a single person, owned by a large group of people, would be 250, would just be no $250,000 limit, everything taxed at two thirds from the get go. So that is a problem, especially for people who have been saving in their their corporations. Again, I think what you're going to see is that people are probably going to prefer, at least in the short run, to have buy and hold positions where they're not going to be selling, trying to wait out the inclusion rates, see if it goes back down beyond that. Hard to see what people might do. It might this might shift the balance towards RRSP'S, TFSA'S for business owners, I think typically there's been some hesitation for people to pay themselves salaries, which would generate the RRSP contribution room. But that's something that might need to be re-examined. And probably people should be talking to their accountants about that to see how those numbers work now.
Dean Colling: So obviously there's a lot of input to the calculation. How much does this really cost? What are we doing? Because as advisors and portfolio managers, of course, we try to manage assets without letting tax implicate the investment decisions. We sort of check a few boxes to say, hey, we're investing and generating cap gains and or Canadian source dividend income. Those are two of the best income sources. So let's just drive forward. But you're right. The challenge is, of course, if you've got long standing assets that are passive or real estate property or, you know, I feel bad for folks that were thinking of selling their business, you know, in the next 18 months, 24 months, and they just missed this, this window. What are you advising they they do. Is there anything you can advise them to do? Or are we just sort of say, let's you just deal with it and move forward?
Mike Dolson: Yeah. Honestly, there's not much that you really can do. If people missed that window to crystallize their, I think stock, you've either got to wait, try to wait it out. Hope that the inclusion rate goes back down if there is a change in government. Otherwise I think you're likely looking at that 9% additional tax versus what you would have had before. I think again, for as an investment mix, it's interesting. It's interesting because there's been no change to the rate applicable to, like you say, Canadian sourced dividends, interest, foreign source dividends. But the capital gains effective rate has gone up by about 9%. So you're, you, to the extent that that was driving any of the investment decisions for people that will change, I think or at least it may change the math a little bit. But yeah, for the business owners, for people who own real estate and who weren't able to crystallize for whatever reason, there. Yeah. Truthfully, there's not a lot you can do except wait and see, and hope that things change. It makes things like the capital gains deduction for business owners, um, those or the principal residence exemption. All of those things are more valuable and so I think people are going to want to take steps or will be more incented to take steps to keep those in order.
Dean Colling: Okay. So earlier you mentioned the concept of integration. You know, we're talking about $250,000 limit on the old inclusion rate for personal assets, dollar one on corporate assets. Maybe explain to the listeners what integration is and how that impacts overall tax calculations.
Mike Dolson: Yeah. So integration as a concept is the idea that you should pay the same rate of tax if you earn a dollar of income from a particular source, regardless of whether that's earned through a corporation or personally at a very high level. That's the idea. So for example, we have a corporate tax rate, which we generally have to set by reference to what other countries set it at. You can't be overly high. We could never set the corporate tax rate as high as the personal income tax rate. It would kill investment in Canada. So we can't do that. So what we do is we say, okay, we're going to set the corporate rate at, let's say, 25% based on the assumption that corporations pay tax at 25%. We're going to impose tax on dividends at whatever it would take to get the effective rate up to approximately 53.5%, which is the top marginal rate in Ontario. And so that may mean an effective rate on dividends of, say, about 37%. In reality, that's not quite how it works. Almost no Canadian jurisdictions, or no Canadian jurisdictions have perfect integration, where the corporate tax rate plus the dividend rate when paid by the individual taxpayer, equal exactly the top marginal rate. The integration assumptions break down, for example, where the corporations may have some kind of tax shield. In that case, you may be over integrated.
Mike Dolson: It doesn't work where people are at lower marginal rates. Again, you might be over integrated and then just the the integration mechanisms we have aren't perfect. The dividend rates are too high relative to the corporate tax rates for integration to work properly. So in most cases you actually end up being under integrated and we have lots of other mechanisms in the Income Tax Act that are intended to further that integration principle. For example, we have refundable taxes on investment income, which are intended to prevent people from using a corporation to defer income by just earning investment income in a corporation and then waiting to pay that dividend into the future. With capital dividends, we have a Capital Dividend Account, which allows people to distribute the tax free portion of the capital dividend to the individual shareholder, so that the idea being that they would pay tax again at effectively the same rate as if they had realized the capital gain personally. So that's conceptually the idea is that a dollar of income should be taxed ultimately on a full distribution basis, at the same rate as if it had been earned personally, not necessarily how it works in practice. There's lots of intentional and unintentional deviations. The system doesn't work perfectly with lots of different fact permutations, but conceptually, that's what we're driving for in tax.
Dean Colling: That's today's stuff. What what about the future? What about structuring for estates and distribution of assets? Has this impacted, uh, planning strategy for that sort of future distribution?
Mike Dolson: So the strategies are largely the same. Again, it's unfortunate because you would be surprised if people planned their death for tax reasons in the last couple of months. But yeah, what's going to happen is that because of the increased inclusion rate, there is a deemed disposition on death. All accrued gains are realized. So the cost of dying is going to go up. But all the plans that we would do when people die, whether it's what we call the Pipeline and Bump Plan, the 164(6) Loss Carry Back Plan, all those things, they all still work. Um, they would all achieve the same overall result, but just the effect of rates on everything will have gone up.
Dean Colling: Yeah, of course. Um, so I want to switch gears now to AMT, because that's another thing that got, uh, changed a little bit recently as well and obviously we're always trying to reduce taxes within the rules. AMT comes in to provide sort of a level playing field to say, okay, you know, you either pay an alternative minimum tax or your regular tax, but maybe give a listeners a little bit more detail on what AMT is and how that impacts tax calculation.
Mike Dolson: Yeah. So at a very high level, the way AMT works is that you've got your regular tax. So you've already done what you would see in your return where you've calculated your income, you've taken your deductions, you have net income. You multiply that by the effective rates as you go through the marginal brackets and then you come up with a tax payable number. So that's the general idea with AMT. What happens is there's an alternative calculation. What it does is it denies certain deductions. It changes inclusion rates for certain items of income and it then has a minimum effective rate and it says given these adjustments we made to your income, did you pay tax at at least this rate? And if the answer is yes, then nothing happens. If the answer is no, then you have a liability for AMT, and that AMT that you pay is effectively a prepayment of tax. It carries forward seven years. So as in any of those seven future taxation years, if your effective tax rate exceeds the minimum rate, then that carry forward of AMT will be applied to your regular tax liability. So in some ways it's a prepayment. But AMT can be a real problem where people have big one time income hits and then don't have a lot of income thereafter, it actually can be difficult to recover AMT. The classic example would be if you had a capital gain in a trust, your grandparents were beneficiaries of a trust. You made part of the capital gain payable to them so they could claim their capital gains deductions, and then they had an AMT liability. While your grandparents are probably not going to have a ton of income from other sources in that year or ever again, and so that AMT may be coming up to tax cost.
Mike Dolson: So that was the concern. What we had with AMT in 2023 and 2024, there were proposed amendments to the AMT, and they did a couple of things that have been of some concern to clients. First was that they changed the minimum rate from 15% to 20.5%, and there were some changes to how capital gains get included in that and the capital gains deduction, etc.. The other thing was that they, the among other deductions that would be denied were 50% of interest deductions that would be claimed by taxpayers in calculating their regular tax liability, and so what this would do, it did two things, before the inclusion rate change. It meant that anybody who was realizing substantial income from capital gains, especially if the capital gains were all of their income for the year, would likely have an AMT liability. It also meant that a lot of taxpayers who were, especially trusts, where there would be an income inclusion in and an interest deduction out, we're finding that they were having an AMT liability despite having zero taxable income. Under the ordinary calculation, the capital gains inclusion rate going up has largely solved the AMT issue with respect to capital gains, not in the way that anybody wanted it to be solved, but it has largely solved it because now the effective rate for capital gains is going to be over 20.5%. The interest deduction piece has been a little more pernicious, and what that's going to affect especially are trusts that were being used for income splitting with spouses, where you would have prescribed rate loans into a trust, for example. That's become problematic.
Dean Colling: What about just strictly borrow to invest interest deductions. How does that impact it?
Mike Dolson: So those would be caught. So if you had, so for example, if we had a taxpayer who was just a regular individual borrows $1 million to invest, um, and let's say to make the math really easy, he's paying at a 10% interest rate. So you have $100,000 a year of interest deductions in computing AMT, 50% of that is going to be denied. So you're only going to get credit for $50,000 of interest deductions, and so you'll need, you'll have effectively minimum tax assuming that they have enough income that they're above the the exempt the exempt amount, which is about $184,000 of income. Assuming they're above that, they'll need to have enough regular tax to effectively cause the effective rate on that $50,000 of denied interest to be higher than 20.5%. So this may not be a huge deal if this is somebody who's, let's say, a corporate executive and is making a few million dollars a year of employment income, they'll obviously have enough regular tax payable that it'll soak up whatever potential AMT hit there would be as a result of that. But if this person is, you know, for example, they're investing in securities that are buy and hold securities, generating capital gain, for example, and there's not really a lot of other income then they might have a problem, or they could have an AMT liability.
Dean Colling: From an AMT perspective, any other things that are not included that need to be stripped out. So you talked about certain deductions like interest and is there certain employment expenses, or charitable contributions, or anything like that that's worth noting?
Mike Dolson: So there there were proposed changes with charitable contributions. Those got scaled back to some extent. The charitable sector was lobbying hard on that.
Dean Colling: I would imagine yeah.
Mike Dolson: The one that catches people, which I mentioned before, is the capital gains deduction. That can get people, because that to some extent gets added back in to the AMT calculation, and so you'll have this amount that you paid no tax on. But when some of it gets added back into your AMT it can generate a liability.
Dean Colling: Stepping back now big picture in your opinion, and we can both share our opinions on this. Uh, do you think that this change in capital gains inclusion will significantly impact investment decisions going forward? I mean, if we think about the three main sources of of investment income interest, dividends, and capital gains, they still sit in that same order in terms of highest to lowest, although now dividends and capital gains have that gap has closed. I don't know if there's any stat that we can look at, but obviously it's too early for that. But maybe anecdotally, do you think that's going to change investor mindset?
Mike Dolson: The capital gains inclusion rate, as I said earlier, I think that might have some change in that. If we've now closed the gap to some extent between especially the capital gains rate and the eligible dividend rate. If people have a choice between securities that don't pay dividends, generate capital gains, or securities that might generate, you know, less capital gain, but pay dividends, that preference might shift. I don't think again, and you'll see, maybe there's to extent that people were preferring capital producing assets over dividend or, or interest producing assets that had a higher yield, but a higher tax rate that might need to be recalibrated as well. But I don't expect seismic changes to the portfolio mixes, or people's decisions to invest in portfolios at all. Where I do have more concern is just investment more broadly in Canada by foreign investors. I think, as to the extent that they're investing in things where they will be subject to Canadian tax, for example, in Canadian resource projects, in Canadian real estate projects, etc.. That's where we're going to see an increase in effective rates. And that may influence those investment decisions.
Dean Colling: Yeah, I would tend to agree. You know, we would think that obviously investors are looking for in their securities portfolios are looking for total return, and so it is a combination of both capital gains and dividends, and because they're close, you know, I don't think it impacts it too much. But I agree with you. That's sort of the biggest concern for, you know, the motivation for foreign investment or even domestic investment, you know, motivating entrepreneurs to gather the capital, take the risk and go, you know, is it going to be as enticing? But it'll take a while for us to to see this play out over time. You know, as we start to kind of wrap up this this discussion, I want to talk to you a little bit about, obviously, this was an emotional topic in the last few weeks, being a portfolio manager and wealth advisor for over 30 years, I've had a number of discussions with clients about possibly going offshore and I would tell you for, you know, 100 conversations that we've had, you know, maybe two have actually done it. It's a complex decision. But given this change, of course and the emotions that are high, we hear it more loudly than we've heard it in quite some time, and as I'm sure you have as well. Let's talk a little bit about the realities of of going offshore, what's involved and what are the unintended consequences of doing so?
Mike Dolson: Yeah. So I think the first thing that people have to understand about wanting to go offshore is that to Canada, taxes on a worldwide basis, if you're a Canadian resident. So it's not enough to shift some assets to other jurisdictions like oh, could I invest through a foreign corporation or some kind of other foreign entity instead of investing through my, you know, personally or through my Canadian corporation? As I like to tell people, you know, the income tax has been around for 107 years now. So everything that you can think of has been thought of by somebody, and we have rules to prevent that. So that's not going to work to get out of Canadian tax on your worldwide income, you actually have to cease to be resident in Canada. That means practically depends on the jurisdiction that you go to. If you're going to a country with a tax treaty, it could be relatively simple to cease to be a Canadian resident. All you would have to do is make sure you're a resident in that jurisdiction under their domestic law, and that you've sold your Canadian house and you've bought a house in that jurisdiction, that you're only permanent home is there, and then typically under our treaty tie breakers with that country, you're out. But if you wanted to go to an actual tax haven, like a lot of people do, say, oh, I want to go somewhere with no tax.
Mike Dolson: We don't have tax treaties with those jurisdictions, and you have to go pretty scorched earth on your presence in Canada in order to cease to be resident here. Right, you've got to have your spouse and kids, if they're minors, have to come with you. You've got to sell your house. What we tell clients typically is that if you want to be safe, you're coming back to Canada for, say, a maximum of two weeks every year, and you're ideally staying in a hotel when you do it, and ideally a different hotel every time you come back. So it's really hard. You want to give up as many of the ties to Canada as you've got, like shift your assets to the country you're supposed to be living in. That's very difficult, and I think that's why you see that kind of we'd call it 2% conversion rate on actually leaving and why almost everybody who leaves goes to the United States because we have a tax treaty. It's relatively easy to live there, it's a real country, like you're not going to go bored out of your mind like you would sitting on some random island with no tax for, you know, 340 days of the year. So that's the first thing is you've got to be able to to actually cease residence in Canada. That stops a lot of people right there.
Mike Dolson: The second thing that stops people is departure tax. So, what I think a lot of people don't realize is that when you leave Canada, you have a deemed disposition of all of your property wherever situated in the world, whether it's in Canada or not, except for Canadian real estate, because we can always tax that later, and so you end up with all of your accrued gains being realized. So you have this, you have this tax event but no liquidity event. So you've got to actually have the cash to pay the tax. You can post security for the departure tax with the CRA, but they obviously want real assets or letters of credit, etc. to be put up as security for that tax, and so if you don't have the access to those kinds of assets, you might have a problem, right? So you've got to you've got to make that kind of plan to leave. There are some techniques you can do to not eliminate but at least mitigate some of that tax on the way out. And I think people who have, you know, for example, done estate freezes, like they actually have an easier time getting out than others do. We can take advantage of existing planning that people did in other contexts to help them out. But like people have to be prepared that you know, anybody of any kind of means, you're stroking a six, seven, eight figure check on your way out the door. So that's the second thing that stops a lot of people. And then obviously you have to be able to, you know, there's the real life things like people have all these great ideas like, oh, I'm going to move to Bulgaria to not pay tax and live in a, you know, very conservative place.
Mike Dolson: But then your spouse has to go to Bulgaria and he or she might have different thoughts about living there. Right? You have to if you want to move to the US, you obviously have to get some kind of a visa or you have to get a green card to live there, and that's not as automatic or as easy as people think. So you know, your kids have to go to school somewhere. So you got to make sure you're able to live in a good school district or pay for a private school, all those kinds of things that people are very willing to, I think, at least temporarily, overlook when they get incensed about tax. But then, you know, reality hits, and so it is difficult to go. But for some people it makes sense for sure, right. I think especially one of the places where we make sense or people who where there's a significant gain, you know, significant appreciation is going to happen in the future. For some of those people, it may make sense to take the hit now, to leave, and then make sure that your future increases in wealth are taxed at, let's say, a better tax rate.
Dean Colling: You have to calculate time and opportunity because you certainly would exit, uh, and be in a deficit for, uh, at least a number of years before there was some break even crossover, I would imagine, and yeah, no, just as an aside, I've never heard of Bulgaria as a as a tax haven. That's interesting that you say that. But I normally would hear of, you know, the Cayman Islands or Antigua or something, you know, some beach thing. But you're right. It's a complex decision that has got a lot of cost up front and a lot of lifestyle costs in order to, to really kind of justify long term. As you wrap up here, any final thoughts for, uh, investors and business owners going forward and this kind of new environment? Uh, sort of nothing we can do or come see Mike, uh, there's some great planning opportunities still that still exist, but otherwise, put your head down and keep keep making money.
Mike Dolson: I mean, I think that's always my thing, is keep making money. Don't let the tax tail wag the commercial dog. There's there's things we can do. Like the same prudent tax planning we were doing before can be done. Again, there's no silver bullets to manage tax. I think anybody who's trying to sell you something proprietary that makes tax go away, it probably doesn't work. But, you know, situationally there are things that can be done that are creative. A lot of change in tax right now. The pace of change has been really significant over the last three, four, years relative to what it historically was. I think there's a lot more to come and a lot more things to keep an eye on, and again, we may be looking at a complete shift in priorities in the tax system in about 18 months. So that'll be interesting to keep on top of as well.
Dean Colling: It'll keep the changes that we're going to see to the tax environment, and at least in the next 12 to 18 months, it'll be interesting to see how this all plays out, and it'll give us another opportunity to get together again and have another chat about this. So thanks again, Mike. It was a pleasure having you on, and, uh, and until next time, uh, we'll see everybody on, uh, on Wealthview.
[The microphone graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. On the left side of the screen are a list of disclaimers. The text reads: Credits; Music Provided by: Hot Coffee by Ghostrifter Official (soundcloud.com/ghostrifter-official), Licensed under Creative Commons – Attribution, ShareAlike 3.0 Unported – CC BY-SA 3.0., http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Disclaimers; This information, including any opinion, is based on various sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed and is subject to change. CIBC and CIBC World Markets Inc., their affiliates, directors, officers and employees may buy, sell, or hold a position in securities of a company mentioned herein, its affiliates or subsidiaries, and may also perform financial advisory services, investment banking or other services for, or have lending or other credit relationships with the same. CIBC World Markets Inc. and its representatives will receive sales commissions and/or a spread between bid and ask prices if you purchase, sell or hold the securities referred to above. © CIBC World Markets Inc. 2024.
CIBC Private Wealth consists of services provided by CIBC and certain of its subsidiaries, including CIBC Wood Gundy, a division of CIBC World Markets Inc. The CIBC logo and “CIBC Private Wealth” are trademarks of CIBC, used under license. “Wood Gundy” is a registered trademark of CIBC World Markets Inc. Insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services Inc. In Quebec, insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services (Quebec) Inc.
Dean Colling is an Investment Advisor with CIBC Wood Gundy in Toronto. The views of Dean Colling do not necessarily reflect those of CIBC World Markets Inc.
If you are currently a CIBC Wood Gundy client, please contact your Investment Advisor.]
Announcer: Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed our show, please consider sharing the episode with your friends. Be sure to check out our website for new episodes every few months.
[The podcast opens on an introduction graphic with CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. The text reads: Wealthview, Hosted by Dean Colling, Senior Portfolio Manager & Wealth Advisor, April, 2024. On the left side of the screen are a group of graphics consisting of two speech bubbles, a stylized group of gears, and a bar graph with an arrow in an uptrend. The text on the left hand side reads: Philosophy, Strategy & Insights.]
Announcer: You're listening to Wealthview, the podcast where we share philosophy, strategy and insights from some of Canada's top financial professionals.
[A brief montage consisting of a street level view of traffic in downtown Toronto, high-rise buildings, Dean Colling speaking on a microphone, and a bird’s eye view of a four-way intersection plays on the left side of the screen.]
Announcer: Hosted by Dean Colling, Senior Wealth Advisor and Portfolio Manager at CIBC Private Wealth. Edited and produced by the Colling Group. And now, on to the show.
Dean Colling: Welcome to Wealthview. I'm your host, Dean Colling. On this edition of Wealthview, we'll be talking about interest rates, the bond market, and opportunities for fixed income investors in a post-Covid world. Joining me in this discussion today is Richard Usher-Jones, portfolio manager at Canso Investment Counsel and president of Lysander Funds. Canso Investment Counsel was established in 1997 and is a leading independent credit manager focused on bottom-up security selection and fundamental credit research. Canso manages over $42 billion of assets for institutional and private clients, and is widely regarded as one of the most respected fixed income managers in Canada. Richard, welcome to Wealthview.
Richard Usher-Jones: Sure, first off, thanks so much for the invite. Uh, really happy to be here to share some of our insights with, uh, with you and your clients that I know, many of them, are invested in our portfolios and our funds. Um, a bit of background on myself. It's actually interesting, as of March of this year, uh, celebrated my 15th anniversary at Canso, where I'm one of 30 people on the investment team at Canso. Uh, in total, we're I think it's 62 people in total today. Um, so almost half of us are on the investment team. And, you know, being a shop that's focused on bottom-up, deep value research and credit selection, it's kind of nothing fancy about it, you need to have the resources. You know, before Canso, it's interesting, I worked at a company called Russell Investments for 12 years where back in 1997, um, we were Canso's first institutional client. So I'm happy and proud to say I've been affiliated with Canso for, uh, in excess of 25 years. Um, and I've known Canso from external as a client, uh, but also, uh, internal being part of the investment team, uh, being involved in generating the results and understanding and working with our clients.
Dean Colling: So I want to talk to you a little bit about, um, where we're at in the rate markets and where we're at in fixed income, because as I mentioned in our intro, it's been an extremely challenging time over the last four years. Um, for obvious reasons. You know, we came through a sort of a normal cycle in '19, 2019, early 2020, and then boom, Covid hit. Unprecedented amounts of monetary stimulus, the economy shutting down. To deal with all of that, we come out the other side, now we deal with an unprecedented level of monetary tightening and the results thereof. So, you know it's, I know investors have, uh, have dealt with it and we've seen it, you know, through the portfolios over the last four years. It's been a challenge. We've actually, you know, managed very well through it. And a lot of that is also, uh, credit to some of our partners like you who manage well through those periods. So I want to take the listeners back to that time, um, early 2020, uh, when really Covid came upon us and we had the economy shut down, we had central banks dumping all kinds of, I used to say, emptying the monetary clip, uh, into the system. No way for normal risk or price discovery in fixed income, they're involved in the corporate bond markets. How did bond guys like you deal with that? What was your reaction at the time and how did you position portfolios?
Richard Usher-Jones: There's a lot to unpack in that question.
Dean Colling: (Laugh) We've got some time.
Richard Usher-Jones: You know, just uh, also my mind is kind of racing back to the fact that it was pretty much four years ago exactly today. It was the Ontario March break, which were basically in now, uh, when it was kind of this is real, uh, this is significant. And if you look back at that, how you did in the pandemic really depended upon what your portfolio looked like going into it. Take it a bit before the pandemic, in the pandemic, it wasn't too dissimilar a period to what we're in now, where spreads were quite tight. When I talk about spreads, it's that investing in corporate bonds, you weren't actually paid that much more in corporate bonds compared to investing in very high quality, zero risk government bonds. And, you know, with that, our portfolios were positioned, uh, very conservatively, uh, with very low all in yields, because you only got a what seemed like an attractive yield if you assumed a lot of credit risk. And that's one of the kind of human conditions that people are willing to assume risks if they haven't seen bad things happen for a long period of time. And and that was basically the case, like money was free, rates were very, very low. So it's pretty hard to default when the rates of interest that you're paying, if you borrow a significant amount of money are very, very low.
Richard Usher-Jones: And, you know, I'd have to say rolling into the pandemic, there's people now that are, you know, they're saying central banks were too aggressive in the amount of money they put in the economy. But you got to think, um, if you go back to the credit crisis, it was the financial system that was at risk of failure. So the regulators and authorities and central banks put money into the financial system. If you look at the pandemic, it wasn't just the financial system, it was the economy that was at risk of failure. And that could not happen. Um, and I think central banks and, uh, did globally what needed to be done. And they didn't know how much money and how much support it was going to take. But they knew that if they didn't do everything they possibly could, which, you know, you use the analogy of like emptying the magazine, like putting all the ammunition against this. Uh, that's what they did. What we're dealing with today is the unwinding of that. We had unprecedented monetary stimulus. And also, think about it, it was a time where rates were very low and typically a response of central bankers when there are problems or issues in the economy, is they lower rates. There wasn't a lot of that to do because rates were already at rock bottom levels. There was discussion of negative rates in Europe.
Richard Usher-Jones: And while that drifted across the ocean to North America a little bit, not to the extent it was there. So, uh, different methods were tried of significant buying of all assets, even in the US, the buying of high yield ETFs and all bonds, period. Uh, in Canada, uh, different measures put in place where, you know, the Bank of Canada was buying mortgage-backed securities and covered bonds from the Canadian banks, all to to provide some stability for the financial markets and also to put some liquidity back into the economy. Because what also happened was there was a real lack of liquidity because as everyone's staring down this unknown of what's going to happen, how am I going to be affected, uh, personally by the pandemic, how might my business, my family and everything around me, everyone was trying to amass as much cash as they could, uh, and businesses alike, which sucked so much cash out of the financial system. And that's another reason that central banks had to be so aggressive in putting liquidity back into the system. So, you know, the patient needed absolutely everything. And if the patient's the economy, and we're trying to rapidly or more gradually remove all of the support mechanisms from the economy so it can stand on its own again, and that's what we're going through in this recalibration today.
Dean Colling: So going into it, I mean this is, I think the key thing that you mentioned is that, you know, your sort of value focus, your attention to, uh, spreads, uh, you know, governments versus investment grade versus high yield, kept you guys really quite conservative. So going into this, you know, obviously it wasn't great for anybody, uh, but a limited downside, and that makes sense. So from an opportunistic perspective when, you know, really this thing hit and as you said, that's amazing, I didn't even think about that as we sort of started this conversation that it is about four years today. How did you guys reposition? Were you taking advantage of things, or did you just stay fairly tight and conservative just to see how it played out?
Richard Usher-Jones: So I'm just thinking, I never answered your question. I got so carried away in talking about what was going on. (Laughs)
Dean Colling: (Laughs) That's okay. You can answer now.
Richard Usher-Jones: Um, yeah. So, but I did start off by saying that your performance in the pandemic and coming out of it was really initially dictated by what your portfolio looked like going into it. We were positioned very conservatively because you weren't really paid to assume any kind of credit risk. And that meant that we were in a portfolio of very, very high-quality securities, which also means that they're very liquid and very easy to sell with very limited penalty. Basically, the securities we owned were the ones that everyone was scrambling for because they were higher quality. And at the early stage of the pandemic, um, as I mentioned as well, businesses needed cash. They didn't know how long this was going to last. They, if they were in a negative cash burn situation, they had to get through this pandemic and they didn't know how much cash was going to be required. So, there was a significant amount of debt issuance on the higher quality investment grade side. That happened, and initially that was in the US. And because we had the high-quality liquid positions in the portfolio, we were able to participate in a lot of those deals. And I think we we bought in excess of 30 different new issues, of a lot of US issuers initially. Very, very high-quality issuers. The first one was ExxonMobil, which did a long bond issue, and they're a double A rated, very high-quality issuer business.
Richard Usher-Jones: And that was done at very wide and very attractive yield spreads. And we were up, uh, all hours of the night doing all our credit work and research because it was almost like, uh, like a triage of investments, like looking at all of the, the bonds of, in existence in the secondary market that sold off and also all the new issues. And frankly, we were, uh, we were buying as much as we could. Incredibly attractive issues with significant downside protection of businesses like ExxonMobil. Uh, a number of the, you know, food producers, these were staples, no matter in a pandemic or not, that, uh, had to exist as part of the economy. And, uh, that was very, very accretive for the portfolios. Uh, and it was amazing how quickly with the aggressive moves from central banks that liquidity returned to the market and that those positions rallied significantly. Many of them to a point where we said, hey, these are pretty much fully valued and we started selling into that strength. And then the next leg of issues were very well structured with significant downside protection, higher yield issues, of some of the more impacted industries as well. So it was a really fast paced, fast moving environment. You had to be willing to to step forward and and seize the opportunity.
Dean Colling: Yeah, um, you know, I remember those times. And so it sounds like it was a buyer's market. I mean, you collectively with other institutions could come in, set your pricing and for these deals. Was this ahead of central bank intervention where they came in to the corporate bond market at some point, which would have put a great tailwind behind those prices. But you guys were coming in early, sort of at a higher risk point, of course, from a macro perspective and getting like, how did you set pricing and value and yield and spreads in a market like that?
Richard Usher-Jones: Well, when you're when you're buying in the new issue market and we were initially buying in US dollars, um, you are taking the prices. But issuers knew that they had to secure financing and in order to do that, they had to present some really attractive yields and some attractive structures. And so at the early stages, we were price takers in that. Later on we were able to approach different issuers that had already done some financing and said, you know, we think you might need some more money, uh, if so, we'd be willing to lend to you, these are some high level terms of the deal that would work for us.
Dean Colling: So in that process, so you've got, you know, your credit guys, the team actively looking at opportunities. Talk to us about sort of the risk management side of the business. Who says, okay guys, go to town, do what you do, but we're here to manage our exposures.
Richard Usher-Jones: Yeah.
Dean Colling: How does that come into play in a period like?
Richard Usher-Jones: That, in how we do our research and assess the downside and the risk of our positions is, uh, when we're looking at a corporate bond, we look at it and do everything we can to understand the business. And of course, with the corporate bond, you know what your upside is. At best, you're going to get your interest payments, and you'll get your money back when the bond matures and when the issuer refinances. So looking for everything that could go wrong, you want to make sure that if things do go wrong, you have a good understanding of what your, what protections are there, and what your downside is. So with a thorough study of the business and of the contract you have between the business being the issuer and you being the bond buyer, you can come up with a pretty good estimate, uh, and this is where we do a lot of work, on what the downside would be. I mentioned there were strong structures behind a lot of the issues that were being done, and some of them first lien secured, meaning that you're one of the first creditors to get paid back in the event of a default. We were buying bond deals that were oftentimes secured and some of them at discounts to par value as well. The other thing in the secondary market we're also looking at is there were bonds and issues that in our estimate, um, recovery might have been $60 before the pandemic in the event of default and all of a sudden those bonds are trading at $50.
Richard Usher-Jones: And that was, uh, happening in the energy patch, uh, with almost every different energy producer. And so all of a sudden, those bonds that we didn't like before the pandemic are trading at or near their recovery value in default, or oftentimes we could buy them below what we thought recovery would be. The pace of change in the market and the opportunities, uh, were significant. Um, you know, the other thing, just to mention, this is one thing that I've learned in my career that when you're investing, you need to see something else that others don't. That means doing your research and typically not getting up in the groupthink, and doing your independent research and getting your thesis and then testing it all the time. Entering the pandemic, and we do this as a contrarian investor, uh, we saw risks that others didn't or they didn't see them because they hadn't been there in a while. That's okay, and that's not that hard to do, what's really hard to do as a contrarian investor is being optimistic when the entire world is pessimistic. I've done this a few times and been involved with that at Canso a few times, and that's harder to do. When the outlook is incredibly negative and you have to step in going, you know what? Uh, that is really, really good value no matter what the environment. Um, and that's a more difficult thing to do and that's what it took to be able to take advantage of the opportunities at the beginning stage of that pandemic.
Dean Colling: You know. But it took really clear thinking and really deep research to truly understand the opportunity. And that's, uh, you know, that's a credit to you guys and your team. So, we come out of this pandemic, well, we worked our way through. Obviously 2020 ended up being a really good year. Um, not bad for the fixed income side, on the equity side, it was actually pretty good, and 2021 as well. And we all know the narratives behind that, particularly on the work from home and, you know, there's always a new narrative every year. Um, and we came into the end of '21 and into 2022, and we knew as a team as we were managing across multi-asset class strategies that this is going to be a rate hike cycle, the Fed's going to, and all central banks, are going to try to extract some liquidity out of the system here. You know, in our structuring we're looking to reduce term and look for quality people, and you know guys you know like you, in our strategies that we've allocated to, we're looking to you to sort of follow that as well. But we, and I have to ask you the same question, we were not thinking it would be that extreme. You know, we went from zero or negative rates in some places to, you know, 500 plus basis points. So an extreme, extreme market condition for any fixed income manager. How did you guys enter into 2022 and how did you handle that year?
Richard Usher-Jones: Sounds like uh, you know, like you we were quite shocked at the pace of change. And we were concerned that there were significant inflationary pressures and that money was plentiful, which was going to drive inflation. So we were positioned quite conservatively in the event of rising interest rates. And they moved up swiftly and very, very significantly. So, you know, we while we had a year of tremendous outperformance relative to the benchmark, it was hard to be proud of the fact we were still quite negative. You know, that was a significant move up in rates. And, you know, I think, in getting back, it was the reversal of extreme measures that were put in place. And central bankers knew that they had to get in front of inflation by increasing rates. You know, we're at a level now where they're kind of waiting to, they're looking for casualties, which are seeming to be beginning to mount up there, but they know it's going to take a number of casualties of businesses and individuals that were over-levered that are going to have some financial difficulty today, uh, before they look at changing direction.
Dean Colling: So you think about, um, 2022 and we thought, and I would like to know your thoughts on this. I mean, this is, you know, kind of macroeconomics 101, but the, the impact of of a rate hike, quarter point, half point, whatever it might be, obviously takes time to work its way through the system, especially when we're dealing with a base level of zero rates, you know, a quarter point, not a ton of impact. You know, another quarter point on top of that, a little bit more. What was your view? Our view was that central banks were acting too quickly without understanding the impacts of their initial tightening process. They were they were already three, four tightening moves in without truly understanding the impact of the original stuff. How did you guys feel about that? I mean, we may have been right or wrong in that view, but how how did you guys think about the pace?
Richard Usher-Jones: Our view is central banks had to be pretty aggressive. That they were concerned about not getting in front of sort of the self-fulfilling prophecy of inflation that just continues to steamroll. Uh, you get at a manufacturing facility, all of the workers come in to the boss and say, you know, we need a raise, like everything is more expensive. And they say, for sure, we'll give you a raise, 5%, because they know they're just going to turn around and raise the cost of whatever they're producing by 8 or 10%, and that's a dangerous cycle. And in order to get in front of that, it had to be aggressive and abrupt. Um, and, you know, that's in our view, that's what central bankers had to do. I mean, our concern may have been that, um, central bankers waited a little too long. And, you know, I think the issue that existed was no one wanted to go on record as the central banker that cut off a very fragile recovery too early. Right? They needed to know that there was a solid foundation under this, or that was their argument. I think. (Laughs) That, you know, went about really creating, uh, significant, uh, inflation, which we saw.
Dean Colling: Right. So the question I have for you is, remember when the term transitory inflation came out, everyone said, you know, Powell, uh, Jerome Powell would say this is transitory. You know, given the unprecedented level of monetary policy was he in fact right? In the sense that this was just driven by an extreme level of monetary policy, you know, a shutdown in the economy, nobody was building inventories, um, to now, you know, pulling all that stuff out. It's, you can see, how inflation is sort of shedding and reducing fairly quickly. Um, right or wrong, I mean, I'm just curious to know what you guys felt about that term, and transitory, depending on what your definition of that is, in terms of time frame.
Richard Usher-Jones: Yeah, I think if I were the central banker that came out with the term transitory, I would wait and define what the time period was. And I, you know, I'd wait until definitively I know what it's going to be. Our view at Canso has been, though, that it's going to be harder to tame inflation than many think. Right, and we're kind of seeing that right now. It's going to be hard to get, once inflation is out of the bag, it's hard to stuff back in. And we're still running hotter than the target 2%. And getting us back down to that level of 2% is going to take more time and more work. You know, the analogy they've used is you're running a marathon, which is what, 42km? The last two kilometres is way harder than the first two and that could be the period we're in. But they're hoping it's transitory. I mean, having a permanent level or an extended level of inflation in excess of 8%, um, is going to cause a lot of turmoil in the financial markets and certainly with households, and affordability and you name it. Um, I mean, we're living through some of that in the housing market today. Um, is that, I mean, that's one of the most interest rate sensitive pockets of the market, period. Um, and we're seeing some significant kind of price discovery there.
Dean Colling: Yeah. Everybody's obviously aware of headline risk when it comes to mortgage prices. For those fortunate enough to not have a mortgage or, you know, a tactical mortgage where it's used to borrow to invest or something like that, they were, you know, sitting at, uh, one and a half, 1.75% rates, uh, for a couple of years. And now, uh, rolling over in sixes. How does the central bank, in Canada in particular, because I know our housing market is much more sensitive to mortgage rates than, let's say, the US is. How are they handling that? What's the view, do you think, out of the Bank of Canada coming into say, Q2 of this year, Q3 of this year, where a lot of those, uh, you know, low variable rate mortgages, or just low fixed mortgages are coming up, you know, three, four, 500 basis points higher from an affordability perspective; and A. impact on the economy and spending, and B. maybe housing prices.
Richard Usher-Jones: Higher rates in the mortgage market, um, are having a significant impact today. And it's, you know, if you unfortunately went variable, uh, because it was the cheapest way to borrow money at the point in time where, you know, I remember hearing from people they locked in five year fixed at 1.6%. And if you chose to go variable because the rate was lower. Well, that's the group that went variable, they don't have to wait for their mortgage to be refinanced. They're feeling the pain today. And you think about, they're redirecting their finances within their household towards their mortgage at the cost of any other expenses. And those expenses are significant. Um, then you've also got the other category, to your point, people that are in Canada, most mortgages are done, uh, one, three or five years if they're fixed rate and, you know, it seems like the banks are always in awe of the fact that they're like, hey, 20% of all of our mortgages have to be refinanced this year. Like, that's how it works. The hope that people have that are refinancing is that rates are going to come down by the time that they have to go about locking in a new rate or, or rolling over that mortgage. Um, you know, I think the stat is something like 9.5% of the economy in Canada is hitched to housing, and that's housing directly, development and construction and you name it. And it's, I've heard stats where it's about half of that or about 5% in the US.
Richard Usher-Jones: So we are much more exposed in Canada. And I, you got to think that central bankers, uh, and the decision makers and policy makers are looking at that very intently. You know, thankfully, there are a lot of people that own their houses in Canada outright. The loan-to-value on a lot of mortgages are not that risky. But there are some that are very, very exposed. This is going to be one of those environments where, you know, you also think orchestrating a soft landing, or if we're in for a mild recession, um, that's the average experience. And the average experience is averaging those that are not impacted, uh, and those that are going to be potentially financially decimated. But on average, you got a mild recession or you got a soft landing. And so there's going to be some casualties out there. And you're seeing some of these already. And this has happened so fast that the evidence now today is more anecdotal. It's talking to people I work with where they've got neighbours, that they can't afford to refinance their mortgage when it comes up for renewal. So they're selling their house and they're neighbours that have lived there for 5 or 7 years on the same street. So this is the kind of thing that's going to put pressure on central bankers.
Dean Colling: Yeah. And I think the, um, you know, that's the concern everybody has, right? So this is, you're right, there's a lot of people out there who, from a loan-to-value perspective are going to be fine, but it's the cash flow perspective as you mentioned. So that'll be interesting. And we you know, maybe that sort of leans into the view that Bank of Canada acts first. Um, they start to just, you know, reduce slowly, but sooner, let's say, than any other central bank. So that impacts our view on the dollar and, you know, other assets. But I agree with you. I mean, this is, uh, inflation is a problem if it's not really, really taken care of, you can't do it sort of on a half measure. You have to really, really be good and be very firm with it. And that's, I guess, what central banks are thinking. So, you know, whether we get cuts starting in Q2 or Q3, who knows? I imagine we get some this year but we're, we tend to not get involved in that type of prognostication. It's always a difficult thing to try to nail down.
Dean Colling: Which leads me into the next question for you, and you kind of mentioned it earlier about mild recession or not. Where is this recession everybody worried about? Uh, this time last year or even into, you know, the fall of 2022? I haven't seen them materialise yet. Uh, where are all the economists now? And all the pounding the table on the recession call? Is it just delayed? Are we, have we actually seen this miraculous soft landing happen? Uh, what is your view on where a recession may or may not come in?
Richard Usher-Jones: Uh, you know, you look back at the beginning of 2023, and I think there was 100% certainty that we were going to have a recession and rates were going to get cut last year. Um, and at Canso, we feel much more comfortable when we have a different view than consensus. And, you know, I'd say maybe I'm a bit of a dreamer that I'd like to think that central bankers can, it's their job to try and orchestrate a soft landing. But then my colleagues and our our CIO, John Carswell, is like, the only way they know they've tightened enough is when they cause a recession. He's like, and so that's what we're in for. Uh, and, you know, so I, he's got more experience than I do, it's true. It's hard to think that these aggressive moves, we can orchestrate a perfect scenario. But I'd say the really good news is central bankers are in a position to respond to a recession today. They can cut rates. If you look back at a period of economic weakness, in the pandemic, they couldn't cut rates. I mean, they did like to absolute zero levels, but they were already so low it couldn't have the desired impact. We're in a much better position today that central bankers have some ammunition to respond to the next period of weakness.
Dean Colling: Yeah, they do, and it's interesting because everybody got used to zero rates, free money. And we wrote a piece that we have on our website about sort of more, you know, an efficient allocation of capital at better rates. You know, when you get better, more efficient level of interest rates, that's above zero. And, you know we, while it seemed reasonable to be free, uh, you know, free money sounds amazing. But, uh, when it comes to the economy, free is not good, especially from, you know, allocating to risk assets and things like that. So, you know, we wrote a piece where we think, you know, the sweet spot here is somewhere where we see, like we think the ten year and, you know, the twenty- and thirty-year bond rates are actually where they should be. They might back up a little bit. But, you know, we think that, uh, you know, a 4% ten year is kind of right, um, where things should be from that perspective. I don't know how you guys feel about that, but and I even talk about that from an equity investor perspective, risk free rates, equity risk premiums, all that kind of stuff. Um, you know, we think that, you know, three, 4% ten years are certainly much better than zero when it comes to truly good long-term growth in an economy.
Richard Usher-Jones: Yeah, I'd say our view is that we spent almost 15 years in a period where rates were just artificially low today. To your point, we're back in a much more normalised environment and a normalised environment. Where is one where if you buy a risk-free instrument like a Government of Canada bond or a Treasury bill that's, say, one year in term, you should make about 2% over and above inflation. And we're about there today. Right. So so this period we're in is is a much more normalised environment. I mean the shape of the yield curve is such that the longer you go the lower rates become. And that should normalise sooner or later. But today the good news is your clients and investors are actually paid on their savings again, that if you invest in something that doesn't really have any risk, like a Government of Canada bond today, you're making greater than what inflation is running at. And hopefully if inflation comes down a bit to its target of 2% and it's it's not that far away. Short rates have the ability to settle down a bit, but you're still going to be looking at kind of that long term average real yield of 2%, making 2% over inflation. So you know, I'd say this feels abnormal because we haven't been here for so long. But this is a much more normalised, uh, environment. One of, you know, risk free to what your real rate of return is.
Dean Colling: So what's the interest rate risk though, for people getting lulled into nice historically high, well, I wouldn't say historically because you really look back over history. It's fairly normal. Um, but certainly in the, in recent memory, over the last ten to fifteen years through post-financial crisis, you know, getting 5% on essentially cash is essentially unprecedented in the last ten or fifteen years. So how do we think about that from a strategic perspective for clients getting, you know, lulled to sleep by that, you know, because if we, you know, if inflation comes down to two, you know, we see those short rates roll over. Um, at some point, you know, they might not go down 300 basis points, but they might go down 200. What's the tactical strategy here in cash and fixed income assets, let's say over the next twelve to eighteen months for money that is sitting at that short end of the curve, um, sort of year or less in maturity, you know, where's the risk, you know, that they face about sort of rolling down that curve into lower rates?
Richard Usher-Jones: I'd look at it a bit differently, maybe kind of change the lens of what investors are looking at. They're saying, you know what I'm making 5% or maybe six in something really really high-quality. Inflation's running hot, I want to do better than that and they're sticking their neck out and they're buying they're buying bonds that are lower in quality that maybe aren't that well structured, that are yielding higher yields, that are yielding, say 7.5% or so or maybe 8% now. Like, wow, it's a bond, that looks great. Um, that's our concern because those bonds, even though those all-in yields of 8% or so seem attractive, you're really not paid enough for the risk that you're assuming. And if you look at the average high yield bond or below investment grade bond out there, you're making only about 3.5% more than a risk-free instrument or a Government of Canada bond of the same term, when on average, that should be about 5.5%. That, if we enter a period of economic weakness where there's an increase in the number of defaults, which we think given the higher level of interest rates that's destined to happen, those bonds are going to be significantly penalised. So if you're working with your clients saying, hey, you know what, five, 6%, this is great, let's take it, it's very limited risk associated with this. Do that all day long, because the time is going to come when this higher level of rates is going to significantly increase the number of defaults out there, that's going to cause confusion. And there's going to be some really good opportunities to be had when that happens.
Dean Colling: Yeah, I agree with that. And we, you know we've been taking the view that stay high quality, stay investment grade. That's where we're getting compensated the most. There's no reason to stretch for credit to get that extra yield because of what you said. Because credit spreads as you said, are, you know, 2 or 300 basis points. They're pretty tight, means that, you know, so far the, you know, the market is calm and, you know, assessing risk, probably not exactly as it should. But that's the big risk, is that they blow out and you get trouble there. The other question I would have in terms of being slightly defensive is in duration or, you know, as clients might know, that's sort of an effective term to maturity. In a typical rate cut cycle, let's say going through a normal business cycle, quite often a strategy is to extend term. You know you get, rates have come up, uh, now the economy's rolling over a little bit, central banks cut, and you get some not only coupon income, but you get a nice tailwind from price appreciation as rates come down. But this is different. You know, the way we look at it is, you know I was saying to a client the other day there's not a lot of meat on the bone in the ten year and, you know, twenty-year space to be compensated for going that far out in terms of maturity. I know you guys, if I'm correct, are still quite short in duration. That's our view as well. Um, maybe tell the listeners why that's probably still the smarter thing to do, is not try to stretch for term either at this point in the cycle.
Richard Usher-Jones: Yeah. It's interesting if if we look at our corporate value portfolio, which is the one that we focus on really doing our our deep quality credit research and identifying undervalued securities, um, we want to make sure that we're positioned with a lot of liquidity and dry powder that allows us to move and take advantage of opportunities when they present themselves. So being shorter in term and being high quality right now allows us to also maximise yield. If you look at the shape of the yield curve, if we're in, even a Government of Canada bond, that's around 12 months to maturity, we're collecting a pretty attractive yield and we're very, very liquid. And sure, we could do better if they're owning longer term bonds by picking up some price appreciation if there's a drop in yield. Our preference is to maintain that posture and liquidity and and kind of bird in hand, collect that higher yield right now. And typically if you're going to get price appreciation, a drop in yields, that's going to come with difficulty and a dislocation in the capital markets. And that's when we're going to want the liquidity. And we think that's going to be more valuable for us and for our clients and investors, and what we'll be able to be buying on their behalf and the kinds of opportunities we're going to take advantage of.
Dean Colling: So if we look at the positioning of your portfolio today in a little bit more detail and we say, okay, we're coming into 2024, we've talked about I mean, I think everybody believes there's rate cuts coming, but the amount is kind of reduced. If everybody looks at the dot plot from the fed that's changed. You know, we've come from, as you mentioned, 100% certainty of recession and, you know, a whole waft of, uh, rate cuts this year to maybe not, uh, recession and a few rate cuts. How have you guys positioned and where do you see the opportunities this year? But more so, the real risks and I know you're probably going to say in terms of credit spread blow out, but is there from an economic perspective? I want to say, is there anything on the macro side that can derail, you know, this soft landing that everybody is anticipating and then how how would you position the portfolio accordingly?
Richard Usher-Jones: I think what's attractive today, and you mentioned it, is higher quality. You're actually paid in high quality today and the additional yield you get by investing in, say, a Canadian bank issued bond is actually attractive even from historical measures. So those are the types of things, they don't sound that exciting. But um, if you get paid a pretty good coupon and yield in higher quality, that's exciting to us. And, you know, we think that environment will change. Being at higher quality is going to allow us to capitalise on on opportunities when they present themselves, when things do get difficult. And, you know, if we don't get this soft landing, um, we could end up with, you know, some problems in the economy and, you know, we think there's going to be pockets of the market that are quite stressed. That's where there are deals and opportunities where we get the proper downside protection and the compensation in terms of yield, we'll step into that. And it's just being patient and waiting for it. And you know, with that there's always a few special situations that come. Those tend to not need specific things unfolding in the capital markets, these special situations and you know we're waiting for those as well.
Dean Colling: What about commercial real estate? And I know a lot of people talk, we talk about sort of residential and mortgages and things like that. You know, that's a fairly sizeable headline risk that we saw this time last year with the regional bank issues in the US. You know, these are long life assets that are now, you know, subject to less occupancy. People working from home two or three days a week. Is that a problem? Is that something that's festering that could be systemic in any way, any big risks there? Or is this something that will be, you know, pockets of risk but handled?
Richard Usher-Jones: We think there's going to be for sure pockets of risk on the commercial real estate side. We tend to not, I mean, we're not buying buildings. We're not buying and financing commercial real estate projects. We've bought the occasional mortgage bond where the owner of a building would package the building as a bond. But it's essentially, you're doing your credit work on who are the underlying tenants, what are the financials of the underlying tenants, what are the terms of their leases and things like that. But those are, have been historically a very small part of our portfolio. But certainly this whole kind of resetting and recalibration of this real estate market and particularly of, you know, financing of some of these developments we think are going to be quite problematic. When you were talking about cheap money, I was, you know, also thinking we came out of a period where if there were 4 or 5 projects that you were looking at doing, if money's free, you're like, hey, I'm going to do all five of them. We're back in a more healthy environment where you're also talking, you're going to pick the most profitable ones, and that might be one. It might be two of them. It's not all five. When money is free, you can act on some bad ideas. And I think a lot of that was happening, right? And there were financial models built on very cheap money. The inputs in those models are very different today. And that's where these problems are going to be in real estate. We're in Ontario and I, uh, spent some time in the weekends skiing, if you can call it, like that, up in the escarpment, up in Collingwood and it's those vacation properties and vacation homes where you're seeing buildings that are kind of three quarters built, where nothing's moved on them for fourteen, sixteen months, you know. So some of this difficulty is happening.
Dean Colling: Yeah. And that's what we think is got the eye of the Bank of Canada at this point. They're holding on until, you know, they see something break and, or about to and, and then they'll move. But you're right, you know, as your colleagues were, you mentioned your colleagues saying they know they've raised enough when they've hit a recession. So, you know, hopefully it doesn't get too, too difficult there. But as you mentioned, the benefit of being aggressive with their tightening policy in the last couple of years is that they've got room to cut.
Richard Usher-Jones: You know, just add your point. You know, I think and I don't know, I'm not not a central banker, thank God I don't think I could do it. Uh, well I certainly couldn't do it. Um, they've got to see pain because they know that the measures they put in place are actually having a desired impact and effect. I don't think they can stop at the first sign of pain. They're going to have to see that continue and it's, it'll be difficult. And that's where you hope that central bankers are able to operate independently without any pressure to change direction and to operate in the best interests of the overall economy.
Dean Colling: Yeah. Um, a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on with central bank policy and, you know, I would certainly agree with you. It wouldn't be an ideal position to be in. It's tough to do what they're doing right now. So far so good, so we'll see if they can continue. Um, when we talk about our partnership and why we utilise a great organisation like uh, Canso is oftentimes, as you mentioned, um, sort of your opportunistic value-oriented approach to doing deals, finding opportunities. And in, you know, a large group like we have, we're still not at the table when it comes to being able to get involved in unique credit deals with individual companies, um, participating as a syndicate, things like that. It really, really takes, um, a strong institutional group like yours, as you said, 60 plus people on the investment side and the research side doing credit analysis, you know, that's what we partner with you for is to to get us involved and our clients involved in certain deals. So maybe take us through a few examples over the last few years that illustrates how, you know, partnering with a group like yours, you know, can benefit our clients in terms of our allocation to you because of some of the direct deals you're doing and some of the more opportunistic deals you're structuring.
Richard Usher-Jones: Yeah. You know, I think, um, John Carswell set up Canso as an organisation to operate in the best interests of our end investors and to be at the table getting those deals that as individuals, you, frankly, would have a lot of trouble actually getting access to. Um, we've got great relationships with businesses and companies basically globally and many, many developed markets, uh, Canada, the US and Europe. And we'd like to think we're there when they need capital, and we can have discussions with them about what makes sense for them and what also makes sense for our portfolios. And, you know, I think the biggest holdings we have in our portfolio are really as a result of a process we call doing a reverse inquiry, that as a credit analyst, it's your responsibility to know what the maturity profile is of the particular company that you're following. And if one of those companies needs cash, um, rather than them waiting to work with their investment bankers and then approaching the market with a deal that they think is going to work for them, it's turning around and through the investment dealer, approaching that company and that business and saying, hey, if you need some capital, we'd be interested in doing a deal with this indicative spread and this term and this structure. And that can be a real advantage to the issuer, because they know that if they're going to come to market and present a deal, they've already got a significant buyer and they can build the deal around that.
Richard Usher-Jones: You know, that's been, uh, a way that we've done some significant purchases in our portfolio. I mentioned today and this might not sound that exciting, but there's good value in Canadian financials. We did, uh, bought $1 billion of a Canadian bank issued covered bond in the latter part of last year at a yield spread of, uh, paying us 0.76% above a Government of Canada bond in a triple A rated covered bond, where you're backed by the covenant of the bank, and also another pool of assets that you have prior charge on. You know, there's been other deals that, another one we still own in the portfolio, where we got a few calls from the investment dealer in the US that was marketing a deal on behalf of, uh, of an airline. It took them, uh, a few tries to actually get a deal done. And finally, you know, the third thing that was presented to the market, uh, we thought this looked attractive. What we ended up buying was a bond where instead of buying the bond at $100, we bought the new issue at $93, had a coupon of 13.375%. It was an airline where you can imagine airlines, they're risky business, they're highly levered but it was, we were in a first lien secured position, so we had significant downside protection.
Richard Usher-Jones: We did a lot of work on the deal to figure out exactly what that collateral was, and we've owned that bond for a couple of years now. It's about 2% of the portfolio. It's now priced at $115 in the portfolio. And we've continued to collect that coupon. But it's those types of deals and issues that if I look at an individual investor in Canada, that was bought through a US dealer, they're not going to have that relationship with the US dealer, and likely they're not going to be able to drop everything they're doing and do all the work on all the documentation to see what your downside protection is and to be able to price from a relative value perspective, whether or not that's attractive. Maybe a couple longer, that's a couple longer examples. But we got tons of examples like that. And uh, if at any time, I mentioned we've got 30 people on the research team, they're all looking at different things, and we all bring them back together and bounce ideas off of one another and hey, is there something I'm missing here? Do I need to go back and find more information? And typically, when you're bouncing the ideas off of your colleagues, I'm benefiting from the collective reading and knowledge of 29 other people.
Dean Colling: Yeah. And again, reinforcing the reason why, you know, we partnered with a group like yours in our Colling Group Global Fixed Income strategy, uh, you guys have a significant portion of that because of the quality of research you guys do. So as we wrap up now, um, you know, obviously, you know, sort of summarising what we chatted about before, unprecedented four years, um, congrats on managing through it. We all seemed to survive it, um, for various reasons. In hindsight, we can look back and say, how did we do it? But are there any lessons learned, do you think, from the last four years that you might apply looking forward? Um, you know, to say hey, boy, that was that was a unique historical period of time that we now are better for it in the sense that how we approach risk and how we approach structuring the portfolio and what we look for in the future.
Richard Usher-Jones: I think, you know, if you, myself and my colleagues at Canso, it was, uh, it's knowing when something is really good value, not waiting too long, just take advantage of it and move quickly. And it seems like the windows in today's market are open for shorter periods of time. The other thing that has also changed, uh, in the last number of years, a couple of things, is the amount of money that's invested in passive index products that is just flow traded, it's just momentum driven. And it's, they're not doing the bottom-up fundamental research, and it's knowing how quickly that money can move. And I think a lot of those investors don't fully appreciate they indirectly own the underlying asset. And if they're buying and selling, they've got to sell the underlying asset. It needs to be sold. And, you know, I think that can significantly exaggerate market moves. And that also kind of underscores the importance that we put on having liquidity. And when I say liquidity, it's having things that are available for sale very quickly, that you can pounce on opportunities. You know, I think that it is kind of, you know, you reminisce or I don't know if that's the right word, but think back in the last four years and yeah, there's certain, a lot of things I think we all learned about ourselves in those. You know, just personal health, mental health, just all, all of that and how significant that is. Um, you know, weird tangent, but I've got three kids, uh, and seeing them go through it all, I mean, I wouldn't want to go through that again, but I think we'd be better equipped this time.
Dean Colling: Yeah, we all did do a bit of a, uh, a reality check on what's important to us. And, uh, I would agree that's, uh, family was certainly was, uh, always important for all of us, but became even more important over that period. Um, Richard. Thank you. That was a good discussion. And, uh, I hope we gave our listeners some insight into, you know, what has gone on in the last four years, how you guys manage the portfolio. And again, our commitment to you and your team is centred around the fact of, you know, quality of the team, discipline in the process, focus on value. These are the type of things that when we go through these risk litmus tests like, you know, Covid, like the great financial crisis, like, uh, you know, rate hike cycle, like 2022, we have a lot of confidence in your ability to manage the downside risk because of that discipline. And that's kind of when we make that commitment and allocation. That's where we're expecting. So thank you for that. Um, yeah, I hope uh, I wish you the best of luck for the rest of the year. Um, and we'll have to, uh, get you back here again, uh, sometime next year. And we can see how all our discussion, uh, um, uh, how it turned out, uh, in 2025.
Richard Usher-Jones: Well, thanks so much for the invite. And, uh, the opportunity to kind of share what we see at Canso. Uh, we really appreciate it. You know, the last thing I'd say is, uh, we take it really seriously. Your clients are invested in the same strategies that our own personal money is, uh, by Canso Partners and Canso PMs that, um, as we say, we don't eat our own cooking, we gorge on it. So, thank you.
Dean Colling: Thank you Richard.
[The microphone graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. On the left side of the screen are a list of disclaimers. The text reads: Credits; Music Provided by: Hot Coffee by Ghostrifter Official (soundcloud.com/ghostrifter-official), Licensed under Creative Commons – Attribution, ShareAlike 3.0 Unported – CC BY-SA 3.0., http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Disclaimers; This information, including any opinion, is based on various sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed and is subject to change. CIBC and CIBC World Markets Inc., their affiliates, directors, officers and employees may buy, sell, or hold a position in securities of a company mentioned herein, its affiliates or subsidiaries, and may also perform financial advisory services, investment banking or other services for, or have lending or other credit relationships with the same. CIBC World Markets Inc. and its representatives will receive sales commissions and/or a spread between bid and ask prices if you purchase, sell or hold the securities referred to above. © CIBC World Markets Inc. 2024.
CIBC Private Wealth consists of services provided by CIBC and certain of its subsidiaries, including CIBC Wood Gundy, a division of CIBC World Markets Inc. The CIBC logo and “CIBC Private Wealth” are trademarks of CIBC, used under license. “Wood Gundy” is a registered trademark of CIBC World Markets Inc. Insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services Inc. In Quebec, insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services (Quebec) Inc.
Dean Colling is an Investment Advisor with CIBC Wood Gundy in Toronto. The views of Dean Colling do not necessarily reflect those of CIBC World Markets Inc.
If you are currently a CIBC Wood Gundy client, please contact your Investment Advisor.]
Announcer: Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed our show, please consider sharing the episode with your friends. Be sure to check out our website for new episodes every few months.
[The podcast opens on an introduction graphic with CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. The text reads: Wealthview, Hosted by Dean Colling, First Vice-President & Senior Portfolio Manager, June, 2023. On the left side of the screen are a group of graphics consisting of two speech bubbles, a stylized group of gears, and a bar graph with an arrow in an uptrend. The text on the left hand side reads: Philosophy, Strategy & Insights.]
Announcer: You're listening to Wealthview, the podcast where we share philosophy, strategy and insights from some of Canada's top financial professionals.
[A brief montage consisting of a street level view of traffic in downtown Toronto, high-rise buildings, Dean Colling speaking on a microphone, and a bird’s eye view of a four-way intersection plays on the left side of the screen.]
Announcer: Hosted by Dean Colling, Senior Wealth Advisor and Portfolio Manager at CIBC Private Wealth. Edited and produced by the Colling Group. And now, on to the show.
[The introduction graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. In the centre of the screen is a graphic representation of a microphone. The text reads: Wealthview, Conversation with Tess Buckley, AI Ethics Senior Analyst, EthicsGrade.]
Dean Colling: Welcome to Wealthview. I'm your host, Dean Colling. On this edition of Wealthview, we dive into the topic of artificial intelligence, but not necessarily the details of the technology behind it, but rather the ethical implications of how it may impact our lives going forward. Joining us is Tess Buckley, an Artificial Intelligence Ethics Senior Analyst at EthicsGrade out of London, England. Tess holds a master's degree in philosophy and artificial intelligence from Northeastern University in London, where she specialized in machine bias and biotechnologies. Prior to her masters degree, she completed a joint degree at McGill University in philosophy and international Development. Tess, welcome to Wealthview.
Tess Buckley: Thank you so much. Thank you so much for having me, Dean. Looking forward to the conversation today.
Dean Colling: Yeah, it's obviously a very, very important and timely topic, a big one too, that I think we clearly won't be able to cover in its entirety in 30 minutes or so. But we're going to do our best to at least scratch the surface. And, you know, as much as the technology is just, you know, kind of mind blowing in terms of how quickly it's come online to, you know, sort of the average person out there is now starting to touch and feel AI through things like ChatGPT. You know, in our world, it's interesting. We talk to people about the investment side of things and we talk to people about how do we take advantage of this and the unique opportunity that it brings. But unlike anything I've ever seen before, it has equal or even more concern surrounding about it. People thinking, what is this going to do to our lives? How is this going to impact, you know, our everyday social being? You know, it really brings into question the ethics about how this new technology gets integrated to our lives, how we develop it. And so it was a real pleasure to be able to get connected to you, someone who has really made this a focus of their career. And I know you're early on in it and you're sort of just post thesis writing and all that sort of thing, but clearly what you're you're doing now seems very, very timely and very, very interesting. So, you know, it's great to have you on. And let's talk before we get into the depths of sort of ethics and AI, let's talk a little bit about you and school and career path, and why did you choose this and how did you get to this point?
Tess Buckley: Of course. Yeah. Promise and perils of AI are ever emerging. If you can imagine, I never thought that I would be calling myself an AI Ethicist. A couple of reasons for that. I mean, AI wasn't very well known in my younger years. So that's, that's one, and I'm a very creative person. So, I come from a creative family and AI seemed out of reach just because it was very much in the STEM field, which I avoided except for chemistry. And so I got to my undergrad, big decision, and it was a split between going to Berkeley to do jazz performance and musical therapy, I wanted to be a musical therapist, and McGill, which I ended up going with. I did a joint major in philosophy and international development and a minor in communications, and I took a random class on the philosophy of technology. I think it was my second or my third year. And I just, I mean, I've always loved learning. I've always loved reading and writing, but I couldn't for the life of me get out of the library. So cut to me in a café in Montreal, googling MA's in philosophy of technology, and I stumbled upon the one which I later attended in the UK. It was the only one I could find at that time and later, I later learned it was the only one, master's in philosophy and AI at Northeastern University based in London. And so I completed that. I did a thesis on ableism and biotechnologies, which really focused on how datasets can't quite account for the nuance of a human condition. And then I took September to defend that thesis, and October I did some gigs around London as a jazz singer, jazz vocalist, and I started my current role as an ethicist at EthicsGrade within a month of completion of that MA. And I'm sure we'll get into the EthicsGrade business as we can tell. But I'll pause there.
Dean Colling: Well, yeah, but why don't like, why don't we do that? So, you know, interestingly, if listeners know that we've done a number of podcasts and interviews in the past, some of which centre around ESG and as investors, the ESG component of our analytics is important these days. And interesting talking to you, um, you know, how you really brought it to my attention that ESG should include AI oversight and how things are being integrated into business and what they're doing with that, you know, in turn with their consumers. So, you know, that's a huge important piece of our analytics going forward, something we got to learn a lot about. But yeah, that I guess what EthicsGrade is around to do I suppose, ESG and AI evaluation. So tell us a little bit about the business and what you guys are doing at a high level.
Tess Buckley: Yeah. So I joined the EthicsGrade team to work as an ethicist, and I see AI as an ESG issue. And so I think that's an important point to make. And our mission is, to be able to answer any ESG question on any company for any investor. And the company was actually birthed because we found that companies were being overburdened by ESG surveys, and second to that is investors consistently having to make decisions about their portfolio without quality data, specifically on digital risks. And so what we have is actually the only data set in the world on data ethics. And so we basically are ESG data company that specializes in creating benchmarks on the quality of governance at various companies, specifically on the topic of digital risk. And so that's our main focus, and I'm just grateful to be a part of the mission.
Dean Colling: Yeah, that sounds super important. And again, as we evaluate, you know, how companies use this data, you know, it's sort of above my pay grade at this point. I don't know how we can control this stuff, but that's why we're talking to you today and sort of seeing how important it is to put barriers and guidelines down to ensure that this technology is used appropriately. But before we go sort of into the weeds here on some of that, why don't we take a 30,000 foot view of AI and really what it is? I think everybody innately knows what it is. We've all watched enough movies in our day. Everybody remembers Terminator or, you know, 2001 A Space Odyssey. I mean, this is going on for generations. But,you know,it's kind of right in real life now. But maybe from an academic perspective or, you know, from your business perspective, how do we truly define AI maybe as a topic, just to summarize, what are we looking at? What is AI?
Tess Buckley: So there's a lot of different types of AI. I'll say AI stands for artificial intelligence and it really is a field which combines computer science and robust datasets to enable problem solving. And a lot of what people I think get a little freaked out about is this problem solving aspect. Often these machines are capable of things that we once thought only humans were, and so in that way, their actions sometimes lead us to believe that they are as intelligent or capable as a human being. And so that's when you get into artificial intelligence.
Dean Colling: And it is amazing. I mean, obviously we are at early stages of of how it can be used. I'm sure many people have gone on various large language learning model chat things like ChatGPT and said, hey, write me a poem about something silly and it's incredible what it does. Now that's not necessarily going to change the world, but it is very unique and something we haven't seen before. But let's talk for a second and this is again, why you and your business is very important, is as AI grows, let's look to the headlines that we see today about some of the big you know, the builders of this. Guys like U of T Prof and and Google alum, or now he's an alum because he just left, Geoffrey Hinton who's as we all have heard, has been deemed the godfather of AI. Everybody sort of stopped in their tracks here and said, wait a minute, this is more dangerous. In fact, Hinton was quoted as saying recently that he regrets a lot of his life's work because of the dangers. How do we think about that as sort of the layman out there?
Tess Buckley: Most interesting enough, a few days ago you were mentioning the exit of, quote unquote, the godfather of AI. I'm not exactly sure what has driven the the news storm around AI ethics, responsible tech, but I'm so grateful for it. I think going mainstream obviously brought AI into our everyday. But even prior to that, I mean, we live in a digital era, so our lives have been permeated by AI use forever. And I think a key sadness, and which drove me to be in AI ethics is this lack of knowledge of the technology we engage in. And so as much as I have some discomfort in an individual who spent their entire lives building unethical machines is coming out at the end of it, and he's he's 70 or so. And it's interesting that the news articles aren't saying he's retiring because he's gotten into his elder age, they're saying that he's also had this upset. You know it's, there's been a lot of work by other people as well that were actually at Google while Geoff was there and he wasn't able to step in while he was working there? And I wonder if his ability to kind of acknowledge his regret and acknowledge his mistake is because he's an alum, he's an ex Google now. And I guess that gets into a whole separate conversation.
Dean Colling: Yeah. Would, as a publicly traded company, I'm sure you don't want your employees saying, you know not towing the line on product that you're trying to bring to market but I think pretty sure that's why he stepped off. But clearly he's signaled that now that the proverbial genie is out of the bottle, that we as a society need to do a significant amount of work around managing the growth and development of that. So let's talk through the risks and again, the associated ethics that need to be sort of overlaid on this development, I mean it is rapid. It's on fire right now in terms of its development. What do you see as some of the key risks out there as this thing develops without the proper guardrails?
Tess Buckley: Well, I'll start by defining ethics, because we did the AI definition, but I think a quick Google search will lead you to, you know, it's a set of standards or it's a set of guidelines to steer the design and outcomes of AI. But for me, it's really, it's this practice of mitigating the ethical risks of emerging technologies. And by ethical risks, I mean bias, I mean data privacy, misinformation, and hopefully in a proactive way. So a key problem is actually this information gap between the makers and the users of technology. Within this information gap, there's just a lack of AI literacy training, obviously AI ethics, it's the right thing to do. It is a moral imperative. But something I've really come to realize with working with EthicsGrade, It's also there's a business case. I'll spend the next bit kind of explaining, and I get the key motivations of the financial sector is to is to make money, you know, it is to be efficient. And so actually having this good corporate digital governance not only decreases the risk, but it increases the value and gives companies competitive advantage. So why is this, I mean, we're seeing that as investors want to further understand the digital ethics of their portfolio, they're doing that because you have scandals, you have fines coming out. And while there is increased value in the potential tech space, it's a booming space. I'm not going to sit here and pretend it's not, but so is the ESG space.
Tess Buckley: And the niche I work in, which is increasingly going mainstream, ChatGPT would fit into this, is corporate digital responsibility. You mentioned the Geoff narrative, the godfather of AI stepping down and warning about the risk. You know, Canada's Federal Government Privacy Commissioner just launched an investigation into OpenAI, which is actually the company that developed ChatGPT. And if you look at any of the key consultancies, they're actually hiring thought leaders in responsible AI. So that's Accenture, that's PwC. Recently I just read a piece on, it was horrible, It was actually a suicide due to engaging with a chatbot. So if you're in, if you're investing in AI, that's great. Tech is exciting, tech is flashy, but tech is only going to grow. And the tech that will sustain is ethical tech. And that's why it's so important to have data sets that allow you to further understand corporate digital governance.
Dean Colling: Yeah, and it's interesting you say that because I think, you know, one of the concerns that I think about, when we're looking at it from a high level, is human nature to take the easy route and to become over-reliant on something that may not be delivering, you know, valid responses or has the, we have the ability as human beings to be manipulated by things that we may not even know are true or false. What do you think about that in terms of sort of the human element of reliance on something that is essentially making their life easy, but without really truly knowing the unintended consequences of what they're relying on?
Tess Buckley: I'll give a few examples of where AI can go wrong. Obviously, there's AI bias, So, you know, tech is not going to fix the problems we can't ourselves. It's just going to amplify our bias at scale and then it's going to perpetuate it. Unemployment, I get it. There's a lot of social fears. I think that's actually one of the greatest fears in AI ethics right now is. But this narrative has been around for ever. You know, McKinsey, they had a report that said that that intelligent agents might replace around 300% of human labour. And I'm saying that not to necessarily fear the listener, but to make you realize and make you educated. I think the biggest problem right now is the lack of AI literacy training. Again, just the lack of knowledge, the lack of transparency. We're talking about mass surveillance, you know, surveillance capitalism. Do you recognise that when you walk down the street, facial recognition technologies are recognizing you? You know, there's a key question of harm, where do we draw that line between the public and the private life? And, you know, is government actually abusing the technology? Are they protecting us? Are they using it in a lawful way? I mean, IBM just stopped offering their facial recognition technology because of the potential misuse of it.
Dean Colling: So that's interesting, that's an interesting point because there is going to be sort of a self-reflection at the corporate level to say, are we doing the right thing? And corporations are very competitive by nature. And, you know, how do we incent as, is it, you know, it's society does, the governments do, how do we incent companies who have significant technology like this to act in best interests of society? How do we have them employ ethics protocols and stick to them? Is that even possible?
Tess Buckley: Well, I think that's where governance really comes in, right. You'll see a bunch of auditing and consultancies pop up around this. And, you know, we got to be worried of people buying into the hype. But there will be a huge increase in governance, and I think that will really help corporations. I want to again, I want to sit there and say, this is the right thing, you should be doing that. But there's ways in which you can still make a profit. I mean, if you're working on a system, solutions to make it more ethical, again, making it more sustainable is being more transparent. So knowledge sharing and making sure that you can explain if you've made a great machine, lovely, let's use it. If it leads to a conclusion, how does it get to that conclusion? What are the factors that affect that decision? Let's look at who's building your systems. But tech development is not diverse and it needs to be in order to actually sustain and account for all your consumers. If you diversify the community, it's actually a key for quality data and product as well.
Dean Colling: Is this somewhere where you're talking about bias and algorithm, algorithmic bias? Is this because the you know, as you just mentioned, sort of the development of AI is in essentially in the hands of very few, or a very maybe potentially non-diverse group of developers and executives and, you know, investors pouring the money in that gets actually built into the algorithms that actually learn? And actually generate responses and content?
Tess Buckley: I mean, bias can appear for a multitude of reasons, but I would say the two key ones are going to be the data that you feed a machine and the team that makes that machine. And so when I say diversity is needed, I mean diversity in data. Times have moved. But in order to build a machine, you need to feed it a lot of data. And so we're actually pulling from historic bias that we might not want to integrate into our future. And to be frank, I mean, we all have, I said this before, and I'll say it again, robots are not going to fix the problems we can ourselves. We all have ingrained bias. So even if we were to make a machine that is, oh my gosh, it's unbiased, it will then go and occupy spaces and structures that it will learn bias from. It will learn bias from the users as well. So being aware of that in the creation of your product is important.
Dean Colling: One of the things that I have read and I'd be curious on your opinion on this, is the development of AI, large language learning models, but in an open source coding technology type of environment. You know, it seemed to me to you know, obviously that's how this is developing so quickly, because of open source. But what if things like AI itself, which the, you know, the code was developed about, got access to its own open source, like I mean it could teach itself. It could change the code itself, It could do all of that. It seems like a serious risk. And I don't know if that's, you know, it's happening now or not, but how could we prevent things like that?
Tess Buckley: When I when I say that I studied philosophy and AI, the first thing people do is have you watched The Matrix, and have you watched iRobot? I get this fear. I don't mean to discredit it. I think it would be a matter of safeguarding. So again, having governance, proactive approaches, so creating clarity in industry through legal framework. But at the end of the day, I think what you're more touching on is the fact that the genie is out of the bottle. You're talking about basically general intelligence, artificial general intelligence, which there seems to be a race to that right now. I can't answer the question of how that would be fixed because it is a fear that may remain in theory rather than practical. Now, if it was to be reached, it would result in absolute chaos or utopia.
Dean Colling: Yeah, you're right. And that's sort of how I feel as well. But I guess, listen, we as human beings always tend to fear the worst. And, you know, for those who are, you know, remember Y2K and how all the planes were going to drop from the sky and, you know, the earth was going to end and it never did. So I'm sure I'd like to believe that this is similar and it will end up being really positive for society. So, you know, let's talk about your impact on you know, companies are hiring you to and and your company to develop these ethics protocols and to develop guidelines and how they responsibly build technology, which is great. But, you know, how does it, is that a negative for someone? Let's say, for example, you're playing not on a level playing field where someone who's very committed, senior management says this is a big part of who we are as a company, this is what we want to commit to and then the others don't. Is it, will it be obvious to investors? Does that necessarily make the other companies bad apples? Yes, dumping toxic waste into the rivers, yes we will, we'll identify that right away. But how do we know if someone's being a fair and ethical player in the development of AI or the use of technology in their businesses?
Tess Buckley: I see ethics as a competitive advantage. I mean, obviously it's when you're talking about comparing one company to the next, it's about taking talk to action. I think, you know, we can sit here and kind of be like, how do we balance the potential benefits of AI with the ethical considerations and its surrounding development and deployment? But I actually don't think it's about balancing the risks and reward, It should be a mindset shift. Along the lines of technology is great, it is helpful and it can it can really make us more efficient and free up our time. But we shouldn't risk harming others, losing trust in the consumer, putting our own cybersecurity at risk without proper proactive efforts, design them defensively. I mean, it just ends up biting you with scandals and and risk and so much more. I would answer again, I would answer this balancing question by saying it's not actually about balancing the potential benefit and ethical considerations because they're not fighting against each other. If you want to experience the potential benefit of AI, then ethical considerations are actually a part of that to cover you and have that competitive advantage. And yes, do the right thing. But I do think it is a business strategy. There should be AI ethics strategies implemented and discussed, the executive meetings, at the board meeting.
Dean Colling: Yes. I mean, you and I having this conversation today are clearly people who have identified the risks and rewards of technology and the development of it. And so we may as a senior management team or a board of directors of a business say, okay, let's integrate, you know, ethics protocols within how we do this. But our competitor across the street may not and does that necessarily make them a bad player? It's maybe not as obvious, I suppose. You know, like I said, the ESG part of it, we can, you know, guess theoretically we can identify bad players in that part of the ethics oversight. But the AI seems to be a little bit more stealthy. And would that you know, would there be a disincentive potentially in the future for companies to really employ deep ethics protocols over technology, when potentially the competition is not? So is this, do you think this is a government issue or this is at the corporate level, should governments get involved and maybe talk about I mean, I know they are getting involved, but should they step this up? At what level do you think they should be involved where maybe, maybe, perhaps it becomes overreach and maybe give some examples if you have some of, you know, things that are happening maybe today in Canada, over in the UK where you are?
Tess Buckley: So I think in order for a company to really realize AI ethics as a practice, obviously you have to have internal functions. And to be frank, it's important that the CEO is on board with whatever strategy is being implemented because a lot of it can be talk rather than action. I think the government initiatives and policies related to AI ethics are promising, things like the AI Act which is likely to come up in 2023. This is basically going to allow people in the EU to put their AI systems into three risk categories and allow the government to shut down projects. So if a project sits under unacceptable risks such as social scoring, the company will not be able to move forward with it. If the company, such as CV scanning, that's a high risk within the AI Act, they will not be able to actually pursue that as a business. GDPR, that was the General Data Protection Regulation that came out in 2018 and that actually focuses on data privacy and management and transparency. I think in Canada, I mean, we're both from Canada, I'm currently in the UK, so I know a lot more about what's going over here, but it's great to hear from overseas that the national AI strategy is out. I mean, you have the advisory council on AI. There's a lot of incredible ecosystems popping up. The Montreal AI Ethics Institute sits more in an academic area, but they're great. There's an ecosystem out in BC. Gillian Hadfield is an incredible thought leader out of Toronto connected to U of T, but it's the Schwartz Reisman Institute. And in business sense, I think the Canadian government has actually partnered with the US, which will help with innovation as well.
Dean Colling: Yeah, and that's, I think, what all of us as people going about their business day to day who are not tech and AI experts are hoping that there is a concerted effort to control and manage, you know, this type of technology. But ultimately, you're right that, you know, I think for what we see today, you know, there's many, many benefits from it and many, many challenges. And I think maybe it's worth talking about because I'm sure many listeners have kids in university, in high school, know here's an ethics question. I can now just tell it to write an essay for me. How do we get around that? How does the academic world combat something like that?
Tess Buckley: I don't- ChatGPT has really spun us. I think my main concern with education, it's very hard to tell students not to use it. I think if anything, they should be using it as a tool. But then it's a question of where do you draw the line between writing and editing? For me, the key fear with ChatGPT is actually its impact on language, and on culture, and on thinking. So will it mean that in a few years our ability to write will change? I try and go to the supermarket or a friend's house and I'll get up Google Maps. I would now call myself, you know, directionally challenged because I've relied so much on Google's map that I actually haven't really developed spatially aware, you know, mapping skills. And so I think I would, with ChatGPT, I can understand it as really helpful actually. But as long as it's being used as a tool and maybe it's all that data that has made ChatGPT so successful, but if everyone starts writing with ChatGPT, if all of our kids start submitting assignments with ChatGPT, we're actually just going to create a circle for ourselves and it'll just be like a monolith of culture, so it'll just, my fear, my greatest fear with ChatGPT is basically that we stagnate ourselves. I'm not too worried to be, to be frank, about plagiarism, you know, for people that are neurodivergent using this tool could be really helpful. There's a lot of there's a lot of benefits in it.
Dean Colling: And I think the final thing I wanted to point out was sort of can of worms. And again, talking about, you know, more of the ethics side of things is just, it's unbelievable ability to connect, you know, the chat aspect with it, with voice recognition, voice replication and even video itself. It just seems like it's ripe for false narratives and misinformation if we're not careful.
Tess Buckley: Yeah, I mean, you've definitely touched on an area of, I don't know if interest is the right word, an area of fear for me. It's very odd. We've just entered a phase of basically visual deepfakes where we can no longer quite trust what we're seeing. I think ChatGPT kind of touched on this area of written disinformation because it basically can generate anything it wants and it's not necessarily true. It's not necessarily fact checked. I think the next wave will actually be in audio content, so we're no longer going to be able to have experiences which we can fully detect as manmade. And so that goes, that boils down to trust.
Dean Colling: This is it. I mean, we're talking very philosophically here. And, you know, these are all things, you know, about trust and understanding and knowing, kind of identifying what makes us human versus what doesn't. And these are all big, big questions, big challenges. But, you know, we hope that groups like yours and and government oversight, you know, within reason can keep some significant guardrails up for these things so that we can enjoy the benefits of this technology rather than fear them.
Tess Buckley: I think a large fear of AI regulation is stifling profit or innovation, but it is actually just going to bring protection to the consumer and the companies themselves.
Dean Colling: I don't know. I mean, we hope they do. And I don't know if we'll all hold our breaths for them to be able to perfectly balance that out. But we shall see and watch closely. But yes, you're right, innovation is essential to economic growth and improvement of quality of life. But in this particular case, there are significant unintended consequences that could do the opposite, if not controlled appropriately. So, yeah, that's that's going to be a tough balance, but we'll see how that goes.
Tess Buckley: I would say that technology is already a part of our everyday lives. AI ethics is a problem for everyone. It is impacting everyone. It should involve everyone. So please, please get informed. Literacy training is so important. I think, you know, there's an overall recognition that policy is coming and that's incredible. Developers are brilliant. They are not godlike. And this is an issue that we're seeing in the perception of themselves im the greater public. AI is an ancient wish, and we're simply lucky enough to be living in an era that is, it is coming to fruition, it is coming to life, and we have the responsibility to do so with care and with caution and we're standing on the the shoulders of giants. So thank you so much for having me today Dean.
Dean Colling: Yeah, thanks a lot, Tess. Great conversation. And I'm sure we'll have to have another one in the future. As I said, it's a big, big topic and an ever evolving topic, but I know the work that you're doing on your own and, with your group, your company is essential to this becoming sort of the technology that we all hope it will be. So we'll watch intently, and I look forward to connecting with you once again.
Tess Buckley: Thank you.
[The microphone graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. On the left side of the screen are a list of disclaimers. The text reads: Credits; Music Provided by: Hot Coffee by Ghostrifter Official (soundcloud.com/ghostrifter-official), Licensed under Creative Commons – Attribution, ShareAlike 3.0 Unported – CC BY-SA 3.0., http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Disclaimers; This information, including any opinion, is based on various sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed and is subject to change. CIBC and CIBC World Markets Inc., their affiliates, directors, officers and employees may buy, sell, or hold a position in securities of a company mentioned herein, its affiliates or subsidiaries, and may also perform financial advisory services, investment banking or other services for, or have lending or other credit relationships with the same. CIBC World Markets Inc. and its representatives will receive sales commissions and/or a spread between bid and ask prices if you purchase, sell or hold the securities referred to above. © CIBC World Markets Inc. 2023.
CIBC Private Wealth Management consists of services provided by CIBC and certain of its subsidiaries, including CIBC Wood Gundy, a division of CIBC World Markets Inc.
Commissions, trailing commissions, management fees, and expenses may all be associated with hedge fund investments. Hedge funds may be sold by Prospectus to the general public, but more often are sold by Offering Memorandum to those investors who meet certain eligibility or minimum purchase requirements. An Offering Memorandum is not required in some jurisdictions. The Prospectus or Offering Memorandum contains important information about hedge funds – you should obtain a copy and read it before making an investment decision. Hedge funds are not guaranteed. Their values change frequently, and past performance may not be repeated. Hedge funds are for sophisticated investors only. Clients are advised to seek advice regarding their particular circumstances from their personal tax and legal advisors.
Insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services Inc. In Quebec, insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services (Quebec) Inc.
Dean Colling and Rocco Letterio are Investment Advisors with CIBC Wood Gundy. The views of Dean Colling and Rocco Letterio do not necessarily reflect those of CIBC World Markets Inc.
If you are currently a CIBC Wood Gundy client, please contact your Investment Advisor.]
Announcer: Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed our show, please consider sharing the episode with your friends. Be sure to check out our website for new episodes every few months.
Wealthview - Episode 13 - Matthew Wallace
[The podcast opens on an introduction graphic with CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. The text reads: Wealthview, Hosted by Dean Colling, First Vice-President & Senior Portfolio Manager, December, 2022. On the left side of the screen are a group of graphics consisting of two speech bubbles, a stylized group of gears, and a bar graph with an arrow in an uptrend. The text on the left hand side reads: Philosophy, Strategy & Insights.]
Announcer: You're listening to Wealthview, the podcast where we share philosophy, strategy, and insights from some of Canada's top financial professionals.
[A brief montage consisting of a street level view of traffic in downtown Toronto, high-rise buildings, Dean Colling speaking on a microphone, and a bird’s eye view of a four-way intersection plays on the left side of the screen.]
Announcer: Hosted by Dean Colling, Senior Wealth Advisor and Portfolio Manager at CIBC Private Wealth. Edited and produced by the Colling Group. And now, onto the show.
[The introduction graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. In the centre of the screen is a graphic representation of a microphone. The text reads: Wealthview, Conversation with Matthew Wallace, Executive Director, CIBC Capital Markets.]
Dean Colling: Welcome to Wealthview. I'm your host, Dean Colling. On this edition of Wealthview, we'll be talking about structured notes, a unique customizable asset that combines properties found in both equity and fixed income investments. Joining us on the discussion today is Matt Wallace, Executive Director at CIBC Capital Markets. Matt has over 20 years of experience in capital markets, sales and trading with an emphasis on equity derivatives and structured products. Matt supports several charitable causes in the community and co-chairs CIBC Capital Markets' annual One for Change Charity Auction, which is one of the largest single day fundraisers at the bank.
Dean Colling: Over his career, he's been based out of both Vancouver and Toronto, and he holds an MBA from the Schulich School of Business at York University. Matt, welcome to Wealthview. So it's a pleasure to have you. I'm glad we were able to get you in. You and I have known each other for about 15 years and done a lot of work together. So I think it's great that we can have the listeners sort of understand how our relationship works and how some of the things that you guys do on the Capital Markets Group get integrated into the portfolio construction that we do for clients. So we're going to talk a little bit today, as I mentioned in the intro, about structured notes, but why don't you give the listeners a little bit of background on you and the desk that you run at CIBC Capital Markets?
Matthew Wallace: Dean, so thanks for having me on on the cast today. My name is Matt Wallace and I've been with CIBC in the Structure Products Group for about 15 years, been in structured products in general for almost 20 now. And at CIBC, I run a desk which originates, so creates and distributes, structured notes for the most part. So structured notes are debt instruments, like a bond, which provide a certain degree of capital protection, plus a return that's linked to an underlying asset. I think we're going to dive into that today, but it's great to have, that you have me on. So thank you for that.
Dean Colling: Perfect. So yeah, I mean, structured notes are slightly complex on the surface and in our world we don't like to be complex. It's one of the things we always talk to clients about, simple is better. But the premise, even though there are a little bit of complexity to them, the premise is quite simple. You know, you and I talk about this all the time, where how do we bring these into the portfolio? And we kind of call them maybe a hybrid asset class, where they're not quite a bond and they're not quite equities. So maybe let's go through the anatomy of a structured note.
Dean Colling: How are these things born? And maybe we can talk a little bit about the different types that there are out there. I know many of our listeners, clients of ours know that we like the auto-callable structure, which I'll have you explain. But there are other things or other types of structures that we look at. So let's sort of start at a high level and say, what the heck are these things and how are they put together?
Matthew Wallace: Absolutely. So at a high level, think of them as a bond with a variable coupon. So if your listeners are familiar with plain vanilla bonds, you'll know that a bond carries a principal guarantee with it. It pays a fixed coupon, it could be a semi-annual coupon. GICs are a very closely related cousin to a bond. A GIC would pay a usually an annual coupon. And once again, the underlying commonality is that the principal is guaranteed. And so a structured note simply takes the fixed coupon that you would find in a regular bond in exchanges it for a variable coupon.
Matthew Wallace: Now the variable, this is where the interesting part starts is the variable coupon can be tied to pretty much any asset that's liquid and that's traded globally. So that could be a stock index, that could be a commodity, it could actually be a floating rate of interest if you want to take a view on interest rates. The options are pretty limitless when you come to, when it comes down to what do you tie that variable coupon to. So at a high level, a structured note is like a fixed coupon bond, but instead of a fixed coupon, you're getting a variable coupon.
Dean Colling: So how does the coupon get paid out? Like what is, what's involved? And I know most investors who are familiar with them, particularly our clients, know that there is some derivatives, there's puts and calls involved. There's a bond involved. Can you walk through the pricing of and how the combination of a put and call gets sort of wrapped into this structure?
Matthew Wallace: Sure. So the two main genres of structured notes are your principal protected notes, for which there is no downside risk. And I should mention that these are all notes issued by the bank. So in our case, talking about CIBC, this is a senior note of the bank, a senior debt obligation that ranks the same as other senior debt obligations, deposit notes, etc.. So it's a very strong credit. But if you look at the two genres of product for the retail investor these days, you've got the principal guaranteed notes and you've got the principal at risk notes. And principal at risk is a bit of a scary term that I don't really like how they phrased it back in the day when they came up with it, because in most cases principal at risk notes do not have much risk attached to the principal. The underlying asset would have to go down a significant amount before you start eating into or eroding the principal.
Matthew Wallace: And the same token, by taking on some risk in a principal at risk note, you're able to get a much higher yield, a much higher coupon than you would with a principal protected note. So to break down the anatomy, let's look at a principal protected note. First taking a five year note. For example, let's say that we have, if we want to construct our own principle protected note, we would start by buying a strip bond. And let's just for argument's sake and easy numbers, just say that strip bond we buy at 75, it's going to mature in five years at 100.
Matthew Wallace: And with the $25 that's left over, that's the interesting bit. That's the part that we can then spend on the option. And when we price in general, what you're looking at with a principal protected note is a call option. So you would buy a call option on, let's say, the TSX or the S&P 500 index. And so our option pricing model will tell us how much participation can we get using $25. Is it 100% participation? Is it 125%? Is it only 75% participation? We know that that $25 we have to spend on the equity option is going to give us a certain capture of participation in the underlying asset.
Matthew Wallace: So at maturity, when the $75 has gone to $100, that underpins the principal guarantee, the option will be worth something as well. And it's a pre defined formulaic payoff. So let's say the, the the option gives you 100% participation. So if you invest $10,000 and the stock market goes up 20%, you would get a 20% coupon at maturity in this very simple principle protected note. Now it's interesting because you're not just getting 20% on the 25 bucks that you had to spend on the option, You're getting 20% on par value. So if you invest $10,000, you're getting $12,000 out. And if the stocks go down over the term, that means the call option expires worthless and the strip bond matures at par all the same. And so you get your $100 back. And those are the basic building blocks of a principal protected note.
Matthew Wallace: Now, as you move into the principal at risk genre, you're going to be taking some downside risk. The only real addition to that formula that we just went through is that now the investor is going to be selling some sort of downside risk, exposing some of the principal to risk should the market go down below a certain level. They do that by selling a put option, and I don't know how familiar your readers are with put options, probably somewhat, but when you sell a put option, you are basically compelled to take ownership if the asset goes down below the put strike. And so by taking on that risk, let's say the client sells what we call a buffer option. And so if it's a -30% buffer, let's say that, you know, that instead of getting 100% participation like we would with the PPN on the upside now, because the client has taken on some risk and they've sold that option for more premium, we can buy more call options and we can get better participation in the upside.
Matthew Wallace: So instead of 100% participation, we might get 150% or 170% participation in the upside on the market. And what's the worst that could happen? Well, if the stock market or the index that we're linked to goes down more than -30%, then it starts eroding the principle from -30%. So if the market goes down 35% over the term, you would lose 5%. Whereas with the principle protected note, there was no risk, you'd get back $100 instead of $95.
Dean Colling: Yeah, that's great. That's a good explanation. Now, we may have done some of those in the past. Little, dabbled in a little more PPNs, but we tended to shift more to the auto-callable structure over the last 5 to 10 years and maybe give the listeners a little bit of detail about how those work.
Matthew Wallace: Absolutely. Yes. So the auto-callable that is a very popular structure. Now, like the name suggests, auto-callable, it's an automatically callable note. Callable, for your listeners, just means that the note is called back, which means that the principal is paid out immediately plus the final coupon. So it's like getting your money back early without waiting till maturity. That's what constitutes a call. And with an auto-callable the call happens when a certain threshold is hit by the the price of the underlying asset. So to take an example of stuff, some stuff that I know you've done recently, an annual auto-callable tied to let's say the Canadian banks for example. It's a form of principal at risk note like we just described, where if the asset goes down below a certain level, then you can lose some money at maturity. However, on the upside, instead of getting a participation capture of the market that is linked to, in this case the Canadian banks, you get a specific coupon paid out and for that to trigger, for the auto-call to trigger, you need the banks to just be flat or up from where they started.
Matthew Wallace: And the auto-callable, let's say the coupon is 12%, 12% annual coupon steps up or accrues equally each year so that if you miss a call in any given year, you have another shot, you have another step to the plate to try and hit it the next year. Let's take an example. The banks start at 100, just picking a round number. After one year, let's say the banks are at 90. There's no auto-call. You've missed the 12% coupon. The second year the banks recover and they're back to 101. So they've come back in price and they're slightly above where they started. At the end of the second year, you would be automatically called at $124 on the note. So you get a 24% coupon, that's two years worth of annual coupons, plus your principal paid out immediately. And so if you extrapolate that, you just need the banks to be flat or higher on one of these annual anniversaries between now and the five year maturity to realize a 12% annual simple return.
Dean Colling: Yeah, and that is kind of why we like them. And, you know, sometimes they can be a, you know not, I wouldn't say an eyesore, but when we get into a situation within the portfolio where the underlying reference asset in this case, you know, Canadian banks may be down you know it's going to track with that underlying index for a while or that underlying basket.
Matthew Wallace: That's a great point. So because these notes, that speaks to the secondary market that these notes have, because there is a secondary market where you can actually trade out of the note at any time, there needs to be a fair mark-to-market. And so like a bond, the price of the note in the secondary market has some sensitivity to interest rates. But unlike a bond, it also has sensitivity to the underlying asset in this case, in my example, the Canadian banks. So if the Canadian banks are going down in value, then it's it's very possible that the note price would be shown below par as well. And so you're sort of in a holding pattern waiting for the banks to recover to above where they started before you get the big windfall payout. But like you said, for the time being, the performance doesn't look great because they're marked down below par.
Dean Colling: And that's the one thing we explain to investors as we add these to portfolios is that think of them as tracking the underlying until you get close to the anniversary date where you're looking at that underlying price and saying is, as you said, is it at 100, is it below 100 or is it above 100 as it gets closer and closer to that, particularly when it is above par, then all of a sudden that pricing ramps up significantly. And there's been a number of situations where, you know we've got, we get two or three years worth of coupons in one shot and, you know, it's pretty, pretty attractive. So let's talk about, you know, obviously that's positive returns and things. Let's talk about downside.
Dean Colling: One of the things we like in auto-callables is to be focused on protecting capital, but doing so at just the right level and sometimes you don't want to. We felt sometimes in a principle protected note, you are often overpaying for fire insurance in a way you know, you limit upside by getting full principal protection. Now not to say that they aren't valuable in certain parts of the portfolio, but in this case we look to your group or even we do some work in the background to say, look, let's go look at this reference asset, let's look at it over the let's say, of any five year period, or any seven year period and do a number of different calculations on kind of rolling returns, thousands of different observations and say, statistically how much should we protect for? Maybe give a little bit more detail on that.
Matthew Wallace: Yeah, that's a great point. So looking historically, just how much protection is too much? Like, at what point are we overpaying for the protection historically? It's a great point and my team can definitely help with that analysis. So for example, let's say you pick the Canadian banks, we can run analysis to show going back to the 1980s or however long Bloomberg furnishes the data to us for, what is the worst case scenario, the best case scenario, what is the safety zone like? How much protection do we need to build in? Do we need 40% downside protection? Do we need 30% downside protection? Because of course, depending on your market view, you want to maximize the return to the investor and not overpay for too much insurance.
Matthew Wallace: The other thing that I would add to that is that there's two forms of downside protection. There is barrier protection which gives you higher return, but it's riskier because if it goes down, if the asset goes down below the barrier, then you take the full hit of the asset 1 to 1, And a buffer like I referred to earlier, where if the asset goes down below the buffer, you only would start losing principal incrementally below that buffer. So there's a flavour for everybody. But I think you definitely want to look at the level of protection differently on something like US semiconductors versus Canadian banks or the broad market itself.
Dean Colling: Right. And know that is the kind of the beauty of this, this asset class is there is a lot of creativity involved. We can as portfolio managers and advisors, we can sit back and look at the overall market conditions, look at various asset classes and say, where is an opportunity? Where do we see, let's say, an asset that we could really get sort of an asymmetrical rate of return with nice protection on it and and sometimes do unique stuff. So for example we've done, you were talking about buffers and barriers, we've done some things where we said, okay, let's maybe give up a little bit of the upside to have a broader call level. So for example, we did some where we would get the call, get the full coupon, even if the reference asset was down 10% on the year. And that's where we work with your desk at Capital Markets to figure out the right pricing. So it is a bit of a formula, or a little bit of a chef in the kitchen, let's you know, do we add a little salt? Do we take a little garlic out? You know, whatever we might do to make the right structure that we think fits kind of our strategy overall.
Matthew Wallace: Well, that's just it. So you know, if you want to increase the likelihood of being called away early because you think there's going to be a better investment opportunity in the short run, then maybe, like you said, we would put the call trigger in the money, as we say. So instead of having to be flat or better to get called, you can even get called for a nice coupon if the asset is down 10%. The other major trend that we're seeing is income paying notes. So income paying notes seem to be all the rage now because investors construct for them to pay monthly income and have monthly or semi-annual call observations. And so it's nice to see the cash hitting the account. And most of these yields we're seeing are in the 10, 9, 10, 11% range these days. Now, you do give up some yield, though, versus the step up accrual style auto-callable that we were talking about that been found more of a home within your book. But monthly pay income notes are definitely hitting their stride right now.
Dean Colling: You know and I hope, look it I hope for all the listeners that this hasn't become as clear as mud for everyone. But I think the gist of it again is sometimes there's complexities to the structure simply because of all of the choice that we have in structuring it. Yes, there are some sort of simple derivatives involved. There's a bond involved. But ultimately we are creating a hybrid asset that has a significant amount of production, but really allows us to drive the return from something other than interest rates alone, right? We have our bonds for that. We either have other pure alternative assets, we have our equities that are paying dividends. This slots in there somewhere in between. And again, it isn't a bond, it isn't an equity per se. It sort of has characteristics of both. But we're really trying to achieve, depending on the market conditions, you have sort of high single digit returns to low double digit returns.
Dean Colling: Let's talk a little bit about taxation. There was good old days where we could have this note pricing close to par. It's up and we could sell it early. Remember we would call, we'd get indicative pricing from the desk and then we would sell it early, and trigger it as a capital gain. It was amazing. Lots of great tax treatment. Well, you know what? That got taken away from us. CRA and in the budgets, the budget came in, federal budget, and took that away. So it's all priced as interest income now, which, you know, I guess it still, it takes, obviously it takes that advantage from a tax perspective away, but we still find it very attractive, particularly for tax sheltered plans, things like that. That's the way, and any comments on that? It's not, the good old days aren't coming back, are they?
Matthew Wallace: I would hazard no, not any time soon. And I'll refrain from sharing my personal thoughts on that decision. But it was the 2016 budget, I believe, where the capital gains tax treatment was removed from asset linked and equity linked notes. So now the tax treatment is 100% regular income, very, very bond like. The coupons are regular income and the capital growth of the note should it go up in value, is also considered income in this new regime.
Dean Colling: And you know, you're right, we could probably argue about the merits of that decision, but it is what it is. And so we treat it as such. So at the end of the day, earning a, you know, a 10% rate of return treated as income, interest income in a taxable environment, still pretty good. But ultimately we try to guide these for the most part into tax sheltered strategies. TFSAs, RRSPs, anything like that. Let's just quickly talk about the secondary market for these. So obviously these have maturity dates we can get called along the way, but if we're in a situation where the underlying asset is flat or down a little bit or below where it would would be called, how does the second secondary market operate if we wanted to exit?
Matthew Wallace: Actually, CIBC has the longest running secondary market in Canada, stretching back to the 1990s. There have only been two dates in history where the market is not operated, which were just the two dates following the 9/11 attacks when there was no markets being made south of the border as well. But besides that, the market is open. These instruments trade like a bond. So just like you would ticket a bond to to trade them how they trade, I think we could spend a whole other podcast on because the structures are so various and an accelerator that's giving you lots of gearing, that's tied to an asset that's like shooting up in value is going to trade a lot differently from a coupon paying note like I just mentioned, where you don't have any upside participation, but you're clipping a nice 10% yield. Those notes are going to trade around par. The accelerator note is going to trade quite handsomely on the upside if the asset goes up. The other sort of item I'd like to flag is we talked about these step up, these accrual type auto-callables earlier where you get a 12% coupon that builds every year and you just need the the asset, the banks or whatever the reference asset is to be flat or positive.
Matthew Wallace: You can have a scenario where you're three years into it and so your next coupon is 36%, right? Three years worth of 12% coupons being accrued and the banks are still underwater by 5%. But the note is trading at 115, 116 because, or maybe even 120, because there's a probability, a high likelihood that that asset will go above where it started prior to the valuation date and actually pay 136. So you can have notes trading at a significant premium if there's a likelihood that it's going to hit, that is going to go into the money, which you can be opportunistic around that. And if you don't want to wait around and see if it does get called, you can then just sell it at, you know, in the high teens or low twenties and drive on. So they each have their own different trading behaviours and that why it's useful to have a discussion with, with you, your advisor, about how it might trade, how it might look in the statement before, before investing in these.
Dean Colling: Again, I want to emphasize that these, we see these as relatively safe assets. These are relatively conservative in the grand scheme of things, but when we talk about derivatives, some people, you know, they ask questions about counterparty risk. So let's talk about that. They do sit in the statements and on the books as a note, as a debt obligation to the bank. But let's talk about the counterparty risk with the derivatives.
Matthew Wallace: Yeah, and we did get this question a lot more just coming out of the financial crisis, so many moons ago, you know, where counterparty risk was in the headlines more often than not. And so, pleased to say that the only counterparty risk in these transactions is CIBC. So as an investor, you're buying an obligation, a debt obligation, a bond from CIBC that has a formulaic payoff that's tied to an underlying asset. If the asset, if let's say the payoff is, like I said, 12% coupon for the banks being flat, CIBC is on the hook to pay that. The only counterparty risk to use an investor is CIBC, and for CIBC to not bank to not pay that constitutes a default. I mean CIBC's insolvent. And there's bigger problems locally and in the world probably. Now how we achieve that coupon under, on our trading desk, that is our problem. We do take on some counterparty risk there, and we take on market risk, and other risks as part of our hedge. But it doesn't affect the strength of the obligation to pay the investor their 12% coupon.
Dean Colling: Right. And that's ultimately how we see it as well in terms of our evaluation of ultimate risk in the grand scheme of the overall portfolio. We see it as a direct debt obligation from a top six Canadian bank. Before we sort of wrap this up, I want to talk a little bit more about the customization and how these things are essentially born. Talk about your desk. How do you customize, how do you work with groups like us?
Matthew Wallace: For sure. So you'll see if you visit our structured notes website, notes.CIBC.ca, that there's a lot of product on there, there's a lot of investment ideas, structured notes designed for retail, and generally you would need to go through a full service investment advisor to buy these. But the minimums on those public products that you see out on the website are 5,000 and up. Those are what we call off the shelf. Having dealt with you for many years though, Dean, I know that your team has has the size to actually customize your own deals. And so whether it be a group of investors with a similar mandate or one high net worth investor who's targeting a particular yield, you can come to our desk and we will price out customized structured note for you with the exact parameters you're looking for, what the term, what term you're looking for, the underlying asset, the yield profile, callability, whatever you need, and generally to get something going in the custom space, it would be $1,000,000 and up, which could be one investor, it could be pooled investors. And in general from the idea being, as you said, born and and committed to, we would take about one week to get that deal into the market.
Dean Colling: Given the size that we are, we typically only do custom deals for the reasons you mentioned, there's much more customizability, that's a word I shouldn't be using that as a check, spell check on that, but -
Matthew Wallace: I use it all the time.
Dean Colling: Yeah, yeah, yeah. We can make up words here. So yeah, for being obviously a customized structure so we can do exactly as we wish because we come in with scale, we get more preferable pricing. It's the typical wholesale retail type of pricing structure. We're able to get a little bit more at the end for our clients and we can control all of those things.
Matthew Wallace: Exactly.
Dean Colling: So additionally, I just want to talk a little bit again about asset mix and where these things sit within the overall asset mix picture. Oftentimes in an investment policy, we'll have ranges for equities, fixed income, alternatives, cash. We also put in a piece of the pie dedicated to structured notes. But unlike the other asset classes, which we typically manage in a fairly less active range between highs and lows, structured notes, we typically really open and close that allocation very much so based on market conditions, simply because you have spikes and volatility or very muted volatility, which impacts option pricing.
Dean Colling: You have interest rates moving, you have credit spreads moving. So we try to look at it and say, okay, let's be more opportunistic. So when volatility spikes and we're able to get really capture really good option premium and get bigger coupons, and maybe the reference asset is down a little bit, then we'll open it up. And then you've seen that with us over the years. And then we sort of close it down because sometimes we come to you and we say, what's the market looking like today? What would this kind of a structure look like? And we both look at each other and go, yeah, let's move on.
Matthew Wallace: Yeah, absolutely. Dean I can totally concur that it benefits investors to be opportunistic about these these types of investments, pricing changes from day to day, week to week during a period of actually high volatility as we're going through right now. Principal at risk notes like the auto-callable that we've talked about, they actually look very attractive because most principal at risk notes tend to price better with higher coupons, etcetera, during a high volatility regime. And the other major factor would be interest rates. So when you get higher interest rates, as we've seen pretty much throughout this calendar year, you actually start to see better pricing as well, both on the principal protected and the principal at risk notes.
Matthew Wallace: Just tying it back to the whole customizability concept, that's what makes these so great, is that it's not the same open ended investment vehicle that just exists at all times. It's not the same mandate. It's a customizable, targeted instrument that you can use to take advantage of certain market situations, economic situations, when the need be, and to take it even one step further we now have the ability to strike, and by strike I mean that's when we put the pin in the underlying asset. That means that's when the starting level is established. Let's say you're linking to a single stock, or to the stock market, or to an index or an ETF, we're able to strike within one day for our high net worth clients. So if you really want to get tactical and take advantage of a market situation, we're able to get the trade on for you and put the risk on within one day.
Dean Colling: Yeah, and that's effective, particularly, obviously, given our focus on being opportunistic here. You know, nobody wants to wait a month for something to launch when we're seeing an opportunity.
Dean Colling: So let's start to wrap it here. Obviously, before we go, let's just sort of take a 30,000 foot view of what we talked about today, structured notes from principal protected to auto-callable structures, all creating kind of this hybrid type of investment that gives us exposure to an underlying reference asset that we have chosen. Because we see an opportunity, we were able to tack on some principal protection that we think is statistically enough, that can give us a significant upside. Of course, we can always do full principal protection if needed, and we have the capabilities to be very, very strategic, very opportunistic and customize whatever we wish. And you mentioned it earlier saying that this isn't just sort of the static open ended vehicle that we kind of parked money in on an ongoing basis. These are idea generated from opportunities that we see in the market and they fit in the portfolio nicely, and I would say somewhere in between fixed income and equities.
Matthew Wallace: Couldn't have said it better myself. The only other thing that comes to mind is that these are formulaic investment instruments. So it's, there's not a portfolio manager behind the scenes trading securities to try and beat the benchmark. These are formulaic payoffs, right? So if X happens, you get paid Y, and I think that's really why it's caught so much attention and has so much appeal recently because of the the sort of predefined formulaic nature of the payoffs.
Dean Colling: Matt, thank you. It was great to see you. I appreciate your time today. I think we gave everybody at least a fairly high level, actually went pretty granular at times as well, but I hope everybody got a pretty decent understanding of these vehicles and how they work in overall portfolio construction. We'll definitely have you back again sometime. Well, we're almost near the end of the year, so next year, and I wish you all the best for the holidays.
Matthew Wallace: Thanks so much, Dean. Thanks for having me by.
[The microphone graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. On the left side of the screen are a list of disclaimers. The text reads: Credits; Music Provided by: Hot Coffee by Ghostrifter Official (soundcloud.com/ghostrifter-official), Licensed under Creative Commons – Attribution, ShareAlike 3.0 Unported – CC BY-SA 3.0., http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Disclaimers; This information, including any opinion, is based on various sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed and is subject to change. CIBC and CIBC World Markets Inc., their affiliates, directors, officers and employees may buy, sell, or hold a position in securities of a company mentioned herein, its affiliates or subsidiaries, and may also perform financial advisory services, investment banking or other services for, or have lending or other credit relationships with the same. CIBC World Markets Inc. and its representatives will receive sales commissions and/or a spread between bid and ask prices if you purchase, sell or hold the securities referred to above. © CIBC World Markets Inc. 2022.
CIBC Private Wealth Management consists of services provided by CIBC and certain of its subsidiaries, including CIBC Wood Gundy, a division of CIBC World Markets Inc.
Commissions, trailing commissions, management fees, and expenses may all be associated with hedge fund investments. Hedge funds may be sold by Prospectus to the general public, but more often are sold by Offering Memorandum to those investors who meet certain eligibility or minimum purchase requirements. An Offering Memorandum is not required in some jurisdictions. The Prospectus or Offering Memorandum contains important information about hedge funds – you should obtain a copy and read it before making an investment decision. Hedge funds are not guaranteed. Their values change frequently, and past performance may not be repeated. Hedge funds are for sophisticated investors only. Clients are advised to seek advice regarding their particular circumstances from their personal tax and legal advisors.
Insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services Inc. In Quebec, insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services (Quebec) Inc.
Dean Colling and Rocco Letterio are Investment Advisors with CIBC Wood Gundy. The views of Dean Colling and Rocco Letterio do not necessarily reflect those of CIBC World Markets Inc.
If you are currently a CIBC Wood Gundy client, please contact your Investment Advisor.]
Announcer: Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed our show, please consider sharing the episode with your friends. Be sure to check out our website for new episodes every few months.
Wealthview - Episode 12 - Raghav Khanna
[The podcast opens on an introduction graphic with CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. The text reads: Wealthview, Hosted by Dean Colling, First Vice-President & Senior Portfolio Manager, November, 2022. On the left side of the screen are a group of graphics consisting of two speech bubbles, a stylized group of gears, and a bar graph with an arrow in an uptrend. The text on the left hand side reads: Philosophy, Strategy & Insights.]
Announcer: You're listening to Wealthview, the podcast where we share philosophy, strategy and insights from some of Canada's top financial professionals.
[A brief montage consisting of a street level view of traffic in downtown Toronto, high-rise buildings, Dean Colling speaking on a microphone, and a bird’s eye view of a four-way intersection plays on the left side of the screen.]
Announcer: Hosted by Dean Colling, Senior Wealth Advisor and Portfolio Manager at CIBC Private Wealth. Edited and produced by the Colling Group. And now, onto the show.
[The introduction graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. In the centre of the screen is a graphic representation of a microphone. The text reads: Wealthview, Conversation with Raghav Khanna, Managing Director, Co-Portfolio Manager, Oaktree Capital Management.]
Dean Colling: Welcome to Wealthview. I'm your host, Dean Colling. On today's edition of Wealthview, we speak to Raghav Khanna, Oaktree's Managing Director and Co-Portfolio Manager on their private debt strategies. We'll be discussing the private credit markets and the opportunities that lie ahead. Mr. Khanna is a managing director at Oaktree Capital, where he is a Co-Portfolio Manager for their strategic credit platform and an investment committee member for its direct lending platform. He joined Oaktree in 2012 as a member of the Global Opportunities Group before becoming a founding member of the Strategic Credit Strategy in 2014.
Dean Colling: Prior to joining Oaktree, Mr. Khanna was an investment professional at the Carlyle Group, focusing on buyout opportunities in the financial services space and an analyst at Goldman Sachs. Mr. Khanna received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and Economics from Yale University, and an MBA from the Stanford Graduate School of Business. Raghav, welcome to Wealthview. Glad to have you here today.
Raghav Khanna: Thanks, Dean. Thanks for having me on. This is my first podcast, so pretty excited to be here.
Dean Colling: Amazing. And well, we're glad to be the first guys to host you. So look forward to a great conversation today. And you know, Oaktree, as I mentioned in the intro, has obviously got a terrific pedigree, great people, you yourself have had quite an interesting career, lots of large institutions around the globe. Why don't you take us through a little bit of a quick overview of how you got here to to Oaktree today and what your key responsibilities are?
Raghav Khanna: Sure. Happy to do so. So I'm a managing director at Oaktree. I'm also the Co-Portfolio Manager of Strategic Credit. I joined Oaktree ten years ago, originally in our Distressed Debt Strategy and in 2013 we carved out a step out strategy, Strategic Credit, from our distressed business. The idea back then was to take our skills in distressed debt, and our structuring capabilities and deep analytics, and apply them to performing credit both on the public and private credit side. The idea was we could then deal with more complex situations and therefore generate greater risk adjusted returns than what, say, benchmark driven strategies could offer. And our returns have been solid and we've been successful. We've grown from 250 million in capital at the founding of the strategy to about 9 billion in AUM today, and we're still growing pretty rapidly.
Dean Colling: How long has that period been from? What's that growth period over?
Raghav Khanna: That's from 2013 onwards. I'm also on the investment committee of Oaktree's Direct Lending Strategy, which is our flagship all weather direct lending strategy that invests in sponsor deals, non-sponsor private deals as well as opportunistic private credit. We invest up and down the capital structure. We have a fairly flexible mandate, so we like to focus on parts of the market that are the most inefficient and offer the best risk adjusted returns. So our portfolio yields as a result of that are anywhere between 300 to 400 basis points higher than what you would find in a traditional middle market private credit portfolio. And what we really pride ourselves on is, because of our structuring capabilities and our experience in managing cycles, our credit losses have been significantly lower than the broader private credit market.
Dean Colling: Let me ask you a little bit about that. You know, obviously people who know the basics of credit, credit spreads and risk, you know taking, especially in a fairly low, relatively low interest rate environment, not so much over the last 12 months, but on a relative basis still low, you're looking at 300 to 400 basis points over more mid market strategies. One would be naturally concerned maybe about the risk you guys are taking on. Now, I know you guys have a significant experience in the distressed credit market. Tell the listeners a little bit about how you mitigate that risk.
Raghav Khanna: So there are three pillars to our portfolio construction. If you think about the private credit business, most of the private credit marketplace is dedicated to sponsor lending. So maybe I'll just unpack what sponsor lending is, right? It's providing financing, whether it's first lien financing, unitranche or second lien financing, to usually a blue chip private equity sponsor that's going out and buying a business and doing a fresh LBO. So they're writing, call it anywhere between $30 to $35 of equity and looking for approximately $60 to $65 of debt financing from the private credit marketplace.
Raghav Khanna: That was a fairly interesting marketplace post the Global Financial Crisis because banks were retreating from the losses they took during the GFC and regulatory changes also forced them to step back from highly leveraged lending. Post GFC, that was a very good place to be for a private credit manager, you were getting fairly high yields versus public markets. The market was fairly new and inefficient. Over the following ten years or so, that market has become extremely efficient to the point where there's a lot of transparency in terms of both economics as well as documentation, and I would say has gotten somewhat crowded as well. The marketplace has become somewhat crowded. There's a lot of capital that's been raised to invest in that part of the market, which is sponsored lending.
Raghav Khanna: Where we differentiate ourselves is we like to find markets that are less efficient. The marketplace that we focus on, which is less efficient, is what's called non-sponsor lending. Non-sponsor lending, as the name implies, is lending to a situation where you may not have a blue chip sponsor. The company might be a public company, so it might have a tradable market cap and trade on the New York Stock Exchange or Nasdaq.
Raghav Khanna: And oftentimes these are founder owned businesses. So the company was started, let's say, by a family generations ago. It's still in the family today. So there's no blue chip sponsor per se, but there's significant equity and sponsorship of that business. The reason we like those deals is because that's a much less crowded part of the marketplace. Those deals are very difficult to find. And second, they're much harder to structure around. The reason they're harder to structure around is because these are less commonplace deals. The market doesn't know what is, you know, what should be the established criteria for pricing and structuring those deals. We like those deals because to my earlier point, we get excess returns in those deals over the sponsor credit marketplace.
Raghav Khanna: But more importantly, because we have fewer of our competitors looking at those same deals, we normally also get tighter covenants and we have lower loan-to-values. So you raise an excellent point about what's the implied risk for taking by getting 400 basis points more yield than regular way of middle market private lending. My response to that is we actually feel those deals that actually generate that excess premium and return in our eyes, those are actually less risk. If you think about a sponsor loan, the loan-to-value could be, call it 60% to 65%, just to give you actual data, in the non-sponsor lending we've done year to date 2022, our average loan-to-value is about 30%. So we have significant equity coverage below us.
Dean Colling: Yeah, that makes a ton of sense. So, why do you think it's not as crowded a marketplace? I mean, obviously the headlines over the last two years through COVID, and I do notice we are giving major macroeconomic events acronyms. Now you've got the great financial crisis as the GFC. So, you know, great financial crisis, obviously a ton of money thrown at the system, money supply up, and now we get it again here in COVID pandemic. So the world is awash in cash. Why do you think that some of that or a lot of that cash hasn't made it into this space and been giving you a little bit more competition?
Raghav Khanna: I'll answer that question, in kind of, during two different periods. The first being, you know, earlier part of this year, the market was still awash with liquidity. And fast forward to what the marketplace looks like today. Earlier this year, we were seeing the phenomenon that I described, which was a lot of capital chasing sponsor deals, not so much in non-sponsor lending. And the reason there's less competition in non-sponsor lending is it really comes down to two things: How do you find these deals in sponsor lending? If you have a relationship with a blue chip sponsor, every time that sponsor is looking to buy a business, they will send you that potential deal. So the deal flow, once you have that relationship, is fairly steady and consistent in non-sponsor lending.
Raghav Khanna: If you think about the kinds of businesses I described to you, such as a company which trades with a market cap, trades on an exchange, if you do a deal with them once, you're most likely never going to do a deal with them again. The deal flow is more erratic and harder to find. If you think about it, Oaktree's reputation, we're known in the marketplace as being a very large provider of capital solutions, especially in complex situations. Sourcing issue for non-sponsor deals is actually an advantage for us because of our reputation. We just see a lot more of that deal flow. The second reason once you have this deal, this potential deal, how do you structure it?
Raghav Khanna: There's no established precedent for structuring non-sponsor deals and that's again an advantage for us because we create some fairly innovative structures around covenants, around sizing of the loan, around tranching. And that's an advantage that we have because of our distressed background that I feel is an advantage over the marketplace.
Raghav Khanna: So both because of the difficulty in finding these deals and in structuring them, non-sponsor deals, I think will always have a yield premium to sponsor deals. But I do want to fast forward to today, because you raise this point about the market having tons of liquidity and that was certainly true even until a few months ago. What we're seeing now is liquidity is quickly drying up. Capital markets are not functioning properly anymore, both in public markets. You know, new issue high yield and syndicated loans have ground to a halt. And even in private markets, we're seeing other lenders step back fairly significantly. What that means is that not only are non-sponsor deals still fairly interesting and yielding, but even sponsor deals now, which used to be a fairly efficient place and fairly competitive, even those deals are now beginning to price at fairly attractive premiums.
Raghav Khanna: You know, to give you an example, at the start of the year, if a regular way unitranche sponsor deal was priced at, let's say S plus 550, S being SOFR, well, so far our LIBOR has gone from close to 0% at the start of the year to 4% today. In addition, that loan that was priced at a spread of, let's say 550, that is now about 100 basis points wider. So your pricing, your yield went from, call it, 5.5% to 6% to almost 11% today. If that deal would be size at six turns of leverage at the start of the year, that is closer to four and one half to five turns today. So even in the sponsor lending business, we're starting to see some really attractive economics with wider spreads as well as lower leverage. And that's been a recent phenomenon.
Dean Colling: So is it actually like less liquidity or is it just uncertainty, the direction of rates and whether we're heading into a recession? And does anybody want to finance at 11 plus percent? You know, does it, do you think you would see this market start to function a lot better should we maybe hit peak rates and peak inflation in the next couple of quarters?
Raghav Khanna: It's a few things I would say. I think the biggest challenge to the market is actually liquidity. If you think about the size of the syndicated loan market and the high yield market, they are about $1.5 trillion each and those markets normally function fairly well and are there to provide capital for M&A, for refinancings, for LBOs and whatnot. So those two markets have combined are $3 trillion in size. And so, if you think about those two markets versus direct lending, which is call it about $400 billion in AUM, those two markets completely dwarf direct lending. So when those two markets shut down, which they effectively have in this market, you know, those deals have to happen somewhere.
Raghav Khanna: So two things happen, right? One is the number of deals obviously go down. There's less M&A for instance, when there's more uncertainty in the economy. Buyers and sellers don't agree on price, but there are some deals that have to be done no matter what, right? Like if you have a maturity coming up that has to be dealt with. If you have liquidity needs and you're running low on cash, that has to be dealt with. Historically, those issuers could have gone to the high yield market, the loan market. You know, in the case of high growth stocks and tech stocks, they could have even gone, and they did go, to the convertibles market. And with those large and fairly deep capital markets now essentially shut, those deals are taking place in the private credit marketplace.
Dean Colling: So let's talk about positioning of the fund today, and this is the strategic credit fund. Everybody's concern seems to be the wide consensus now that big recession coming. We don't necessarily share that exact opinion, but that seems to be the broader consensus. Maybe no end in sight to rates, rates rising and, you know, really dark clouds coming into 2023. How are you, and the guys, and the team at Oaktree approaching this over the next couple of quarters? And how are you positioning the portfolio?
Raghav Khanna: We're actually launching new funds, private credit funds, one targeting institutional clients and one for retail and high net worth, which is a private BDC. You know, what I would tell you is if I have the opportunity and if your listeners have the opportunity to invest in, you know, a brand new portfolio of private credit, this is probably about as good as it's going to get, I would say much more so than COVID. COVID was a great time for us to invest. And we made, we invested a lot of capital in deals that did extremely well.
Raghav Khanna: But COVID, if you remember, was very, it was a very sharp sell off, but it was fairly quick to come back when the Fed came back, and basically backstop the whole market. This feels like it's going to have a longer time. The opportunity is going to last longer. You know, if you could invest in a brand new portfolio, we're looking at deals, first lien deals or dollar one risk, which are I would say 10 to 14% with covenants, you know, less than 50% loan-to-value, low leverage, much lower, about a turn turn and a half lower than where we were at the start of the year. Obviously floating rate debt, we're 95% floating rate. So you get the benefit of any additional interest rate increases. It's a very attractive place to be, especially if you're looking for current income. We're guiding our clients for these new funds to about a low to mid teens dividend yield. So still, even though capital markets have sold off, and high yield sold off, and the broadly syndicated loan market has sold off, we still expect to generate a significant premium to those markets.
Raghav Khanna: You know, for our legacy portfolios, I think we did a fairly good job in managing risk. We could tell, you know, we're not macro forecasters, but we could tell from a bottoms up perspective, listening to our portfolio companies going into 2022 that there was a lot of uncertainty. Even before the war in Ukraine, there was inflation that we were seeing in our portfolio company earnings and the updates they were giving us. We could see there were supply chain issue, they were not getting better. So even though the Fed at the start of the year was saying inflation is transitory, the feedback we were getting from our portfolio companies was inflation is anything but transitory.
Raghav Khanna: And so I think we did a fairly good job in positioning ourselves for a period of high uncertainty. So a large part of our portfolio, approximately 60% of our legacy portfolio, is in what we consider fairly recession resilient sectors such as health care, enterprise software, education tech, things that won't cycle. And if they do cycle they won't cycle that hard, over 90% of our portfolio is in dollar one risk, so first liens. We made a fairly active and conscious decision going into 2022 to avoid or minimize how much second lien or junior debt exposure we had. And of course most of our portfolio, and this is not unique to us, the private credit marketplace in general has floating rate debt, so we've actually been a fairly big beneficiary of the fact that rates have gone up by about 400 basis points.
Dean Colling: What about credit spreads? If credit spreads sort of get dislocated, is that a challenge to sort of base capital, the portfolio, or do you combat that in some way as well?
Raghav Khanna: If credit spreads dislocate, if we're investing in new deals, that obviously helps us because we can take advantage of that bigger sell off in the marketplace and get the benefit of those wider spreads. But if we have an existing loan or concern about how wider spreads could impact those loans, I would say a few things for that. One is we typically enjoy a yield premium over, quote unquote the market. Even when market spreads start to sell off, we still have and we're seeing it in our portfolio today, we still have fairly significant buffers and cushions against market spreads.
Raghav Khanna: The second thing is, and I think you know where you're going with this is, what happens if when the deals that we've invested in have to be refinanced, you know, is the marketplace going to be there for those refinancings? And, you know, that's a fair question. And the way we protect around that is we advance credit at fairly low loan-to-values. I think I mentioned, if you look at our non-sponsor portfolio year to date, 2022, our average loan to value is 30%. So even if credit spreads sell off more, even if market multiples decline even further, we have such a large cushion against any kind of impairment or risk of refinancing that I think we will be fine in that scenario.
Dean Colling: Do you do all your deals get priced similarly, like as floating rates, some mark off LIBOR or do you fix them at times or is that sort of a rotating thing through cycle? Or can we think of this as primarily a sort of a low duration floating rate type of investment portfolio?
Raghav Khanna: Correct, Dean. So you should think of this as very low duration, very low sensitivity to interest rate risk, portfolio which is predominantly going to be floating rate in nature. Where it's not floating rate would be it would be a small percentage, let's say 5% of the portfolio, which will be fixed. But those investments would be fixed at such a higher rate that barring a massive further increase in rates from from here, which I personally think is unlikely, you know, those rates will still be those fixed rate deals would still be kind of in the low teens. So that's a very small portion of the portfolio. It's usually very high coupon. For the most part think of this as a floating rate, low duration product.
Dean Colling: You know, senior debt, junior debt, maybe some more venture related debt, I know you typically move up market a little bit more established companies, you mentioned companies that are publicly traded. Is the entire portfolio of companies you lend to, is everybody producing positive cash flows, or are you in situations where you might structure a deal based on revenue targets or something, rather than EBITDA or cash flow?
Raghav Khanna: That's a great question, actually. So the answer is we will lend to non-EBITDA producing businesses. We actually really like those deals, and the flavour of the deals that we like is not necessarily a revenue multiple business. Even though revenue multiples were were very much in vogue, both in equity markets as well as debt markets, until I would say at the start of this year, the types of pre-EBITDA or pre-free cashflow businesses we like are, have the following characteristics: we will lend to a business, let's say in the life science space, and I mention life sciences because that's actually our largest sector allocation, approximately 20% to 25% of our portfolio. And we love that industry just because there is no macro cyclicality to it, right?
Raghav Khanna: But a lot of those businesses are actually pre-EBITDA, which doesn't bother us because the types of life science businesses we lend to typically will have one part of their drug and product portfolio which is generating EBITDA and has a lot of cash flow, has a lot of margins; there might be another part of their portfolio which has had FDA approval, so it has been de-risked from an FDA perspective but hasn't reached commercial maturity. That part of the portfolio might be generating small negative EBITDA, which will turn into positive EBITDA as that commercial maturation happens. And then the final part of that business might be more speculative, more pre-FDA approval types of drugs that are in their pipeline. The reason we like those deals is if you kind of zoom out and look at them, they look like they're burning cash flows, they're burning EBITDA, not a good credit story.
Raghav Khanna: But then when you zoom in, you find that parts of their portfolio are actually very profitable, and produce a lot of cash flow and have very healthy margins. And then the rest of the portfolio, not so much. So what we do is we take just the parts of their drug portfolios that are producing positive EBITDA and cash flows, we will value them and say that we will lend typically around 25% loan-to-value against just that part of the portfolio, which is positive EBITDA and positive cash flow. And then we will ascribe zero value to the rest of the portfolio. Now, obviously, the rest of the portfolio has some value.
Raghav Khanna: R&D dollars have gone into the rest of the portfolio, sales and marketing dollars have gone to the rest of the portfolio. But from a credit perspective, we don't feel comfortable assigning any value to them. Again, just to recap the reason these look really interesting and the reason we really like them is, you know, most lenders would look at this business that on a consolidated basis is burning cash, burning EBITDA and say, okay, this is not for us. We will go many layers deeper and find pieces of collateral and parts of the portfolio that are interesting from a credit perspective and then lend about 25% loan-to-value against just that part of the portfolio.
Dean Colling: And so in these types of structures, do you get traditionally just, you know, you're getting interest payments made to the fund, but in maybe, let's say, a non-EBITDA positive environment, or are those just accruing, or are you getting other sort of sweeteners in a deal, maybe phantom equity warrants or something else along the way?
Dean Colling: And then can you structure those deals in different phases so you maybe while the company is growing and then becoming cash flow positive, do you switch and then have certain covenants on meeting EBITDA levels, or things like that? Is that the types of things that are built into a single loan deal, or do you have to kind of restructure along the way to build these things in?
Raghav Khanna: So to your first question, in our life science lending, about approximately half of those deals have some sort of an equity kicker attached to it. We don't pay anything for those equity kickers. We get them for, in essence, for free. In addition to the economics, we we earn on our loan financing, which includes obviously the coupon, the original issue discount as well as any exit fees and amortization. But those equity kickers at a portfolio level, not maybe at an individual company level, but at a portfolio level, can be really interesting and additive to overall returns.
Raghav Khanna: If you look at the history of our life science lending, you know, our loan only IRR on all those deals in aggregate has been in the low teens. But if you add the return we've generated from those equity kickers, which again we don't pay anything for, we get as a sweetener to our loan deal, our overall IRR is about 20% or slightly higher than that. And then to your second question, we do structure these deals in a way that's very downside protected for us, you know, not just in life science lending, but there may be situations where a borrower comes to us and says, hey, we need $100 to build X, Y, Z facility, or in the case of a life science company to invest in X, Y, Z drug.
Raghav Khanna: And we may tell them, look, you know, based on our appraisal of all the the positive EBITDA assets that you have, we only feel comfortable lending you, let's say $50 if your projections are correct and you are able to meet certain revenue and EBITDA and cash flow milestones, we will give you another 25. If you're able to meet those milestones and then if you're able to meet even further milestones, we will give you another $25. So you will get those $100 that you want, but you will get it in a phased fashion in a way that we feel very comfortable about our downside risk.
Dean Colling: You know, obviously, the pedigree at a firm like Oaktree is such that obviously you're doing deep dives, great credit analysis, and this is the value add. And you get in, you're making great returns for your investors. But is it ultimately the goal of the of the companies that you're investing in to not come back to you again?
Dean Colling: They've obviously come to you for let's say, a non-traditional source of financing, you know they've been very successful and then can they can switch to more the syndicated market, traditional bank lending and then obviously at lower spreads over LIBOR. Is that ultimately their goal, is to say thank you and never come back to you again?
Raghav Khanna: Going back to why, especially on the non-sponsor side, these deals are really hard to find is because there's no such thing as repeat business. So you know we've found there's there's really two themes in the non-sponsor lending we do and the more opportunistic type of lending we do in the two teams with the types of companies we invest in. One is it's either not well understood by the marketplace.
Raghav Khanna: So, you know, my example of a life science business, which on a consolidated basis has negative EBITDA, negative free cash flow is a good example of that. You know, those businesses as they prove their profitability out, you know, the market starts to understand them better. Those companies tend to refinance us and find more traditional credit. And the second thing we found is companies that are, have hit, let's say, some sort of a bump in the road, but are really solid businesses but are going through some sort of internal or external issue, you know, supply chain issues, to use an example, which temporarily depresses their earnings below what we think is kind of long term earnings potential. If once we invest in those businesses and, you know, if those businesses and when those businesses turn their earnings around, then they're able to use those higher earnings and the lower leverage on our loans to go and refinance us.
Raghav Khanna: It's not often, it's not rare, excuse me, where you know, we've made loans that have been refinanced out as early as six months. You know, COVID was a time when we were making really opportunistic rescue type financings to very large businesses. That was another period when capital markets, at least for a few months at the beginning of COVID were fairly shut and those deals ended up getting refinanced out, call it six months later. And we made tremendous IRRs and many multiples on them because we had call protection and all types of other bells and whistles that gave us enhanced economics in the event that those deals would get refinanced. But even in more relatively calm markets, like in 2021, you know, we would make a loan, let's say a five year loan or a six year loan and oftentimes we would find those borrowers would turn their earnings around, gain acceptance in the broader marketplace, and then refinance us in one or two years.
Dean Colling: That makes a ton of sense. And I think that's exactly what investors are looking for in a vehicle like this, is to ultimately know there's some modest amounts of risk but you've done everything to minimize that through some of these techniques you've talked about.
Dean Colling: So, you know, as we start to wrap up here in this discussion, obviously we talked about a couple of times today and there feels like some dark clouds out there, But in talking to you today, you sound pretty optimistic and and actually rather excited about some of the opportunities that will come up accordingly in the next couple of quarters, think anything can temper those expectations? I mean, you've described it very well as to where these dislocations are happening and there's great opportunities. What do you think derails that sort of positive outlook for the fund at least?
Raghav Khanna: You're absolutely right. The goal of this strategy and our broader direct lending strategy is not to invest in companies with high restructuring risk. There's a few ways we navigate downside risks. The first way is because we have distress experience and because we know how complicated and difficult restructurings can be. The first question we ask ourselves with every potential investment, I know everything is going well with this business today, but let's say down the line something goes wrong and we have to restructure this business. So the first question we ask ourselves is can we actually successfully restructure this business? You may be surprised to learn that in a lot of cases the answer to that question is actually no.
Raghav Khanna: If it's a business that doesn't have a lot of hard assets, doesn't have a lot of IP, is dependent on key employees, or dependent on a founder who may have most of the relationships with its suppliers or the company's customers and can therefore hold you hostage in a restructuring. Those are the types of situations that we will just not invest in. Regardless of the economics on offer, or the type of leverage or attachment point that's on offer, we just stay away from those completely. So that's one way we navigate it. The other way we navigate downside risks is we, I would say, pride ourselves on coming up with structures and covenants that are designed to be really failsafe.
Raghav Khanna: Right. So again, going back to my original point, no one could have predicted COVID, right? That just was not a risk that we or anyone really considered. But we have to be conscious of the fact that there are risks that we haven't even thought about that can surface with our businesses. And the goal behind those covenants is to ensure at a high level that before we're even in the zone where our loan starts to feel impaired, that our covenants are hitting the company and forcing them to come to the negotiating table, come up with a plan to solve the problem that the company is facing, whether it's internal or because of external factors.
Raghav Khanna: That could include one of many things. It could include selling some non-core assets to pay us down, and reduce our exposure and reduce our leverage. It could include the sponsor or the owner of the business raising equity, either through their internal funds or through third parties, and using that equity to put into the business to either invest in the business, to grow earnings or pay us down. There are all these tools and techniques we use if we're wrong on an investment and an underwriting is wrong, or if an external factor has hit the business where we have these tools to try and force the company and the owners to do the right thing by us and reduce our exposure and leverage.
Dean Colling: So thinking about sort of the next 12 to 18 months as we kind of wrap up our discussion today and it's been really interesting, particularly the fact that despite the consensus of concern out there amongst investors, that you and the team at Oaktree feel very, very confident in some of the opportunities that you're going to see in the years ahead or the quarters ahead at least. Tell me perhaps something that may derail that. What are you watching for that may derail this as not the opportunity you saw, and maybe some additional risk out there that you need to be prepared for?
Raghav Khanna: I think the biggest risk and uncertainty really is around the length and depth of the cycle. Again, by no means am I a macro forecaster, but just looking around, it seems like there's a variety of views around how benign or sharp a recession could be that's going to affect everyone all the way from investment grade to non-investment grade credit, public markets as well as private debt. We're still very excited about the opportunity. I think our pipeline today is the strongest it's ever been and it continues to grow given that we are living in a period of uncertainty.
Raghav Khanna: I think the things we're doing to manage against additional downside risks were largely sticking to dollar one risk. So first liens, we're not really stretching to go more junior in the capital structure, which means that we have a much healthier cushion against against the types of risks that we've been talking about, which is what if the economy in 2023 or '24 looks much worse than what most people expect sitting today?
Raghav Khanna: The second thing we're doing is even though certain cyclical sectors are now beginning to look very cheap and potentially quite attractive, depending on your views on what '23 looks like, we've generally stayed away from those sectors and we're sticking to more recession resilient sectors like food and beverage, health care, telecom, things that we think will either not cycle that hard or in the case of life sciences, again, going back to my original part of my point. That are just not tied to the economy at all. So that's the second thing we're doing.
Raghav Khanna: And then third is we're again starting to find some attractive opportunities outside the US, in Europe in particular. But we find that the level of uncertainty in Europe with the war in Ukraine, with the energy crisis, with some of the self-inflicted issues in places like the UK, we find that range of outcomes in Europe is maybe too wide for credit investors, for performing credit investors to go into. So we're mostly sticking to the US right now. So, I think those three things will help us hold up reasonably well, even if we're, even if the market is wrong and '23 ends up looking a lot worse than what most people expect.
Dean Colling: Well, that's great. And yeah, you've obviously given investors a lot of confidence in the way you approach risk as a team that even in a period of uncertainty like this, that, you know, capital preservation is sort of paramount in the strategy. And that's nice to hear. I think it's worth, as we wrap up here, I mean, obviously talking about two of the strategies that we we look at for investors and that's the strategic credit. And in the all weather fund, you know, and you had mentioned earlier, there's some new launches coming out, which is great. We look forward to seeing that.
Dean Colling: But it might be worth noting, I don't know if all investors know the Oaktree name. Obviously, professionals in the industry, investment industry know your name very, very well. But they may not know about the transaction between Brookfield and Oaktree, and Oaktree becoming part of the Brookfield Group, and everybody knows Brookfield here in Canada. Maybe talk a little bit about that merger and the strength that's come out of the two of you coming together.
Raghav Khanna: So just to recap for your listeners, Brookfield acquired a majority stake in Oaktree in March of 2019. Very proud to be associated with Brookfield. Phenomenal brand name, great investors, you have a lot of, in terms of their DNA there's a lot about Brookfield that's like Oaktree. They care a lot about capital preservation and downside risks as well. And I would say the partnership has been been going really well and is frankly growing day by day.
Raghav Khanna: So, you know, we're starting to provide them with our credit skills in terms of capital they've raised that likes private credit. So we have been investing on their behalf on certain funds and strategies that that they have. We get a lot of insights into the economy from Brookfield, given that they are very large investors in real estate, infrastructure and private equity. And I would say as a relationship, it really has been growing leaps and bounds.
Dean Colling: Yeah, it's great. And we were excited to hear that as well because we obviously we know the Brookfield name well, we know you guys very well. But what we are also, and maybe you can confirm this as well, the structure was it was equity, but it certainly left Oaktree 100% in control of day-to-day. We were told that the Brookfield guys had sort of said, guys, do what you do, do what you do well, we're here to partner with you and help anywhere we can. But the skills and the people that made Oaktree so successful are still there running the show.
Raghav Khanna: That's correct Dean. So, you know, the transaction was obviously above my pay grade. But what I can tell you is from a day-to-day perspective, I think they believe that we're very well operated. I think they appreciate the culture that the founders of Oaktree have built. And I think they like that culture. And I think for the for the most part, their view is they're there to help us, whether it's fundraising or anything else. But day-to-day, we're operated pretty much on a standalone basis.
Dean Colling: Well, thank you for the for your time today. This was a great sort of high level insight into some of the unique strategies that Oaktree can bring to our clients. And, you know, they've been obviously been so successful over the years and we expect similar in the years ahead and and really find it a, you know, a fantastic fit into multi-asset class portfolios where we're trying to deliver great risk adjusted returns.
Dean Colling: You know, the strategies that you guys bring have been a significant help to that portfolio construction and we look forward to continued successful partnership in the years ahead.
Raghav Khanna: Thank you, Dean, and thank you for the opportunity to come on.
Dean Colling: Yeah, it was a pleasure to have you. And I know we'll talk again soon and I wish you the best success for the rest of the calendar year, and let's touch base again in 2023.
Raghav Khanna: Sounds great. Dean, thank you for the time. Take care.
[The microphone graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. On the left side of the screen are a list of disclaimers. The text reads: Credits; Music Provided by: Hot Coffee by Ghostrifter Official (soundcloud.com/ghostrifter-official), Licensed under Creative Commons – Attribution, ShareAlike 3.0 Unported – CC BY-SA 3.0., http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Disclaimers; This information, including any opinion, is based on various sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed and is subject to change. CIBC and CIBC World Markets Inc., their affiliates, directors, officers and employees may buy, sell, or hold a position in securities of a company mentioned herein, its affiliates or subsidiaries, and may also perform financial advisory services, investment banking or other services for, or have lending or other credit relationships with the same. CIBC World Markets Inc. and its representatives will receive sales commissions and/or a spread between bid and ask prices if you purchase, sell or hold the securities referred to above. © CIBC World Markets Inc. 2022.
CIBC Private Wealth Management consists of services provided by CIBC and certain of its subsidiaries, including CIBC Wood Gundy, a division of CIBC World Markets Inc.
Commissions, trailing commissions, management fees, and expenses may all be associated with hedge fund investments. Hedge funds may be sold by Prospectus to the general public, but more often are sold by Offering Memorandum to those investors who meet certain eligibility or minimum purchase requirements. An Offering Memorandum is not required in some jurisdictions. The Prospectus or Offering Memorandum contains important information about hedge funds – you should obtain a copy and read it before making an investment decision. Hedge funds are not guaranteed. Their values change frequently, and past performance may not be repeated. Hedge funds are for sophisticated investors only. Clients are advised to seek advice regarding their particular circumstances from their personal tax and legal advisors.
Insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services Inc. In Quebec, insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services (Quebec) Inc.
Dean Colling and Rocco Letterio are Investment Advisors with CIBC Wood Gundy. The views of Dean Colling and Rocco Letterio do not necessarily reflect those of CIBC World Markets Inc.
If you are currently a CIBC Wood Gundy client, please contact your Investment Advisor.]
Announcer: Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed our show, please consider sharing the episode with your friends. Be sure to check out our website for new episodes every few months.
Wealthview - Episode 11 - Luke Oliver
[The podcast opens on an introduction graphic with CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. The text reads: Wealthview, Hosted by Dean Colling, First Vice-President & Senior Portfolio Manager, May, 2022. On the left side of the screen are a group of graphics consisting of two speech bubbles, a stylized group of gears, and a bar graph with an arrow in an uptrend. The text on the left hand side reads: Philosophy, Strategy & Insights.]
Announcer: You're listening to Wealthview, the podcast where we share philosophy, strategy and insights from some of Canada's top financial professionals.
[A brief montage consisting of a street level view of traffic in downtown Toronto, high-rise buildings, Dean Colling speaking on a microphone, and a bird’s eye view of a four-way intersection plays on the left side of the screen.]
Announcer: Hosted by Dean Colling, Senior Wealth Advisor and Portfolio Manager at CIBC Private Wealth. Edited and produced by the Colling Group. And now, onto the show.
[The introduction graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. In the centre of the screen is a graphic representation of a microphone. The text reads: Wealthview, Conversation with Luke Oliver, Managing Director, Head of Climate Investments, KraneShares.]
Dean Colling: Welcome to Wealthview, I'm your host, Dean Colling. On this episode, we'll be discussing global carbon markets and how we can invest in these as an alternative asset class within overall portfolio construction. Joining us to discuss this interesting and timely topic is Luke Oliver. Luke leads KraneShares' Climate Solutions business. He focuses on curating the firm's climate, carbon and impact investment strategies. He is a regular industry commentator on TV, in the press, and on online media, and is responsible for research on all climate topics. Luke, welcome to Wealthview.
Luke Oliver: Thank you.
Dean Colling: Well, listen, a pleasure to have you. Obviously really excited to speak to you about what you're doing at KraneShares. But before we do, I gave a little bit of a background on the intro here, but maybe, maybe a little bit more depth for the audience on where you've come from to your current role here at KraneShares.
Luke Oliver: I've been around the block a couple of times in the asset management and even markets side. So yeah, well, I won't bore all your listeners with everything here, but happy to dig into it. I started my career in London at a large investment bank on the foreign exchange side, focused on foreign exchange trading, sales, on that side of the business, sell-side of the business. Moved to the US and then got involved shortly after the financial crisis when I think everything you could do in FX was done. I started to get involved in commodities and started running commodity ETFs, and that was my first sort of dipping my toe into asset management, even though we were on the investment bank side running these these ETFs on behalf of a very well known ETF issuer who was marketing them.
Luke Oliver: So off the back of that, with some ETF experience, the small team I was working in decided to get into traditional ETFs, and we, the firm I worked for, invested in buying a small ETF shop. We had a lot of first - we were some of the first currency hedged ETFs, we were one of the first China mainland ETFs, we were one of the first factor ETFs and even some of the first ESG ETFs.
Luke Oliver: So we were always at the forefront. And so, I've always been interested in innovating, and building new products, and joined KraneShares during the pandemic. It was one of those moments I think a lot of us had in the pandemic where you want to do something new, but also really flex that innovation muscle, and KraneShares is the place to do that. And so I came to KraneShares and you get involved in a lot of things, but the thing that I've really gravitated towards was climate. And this is a firm that really understands the importance of taking climate action, but also really being investable and actually having products that lead with the investment thesis while doing good at the same time, and that's where I think we differentiate. So that's what I spearhead is our climate investing practice. And we've built that out to a whole range of products that kind of focus on carbon, focus on decarbonizing transition equities, which is not necessarily ESG equities. That's a fairly interesting topic in itself, and also some of the natural resources that are going to be important as we transition as a global economy. And this will be the biggest capital cycle in history, and we're positioning investors for it.
Dean Colling: Amazing. And, you know, we've uh, as some of our listeners know through some of our previous podcast discussions, we've touched upon ESG and from just broad based ESG investing, to really very specific thematic investing within the ESG space. But this is actually very, very unique. And you know, as wealth managers, we're constantly searching out for alternative return streams to hedge against traditional asset classes like equities and fixed income. You know, we came across the carbon market, which was very unique. I mean, obviously, it's been a lot of big headlines of that in the last few years.
Dean Colling: And, you know, we've really never seen an opportunity to invest, or may not have even thought about it as an investment market. So we're happy to, once we found this, to talk to you and your team, and get you involved and help us understand how we can participate. So before we get into the weeds here, let's talk high level for our listeners about the global carbon market, sort of the cap and trade system and what really is a carbon allowance?
Luke Oliver: Right. And what is a carbon allowance? Well, really simply, it's a permit. It's a permit that's government issued, that allows you as a company to continue your business, and to continue polluting. Which on the face of it doesn't sound all that impactful because you're, you know, you buy a permit and you continue to pollute. But by putting a price on that permit, you are incentivizing those companies to try and avoid the cost of that permit. You create without anyone needing to be good, or altruistic, or green, to reduce their emissions.
Luke Oliver: Now, it's a bit more complicated than that, but that is the shortest answer I could give. To go back a step, the carbon markets captures two broad markets: the offset voluntary market, and the compliance allowance market. Briefly, I'll touch on the offsets. Offsets is what a lot of people think the whole carbon market is. In fact, it's a small part of the carbon market today, which is where companies voluntarily offset their emissions in order to get towards being carbon neutral, or net zero. And they're net zero because they're gross polluters, and by buying an offset, they're trying to reduce their footprint, that improves their ESG score. It makes them, it responds to their customers, their employees, their shareholders demands for going green. And what an offset is, is where someone somewhere else, for example, grows trees. That is carbon negative. It's absorbing carbon. They will be able to register offsets and sell those to the companies that are polluting.
Luke Oliver: So between them they are carbon neutral, or net zero. And so that's a great initiative to reduce the carbon footprint as companies decarbonize, and that's going to help with climate change. But the carbon allowance market, which is what you asked about specifically, is the other side, that is the regulatory side. That is where various governments are, The European Union is the biggest, China has a growing program, California has a very big program, The UK has a program, the northeastern states in the US have a combined program called RGGI, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, RGGI. And what this is, is where they auction a set fixed number of these permits every year, that companies have to buy.
Luke Oliver: And then that's the cap, and then those companies trade them in order to make sure they've got enough for the pollution that they're causing. And by putting those companies in competition, you start to increase the price of these allowances, with these permits. And that forces companies to actually say, look, instead of fighting for these things and paying more, why don't we switch from coal to natural gas, and half our emissions? Why don't we install some solar panels on the roof of the factory, and save some coal being burnt to produce that electricity? And by doing those things, they're saving costs.
Luke Oliver: The CEO is happy with them, the shareholders are happy with them, and they're reducing costs. But by reducing costs, they're also reducing emissions. So that's what the cap and trade programs are. That's what our primary fund, that you guys contacted us about, does. It focuses on those compliance markets, and what's really interesting is that cap, the cap in the cap and trade, reduces each year. So these markets will get tighter and tighter. So the thesis is, is there is a limited supply of allowances, that will decline each year and force companies to either pay more, or switch their process away from burning coal, burning oil and so on.
Luke Oliver: So they either reduce their emissions, or they pay a lot more for these allowances. And the way that it's scheduled to, the way it will work is that the supply will reduce faster than demand. So the price will rise, and as that price rises, not only do people shift away from polluting, it becomes very economically viable to start innovating in this space. Because if you can create an invention that reduces emissions, you can save someone millions of dollars a year in allowances.
Luke Oliver: So there's a lot more capital being deployed to try and solve these emission problems, which in turn solve climate problems. So the whole thing is designed to rise in price, and defeat climate change. And so if you can be long that thing, it's a pretty compelling investment. If you can be long something that's designed to rise and have climate impact, and then the fact that it's uncorrelated or has very low correlations to equities is pretty interesting. The fact that it's got that impact alignment, and value alignment, that makes it very interesting as well. And we've even got clients that look at this as an inflation hedge, because as carbon prices rise we might see an increase in costs, because carbon has never been paid for. If today people have to pay for it, things are going to be more expensive. And so what better to be long as a hedge against rising prices, then the thing that might be causing those rising prices, which is the regulation in climate change. So it's a really unique new asset class that serves a lot of portfolio benefits, but it also serves a values and climate benefit. So it's very interesting.
Dean Colling: Yeah. And that's really ultimately what drew us to it. Obviously, we're here to make some money and diversify portfolios, but to do some good as well is great. So, so before we get into maybe the, what are the risks, and is it actually doing its job, so let's just refocus back on the carbon allowances and sort of the more regulatory environment, where governments are forcing or pushing the prices up by limiting the supply. I would assume that the biggest driver of that is, obviously the, just the global view of let's be better environmentally, but there are some, some real legally binding emission reductions overhanging a lot of governments that have sort of forced their hand to come up with a program. Is that an accurate way to describe sort of how this might have been launched?
Luke Oliver: You know, going back to Kyoto, Paris, there's lots of country level objectives and targets to be carbon neutral or net zero, and those countries, at a country level, are moving there. Within those countries, you have these programs, these cap and trade programs, that effect the individual companies within those countries. So the sort of companies that are captured are obviously power stations, power companies, but also some of the worst offenders are glass, steel, cement, fertilizer is another one. Pretty much everything we really need in a growing economy is really bad for the environment.
Luke Oliver: But that's what's so interesting is maybe they don't need to be bad for the environment, just historically the cheapest way to do them is bad for the environment and we've always done it the cheapest way because we all like cheap stuff, and the reality is we've never factored in the real cost. And that real cost is what these carbon prices are trying to achieve. So, as for the catalyst as to why this program started, yeah it was, it's that more and more governments are realizing that national security, I mean, I'll finish the first thought - everything is dependent.
Luke Oliver: We're going to have some very serious social and geopolitical issues if we have, uh, look at the heat waves they're having in India, these are almost uninhabitable temperatures. It's a real problem. We're going to have problems that we can't imagine if we do not get a handle on climate change. And so governments are trying to push and regulate. And so, the fact that this has to happen, and it's funny, you know, I want to save life on Earth first, be a capitalist second, but the two can go hand in hand and that's what this program does, is turns capitalism on to solving solving this problem.
Luke Oliver: So the fact that this must happen means these programs will get tighter, which means investing in them not only can accelerate that work being done, these are the most powerful policy tools available to governments at the moment to regulate climate change, or emissions directly. This is the way to do it, and so, being long that there's a great investment opportunity as well. From the perspective of what else is, governments know they need to do this, there's just no way around it. The fact that we haven't been doing it, the fact that not everyone's convinced we should be doing it, we've had the wool pulled over our eyes.
Luke Oliver: This has to happen. And it's not just the allowances, it's also the offsets, because we're so late to react that, so, in my opinion, we would only need allowances. Governments would regulate emissions, and then they'd solve the problem. Game over, we've solved the problem. It's too late. We've left it too late for that to work. We need to throw the kitchen sink at this problem, and that's why you need the allowances and you need them to be a lot more expensive. You need the offsets to grow as much, capture as much carbon as possible so that we can bridge the gap. That's not really the solution, that's kicking the can down the road. But we need to buy ourselves the time with the offsets for the allowances to have the effect. So this is really urgent, I know this, uh, we don't want to let, this podcast might not be to make people jump up and get out there in the streets and start protesting climate change, but it's pretty needed. And this is something anyone with a portfolio can do right now to start having an effect, and putting money where our mouths should be and do something about this.
Dean Colling: You know, let's talk about where that is today and how much it's moving the needle. Obviously, people are running steel companies or an oil and gas business, they've got shareholders to answer to, and they have capital allocation decisions, and they're looking at carbon allowances and participating in the carbon market so they can pollute more now. So there's a price equilibrium at some point, or there's going to be a crossover where, it's as you mentioned earlier, it's a better decision to innovate than to buy credits to offset their output.
Dean Colling: Let's talk about those carbon markets now. And there are a bunch of regional ones, I know you guys focus on three large ones in particular, I believe primarily in the EU, and California, and as you said that maybe the northeast in the United States, but there are others. And maybe explain to the listeners the price of carbon today, why it varies from market to market, and are we at a level that you think is sort of fair value? Has there have been proper price discovery? And is that, you know, are those prices where they should be or are they undervalued? What do you think about that?
Luke Oliver: Yeah, yeah. So as of last year, we cover four markets actually. And it's, so, it's as you said, it's Europe, it's California, it's RGGI, and it's also the UK. The UK spun out of Europe, so they have their own programs, so we've added those. New Zealand has a great program, although it's a little too small for us to really include it. South Korea has a meaningful program which is sort of comparable in size to the UK or California, and maybe we'll add those if their futures become accessible to international players like ourselves. China has a massive program and will be the biggest program because it's the biggest polluter, It'll be sort of maybe 40% larger than the European program, although today it doesn't have liquidity.
Luke Oliver: And so as that gets more liquid and that program grows, that's something we might consider bringing in as well. So I know we're, sorry, there was a second part to the question, why the price is different, right? So the prices are different because the programs are not fungible. So you can't come to New York and buy cheap $15 carbon, and then go back to Europe and trade those in for your emissions. Each program is being run independently, and so they have their own demand and supply, they manage their own cap. And so that's kind of the starting dynamic, is where the cap is and how tight or loose those markets are.
Luke Oliver: So Europe is ahead of the game, they're the most focused. The UK is pretty much in the same place, but Europe is very focused. They have been tightening up their market dramatically in the last couple of years and that's why we've seen prices rise, it's price discovery. Previously, if you were a cement company, you would come to the end of the year and you say, oh, we need to offset our carbon, we need to go and buy our allowances and there's an operational process. So they take it from petty cash, go and buy the allowances, and suddenly they woke up one year just a couple of years ago and said, holy cow, these things are very expensive now. Suddenly they're not abundant and everywhere.
Luke Oliver: We, instead of just buying them, we should actually hedge our exposure. If these things are going to double in price, what does that mean? This is going to be a real major cost driver. So suddenly these these companies started hedging, they started building inventory, they started hiring traders. And you can imagine, you know, you hear about energy companies have some of the biggest power and gas trading desks, they now have carbon trading desks.
Luke Oliver: And so suddenly this went from something that was just an operational regulatory process, to something you need to own and ensure that you have supply of, and security of supply, and suddenly you get price discovery. And that's what happened in Europe, we saw 130% plus performance over the last 18 months as we saw that price discovery. California is going through a similar, you know, they're all very different, but California is going through a moment, at the moment where they're looking at tightening the program in the same way Europe did about a year and a half ago. So if California goes through that, we might see some big moves in California. So we really like the fact, so, sorry to jump around a bit here, but there are different prices because there's different supply, different demand, not just different supply and demand, but you have different energy mixes.
Luke Oliver: So Europe reacted very differently to the Russian invasion than the UK did, because Europe had a much stronger, uh, had much lower independence, energy independence versus the UK. So the UK was more resilient versus Europe, for example. So each of these programs have different dynamics effecting the price and they're not fungible between one another. What's interesting, and this is how we approach it, is the fact that they're at different prices isn't necessarily a good or a bad thing.
Luke Oliver: It just creates different opportunities. So we see Europe, for example, as the most expensive, but it's also the most regulated and most advanced market and could actually, even though it's at a much higher price, still be the greatest performer over the next year or two. By the same token, California - to give you some numbers, it's about $90 a tonne of carbon. And for people trying to imagine what that is, imagine a hot air balloon full of gas, that's a roughly give or take a tonne of carbon, hot air balloon worth of gas. That's worth about $90. In California, it's about $30, and in the Northeast, it's about $15. So everyone's paying different prices. So the way I look at it is, Europe is the most developed, most liquid, and because, despite its performance, it could still be the most powerful market - to continue being the most powerful market.
Luke Oliver: On the other side, you've got California, which at $31, if you have that sort of price discovery and market tightening over the next year or two, you could easily see that double from $31 to $65, and could that then catch up with Europe? So you might have sort of that price discovery, sort of explosive move in California depending on how regulation changes. And then you've got something like RGGI, that's at $15 it's the cheapest. So you, even though we only have a small weight to it, we hold a lot of tonnage because those tonnes of cheap, arguably at $15, it's got the most upside. If we think all of these are going to plus $100, then there's the most upside there. But because it's a collection of red and blue states, there's a lot of compromise, and it's not as strict a program as, say, California or Europe is. So there's all these different dynamics.
Luke Oliver: And the beauty of it is, as an investor, you don't really need to worry about these different dynamics because we've created a basket that captures all of those. And I think that's the key. So we, look, we focus on the global blended price of all of these markets, and that's about $45 to $50 a tonne, and we think the blended price should be $100 before it even starts to impact climate change, and it needs to be $100 to $150 to really stay on track for the 2030 targets, which felt like a long way off a few years ago, but we're only eight years away from that. So, sorry, I talked a lot there on that, but different prices, but I think the blended price is what's important, and that's what we try to deliver.
Dean Colling: Yeah. And that's, you know, I'm glad you went through that because I was going to ask you is the future a sort of more global integrated market? But that seems like that may be relatively difficult.
Luke Oliver: Yeah, well, I don't think it needs - people ask that, so, people say, oh, naturally, you want these all to converge together. I think the prices will converge over time, but it's not, what's important is that each jurisdiction gets their emissions under control and reduces them. I don't worry too much about what the individual price is as long as it's working. That said, we think of $100 as the target and we always say that's not the finish line, that's the start line. We've got to get to $100, and then companies wake up to this being a material cost, and then they start not just looking for cheaper ways and cleaner ways to do things, they start really investing in new technology. And that's when we're going to have these breakthroughs. And so, $100 plus and if, if you imagine that's a global target, KRBN's trading, sorry, the global index price is trading in the $45 to $50 a tonne. So to me, a global price sounds like nirvana, but that's not the objective, the objective is reducing emissions.
Dean Colling: Does that add a lot of complexity to global businesses who have operations around the world? And are they then having to go and, participating in carbon markets all over the world, and sort of have their own little basket of carbon allowances for each region that they're in?
Luke Oliver: Yes. Well, the way, there's two things, one is you pay for the emissions where they happen. So a global company that has a factory in Europe and a factory in California, they pay for their European emissions in Europe and their California emissions in California. And if they've got emissions in Texas today, Texas isn't covered by one of these programs, so they wouldn't have to pay for it in Texas. And that brings up another question of do companies switch locations to try and get out of these things? It's possible many of them can't.
Luke Oliver: You can't move a farm from California to Nevada or, you know, if you're a power station or a cement, or steel, or glass, often you are either near your market or you're near the natural resource and moving those things isn't very practical. So for the most part, there isn't a lot of leakage. One anecdote I often tell is that there are some industries maybe that could shift, but what they've done, which is very clever, and it sounds backwards but it's pretty smart, is sometimes they will give those companies free allowances. And naturally we all think, oh, you're giving them away free, what's the point? But the point is by giving them free allowances, those companies now don't leave and they have the choice to either use them or improve their processes and then sell those allowances to somebody else. So you're creating the same economic incentive by giving them away. It's pretty fascinating, it's very simple.
Dean Colling: Yeah, absolutely. And I was actually, you were saying that, what about global trade? What if you are producing something in a low priced carbon market, and then exporting it into a higher priced carbon market? And you've got a price advantage there, does global trade pick that up?
Luke Oliver: Yeah, there is, there is. And it's not as if someone makes something in a lower cost carbon place, and exports it, as long as they bought their carbon in their market, that's fine. They did what they were supposed to do, there are border adjustments. So what you say, let's just say you're a Californian, if your steel manufacturers are going to go out of business because you put this carbon on them, and then now Chinese steel is just so much cheaper, they're going to adjust, and basically put a levy on those incoming Chinese steel to correct it for what the Californian steelmakers have to pay. And so there is a cross border adjustment that happens to solve for exactly that. You don't want to put your, you don't want to run your economy out of business by being green. You don't want to cut emissions by stopping industry, you want to keep industry but make it low emission. So, that's, but it's a challenge, no doubt. It's a challenge to these markets. But the more these markets grow, and the more the prices in these markets grow, that will start to get smoothed out over time. But I want to say one thing, you said is this complex and the way we just talked about it, there is complexity to it.
Luke Oliver: But maybe there should be. Maybe it should be hard to dump carbon into the atmosphere at ridiculous rates, that is eventually going to destroy this, again, not destroy the planet, the planet will be fine, but the life on the planet will be dead. And so, when people say, well, this is bad for business, well, if your business is creating terrible pollution, then maybe it shouldn't be in business. And if it's, say, something like, if you're burning a coal power generation, maybe that money you make should be being moved into green hydrogen, or investing in fusion. You know, there's greener ways to do things that we need to invest in. And if companies weren't doing it on their own, well, now you're going to have to, because this is good regulation. This is the regulation you need. And what's great is they paired the regulation with the free markets that allow people to make choices. No one's being forced to do anything, but they're being told you need these permits and it's creating a really nice dynamic.
Dean Colling: Yeah. And from our perspective, from investors, you know, we look at the ESG, and we're thinking of ESG scores, particularly the E, but there really isn't any significant financial impediment if you're not scoring well in ESG, well, you could still invest in the business. You know, there's just no real punitive issues there. But in this carbon market, and with shrinking supply every year, eventually it'll get to that point where everybody's forced to do it. And it sounds, conceptually, it sounds like a fantastic plan.
Dean Colling: So the question I have is we switch into more of the investment side of this, and some of the ETFs that you guys have created, what's the risk thesis here? You know, what could go wrong with this? I mean, we certainly understand that the more and more, the higher price this gets, the better and the more businesses shift. Because initially, maybe the pushback for some people is what if people just stop producing fossil fuels and tons of carbon and, you know, sort of get their head around and say, well, that's actually good because obviously then carbon prices are going up. And for this investment, that's great for everybody and that works. But try to help me understand and maybe some of our, all of our listeners as well, I mean, what are the risks to the thesis? What could really derail this?
Luke Oliver: Well, one good and one bad. The bad one is that these energy prices stay high, we have a recession. We have populist nonsense in the political arena, somehow we get big pushback on these programs, and these programs, someone says in very dangerous narratives like, we're not going to have electricity if they, or, these people are forcing mom and pop to pay for this carbon through this carbon tax, and it's a tax on poor people. You get this dangerous rhetoric that, backed by potentially those that are incentivized to keep burning coal cheaply, to push back on these programs, or maybe not quite as nefarious as that, you just have such high energy prices like they have in Europe that they backpedal on these programs. And by backpedaling, they will have almost no difference to the price of energy because carbon isn't materially increasing prices.
Luke Oliver: It's the war in Russia that's increasing the lack of natural gas, and coal, and so on. So, the real danger, the worst danger here is that we reverse the policy and these programs are less supported and that means the investment thesis isn't as strong, and it means lower price of carbon, which means continued emissions. So that's political risk, is there, I think it's quite low. What's great to see, in Europe especially, is even in the face of the Russian invasion and sky high energy prices, lots of political pressure, countries like Poland, and Greece, and Hungary and others who haven't necessarily adapted as well, or they are very reliant on coal push back, Europe has come out very clearly and defended the program, and committed and even had elections, or sorry, you know, they voted on maintaining the tightening process of the market and actually confirmed a doubling of the tightening via the Market Stability Reserve to continue until 2030. So that's low risk, but that that's out there.
Luke Oliver: You know, you look at RGGI in the Northeast, you've got Virginia threatening to pull out, you've got Pennsylvania that's supposed to join kind of on the fence on whether it'll join or not. So there's some political risk, is one of the risks, but I think it's quite low. But I think it's low risk, high impact, you know, it's a bad thing if we pull back, keep that in mind, because this is by no means a risk free trade at all. The fact it's designed to go higher, I mean, everything I said is, I hope, and I believe it to be very attractive. We do have to accept it's also very volatile and this risk exist. The other risk is sort of a risk I like, which is, you know, you remember at the beginning I said the general thesis is they will reduce the cap, which will make allowances more scarce, which will force companies to reduce emissions.
Luke Oliver: And in doing that, the price of carbon has to get much higher. That sounds really attractive. What if these companies suddenly have a huge breakthrough? What if someone invents huge, scalable green hydrogen or someone's fusion reactor is perfected? And a headline comes out and says, hey, guess what everyone, we just solved climate change. We've got this fusion reactor that's the size of a car, and we can ship them all over the country by the end of next week, and we've solved it, we've just solved climate change. But we might, I mean, let's just say they, maybe that was two too big of an example. But let's just say the steel industry figures out a way to halve their emissions, that headline breaks. Well, that's going to reduce emissions pretty quickly. And so demand fell faster than supply, so we might see some weakness in the price. So there's a risk, I call it innovation risk. If someone has more success decarbonizing than we expect, we might have volatility. So the reason that's a good thing is because that's why we're doing this in the first place, we want to reduce emissions, so we've had a success.
Luke Oliver: Secondly, remember, these programs are run and designed to reduce emissions. So if the paradigm shifts, the emissions drop because of a huge breakthrough. So let's just say carbon gets to $150 a tonne, and at $150 a tonne, companies start investing in innovating - and by innovating, they reduce emissions. So the price of carbon drops back down to, say, $130. Well, the European Commission will say, hey, we had a great, when we got, when the price got to $150, we had a great success and we didn't have any successes until we got to $150. So now we're back at $130, so let's tighten the program. Let's have another tightening round and push the price back up to $150. And so, we can follow through on that development and catalyze more developments. So the fact that it's a managed system to me means that if you ever get volatility, or a loss, or a drop in the price of carbon because someone solved part of climate change, I'm not worried. I'll take that volatility. I'll take the win for the environment, and then I'll expect the program to reset, to tighten back up. And I expect to be back at that price in a reasonable amount of time. So, those are the two things that could cause shocks to this market.
Dean Colling: Yeah, and that makes a lot of sense. So we talked about, you know, this market has been going for, I think, I've seen some data back to 2013, 2014, but, you know, investible in some vehicles that you have produced, you're just last year. Do you have some data you can share about correlations with other asset classes?
Luke Oliver: Yeah, very low. Going back to that 2014 that you mentioned, it has been in the region of, the correlation is about like a 0.35, is very low to equities. There's almost no correlation to fixed income. Correlations to commodities is about a 0.3, 0.4, give or take. And even into oil, very little correlation. And even some people say, well, is another way of doing this instead of being long carbon itself, can you be long clean tech equities, and it's not the same thing, it's very different; and so the correlation to clean equities is about 0.1, so almost no correlation. So very low correlation.
Luke Oliver: So from a portfolio perspective, it's very attractive. It is worth noting, however, that it's not bulletproof if you have a huge macro global event like, I don't know, March 2020? The entire global economy shuts down, and we have no idea when it will reopen, and we all go home, carbon dropped. And why did carbon drop with everything else? Because the global economy shut down, so power stations were not running, industry was not producing, and we weren't building. And so, as a result there were lower emissions and that meant lower demand for carbon, so the price of carbon slumped. So, just as you want to be balanced in this, the correlations are very low, but there are certain scenarios where you could see correlations spike higher.
Dean Colling: Can you maybe discuss first quarter this year? I guess it was more centered around the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And, you know, carbon prices, or KRBN ETF had quite a steep drop, and then a really quick rebound. What happened there with the volatility?
Luke Oliver: Yeah, and that was an interesting one because these are new markets. And so two things happened. Well, lots of things happened, but we saw the invasion of Russia, of the Ukraine, of Ukraine by Russia. And when that happened, we saw energy prices spiking. We, this is what we had been anticipating, we'd been talking about this a lot, about the tie between natural gas and carbon. And we saw this spike in natural gas, and then obviously that means without natural gas, people are going to burn more coal, price of coal started to spike. People burning more oil, oil starts to spike, anything that was coming out of Russia starts to spike. And we saw carbon rallying. Why? Because people are going the opposite direction.
Luke Oliver: You know, natural gas of all the fossil fuels, which are all bad, natural gas is the least bad. So people were leaving natural gas and going back to coal. That means more emissions, that means more demand for carbon allowances, carbon prices are going up, that's what we expected. However, and some of this is a little bit of market hearsay, so just to kind of take it all with a pinch of salt, but there were some liquidations as people were threatening to close down SWIFT. There was a lot of liquidations from some Russian investors, and it was, there was some London carbon funds which liquidated their European carbon positions.
Luke Oliver: Now, those were a little outsized relative to normal volumes, so they caused a bit of a sell off. Now, not something to be overly concerned with. It should have been a big down day, no big deal, but what happened was that you triggered some some technical sellers. You had a lot of people that were long carbon, essentially leverage comes in here, but there were a lot of people that were long carbon with options. And so the delta hedges had to be peeled away as the market fell down, which meant more selling. And then you had some people that were long, you know, short puts that they hit their margin calls, that drop the market even further. Now, what would normally happen, is the smart money would see this and say, wow, this is just technical sell off, way oversold, let's just buy it.
Luke Oliver: And you would you would have seen this bounce back two thirds of the way the same day. However, because this is a somewhat new market, because of what I mentioned earlier about political risk, people started to scratch their heads and say, well, why is this falling? It looks like a technical, it looks like there's technical sell off. But what if, maybe, people are pricing in that Europe is going to suspend certain high emission industries to save natural gas? Maybe Europe is going to abolish the program because World War Three is about to start.
Luke Oliver: So everyone started coming to all these big conclusions on why carbon is down 30%, 40% and why it should be down 30%, 40%. And so no one wanted to be the person to say, this is just wrong, we should just buy here. And so, it took about 48 hours of being down where, and it was funny, you know, we can go back to the Twitter tapes and, you know, and you'll see myself and others saying what exactly what it was. And suddenly the compliance entities that need to buy these started to buy them back, and then Europe came out and had a vote to reconfirm that they would continue buying these allowances as part of the Market Stability Reserve. And suddenly the market was like, okay, Europe, they were worried that there was like a, you know, Europe was about to backpedal on the program. Europe came out and affirmed through a couple of different actions that they were not backpedaling, and this program was still front and center in the fight against climate. And that's when, and then, as you said, the market, then all the people that were on the sidelines thinking this was too cheap felt comfortable.
Luke Oliver: They jumped back in, and we came right back. Now, we didn't come all the way back. The reason I think, I think you ask this question actually early on, is do we think we're in the right place? I think we're way too cheap in all of these markets, but Europe is probably the closest to being the right price. I think in the balance of everything between the invasion, geopolitical issues, fuel shortages, in the balance, I think relative to where we were pre-invasion, we're sort of in the right place, in that the price needs to be much higher. Emissions are going to be higher because of the war. However, there is the threat of global recession, which could reduce emissions naturally, and therefore take a little bit of edge off. So the fact we're slightly below pre-invasion levels seems okay, seems about right. But what's going to take over from here is that this tightening program is going to keep cranking, and keep tightening, and so it will start to detach more and more from the economic cycle, and it will be just about the tightening price of carbon. So I think, I mean, we had a 9% rally the other day, we had a 6% sell off yesterday. So there's a lot happening.
Luke Oliver: I think we're in a nice little consolidation period now where, we have been saying this for the last couple of weeks to clients, that if you're thinking about it, this is a really good time to do your due diligence because we're kind of rangebound and I think it goes higher from here. But that's not to say it's going to do that tomorrow, or in the next sort of 48 hours. I think people have time to do their homework today, and I think this is a really good time to do that while the market is digesting what the net outcome is from this new shift. Because here's the thing, one of the biggest outcomes from this war in Russia is that energy security, Europe realizes it needs energy security and this is the new hot button topic. And guess what you get by being energy secure, it means you need to innovate away from fossil fuels. And so we're accelerating not for the right reasons, for the reasons to do with energy security and national security, but we're doing the right thing regardless, moving away and innovating. So all of that is going to accelerate all of these themes. And so, I think it's really important for investors to be aware that this is an available asset class.
Dean Colling: Yeah. And that's how we see it as well. I mean, and I think we've been very clear to listeners today that this is not a, you know, a low volatility asset, but it is a low correlation asset that when when included in a broader portfolio, it can help reduce overall volatility and improve improve risk adjusted returns in the overall portfolio. Very, very unique, different return stream for sure. So, the primary vehicle is your KRBN ETF. Do you want to tell us a little bit about that?
Luke Oliver: Yeah, so KRBN is the global product. It takes the UK, Europe, California and RGGI markets and gives you a blended portfolio. It's 60% Europe, 30% California, so I really like it in that it's a nice blend of most mature, most liquid, most well backed market with a really strong allocation to a market that is emerging. And it's funny to think of California as an emerging market in this sense, but developing. And then you've got this UK, which is a really well developed, and then RGGI which is the really underdeveloped, on 5% each on the sideline. So a really nice basket to capture this whole story.
Luke Oliver: We also have a California only, and a Europe only, for those that want that. We have so many people only want California because they see that as the most upside, and we have so many other people that only want Europe because they see it as the strongest, most liquid market. So it's something for everyone. We also have an energy transition, which is an equity fund, and I see it as, you need to be long carbon in the way, everything I've talked about today, and as the price of carbon increases you're going to get this flood of innovation. So you want to be long those innovating companies, and that's what we put into the equity fund. And what's interesting about it is it's not a clean tech company fund, It's not necessarily an ESG fund. It's a fund that holds companies that are at the forefront of innovating, and some of those companies today are quite dirty companies, but we are comfortable with that because we believe that we're investing in companies that are going to have the most impact and make the most difference, not necessarily whether they score well today. And then the last piece of that is we're launching an offset fund, which I mentioned right at the beginning, is where by investing in that fund, you're investing in backing tree projects and natural projects that will reduce carbon in the atmosphere. So it's a full package.
Dean Colling: Fantastic. Yeah, this is very unique. And you know, while there are, I'm sure, others bubbling up around the surface, you guys have definitely hit our radar screen and we've done a lot of due diligence, and appreciate everything that you guys have done and giving our clients opportunities to participate in unique markets like that. So, just maybe a few stats to end our chat today. You know, I was, actually pulled this from some of your data, but according to IHS Markit and the World Bank, global carbon prices grew by 108% in 2021, and carbon futures trading volumes were up 165% last year as well. And the global carbon allowance market is roughly, I think, around 20% of the total carbon market right now, actually. You know what? Yeah, it's it's amazing. I actually I thought I had that on my on my sheet here, but I just going from memory, I was right, right? 21%, I think it was.
Luke Oliver: So that is the coverage of, these programs cover a year or so ago, 16% of global emissions, today it's 21 ½%, yeah.
Dean Colling: So the message is massive growth, massive uptake, I think there's more investors like myself and our clients, there's institutional investors coming into this market, how do you see the next couple of years playing out?
Luke Oliver: Well I think the, this market will continue to grow, it's grown dramatically. You know, you mentioned $160, I mean, it's $684 billion these markets traded last year, which is incredible, and it was less than $300 billion the year before that, so really incredible growth. Then you have the offset market, which barely traded a billion or two last year, that is going to grow dramatically and that's why we're entering that space. And the coverage you mentioned, the 21 ½%, that's got to, I mean, when China is covered here, this is going to dramatically increase, we need to get that, we need to solve this problem. And what's been fascinating, so very in short, these are going to grow coverage. Global coverage is going to grow, capture of new industries, new markets is going to grow. The price should grow in all of these markets, and the only reason I don't think it would grow is if we have great innovation, which is a great thing.
Luke Oliver: And then what I've been exposed to by being in this privileged position to work with these funds and talk to guys like you about it, is that we're getting so many calls from people with ideas and projects, and the things we're hearing will blow your mind. You know, things people are doing to create soil that captures carbon, to regenerate forests, to create seaweed forests under the ocean that will suck millions of tonnes of carbon out of the atmosphere into the ocean. People talking about repopulating the whale populations in the ocean, because they create, it's a whole thing. But they, the whales create their, their waste creates what the plankton live on, that creates this huge carbon - it's just incredible the things that people are doing. And it's very clear from our seat we're seeing the beginning of the global war on climate change, and it's happening. And this is a very easy way to jump in and get involved on, you know, ground zero.
Dean Colling: Yeah. And it's amazing, never underestimate the power of human ingenuity and innovation, and especially with a tailwind of a little bit of financial incentive behind. So yeah, that's fantastic. So Luke, thank you for all your time today. It was a great discussion and I think we'll have a great feedback from our listeners on that. I'm sure a lot more questions as well. And so I wish you guys the best of luck in the future, and let's make sure we we have a follow up chat sometime in the future.
Luke Oliver: Thank you so much for having me. This was really great to talk to you.
Dean Colling: Have a great day, thank you.
[The microphone graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. On the left side of the screen are a list of disclaimers. The text reads: Credits; Music Provided by: Hot Coffee by Ghostrifter Official (soundcloud.com/ghostrifter-official), Licensed under Creative Commons – Attribution, ShareAlike 3.0 Unported – CC BY-SA 3.0., http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Disclaimers; This information, including any opinion, is based on various sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed and is subject to change. CIBC and CIBC World Markets Inc., their affiliates, directors, officers and employees may buy, sell, or hold a position in securities of a company mentioned herein, its affiliates or subsidiaries, and may also perform financial advisory services, investment banking or other services for, or have lending or other credit relationships with the same. CIBC World Markets Inc. and its representatives will receive sales commissions and/or a spread between bid and ask prices if you purchase, sell or hold the securities referred to above. © CIBC World Markets Inc. 2022.
CIBC Private Wealth Management consists of services provided by CIBC and certain of its subsidiaries, including CIBC Wood Gundy, a division of CIBC World Markets Inc.
Commissions, trailing commissions, management fees, and expenses may all be associated with hedge fund investments. Hedge funds may be sold by Prospectus to the general public, but more often are sold by Offering Memorandum to those investors who meet certain eligibility or minimum purchase requirements. An Offering Memorandum is not required in some jurisdictions. The Prospectus or Offering Memorandum contains important information about hedge funds – you should obtain a copy and read it before making an investment decision. Hedge funds are not guaranteed. Their values change frequently, and past performance may not be repeated. Hedge funds are for sophisticated investors only. Clients are advised to seek advice regarding their particular circumstances from their personal tax and legal advisors.
Insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services Inc. In Quebec, insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services (Quebec) Inc.
Dean Colling and Rocco Letterio are Investment Advisors with CIBC Wood Gundy. The views of Dean Colling and Rocco Letterio do not necessarily reflect those of CIBC World Markets Inc.
If you are currently a CIBC Wood Gundy client, please contact your Investment Advisor.]
Announcer: Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed our show, please consider sharing the episode with your friends. Be sure to check out our website for new episodes every few months.
Wealthview - Episode 10 - Zach Vaughan
[The podcast opens on an introduction graphic with CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. The text reads: Wealthview, Hosted by Dean Colling, First Vice-President & Senior Portfolio Manager, March, 2022. On the left side of the screen are a group of graphics consisting of two speech bubbles, a stylized group of gears, and a bar graph with an arrow in an uptrend. The text on the left hand side reads: Philosophy, Strategy & Insights.]
Announcer: You're listening to Wealthview, the podcast where we share philosophy, strategy and insights from some of Canada's top financial professionals.
[A brief montage consisting of a street level view of traffic in downtown Toronto, high-rise buildings, Dean Colling speaking on a microphone, and a bird’s eye view of a four-way intersection plays on the left side of the screen.]
Announcer: Hosted by Dean Colling, Senior Wealth Advisor and Portfolio Manager at CIBC Private Wealth. Edited and produced by the Colling Group. And now, onto the show.
[The introduction graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. In the centre of the screen is a graphic representation of a microphone. The text reads: Wealthview, Conversation with Zach Vaughan, Managing Partner, Real Estate, Brookfield Asset Management.]
Dean Colling: Welcome to Wealthview, I'm your host, Dean Colling. On this episode, we're going to talk with Zach Vaughan, Managing Partner in Brookfield's Real Estate Investment Group and global head of their core plus and perpetual real estate funds. Zach is responsible for oversight of Brookfield's open-ended real estate activities globally. Previously, he was head of European real estate, responsible for Brookfield's real estate activities in the region, and oversaw Brookfield's North American multi-family investments and its operating company, Fairfield Residential. Prior to joining Brookfield in 2012, Zach worked at the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and Reichmann International as Director of Acquisitions. He's also a director of the Canary Wharf Group, CenterParcs, Student Roost and SACO. Zach, welcome to Wealthview.
Zach Vaughan: Thank you very much. It's great to be here. This is my first podcast, so I was telling my kids at home that I was going to be on a podcast today, and they were very excited.
Dean Colling: Well, we're very happy to elevate your status with your kids. You're welcome. So listen, I just kind of gave a little bit of background on you as we entered, of course, but maybe give a little bit of color on your career and what got you to this spot today?
Zach Vaughan: Sure. I always wanted to be in the commercial real estate business. I grew up, my father was a development lawyer in Toronto, so I grew up sitting around the dinner table, listening to stories about developments and real estate deals, and was just always enamored with these big real estate companies and big assets. And so, really wanted to do that. And I started my career after university in the advisory side of the business. So representing commercial tenants, first in Canada, and then I moved to the U.S. to do that. I then moved to the investment side of the business, working more on asset acquisitions and asset transactions. And then in 2001, I got an opportunity to move back to Canada to work for Paul Reichmann. Again, it was a phenomenal opportunity for this Canadian kid who read the books about them, and studied Olympia & York, and here I was standing in front of the guy in his office, presenting him with numbers on assets, and I would say that really was my education.
Zach Vaughan: We had a business called International Property Corporation that Paul founded after Olympia & York, and we did a few things: we had large developments in Mexico, we were a major shareholder of Canary Wharf in London, and then we also had a Canadian income trust called IPC U.S. REIT that owned primarily U.S. properties, and I was responsible for acquisitions. And so we grew that business from about $250 million of value, to close to $3 billion, and then decided to sell it in 2005, which was the right decision. Paul's health was changing and IPC at the time, or International Property Corporation, was really stopping a lot of the activities. I was a pretty young guy at the time, needed something to do. At that time, the CPP Investment Board was looking to get into active investing; so moving away from being an index investor into things like real estate, private equity, infrastructure, and some other strategies. And so they brought me on to help them start investing in the U.S., so I did that for them, oversaw the investments in the U.S. for about six years, we invested over $10 billion into real estate and it was an amazing place, an amazing organization, really proud to have been a part of it. But I decided in 2012 that I wanted to get back into the operating side of the business. In other words, move to not just an investment role, but also one where we would oversee the assets. And I had gotten to know Rick Clark at Brookfield, and so I joined Brookfield and relocated to Los Angeles to start looking for investments out there for them.
Zach Vaughan: As is often the case at Brookfield, I took on other responsibilities in addition to office, so I started working on general M&A transactions, really helping to grow our asset management business. And then eventually I took over the job of running our multi-family apartment business, which was based in Southern California, and I thought I had it made. I was this kid from Toronto, it was something, I always wanted to work in real estate. And here I was, in a very senior role in a growing apartment company living in Southern California in a beach town. It was really an amazing experience. And then, in 2015, I got asked to move to London to help grow our European business, where we grew it from three people and very small group of assets to, when I left last summer, we had about seventy five people and $45 billion of assets there. And at the beginning of last year, I got asked if I would take on a new role here at Brookfield, which was to head up our core plus and our perpetual real estate funds globally. And so I made the decision with my family that it made more sense to relocate back to New York and Toronto. And so that's how we got here.
Dean Colling: That's a great segue into us talking about this topic today, because clearly you've had a broad range of experience. Not only geographically, but in, you know, product and strategy, and, you know, as you say, operating, M&A, all kinds of things. So it certainly adds a lot of value to the discussion today. So being with Brookfield now, I mean, it's kind of a ubiquitous brand here in Canada and globally, a lot of people know the name, but may not know the depth of the organization and what it really does. Do you want to give us a little bit of background on that?
Zach Vaughan: Sure. I think the benefit I have with the Canadian audience is they know Brookfield very well. It's a company that's been around for well over 100 years in Canada, in various iterations, and I would probably talk a little more about our property business than everything else. But if you think about what we have, we have around a $¼ trillion of real estate assets that we manage and oversee around the world. And we're often known for office properties, because of things like Brookfield Place in Toronto or Brookfield Place in New York, or some of the assets that we own in some of the other large global cities. But in addition to office, we operate in pretty much every commercial real estate sector there is. And so what Brookfield's done really well over the past 35 years is build what I would call very deep vertical operating businesses in every commercial real estate sector. So whether it's office, multi-family apartments, logistics and industrial properties, hospitality, we have teams that can not only go out and source individual transactions and do the asset management of them once we own them, but can also directly run the properties. So we have over 25,000 employees, operating employees, around the world, who are Brookfield employees, who day-to-day run those assets. It's a big differentiator for us, and maybe something that a lot of people just don't know how deep of an organization that is, and what type of reach it gives us as we look to invest new capital and make what we think are the right capital allocation decisions. And so, I just give that as background because it's something that's truly unique and will benefit the shareholders of Brookfield REIT, and we can talk more about that because it really lets us pursue a strategy that we think others could not pursue.
Dean Colling: Yeah, I would imagine the economies of scale that you have now and integrating that sort of full offering of acquisition, the investment side, but also the management side, you know, gives you sort of that one plus one equals three effect, I would imagine, over time. Would that be accurate?
Zach Vaughan: I think so. And I'll give two examples of ways that I think Brookfield's real estate business, that the unique aspect of building these operating companies over 35 years creates value. And I think the first one is we have a lot of flexibility in terms of how we invest. We can invest in large, complicated transactions. So whether that's a public-to-private buyout, or large portfolio deals, large recapitalizations, but because we have those businesses with individuals in them that focus just on certain property types. So if you think about apartments as an example, we have 40 people in the U.S. alone that do nothing but look for apartments to buy in certain areas of the country, and then to run them and oversee them, to design the business plans. What it lets us do is what I call a build versus buy strategy, meaning we can hand select in a way and build our portfolio. So I don't mean build in terms of construction and development, because that's not something we're doing in Brookfield REIT. It means we can build up our own portfolio or curate it, which means that we don't have to take on assets that we don't want because they come with a portfolio.
Zach Vaughan: And the second thing that's interesting in the market today, that not only do we get to select our own assets, but I think we're able to do it at a much better value than exists for large portfolios. There is a huge premium, probably the largest I've seen in my career, over 20 years, of premiums being associated to certain property types. Particularly logistics and industrial properties, but also apartments, where the premium values are very high for scale. In other words, people are paying enormous amounts to put large amounts of capital to work in those sectors. We can put a big amount of capital to work very efficiently because of the machines we have, but do it at what I think is a much better basis. So, for example, we've acquired and are in the process of acquiring $1 billion of apartments, and we've done that one by one by one, and that's in Brookfield REIT. If we put that portfolio together and sold it, it'd probably be worth, I think, $200 to $250 million more. And so all that value gets retained within, really retained by the shareholders, and that's because we have this model that lets us do that.
Zach Vaughan: And then the second thing I would say that where I think we we add tangible value is that we run our own properties ourselves. So it's back to that 25,000 operating employees we have. We don't need to rely on third parties to help us and, which is good because when you involve a third party, a model that is often used in commercial real estate is to have a third party come in. Maybe they'll invest 2% of the equity, or 2% or 5% or something alongside you. They'll do all the day to day management, they'll do the business plans, they'll help you underwrite it, and in exchange, they'll charge you asset management fees, they'll charge you other acquisition fees, other fees, and performance fees that in a closed end fund may be fine, may be appropriate and a very efficient way to do things. But when you're owning assets for long term, primarily for income, that can erode away at your returns. So if you think about an asset where you're trying to generate a 10% total return at the asset level, that type of fee structure could eat away at 80 plus basis points of your return, and we cut that out.
Dean Colling: So for the listeners, let's just step back for a second and talk about, you know, you're talking about REITs, and I think a lot of investors know certainly about the publicly traded REIT world. You know, various different asset classes in real estate, fairly liquid. Define the difference between public REITs and then private real estate investment that you're doing as well.
Zach Vaughan: Yeah. So the only distinction between what I would say is a non-traded REIT and a public REIT, what you think of as a publicly traded REIT, is just that, one trades on an exchange, whether it's in Toronto or New York, and one does not. But it is still a public company, it's a public security. You're a shareholder, it has a board, an independent board of directors, but it does not trade daily on an exchange. So you as a shareholder, if you want to get liquidity, you request that liquidity, and it's available to shareholders every month and shareholders can effectively ask for it to be redeemed. So, ask us to buy back their shares, and we do that at the then current NAV. So the benefit shareholders get is this: it's a public security that comes with all the governance, all the regulatory oversight, but you know that if you ever want to get liquidity, it's available, but it's going to happen at a value that is what the assets are worth. Some people would make the argument, well, liquidity is really valuable, so I want the public security. That's fine. But when you want the liquidity, actual liquidity, it's likely going to happen at a value that's not reflective of what the properties are worth. And so this is a bit of a different product where, in a way, you think about it as just making an investment in a very high quality commercial real estate portfolio as a private investor.
Dean Colling: Yeah. And you know, we always recommend that when we're building portfolios for clients and looking at real estate as part of the overall asset mix, I mean, we have to think about real estate as a long life asset. I mean, really any equity investment we do, even in a public company that has to be in technology, is still a long life asset. But real estate in particular is, you know, there's a disconnect between mark-to-market pricing and real estate. And that's why I think the private side is a much better vehicle to make the investments in. And that's why we like some of the things that you guys bring to the table.
Dean Colling: Let's just talk about valuations in the real estate world today. Everybody, you know, will, you know, gauge that by the value of their house. People jump online and jump on some real estate website, and search around the neighborhood and see how much their house has gone up. On a grander scale across, let's say, Canada first and then maybe in the U.S. at an institutional level, what's your view on valuation? Maybe across a few sectors in real estate?
Zach Vaughan: It's a tough question because you're, on the one hand, there's been big appreciation in real estate. Whether it's residential to commercial, different sectors have functioned differently. But overall, what we see and have believed for a long time is that high quality real estate assets, although they have appreciated a lot in recent years, actually offer a pretty attractive risk premium still today. So if you think about, and I'm going to skip to the U.S., it's similar in Canada, you think about high quality commercial real estate. Generally, people are projecting to deliver unlevered total returns, so income plus appreciation over, say, a 10 year period, somewhere around 5% to 6%, depending on the property sector. And that's for very good, stable core type of properties. And so if you think about earning a 5% to 6% yield versus some proxy, in other words, some fixed income type of income generating asset, it's still pretty attractive spread historically. So as, and what you're now seeing is that institutions, which used to be the primary driver of capital into the larger commercial assets, is now moving to individuals as your clients are looking at putting more capital into alternative assets, of which real estate is one. And the reason is because it still is an attractive risk premium.
Dean Colling: Yeah, and I would agree with that. I mean, obviously we saw extreme lows in rates. We've been in a very low rate environment for a long time. But every time, you know, over the last couple of years we, people say, this is it. This is extreme rates, we got even lower to zero, we saw negative rates at places in the world. So certainly, you know, as you mention, a 5% or 6% cash yield on real estate can be pretty attractive. So, you know, the headlines now are obviously, you know, near term inflation pressures. Supply chain issues. And you know, we just saw a pretty reasonably high year over year print in inflation in the U.S., it's got a few people rattled. The Fed's talking about raising rates significantly. You know, how does that impact the view? I know that, you know, from a flow of funds perspective and looking at valuation and again, that proxy or that bogey you're looking at, let's say, the 10 year U.S. Treasury yields creeping up. How does that impact near term, in your view, valuation of real estate and maybe how you as an organization approach investing?
Zach Vaughan: It's a good question, and inflation is what's on people's minds, it's something you live with every day. What we're focusing on are assets where we can grow the cash flows. And if you think about our portfolio today, we're about half, we're probably going to be closer to two thirds multi-family apartments. That is a space that we like for so many reasons for income strategies, but particularly in an environment like today, where there's inflation in the economy, there's a good labor market, people have jobs, people's wages are growing. We're able to raise our rents at a level that's above that inflation, and above the level where our costs are growing. So, for example, we're raising rents every year, typically in a normal market rate apartment portfolio in the U.S., about 50% to 55% of the tenants rollover, so leave, and they get replaced with new tenants and you end up with an average occupancy of anywhere from 93% to 95% in your building over the year. We've been able to raise our rents at double digit rates in those apartments over the past 6 to 9 months.
Zach Vaughan: And we're continuing to see that our expenses are rising. We used to think they would rise by 2% to 2 ½%, now they're rising by 3%, maybe 3 ½%. So we're actually expanding our margin. We're growing our cash flow in this environment, and those are the types of assets you want to protect yourself in an inflationary period. I do think you have to be careful about what types of assets you are buying. For example, maybe 12 months ago, 18 months ago, people would have focused on just purely higher income and said, I just want that asset, I don't care that it has a very flat contractual income stream for a long period of time because I just want to clip that income. The challenge you have with those type of assets is in this environment you can't grow your cash flow, because there's no indexation to it. And so you really have to focus on assets that you can grow your cash flow at a rate either in line, or hopefully faster than the underlying inflation, and not have your margin erode.
Dean Colling: That makes a ton of sense, obviously, given, like you said, you know, the employment situation, particularly in the North America, wage growth, things like that, that makes a ton of sense, that you know, you have that pricing power across multi-family.
Zach Vaughan: It's a great asset class. I've spent a long time in that business, always thought it was a great long term, should be a bedrock of a long term real estate portfolio, and that's what we're creating with Brookfield REIT. But, there are other good assets too, and you really have to focus on buying the right assets, the right neighborhood, at the right basis. And so, on the other side of that is an example where we bought the DreamWorks Animation Studios in California, and it's a mission critical facility. It's a facility they have to be at to develop and produce their content for streaming, for shows, or for feature films. It's an asset that we bought at about $630 a square foot of built assets, you could never replace that, you'd have to spend double. DreamWorks is there, they have a long term left on their lease, they pay a very low rent that heads upwards, only indexation. We've essentially created a going-in cash yield with fixed rate financing of over 7%. And again, it's being able to find those opportunities, act quickly, be a credible buyer that's really led us to that point. And so it's not just apartments, but we focus on other areas of commercial real estate that would be less typical or we may be less known for.
Dean Colling: Yeah. And so, let's look at the trends over the last couple of years, obviously, with what we've gone through in the world, sort of the narrative has always been, you know, there was going to be a redefined description of what it means to go to the office and and, you know, obviously online shopping and online anything has gone through the roof over the last couple of years, as a result of the adaptation of people sort of changing their lifestyle. So, what's your view on office? You guys obviously have a huge presence there. And then, you know, you actually mentioned earlier, right at the beginning of our discussion that you're talking about warehousing and shipping, and things like that, you know, the standard kind of Amazon warehouse equivalent, to meet the demand of online. How are you guys approaching that? Is there any value there still, or is that story gone?
Zach Vaughan: Sure. Why don't I start with office? Because it's very topical. We're the largest office landlord in the world, so we get asked this question all the time, across, all the way up to the top. And I would say, definitely, things have changed. What hasn't changed, and what we're not seeing on the ground, is the demand from tenants, and we're even seeing it from Toronto to Dubai, to New York, to L.A., to London. The demand for tenants to take, to commit to space, in high quality buildings that have the right physical attributes; so, the right kind of air handling, the right kind of vertical transportation, the right access, so whether they're located strategically, either close to transport links, whether those are, say, road in the case of a place like Southern California, or mass transit in the case of, maybe, Toronto, London and New York, that demand is actually growing. What you're actually seeing is tenants know that they are going to have to get back to the office, they want to be in the office. Google alone has bought, I think, $3 billion, but, worth of real estate in the past 6 to 9 months. They bought it. If they weren't looking to expand and invest in their office, why would they do that? They didn't have to do that, and they know they have to get people back. People need to collaborate, people need to train each other.
Zach Vaughan: And that's just a fact, that will grow, and people will get more comfortable with doing that, and I think it'll snap back relatively quickly. But what you're seeing is a big bifurcation in the good assets, that again, have those attributes; they're well run, they have the right kind of systems, the right locations - and the weaker assets - and those weaker assets are very challenging. And so, I think what you're seeing at a headline level, is vacancy rates grow as people continue to shed secondary space, particularly large users in financial services, or technology, or other large companies, are all shedding space that they had and maybe as overflow space, or sort of separate locations. But they're taking more space, and committing more capital to it, in good assets. So we're fortunate at Brookfield, we happen to own good assets. I would say as it relates to Brookfield REIT, office is not a major theme of ours because office buildings, and even good ones, that are larger multi-tenant buildings, are terrific assets from a very long term total return perspective, but can go through periods of time that just require a lot of the cash generated to be reinvested. So, think about modernizing your elevators over over a few years, or updating your lobby, or major structural work, that you have to do to keep your building to that standard.
Zach Vaughan: That can cause some variations in the cash flow, which create good returns long term, but for us, we're very focused on maintaining a stable cash flow base so that we can pay out a consistent dividend to our shareholders. So, general office won't make up a big portion of our portfolio. What we do focus on are, what I would call more unique mission critical facilities. So, we own a building in Brookfield REIT, it's in London, it's in the heart of the city of London, it's called Principal Place, It's Amazon's European headquarters. Amazon is in there, it's critical to their business, they have about 11 ½ years left on their lease, they have upwards only indexation that's tied not only to growth in the market, but also to inflation. So, it's a great inflation protected long term asset, that's the type of thing we'll focus on in the REIT. So, I think that will make up a relatively small component of the portfolio over time, probably in the 10% to 15% range. Again, I believe in office long term, but it has to be the right kind of office. A lot of that other office needs massive amount of reinvestment, and you need a lot of skills to do that, a lot of people, a lot of know how and a lot of capital. And so that's why you'll see opportunities for different types of risk capital come into that over time.AA
Dean Colling: Quick question on, you mentioned, you know, Google, Alphabet, buying a ton of space in the last couple of years, what's the determining factor between, you know, being a tenant and leasing a major mission critical property, like you mentioned with Amazon, to then, you know, going out and buying it themselves, and owning and managing it themselves? What's the decision process there?
Zach Vaughan: I think it's a control over their facilities, and in a lot of cases, you know, look, I think when you're Alphabet, Google, investing a few billion dollars into your facilities is not a major financial undertaking. So, I think it really comes down to preference and it's not just technology companies, you see it with the banks; so, JPMorgan owns their headquarters and always has, and likely always will, that's just their philosophy. A lot of the other banks don't. So, I think it just comes down to a preference of the companies, but ultimately, whether they own it or lease it, when you look at where the growth is happening, it's all in really good assets that are well located and that have the amenities, that have the systems that the tenants want and need.
Dean Colling: So let's take a little high level view here on something that, you know, everybody's been talking about for the last decade plus, is the impact of demographics, demographics on real estate investment, on real estate acquisition, how does that factor into your analysis? And what do you see the future holding in terms of that relatively impactful concept of demographics, in terms of aging baby boomers, and where their capital flows are, and where what kind of properties they want to own, or sell?
Zach Vaughan: Well, I think you you would, it's something that's really important, and that's what's driving a lot of the growth in, say, the residential, I'll say, the residential sector broadly. So what you have in the U.S. as an example, is you have a growing household formation, and you have a, truly, still, a lack of supply, effectively, there's millions, there's a shortage of millions of housing units in the U.S., which is driving demand for rental apartments, but also now single family rental homes. So, we have been investing in that sector for a while, we own a company that specializes in buying, in some cases renovating, renting, and managing single family rental homes in certain areas of the country. And it's been an amazing sector because the demand is growing, more people are either starting families or what you'd call decoupling, which is effectively moving out of shared accommodations into single accommodations. It's helped also by a stronger labour market, but all those factors combined really lead us to think about the sectors that are going to benefit from that; but generally, those are residential, has been the big, big beneficiary of that.
Dean Colling: Obviously, as you mentioned, there's, with rates low and demographics and you know, the institutional demand for real estate, it looks like there's going to be, you know, at least the foreseeable future, continuation of that demand and the capital flows going there. And it's actually an interesting point you made earlier on where you said, as you joined CPP, that CPP, I think we all know of CPP as a big participant in private markets now, but wasn't always the case. But if we look at institutions like that around the globe today, we can see that as part of their portfolio, private markets are in fact a very large portion of it. Do you see that trend continuing and maybe, maybe even talk about, when you back, when you joined CPP, what was the catalyst for this, you know, expansion of their portfolio allocations? And how do you see the future?
Zach Vaughan: Yeah. I think, two things, I'd say as it relates to CPP, I think the catalyst was that they had very certain funding that was coming in, and very long dated liabilities, and that they should be able to take advantage of that, earn a higher return than they could earn in a passive portfolio. So in other words, they're going to buy a piece of real estate, they may send, sell, 60% of some fixed income bucket to 40% of some equity bucket, and we can take advantage of the fact that we can hold assets long term because there wasn't that near term funding need. And so, I think that's what drove them into trying to become active, and take a very long term view. And we see the same thing across the world in different organizations. What you are seeing, and truly the Canadian, I'd say, the Canadian large institutions were at the forefront of this, is if you look back years and years ago, the amount of alternatives, so things like real estate, I'd say direct real estate, or private equity, or infrastructure, that institutions owned, was a very small component of their portfolio.
Zach Vaughan: And then that grew to, say, 5%, and now it's maybe around 10%, and some of the larger ones have up to 50%. But I think what we're seeing is that will continue to grow, but it's going to continue to grow from institutions at a relatively stable pace, say, 1% to 3% a year growth in their allocations to alternatives. On the other hand, what you're now seeing is demand for alternatives from individuals, through their advisors and people like yourselves that say we should have our clients invest a portion of their portfolio in alternative products, things like real estate, infrastructure, maybe some other private equity investments. And that really is where we're seeing amazing growth, and it's a huge growth area for firms like ours, but also for products like Brookfield REIT.
Zach Vaughan: And so out of curiosity, what would be, like if you think today, what would be your either ideal allocation to alternatives, where you sit today, and where you would have been 5, 8 years ago?
Dean Colling: Yeah, I, I think we were early adopters back in the day, 5, 8 years ago, so we would have had at least probably 10% plus in alternatives, at least, but today I would think in most of our client's investment policies we've got, we've got 20%, so we've got some up to 30%.
Dean Colling: So, you know, it is a function of understanding the market more, adopting that as part of our overall strategy, and then it is also improved access that we have. Like, you know, before we, you know, it was tough to find opportunities for clients that weren't too, you know, not to disparage them too much, but too retail. We're now getting access, obviously, to vehicles like this, like Brookfield REIT, that gets access to institutional quality investments, institutional quality management. And you know, let's obviously, you know, this is about building a flight path for clients that are, you know, it's comfortable, and long dated assets and long term investing like this without mark-to-market volatility every day, it helps out the portfolios. People are comfortable, meets there, makes them feel like they at least should maintain a long term focus and not get caught up in short term events, that we've certainly had a few over over the last few years. So yeah, I would say it's, you know, the adaptation is fundamentally based on, you know, understanding and better access. And so, yeah.
Zach Vaughan: And I think you guys are to be commended because you are and you were ahead of the curve, where when we look across, say, the U.S. as an example, I think it's something in the order of 3% on average, which obviously is going to grow and that will continue to support values and products like this grow. And you raised a good point in that when you think about non-traded REITs, these have existed for decades. So this is not a new product necessarily. But what they used to be were, again, products that were run by primarily financial sponsors who didn't know too much about real estate or overly institutional, and they had very weak governance and economic structures. In other words, you had no board oversight, you had no visibility as an investor into the properties and the valuations, you had enormous fees that were paid to the advisors of these non-traded REITs, irrespective of the returns that were earned, and just for putting them together.
Zach Vaughan: And so what you've seen evolve, particularly in the past 5 years, is non-traded REITs have now moved from, I'd say, more the fringe into the mainstream, where the structure is very similar to the type of structures that institutions would invest through in open ended perpetual real estate vehicles; and now, that's available to individuals with the same sponsorship, and that I think has really helped people start to focus on this and say, this is a good alternative for me if I want to get some good real estate exposure in a private way that's not listed for my client.
Dean Colling: So I want to talk about a couple last things. You know, I don't want to over focus on this subject, but it is timely, and we've done a couple of, one specific episode of Wealthview a little while ago on ESG, and it's come into the discussions on a couple other ones as well. So, we might as well bring it in on this one as well. You know, Environmental, Social, Governance: it's obviously, it's a topic that's important to a lot of people. How does Brookfield approach it in the way they manage the properties that they own and how they invest in properties?
Zach Vaughan: Yeah, I think there's two things: it's a big topic, that is very, I mean, it's on top of everyone's minds today. I think a couple of things I'd say, number one, this is not a ESG transition fund, in that we're trying to generate income from good real estate. We run that real estate and continue to do it in a way that we think is at the forefront of, particularly as it relates to real estate, real estate has a big carbon footprint, so we focus very much on the E aspect of it. So that's everything from waste management, energy management to using more renewable energy sources, all those things. So that's just what we do. We've done that for years, not because we thought it was good from a headline point of view, because it's just good business.
Dean Colling: Yeah. And I bet you that, you know, you mentioned about value gaps before, you know, older buildings to, you know, newer buildings. I mean, people want to work in a, you know, a smart office that has, you know, some green stamp on it and says, you know, hey, we're yeah, and you're going to, and that's going to be more value for sure.
Zach Vaughan: We undertake that every day. I would say the focus as it relates to what we do here is very much on the E aspect. But if you think about Brookfield's views, I mean, Brookfield is the largest owner and operator of renewable energy in the world. And again, it's been that way for decades, and decades, and decades. Not because it was, we thought it would be attractive someday, but because it's good business, and so we have in addition to our renewable business, we have the largest transition fund now in the world that we've just raised. It's about $15 billion, it's overseen by an amazing group that Mark Carney is involved with. And so for us, it's really embedded in pretty much everything we do here. It's an area that I can say with certainty, it's not somewhere where we are reactive. We've been doing this forever, at least as long as I've been here.
Dean Colling: Yeah. And I think, as you mentioned, it's just good business. I mean, obviously, it's, there's a focus on it today and we care, you know, as equity managers, as we were investing in other businesses that there's a policy, that's been incorporated into their strategic oversight and what they're doing in their businesses. We don't, you know, we don't want to bring it too tightly down on the way we evaluate companies and we certainly don't want it to be necessarily thematic in everything that we do. But, it's certainly, it's definitely an important part of how we invest today, and it should should be at least a checkbox for everything that we're evaluating.
Zach Vaughan: We look at it in the transition space in particular, as this is, the decarbonization as the biggest commercial opportunity on the planet. The benefit is, is that it makes the planet healthier, but trillions of dollars are needed to do this, to bring companies on the right path and to decarbonize the world, and produce more renewable power, and help companies transition from very carbon intensive to carbon light. And so, we think it's a huge opportunity. It's not necessarily what we do at Brookfield REIT, but it very much forms part of how Brookfield does business.
Dean Colling: Let's just take a final look at some risks out there, near term. I mean, we understand the long term benefit of real estate as an asset class. But what do you see is some near-term risks that you're watching for?
Zach Vaughan: What generally hurts real estate is values, and look, there's always big shocks to the system that could cause some volatility. We think they're more opportunities because generally what happens is the liquid markets, particularly the real estate credit markets, get very volatile. And one thing we didn't talk about was our partnership with Oaktree. In Brookfield REIT, not only do you have Brookfield managing the real estate, we plan on investing some portion, maybe around 20% of the portfolio, in real estate credit, real estate debt, and Oaktree is going to do that with us. And so, you're really getting what we think is an unparalleled real estate manager along with the best credit manager in the world, we think.
Dean Colling: Yeah. For those listeners who don't know, yeah, Oaktree, might do another one on them, but Oaktree's a real perennial star in that space, for sure.
Zach Vaughan: Yeah. And it's a very powerful partnership that we think is additive, and it will help us take advantage of opportunities when they arise because we're going to have those capabilities with us, as opposed to having to outsource it. I think there's always those risks, but I always focus on just the fundamentals, and the nuts and bolts is, we talked about office; is that building going to be obsolete because of a location problem, because of a physical issue, because it doesn't really meet the needs of current tenants, that kind of thing, and new supply as well is a big thing you have to focus on,
Zach Vaughan: Especially when you're investing across, well, the world, but generally, as it relates to Brookfield REIT, in the U.S., you have to continually be aware of what's happening in your specific markets. Are there pockets of supply that are going to be picking up in the next few years that may impact your ability to get those double digit rent increases going forward?
Zach Vaughan: And so, I think as I look at what we're doing with Brookfield REIT, the risks I focus on, risks that I can control, which are either avoiding places, markets, submarkets, neighborhoods where I think there could be a reason why rents will not move quickly and say things like apartments, or avoiding assets that I think will deteriorate in value over time versus the risks that I can't necessarily, that pop up, that I can't necessarily control. Not that those aren't important and valid, and we shouldn't, and we do focus on them, but I think as it relates to the big risks in real estate, people typically get very hurt when there's a lot of supply coming and then you get hit with some kind of economic shock. Right now, on the whole, that's not the case, across the market, but it doesn't mean that there aren't pockets where if you don't really know what you're doing and don't have people on the ground, you could get hurt. And we certainly try to avoid those situations as much as possible.
Dean Colling: Yeah, absolutely. And that is why we have a nice partnership with you guys at Brookfield, and as a manager of client assets, we've got a lot of faith in the pedigree and the experience in your group and the opportunities that you can bring to the table. So we thank you for that, and look forward to continued success. And yeah, we'll definitely have to do a follow up and we can go on a lot of different directions on that, but I think we'll try to do that sometime later this year.
Zach Vaughan: Good luck. I would very much welcome that.
Dean Colling: Fantastic. Thanks, Zach. Have a great one and we'll talk soon.
Zach Vaughan: All right. Thank you.
[The microphone graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. On the left side of the screen are a list of disclaimers. The text reads: Credits; Music Provided by: Hot Coffee by Ghostrifter Official (soundcloud.com/ghostrifter-official), Licensed under Creative Commons – Attribution, ShareAlike 3.0 Unported – CC BY-SA 3.0., http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Disclaimers; This information, including any opinion, is based on various sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed and is subject to change. CIBC and CIBC World Markets Inc., their affiliates, directors, officers and employees may buy, sell, or hold a position in securities of a company mentioned herein, its affiliates or subsidiaries, and may also perform financial advisory services, investment banking or other services for, or have lending or other credit relationships with the same. CIBC World Markets Inc. and its representatives will receive sales commissions and/or a spread between bid and ask prices if you purchase, sell or hold the securities referred to above. © CIBC World Markets Inc. 2022.
CIBC Private Wealth Management consists of services provided by CIBC and certain of its subsidiaries, including CIBC Wood Gundy, a division of CIBC World Markets Inc.
Commissions, trailing commissions, management fees, and expenses may all be associated with hedge fund investments. Hedge funds may be sold by Prospectus to the general public, but more often are sold by Offering Memorandum to those investors who meet certain eligibility or minimum purchase requirements. An Offering Memorandum is not required in some jurisdictions. The Prospectus or Offering Memorandum contains important information about hedge funds – you should obtain a copy and read it before making an investment decision. Hedge funds are not guaranteed. Their values change frequently, and past performance may not be repeated. Hedge funds are for sophisticated investors only. Clients are advised to seek advice regarding their particular circumstances from their personal tax and legal advisors.
Insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services Inc. In Quebec, insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services (Quebec) Inc.
Dean Colling and Rocco Letterio are Investment Advisors with CIBC Wood Gundy. The views of Dean Colling and Rocco Letterio do not necessarily reflect those of CIBC World Markets Inc.
If you are currently a CIBC Wood Gundy client, please contact your Investment Advisor.]
Announcer: Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed our show, please consider sharing the episode with your friends. Be sure to check out our website for new episodes every few months.
Wealthview - Episode 9 - Nick Griffin
[The podcast opens on an introduction graphic with CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. The text reads: Wealthview, Hosted by Dean Colling, First Vice-President & Senior Portfolio Manager, December, 2021. On the left side of the screen are a group of graphics consisting of two speech bubbles, a stylized group of gears, and a bar graph with an arrow in an uptrend. The text on the left hand side reads: Philosophy, Strategy & Insights.]
Announcer: You're listening to Wealthview, the podcast where we share philosophy, strategy and insights from some of Canada's top financial professionals.
[A brief montage consisting of a street level view of traffic in downtown Toronto, high-rise buildings, Dean Colling speaking on a microphone, and a bird’s eye view of a four-way intersection plays on the left side of the screen.]
Announcer: Hosted by Dean Colling, Senior Wealth Advisor and Portfolio Manager at CIBC Private Wealth. Edited and produced by the Colling Group. And now, onto the show.
[The introduction graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. In the centre of the screen is a graphic representation of a microphone. The text reads: Wealthview, Conversation with Nick Griffin, Founding Partner & Chief Investment Officer, Munro Partners.]
Dean Colling: Welcome to Wealthview. I'm your host, Dean Colling. On this installment of Wealthview, we head down under, to Melbourne, Australia, to speak with Nick Griffin, Founding Partner and Chief Investment Officer at the global growth manager Munro Partners.
Dean Colling: Nick is responsible for the investment management of Munro's key investment funds, and the formulation and implementation of their proprietary investment process. Nick has been managing global long/short equity mandates for over 15 years. Prior to founding Munro, Nick was Head of International Strategy for K2 Select International, a well renowned absolute return fund. He has also held senior positions at Deutsche Bank and Commonwealth Financial Services in Australia.
Dean Colling: We discuss the details of Munro's investment process, as well as identifying some of the key thematic opportunities that he sees in the years ahead. All the way from Melbourne, Australia, Nick, welcome to Wealthview.
Nick Griffin: Thank you for having me, Dean.
Dean Colling: Yeah, it's a pleasure. I'm glad you could join us today. You know, it's it's been a heck of a year. It's been a heck of - the last two years have been something for everybody around the world, but particularly in our industry, where we're managing wealth for clients. Tell me what you guys have gone through over the last two years at Munro, what you've learned, and you know, and how you're kind of taking that for strategy in the years ahead.
Nick Griffin: Yeah, look, great question. So I mean, as much as you know, COVID and the volatility we've dealt with is, you know, has been very difficult for lots of lots of people and our thoughts are with them. For the active management industry, or active funds management industry, it's been a bit of a godsend. The reality was, is for years, you know, you had index funds that were, you know, grinding active managers slowly into the ground and then COVID came along, which basically sort of supercharged all these structural trends in the world.
Nick Griffin: It's supercharged, you know, the shift to e-commerce, supercharged the shift to cloud computing. It supercharged the shift to things like work from home, and outdoor active. And so all these structural trends that we've been looking at for a long time, you know, really started to accelerate. And because we understood them and knew them, we were able to capitalize on them. But your standard index manager, you know, really struggled with that because ultimately they just sold the index or they just bought the index.
Nick Griffin: And that's not how the world played out in a pre and a post-COVID world. And so from that point of view, for us, it's been a really exciting time. It's been a lot of hard work, hadn't been on many holidays, you've sort of been trapped at your desk. But definitely, definitely one of the more interesting and you know, look, we find our job fun. I-, it's a terrible thing to say in such a difficult period, but it has been a lot of fun. There's been a lot of opportunities out there to take advantage of and thankfully we've managed to do some of that.
Dean Colling: Yeah, I agree. I mean, we could all come up with a few, or better ideas to have fun, but if we're going to have fun in this type of environment, you know, in our world, that's yeah, it's made it very, very interesting for us. So question for you with that, and you're right, acceleration of trends has been a big theme for us this year as well.
Dean Colling: Some of our other podcasts we've talked about that. I want to ask you from a risk perspective, do you think that this rush to fund these trends backed by tons of liquidity in the system has pushed valuations to high? Has it made the volatility that's now potentially associated with these sectors become too much of a, you know, a hot potato for people? Will that sort of slow up capital flows in the future? Or do you think this is just, y'know, par for the course, there's going to be really, really strong growth in these areas in the years ahead?
Nick Griffin: Yeah, look, at the core of every good stock idea is earnings growth. So earnings growth ultimately drive stock prices. That's sort of our north star here at Munro. So we generally find, if you want to keep this really simple, you know, companies that make more money every year, we generally find their share prices go up. Where it gets harder is, you know, what do you pay for that earnings growth? And so we've had this very strong period of structural earnings growth in a lot of these companies like, say, Amazon in e-commerce or Microsoft in software.
Nick Griffin: And then COVID came along and it accelerated it, so it accelerated their earnings growth and those stocks have ultimately accelerated also. What you're seeing now is, you know, obviously a lot of people are trying to get in on the act. So you're seeing a lot of IPOs come to market that are purporting to do similar things.
Nick Griffin: You're seeing a lot of, you know, that excess valuation, meaning people are coming to market with those stocks, seeing a lot of supply come to the market. And at the, you know, trying to find the next one, you know, maybe some of those valuations are a little bit high versus some of their peers, and that's sort of what you're paying us to do. So, I think everybody on this podcast effectively knows that cloud computing is taking share from on premise, and they know that, you know, SAS is going to be the future.
Nick Griffin: And what they're asking us to do is to to sift through that and say, well, what's the best investment here? You know, what's the best investment on a medium term view? Is it Microsoft? Is it Salesforce? Is it ServiceNow, or is it, you know, MongoDB, or Snowflake? You know, that's what they're asking us to do, and that's what we do every day.
Nick Griffin: But I think the volatility that's coming with it should not turn you off what's at the core here, which is there is structural earnings growth here. There's going to be some big winners come out of it because, there's a big structural change occurring and your job is to go find them.
Dean Colling: So let's take a step back now and talk about Munro, and you guys were founded 2016, I believe, and you came from the hedge fund world. Tell me about the genesis of Munro. How did you guys begin? What was the objective, and what are your goals for the years ahead?
Nick Griffin: Yes, I'll try and give you the short version because there's always a long story behind these.
Nick Griffin: But that, look, the reality is I spent 20, coming up to 25 years, in financial markets. A good chunk of that time I actually spent in Edinburgh, Scotland. My wife is from there, I lived there. I was actually an oil and gas analyst for about 5 or 6 years there. I also went back there as a fund manager with my previous firm and every time I was there, I would always look at these amazing businesses In Edinburgh that you know that, it's a tiny city, it's not much bigger than Ottawa or Canberra here in Australia. And uh, but it would, you know, they'd take these really long term views of the world, and they had these great managers like Baillie Gifford, or Artemis, or Walter Scott, etc.
Nick Griffin: And so when I left Scotland Back in 2015 to come back to Australia, I thought to myself, why couldn't we build that in Australia? Why couldn't we build a faraway firm that basically takes long term views on big structural changes that are occurring in the world, which which we're going to talk a lot about today, and, you know, ultimately try and find those few winners to get the returns, and sort of take yourself out of the noise of the markets.
Nick Griffin: And so what we wanted to do was set up a global growth investor based in Australia, and so we wanted to be your global growth investor and that's what we did. The only other tilt we put on it, probably while you're talking to us in Canada, is ultimately Australia has, as you know, a very large savings pool. These absolute return funds is what they're called here in Australia, or, you know, you could call them hedge funds, or you call them UCITS in Europe, but these absolute return products are very popular amongst clients, particularly 50 and above.
Nick Griffin: You know, they've got a large amount of savings, they generally don't care about beating the market, they generally care about making money and not losing money. And so these absolute return products are very popular in Australia. We'd already run one for about 10 years prior to setting up Munro. The core to our product is this absolute return product or, as you call it, in Canada, a liquid alt product, and it really purports to not beat the index, but to try and give you double digit returns after all fees and expenses through the cycle.
Nick Griffin: We're doing that with growth equities. Some of them do it with bonds, some of them do it with other issues, but we do it with growth equities. And so, we've actually got a 15 year track record of running these products.
Nick Griffin: And over that 15 years, you know, we've done more than 15 per cent per annum after all fees and expenses. And unfortunately it's not a straight line, but that's our skill set. That's why we launched the business, to basically create absolute return in growth equities. And that's also why we got introduced to Canada when the liquid alt rules changed over there in Canada. So that's really the short version of the story.
Dean Colling: Yeah. And we do, you know, we'll use all three of those descriptions for the asset class as well. I don't think there's one specific one that anybody uses. But yeah, absolutely, that's why we were introduced to you. And you know, you and I have talked in the past and as we started to adopt an allocation, what we like about it, because we'll run long only U.S. and Canadian equity strategies for clients. But we look to diversify beyond that, beyond North America and look to do so also in something that's not specifically directionally biased.
Dean Colling: So, lower correlations and the way you guys run the portfolios, that's where we like that, and we like to insert that into certain parts of the portfolio to help manage overall risk. So let's talk about that for a little bit, just for the listeners to understand, you know, you've got this absolutely great long term sort of principled view on secular changes, and taking advantage of that over the long term in sort of a global growth strategy. How do you then apply strategies over top of that to reduce risk overall, and reduce the directional bias to the overall portfolio?
Nick Griffin: Yeah, thank you. And look, that's exactly correct. You know, at the core of what we do is is, you know, we have an investment team that has an investment process that we follow, that ultimately pick stocks with high conviction. You know, that's how we make our money generally.
Nick Griffin: Along the way, as we all know, there are bumps. There are things that go wrong. And so we run, sort of a number, we have five tools of capital protection that we use. And the first and easiest one is just cash. So, people would be surprised to know that most of their long only mutual funds have to be 95 percent invested all the time. We don't think that makes any sense. There's multiple situations in my lifetime where it didn't make sense to be fully invested, so just the ability to raise some extra bit of cash is helpful.
Nick Griffin: The second thing we would do to sort of manage volatility, is we can buy put options on the market. For instance, so, say we have a growth portfolio that's quite Nasdaq exposed, we could put a safety net underneath that by running a Nasdaq put option program or an S&P put option program. Those are very, very useful for things like COVID.
Nick Griffin: And so people would notice, you know, we made money through COVID. It wasn't because we magically picked stocks that went up during the month of March. It's because we had put options, and put options are just these great things that are really useful because, and perfect for COVID, because the reality was, I don't think any of us really believed what would happen happened, but it was a tower risk event and you could just buy some insurance.
Nick Griffin: And it's important to remember, a relative return manager will never do that. Because if they buy insurance, you know, say they spend 30 basis points on insurance, that's 30 basis points of relative returns they're giving up. But if you think about it from an absolute return sense, it makes perfect sense because I just don't want to lose money. And so, it's just really that absolute return target that encourages you to buy put options.
Nick Griffin: Third thing you can do is short sell. You can short sell stocks, or you can short sell futures. Say, again, Nasdaq futures, which is something we used a lot through that period, so very quickly hedge the portfolio by short selling futures that basically correlate roughly to the portfolio.
Nick Griffin: The fourth thing we can do is currencies, so you can obviously change your currency allocation, so dial up your U.S. Dollar exposure during times of risk. It's a very good risk management tool and very liquid,
Nick Griffin: And the last thing we do is we run stop losses. So we do have a formalized stop loss process on not just the fund, but also each individual position. We're not forced to sell companies when they reach our formalized stops, but it's a reaction function to decide which ones we should or should not sell. Have the facts actually changed? And again, if I go back to COVID, under our stop loss rules, both Amazon and Airbus triggered, you know, and so we had to review both of them. And when we reviewed them, you know, we have to review them very quickly when they hit these levels. It was very obvious that Amazon shouldn't be going down because it's actually going to benefit from this. And it's very obvious that Airbus should be going down and might go down a lot more. And so, you know, the facts had changed.
Nick Griffin: And so that process just allows us to move maybe quicker and faster than your standard mutual fund. And so all of those things enable you to be nimble. They enable you to hedge these bumps, and ultimately mean that our funds are running at a beta of around 0.7 through the cycle. Yet obviously, the stocks we're investing in have a beta above 1 because the stocks are growth stocks. So, and I suppose that's the proof in the pudding, that we're giving you access to the growth equities, but we're doing it with lower volatility and that's sort of what we say does on the tin, and that's sort of what it's done.
Dean Colling: Yeah. And those numbers are significant. I was going to actually ask you about, if you formally targeted beta numbers or a level of standard deviation over, say, rolling three year periods. But yes, coming in at around a 0.7 is great. Have you, if you look at longer term numbers, is that where you're, is that where you're at, around a 0.7 or 0.6?
Nick Griffin: At Munro, we're actually at 0.5 at the moment because that COVID period was quite good. But we do have a 15 year track record, and the 15 year track record averages 0.7. So that's where that 0.7 comes from.
Dean Colling: Right. And just a reminder to listeners, perfect correlation 1, 0.7 less.
Nick Griffin: Yeah. So it basically means you you're not as volatile as the market, but in our case, the returns are a bit better.
Dean Colling: So let's take a step back now, and go back to sort of the world we're in today. If we go and look at secular trends, things that really got accelerated, how are you positioned over the last, let's say, the last 12 months? Because obviously March of 2020, that took us all by surprise.
Dean Colling: You know, a lot of stuff happened over a 6 to 8 week period. Everybody, you know, dusted themselves off and got positioned. How are you coming into this year? What were your thoughts? How did it work out, and how are you primarily positioned now?
Nick Griffin: Yeah, okay. Great question. So, so yeah, 2020 was was one of those rare moments where you could be very active and generate good returns. And our fund was up more than 40 percent in the year 2020. Coming into 2021, it was always going to be this sort of difficult year where rates started to lift off. You know, we went through an economic recovery and that was going to put pressure on higher multiple stocks.
Nick Griffin: And you know, you were going to need a little bit more cyclical exposure in your fund. And you know, we did that at the start of the year where we where we focused heavily on things like semiconductors and heavily on, say, the climate opportunity that we saw picking up speed this year. But we did definitely hit the first half of the year, get a little bit caught out with some of our higher multiple tech stuff that we, you know, had done so well for us the year before we decided to hang on to it. Ultimately, those positions were sort of cleaned out sort of through March and May, and we basically lowered the overall valuation of the portfolio. And that's held us in very good stead in the second half, particularly in these last few weeks. So, as the year has gone on we're slowly managing to grind out roughly a 10 percent return.
Nick Griffin: We've managed to dodge the China debacle. We've dodged a lot of this high multiple stuff. And really, it's you know, it's amazing. But, you know, Google's your like second best performing stock for the year, which sort of summarizes the market that we've been in. That sort of gets us to here. You know, now it's important to stress, you know, that the world will only reopen once and that's sort of happened or happening. The inflation pressures definitely subside at some point, and the market will price in rate hikes. And all of that sort of happened now, and we're definitely getting, you know, near to the end of that.
Nick Griffin: And so, if we could get through this year with, you know, a double digit return, I think that's a perfectly serviceable result after last year. And I actually think that now actually sets you up quite well into next year because as the cycle matures, you know, the tailwinds of the recovery will slow interest rates, the curve will flatten, which is already happening. People have realized that the long term bonds are probably not going to get much above 2 percent and they're going to come back to these secular growth stocks, and they're going to come back to them in spades.
Nick Griffin: And on top of that, you know, I know people think they look expensive, but versus a long term rate that's still below 2 percent, there's still significant upside in the months and years ahead. And that's not to mention the earnings growth. So from our point of view, we're very constructive as we move into 2022 because, you know, we've effectively weathered, we think, most of the storm that was coming this year and it will pass.
Dean Colling: Yeah. Let's, so, that's one of the, obviously, the narratives that's a big deal right now, especially coming into Q4 of 2021. And you know, I'm glad you brought that up about inflation because that's, you know, the word transitory has never been used so much, you know, as it has been in the last year. And then, it was dropped.
Nick Griffin: And I didn't say that coming, I'll be honest.
Dean Colling: Certainly surprised the market. And I think everyone fears that while rates may naturally move higher, everybody obviously fears a policy mistake by the Fed and other central banks around the world. Do you see that as the biggest risk into 2022?
Nick Griffin: I did, but it's now sort of happened, you know, so we're already pricing in, you know, 2½ rate hikes in 2022. Okay, so maybe it's 3, but to a certain extent, it's all priced, it's becoming all priced in. I'm a little bit surprised they dropped the transitory message. You know, Jerome Powell seems to have, you know, sold his soul to the government when he tried to reapply for his job because he's sounding completely different pre and post getting renominated, which is a little bit concerning. But ultimately, you know, what's a more powerful force for investment? Is it, you know, 1 or maybe 2 extra rate hikes next year, or a long bond that's not going to get above 2 percent?
Dean Colling: We can see an overnight rate at seventy five basis points. It's not, uh, it's not too threatening.
Nick Griffin: Yeah. And so I think the biggest risk for us was that the Fed would stay too lax and the curve would steepen too much, and long Bonds would become unhinged and inflation expectations would become unhinged. That was always the thing that worried us the most.
Nick Griffin: And so, conversely, or sort of paradoxically, you know, we've been rooting for hawkishness all year, which is not normally what growth managers do. But it really is that long end 10 year treasury that is effectively what our companies are keying off, because the cash flows of these companies are very well assured, you know, they're structural growth companies, you know, they're not going to be affected by the cycle. The only thing that really changes their valuation is the discount rate. And if the long end, it's the long end discount rate, not the short end, and if the long end is now effectively pegged at 2 percent, you know, I think that's a more powerful force for markets than if the Fed hikes too many times.
Nick Griffin: And we, you know, we're still using like 7 and 8 percent discount rates when we value these companies. And there's a very strong argument to suggest that it's going to be sub 5 for a very, very long time. So there is a lot of latent valuation upside here. You just have to move through this process of pricing in the hikes, and as I said earlier, we're actually quite a long way through it.
Dean Colling: Yeah, and we agree with that. It's been a, you know, just the biggest topic of conversation when we're talking to clients and advising them on portfolio structure. And, you know, we actually were, we took up the term transitory for quite some time just to define it as not secular.
Dean Colling: And that was it. But you know, we're with you. We believe that rates remain quite low. And it was interesting to see over the last couple of weeks to watch, or even really about a week, that during the middle of all of this, that the 10 year U.S. Treasury went from maybe 1.65%, down to 1.35%.
Nick Griffin: Yeah, it's hard to work out what everyone's so worried about, to be honest. But I'll flip the conversation around the other way to you and to your clients. You know, so, the reality is, like, yes this stuff is dominating the financial press. And yes, you know, it makes you nervous. But for their allocations, you know, are they really saying, oh geez, cash looks great here at 75 basis points or let's go buy some US treasuries at 1.60%? I mean, that's not really going to help them generate returns over a medium term view when they can buy multiple equities in the marketplace that are generating, you know, 3, 4 or 5 percent free cash flow yields that are growing at 10 percent per annum. It's just a vastly superior investment to buy Microsoft versus a bond.
Nick Griffin: And If anything, all that's happened this year is confirmed that, because you've effectively thrown the kitchen sink at the economy in terms of growth, you've thrown the kitchen sink in terms of inflation, and shortages, and everything known to man. Yet you can't actually get the risk free rate in the U.S., even out to 30 years to get much above 2 percent. So we are in a lower rate environment for longer, that's now pretty much assured.
Nick Griffin: Eventually, the clients are going to realize, that eventually people are going to realize, what's the better place for their cash, and the better place for their cash is in structurally growing equities that can grow over a long period of time. And that's, I think, why we're excited about 2022, because we knew that this reopening pressure would come and we knew it would be difficult. But we are closer to the end of it than the start. And that's what makes it exciting.
Dean Colling: Yeah. And you know, if we're looking at the world today, awash in cash, beyond equities, there's a lot of things that pop up. What's your views on cryptocurrencies? And do you take any stance on that in the investment portfolios, either them directly or those that serve them?
Nick Griffin: So on cryptos, so generally, you know, as growth investors were generally trying to identify great management teams trying to solve amazing problems. And when you do that, generally that's your path to fantastic returns. So that's like, you know, Apple puts your internet on the telephone and you make 20 times your money. Tesla brings forward the electric car generation, you make 20 times your money. Amazon solves one day shipping, you make 20 times your money. So that's that's sort of what we're looking for when we invest in companies.
Nick Griffin: And so, cryptocurrencies have no management team. You have no valuation support, you have nothing to really hang your hat on. So I completely understand why people would do it. And I completely, you know, would endorse people putting a small portion of their wealth there as something to do. But just remember that when it gets hard, when it gets really hard, there's no one to ring up and say, hey, you guys still executing on your strategy and what's your P/E multiple, etcetera, etcetera. So, from that point of view, I see why people are doing it, but we haven't for the fund in terms of investments that are leveraged to it.
Nick Griffin: It's things like Square And PayPal, which are effectively using it as a customer acquisition tool to bring people into their networks. And that makes sort of sense. Coinbase is similar. We don't own Coinbase in the fund today, but there are investments there, where people try to execute on this area. That's sort of where we sit on cryptocurrencies. Last thing I'd just say, maybe on this point because I didn't cover it properly before. But the reality is, look, people see these little bubbles developing everywhere. And that's sort of normal for this point in the cycle, and sort of normal for where we're at. These bubbles are inflating and deflating on a regular basis without affecting the underlying market.
Nick Griffin: We've seen this already this year with SPACs, and now high multiple stocks at the end of the year. We saw this a couple of years ago with marijuana stocks. We've seen it, we saw it, with the meme stocks. You know, crypto could join that area. But all these things can go up and down without actually tipping over the whole market because the whole market is is much more solidly underpinned by companies that are generating great cash flows.
Dean Colling: Yeah, I agree with that comment. That's definitely how we see it.
Dean Colling: And you know, you're always looking for these trends that are going to kind of draw capital flows towards it and maybe build sort of an overvalued situation. And you talked about a bunch of them just a minute ago, but what do you think about the trend, that's really, everyone believes in, in concept, but it's tough to really pinpoint how to invest into it, you know, in an effective way and that's the ESG movement.
Dean Colling: You know, we've seen, you know, say, 20 years ago, 25 years ago, sort of ethical funds, which just really were tech funds for the most part. But now we're seeing real technology come into this and improve people's lives, improve the way power is distributed, you know, reduce greenhouse emissions, all these great things. But it's starting to really take over the narrative to such a point that perhaps it's going to draw a ton of capital.
Dean Colling: And I just I think we both probably saw a report, I think it was Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs did something recently about this being the biggest trend over the next 5 to 7 years. How do you guys look at ESG as part of your investment strategy, and how do you see its future growth over the next 5 to 10 years?
Nick Griffin: Yeah look, great question, and this gives me a chance to plug a product. So of the ESG, we're very interested in the E. The S and the G are very hard to invest in. But obviously, you know, so let's say, let's take it back a step. ESG is effectively going to be your license to operate in this business for the next 100 years. So every fund manager in the world is going to have to think in a robust, you know, thorough ESG process that revolves around engagement with companies. We've hired our own responsible investment manager, and we think other groups will do the same. And you know, right at the top of this whole process is BlackRock.
Nick Griffin: How do you invest in it? So that's sort of what you have to do for every company you invest in globally because if they become a bad corporate citizens, they ultimately create risk in the portfolio and you have to be across that. So that's your ESG process, that covers everything we do already. In terms of how you make money out of it, the best way to make money out of it, in our opinion, is to focus on the E.
Nick Griffin: So, if you assume that every ESG fund, every investor in the world is going to turn ESG, they're going to put pressure on corporates to be more environmentally conscious. As they put pressure on those companies to become more environmentally conscious, they're going to commit to decarbonize. And so you see this across, I think there's 680 of the Fortune 2000 are now committed to be net zero carbon by 2050.
Nick Griffin: You have 130 countries in the world that are committed to being net zero carbon by 2050, and you have every sort of investor body and investor in the world that's going to hold those companies, and to a certain extent those countries to account. So if you put that all together, you know, you are going to attempt to decarbonize the planet here, OK, it's going to happen. And that makes it, in our opinion, the next big structural trend of our lifetime. And this one's got, you know, the potential to be as big as the internet was.
Nick Griffin: We've worked out it's going to cost between $30 and $50 trillion dollars to decarbonize the planet. I've seen numbers as high as $100 trillion. And so that's ultimately a revenue opportunity, a $50 trillion revenue opportunity to the companies that enable that decarbonization. And so from our point of view, when we think about it, you know, we call it our climate area of interest, we have about 20 percent of the fund exposed to this today. These are companies that are providing products or technologies that will enable the decarbonization of the planet. And so that can be obviously something like a Tesla that makes electric cars, that everyone knows about, but it can be something as simple as an insulation company or a building materials company that's doing double glazing, or heating, ventilation, and cooling company that's changing how you heat your building, from electricity or a renewable energy company, or even a packaging company. You know, a company that's making aluminum cans versus, say, plastic.
Nick Griffin: All of these companies are going to benefit from what we now know is going to be a huge structural trend, and so it does make up around 20 percent of our fund today. It's one of our big ideas as we go into next year because we do think it accelerates, and as it accelerates, that'll drive earnings growth and earnings growth for these companies will drive their share price growth. But it's also important to flag, we did launch a standalone product for this. It's called the CI Climate Leaders Fund, it's listed as an ETF there in Canada and also here in Australia. And what we did is we just actually took our best 15 to 25 ideas in this climate area, long only, fully invested the whole time, so no downside protection here I'm afraid, of companies that we think will enable the decarbonization of the planet.
Nick Griffin: We strongly encourage people to use it as a satellite product because it will be more volatile than the market. But these are our best ideas, and if you want, you can go on there and have a look. You can see on a 30 day lag exactly what's in the fund, and you'll see you'll see the ideas that we're looking at and the opportunities we're trying to execute here.
Dean Colling: Yeah, that's fantastic. And it absolutely this time around, I think, seems to be not only the technology is there to really deliver these advancements and make capital returns, but also in consumers. Investors seem to have really taken to this, the responsibility, to be responsible in their investing, and I think that's going to work. It's a big number, but it'll take a while, but I think if everybody's committed, hopefully we can make some big improvements with that.
Dean Colling: So, I want to talk just, last few things about geographically and sort of looking at the year ahead. Obviously, in the last couple of years have been great for markets, overall, U.S. has led that by a material amount in sort of the larger developed markets. And it's been a great 10 years for U.S. equities. As we, you and I both know, we've been in this long enough, there was the lost decade where U.S. equities didn't do anything.
Dean Colling: What do you think? I mean, it's it's a bold call just to to make it, you know, think of U.S. equities are the next place, or still the place to be for the next 10 years. But do you see that, or do you see other regions around the globe starting to, you know, catch a little traction here and generate some good returns in the next, say, 5 to 10 years?
Nick Griffin: Yeah, so, maybe not going to be a very helpful answer here. We don't actually care about regions at all. We don't care about countries generally, unless there's a political problem like China.
Nick Griffin: The reality is the equity market globally is made up of a handful of great companies that do great things. Your job is to find them, and the rest of the equity market is made up of thousands and thousands of mediocre companies, that sort of trade in a range or follow the cycle over a long period of time. And you know, that's sort of your banks, and your resource companies, and your oil companies. And so the reason why the U.S. equity market has been so good for the last 10 years is because it's all the best companies are there.
Nick Griffin: You know, they understood network effects around digitalization. They understood, you know, that it would be winner takes most. The private capital on the west coast of the U.S. in particular, got behind all these companies and before you know it, you know, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Nvidia, Netflix, they're all in the U.S. and they all dominate their industries.
Nick Griffin: And because of that network effects, and that winner takes most, you know, they not only dominated in America, they dominated in the whole world. So they've effectively been taking share, like the Australian media industry has effectively been wiped out, and I'm pretty sure it's the same in Canada, and all that money's gone to Google and Facebook. So that's just earnings growth driving stock prices. Those companies earn more money, their share prices went up more, the U.S. market outperformed.
Nick Griffin: And I always find it quizzical, you know, because every year someone will come along with, you know, Europe's going to outperform U.S, this year and you sort of say, well, yeah, but show me the good companies in Europe because I can't find many outside of this environmental area and a few semiconductor companies. And so, and even the best companies in Europe actually trade at a premium to the best companies in the U.S.
Nick Griffin: So, from our point of view, it really is about the stocks. As we look at, and so just to take it into the stock point of view, as we look at the companies in the U.S., the U.S. is still producing the vast majority of the best software companies in the world, it's still producing the vast majority of the best semiconductor companies in the world. And so, we still like the U.S. quite a lot in the medium term. We like a lot of companies there.
Nick Griffin: Europe definitely over-indexes to this climate opportunity I talked about. So the biggest wind turbine manufacturer is in Denmark, it's Vestas. Biggest offshore wind developer is also in Denmark, it's Ørsted. You know, some of these great, these insulation companies I was talking about are in places like Ireland and France. So that's where our Europe ideas come from.
Nick Griffin: And then through Southeast Asia, that's where you find your sort of battery supply chain for the climate opportunity also. So that's where we'd be investing there. The only thing where we've really had to just exit the country altogether, because we had to take a view on the country in the last couple of years, is China.
Nick Griffin: And this is just incredibly unfortunate. In the last 12 months you know, we've seen, you know, the crackdowns in China, which have ultimately meant, you know, your capital has not been looked after and it really didn't matter what Alibaba did, your job was to leave and recognize the risks were bigger than what you thought, and leave before everyone else did. And so from that point of view, a lot of people have, those markets are down nearly 40 percent this year. I can see the contrarian argument for going back, but it's probably going to take us a lot to go back to China in the short term.
Nick Griffin: And so for now, very much like the U.S., like certain countries in Europe, stocks in Europe, but ultimately, I just encourage people to never really get sucked into this game. It's just about picking stocks and provided they're operating in democracies with with checks and balances, they should do well.
Dean Colling: Yeah, I agree. And it really, truly is a global marketplace and all the large, you know, leading tech companies and other businesses you talked about are truly global businesses, and really almost doesn't really matter where they are. That makes a lot of sense.
Dean Colling: Nick, why don't we leave leave it at that? Obviously, we could continue talking for a long time, and I appreciate all the time you've given us today and calling in from Melbourne. And I suggest that the next time we chat, I come down to see you.
Nick Griffin: I just confirmed with my guys that I'm going to come over in February, so hopefully.
Dean Colling: That's the wrong time of year. You remember that February is our winter, you need to come in July.
Nick Griffin: And I've come multiple February's now, and for some reason, it still seems to be the right time for us to come. But yeah, one day I'll come in the summer, but I should be there in February. But we'd love to see you here in Melbourne, Australia, and I can assure you the best time to come is for the tennis or the Grand Prix.
Dean Colling: Oh yeah, absolutely. Well, Nick, thanks again, continued success, we really appreciate the partnership we have with you. You've done a good job, you and your team, in the corner of the portfolio in which we place you, and have a lot of trust and faith in what you're doing.
Dean Colling: And thanks for your time today, and I think all of our listeners will get a lot out of that and look forward to circling back with you again soon.
Nick Griffin: Thanks so much for your time. Really appreciate the opportunity.
Dean Colling: Thank you.
[The microphone graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. On the left side of the screen are a list of disclaimers. The text reads: Credits; Music Provided by: Hot Coffee by Ghostrifter Official (soundcloud.com/ghostrifter-official), Licensed under Creative Commons – Attribution, ShareAlike 3.0 Unported – CC BY-SA 3.0., http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Disclaimers; This information, including any opinion, is based on various sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed and is subject to change. CIBC and CIBC World Markets Inc., their affiliates, directors, officers and employees may buy, sell, or hold a position in securities of a company mentioned herein, its affiliates or subsidiaries, and may also perform financial advisory services, investment banking or other services for, or have lending or other credit relationships with the same. CIBC World Markets Inc. and its representatives will receive sales commissions and/or a spread between bid and ask prices if you purchase, sell or hold the securities referred to above. © CIBC World Markets Inc. 2021.
CIBC Private Wealth Management consists of services provided by CIBC and certain of its subsidiaries, including CIBC Wood Gundy, a division of CIBC World Markets Inc.
Commissions, trailing commissions, management fees, and expenses may all be associated with hedge fund investments. Hedge funds may be sold by Prospectus to the general public, but more often are sold by Offering Memorandum to those investors who meet certain eligibility or minimum purchase requirements. An Offering Memorandum is not required in some jurisdictions. The Prospectus or Offering Memorandum contains important information about hedge funds – you should obtain a copy and read it before making an investment decision. Hedge funds are not guaranteed. Their values change frequently, and past performance may not be repeated. Hedge funds are for sophisticated investors only. Clients are advised to seek advice regarding their particular circumstances from their personal tax and legal advisors.
Insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services Inc. In Quebec, insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services (Quebec) Inc.
Dean Colling and Rocco Letterio are Investment Advisors with CIBC Wood Gundy. Alex Lee is an Associate Investment Advisor working with Dean Colling, Investment Advisor. The views of Dean Colling, Rocco Letterio, and Alex Lee do not necessarily reflect those of CIBC World Markets Inc.
If you are currently a CIBC Wood Gundy client, please contact your Investment Advisor.]
Announcer: Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed our show, please consider sharing the episode with your friends. Be sure to check out our website for new episodes every few months.
Wealthview - Episode 8 - Deborah Debas
[The podcast opens on an introduction graphic with CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. The text reads: Wealthview, Hosted by Dean Colling, First Vice-President & Senior Portfolio Manager, November, 2021. On the left side of the screen are a group of graphics consisting of two speech bubbles, a stylized group of gears, and a bar graph with an arrow in an uptrend. The text on the left hand side reads: Philosophy, Strategy & Insights.]
Announcer: You're listening to Wealthview, the podcast where we share philosophy, strategy, and insights from some of Canada's top financial professionals.
[A brief montage consisting of a street level view of traffic in downtown Toronto, high-rise buildings, Dean Colling speaking on a microphone, and a bird’s eye view of a four-way intersection plays on the left side of the screen.]
Announcer: Hosted by Dean Colling, Senior Wealth Advisor and Portfolio Manager at CIBC Private Wealth. Edited and produced by the Colling Group. And now, onto the show.
[The introduction graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. In the centre of the screen is a graphic representation of a microphone. The text reads: Wealthview, Conversation with Deborah Debas, Responsible Investment Specialist, Desjardin Wealth Management.]
Dean Colling: Welcome to Wealthview, I'm your host, Dean Colling. Today, we're going to be talking about responsible investing, and the environmental, social, and governance criteria that impact our investing decisions. Joining us today is Deborah Debas. Deborah is a Responsible Investing Specialist at Desjardin.
Dean Colling: Her primary role is to inform and educate advisors and investors across Canada about various responsible investing approaches, and the types of investment products available. While at Desjardin, she was responsible for introducing the first responsible investing portfolios in Quebec in 2009. And after working on that project for five years, Deborah took a entrepreneurial sabbatical in Ecuador.
Dean Colling: She came back to Desjardin in 2018, and is positioned as their responsible investing expert. Deborah, welcome to Wealthview.
Deborah Debas: Hey, Dean. Happy to be here!
Dean Colling: So let's talk a little bit about ESG, and it's an exciting topic. It's, you know, many people might see this as a new topic, but it's certainly been an important concern that investors have, just people in general, have had over many years, particularly on the environmental side.
Dean Colling: You know, let's define It quickly before we get into the details of this. ESG, which is the new acronym, it seems like a new acronym, at least, that people are focusing on, stands for environmental, social, and governance. And these are really, really important factors.
Dean Colling: Particularly, I would say again in the last five years, maybe even ten years or so, that as investors, we're starting to speak to our clients and then we, as portfolio managers, are integrating into the way we evaluate businesses. Let me ask you, as an expert in the area itself, why do you think the popularity or the interest has become so elevated in the last, say, five to ten years?
Deborah Debas: You know, it's a very good way to start. I think if anything, investors want to be mindful of what can cause disruptions in the market. And what we see right now is that the risks have shifted. And I say right now, but it's over the last ten, twenty years, as you mentioned.
Deborah Debas: The risks used to be more tied to economic factors, and what we see now is that environmental matters and social matters are money matters, and climate change is probably one of the largest source of disruptions for our markets, for economies, for our communities and basically for the companies that we invest in. So we really want to take that into account when we make a decision to invest.
Dean Colling: You know, as we were talking earlier, you know, I've been in this business for nearly thirty years, and sort of seen a lot of trends come and go. Back in, maybe it was the early 2000s, late 1990s, we had a real push on ethical funds. And some asset managers launched, many asset managers launched, these ethically driven funds. But you know, it seemed to be fairly light in its approach at the time. Maybe not as detailed, focused, and broad as the ESG movement, I will, I guess, for lack of a better term call it these days.
Dean Colling: Why is it different this time? Why? You know, that kind of faded out a little bit and now we've had a real big interest in ESG investing recently. Why is it different this time, do you think?
Deborah Debas: I think the strategies have evolved over time. So it used to be that when you were investing ethically, you would basically avoid some sectors because you were not in agreement with the type of business they would conduct. So, you would avoid tobacco or you might avoid alcohol. It was, you know, religious communities that started this movement years and years ago. And, you know, it's almost centuries now. More recently, you were avoiding, maybe in the 80s might've been nuclear energy or South African companies because of the apartheid, et cetera.
Deborah Debas: But you know, this really evolved differently because what we started to do instead of avoiding doing harm, and instead of rejecting companies, is really switched the mindset. And instead of avoiding the bad, really look for the type of companies that we wanted to invest in, and signal the market for the type of impact and the type of returns that we were looking for. We were able to get access to a lot more data.
Deborah Debas: Corporate social responsibility became, you know, just the norm. And we got access to more corporate information, more information about their impact, and what they intended to do to reduce their negative impact and improve on their positive environmental or social impact. Get more information about the governance of those companies. And so because we got access to more information and more detailed data, it really enabled portfolio managers to leave behind this black and white vision that is required with filters and exclusions.
Deborah Debas: You know, when it's a filter, it's well the sector is in or it's out. And so, the company is good or it's not. That black and white thing, it's not that practical and it's not easy to manage. It's a lot more nuanced than that. So when you're able to really Look into the different shades, then you're able to look into the companies that you really want to invest in. What I wanted to mention as well is that, you know, when you integrate environmental, social, and governance criteria to your decision making process, well, it's still an investment decision making process that you're doing.
Deborah Debas: So, you know, of course, the fundamentals, the analysis, this is all also happening at the same time. We look into the financial perspectives of the companies that we want to invest in, but our views of the market, of the company's future perspective, they're all influenced by what we can identify as environmental, social, and governance risks and opportunities as well.
Deborah Debas: It really is an extra layer of data, and analysis, and insight that we're able to add onto our processes. And when you take information with, when you make decisions, sorry, with more information, you're ideally making better investment decisions.
Dean Colling: Yeah. And I would say from practice, again all over the years that we've been managing money, we've definitely seen it become much more refined in the analytics and the way we can truly evaluate businesses. Like we used to, as you mentioned, it used to be very binary. It's either, you know, you're good or you're bad.
Dean Colling: And the assumption is when you're investing in a business that if you are not a positive contributor to the environment, or at least you're not doing anything negative, or that on the social side, or you have poor governance, that will always reflect eventually in your financial results. But I think in the past it was just far too vague. And you know, the ESG world now has really created a much more defined set of criteria for us to evaluate businesses.
Dean Colling: So this is, and leads into one of the more complex topics in ESG, is just truly understanding the evaluation. It seems if you were to ask a number of different investors, or stakeholders that, you know, their view on what's important in any of those categories may be very different, or how they may evaluate something as a positive impact on social process or anything like that may be seen differently than others.
Dean Colling: Can you take us through the view of how the analytics are being, again, refined and maybe streamlined or standardized?
Deborah Debas: Yeah, you're right that there's no real standard. You know, responsible doesn't have a very clear definition, so it means different things to different people. And the same goes with these environmental, social, and governance criteria. They're usually, you know, they're not really tangible. They're hard to measure, hard to quantify. So it really is a tedious process to collect the information, collect the data, analyze it and decide whether or not it is material, and to what extent it is material to your decision making process.
Deborah Debas: Portfolio managers usually have very strong proprietary ESG assessments that they go through to make sure that they cover all of their bases. One thing that is not standard, for example, is the fact that depending on the sector that you're looking into, you won't evaluate the companies with the same criteria. So you won't evaluate a mining company and a bank with the same criteria. For one, the environment is a lot heavier in the evaluation; for the other one, it might be the social aspect or data privacy, for example.
Deborah Debas: So depending on the Sector, environmental and social aspects will be very differently evaluated. Governance, however, is always there. There's always a board, there's always a leadership team, there's always internal policies with any company. So governance is always evaluated by portfolio managers, and usually is our way in with the companies that we invest in because we want to make sure that people who are at the head of those companies, they are aware of the E and the S, or the environmental and social, risks and opportunities that their companies might be faced with.
Dean Colling: So a question on that, like, when we talk, and we as investors, portfolio managers, institutional money managers, have been, you know, have this as a fairly high priority focus within our investment due diligence for a lot of businesses over time. And I think as a result you've seen, you know, corporations, the C-suite at the board level, really kind of adopt this.
Dean Colling: But that may be, you know, just me and some of my colleagues sort of looking at it and just sort of taking a guess to say, yeah, it feels like there's been a lot more uptake, a lot more focus. But somebody who sort of lives and breathes this every day, have you seen that? Is there evidence that, you know, corporations around the globe have adopted ESG processes in their corporate strategy, and it's become a very high priority item for everyone?
Deborah Debas: Absolutely. I think more and more corporations and leadership teams around the world, they understand that sustainability and profitability go hand in hand. There are two necessary conditions for long term success in the company. So, you know, you might temporarily have one without the other, but it's really hard to continue on the long term. I think that more and more people are also realizing that this climate change that we're talking about, it's impacting everything and everywhere, all sectors of the economy, all regions around the globe.
Deborah Debas: And because our economies are globalized and interconnected, It's really hard to diversify away from that risk. You really need to take it head on. And so investors, they really need to embrace those companies who are really successful in implementing sustainability solutions into their business practices, because wherever they are, these sustainability solutions will drive efficiency, will build brand value, and it will really help those companies remain relevant in a changing world. And so, that is for any sector out there.
Deborah Debas: And if you want to be more specific, and maybe look into investing in those companies that are tackling these environmental and social issues head on, then you can go deeper and look into a thematic impact investing where, really, investments will be focused in those companies that actively look for solutions to climate change, environmental, and social issues.
Dean Colling: You mentioned the word the term thematic investing, or impact investing. And I see, and maybe, maybe I see it rightly or wrongly, but the way I view this is there really is two things: there's ESG compliance, companies that are doing reasonably well in all those categories, were comfortable, that they're, you know, we'll call it compliant or they're doing good, reasonably good things. And then there's sort of the next level, there's really companies that are taking many, many steps further in doing positive impact to any of those particular areas within ESG that may be really, you know, the highest priority within company strategy.
Dean Colling: Can you talk a little bit about the difference between those? And I think maybe investors in general would say that maybe there's also a potential give up in terms of expected rate of return if you're focused solely on, or maybe, focus more so on the impact side. I don't think that's necessarily the case, but maybe you can give some examples, and maybe explain the difference.
Deborah Debas: That's a complex questions you had. You had quite a few topics there. So let me start with the beginning and trying to differentiate, maybe investing in these sustainable companies or companies that are adopting sustainable solutions, but they're not necessarily acting for the environment. So that would be maybe a leading tech company, could be an industry, it could be a financial company. But when they're in an ESG or a responsible investment fund, they will have been chosen because they have robust environmental, social, and governance practices because we feel that this makes them more resilient and more relevant in the long term.
Deborah Debas: Now, if you want to diversify your investments a little more and really target some specific sectors where companies are actively working at solving issues, this is where you'll go for a thematic and impact investing.
Deborah Debas: Where the first kind of investment, you know, those core investment, will look a lot into ESG risk and try to mitigate risk when when we invest that way, when we invest thematically, we'll look a lot more into opportunities. And what I mean by opportunities is that we talk about climate change and social issues. You know, we're facing a lot of problems, you know, access to potable water, resource management, waste production.
Deborah Debas: But what we see is that those companies who are able to turn these challenges into business opportunities are really companies of the future. Because think about it, if you're solving a problem and it's a global problem, basically a problem that anyone has and you're able to do it in a responsible, in a sustainable, and eventually in a profitable way, you're really the type of company that I want to invest in. Because if you're solving a problem, your product, your service is going to be in a growing demand. So if you're helping your clients become more energy efficient, if you're helping your clients save on input, entrance, and water costs, for example, well, there's a good chance that you're going to fare well in the future.
Deborah Debas: And so this is where your question about return comes in. When we invest in those companies, we don't take profitability out of the equation. It is very much part of the conversation. So it's not an either or, it's financial and ESG together. And if those companies make sense financially, and they have robust environmental, social, and governance practices, and they have a bright future ahead of them, then they'll get in. You know, providing they're properly valuated and they're not overvalued. The idea here is not to have an impact for the sake of having an impact, it's to really go after both the attractive return and the positive, measurable impact that you can have through your investments.
Dean Colling: Yeah. And I think that's ultimately the perfect investment, isn't it? If we can do both, do good and be profitable along the way. And I think it sort of worth connecting this discussion to one of our previous podcasts, where we were talking about innovation. And if we talk about some environmental impact, innovation. The beauty about some of that, if they're successful, is they're often creating markets that don't even exist right now. And the benefit can be to many and obviously very profitable when that happens.
Dean Colling: So let's talk a little bit about that. What are some of your favorite areas, or little themes, that you think are, you know, offering exceptional opportunity in the years ahead?
Deborah Debas: Well, if we stick to the environmental theme, I think that, you know, a lot of press, or accent, or emphasis is put right now on renewable energies because we know that we need to leave fossil fuel behind. And so we need to switch to those new sources of energy, namely solar and wind.
Deborah Debas: But I think where we have a lot more opportunities is actually in energy efficiency. You know, if we're able to better use the resources and the capacity that we already have, we can actually reach about forty percent of the greenhouse gas emission reduction needed to meet the Paris Agreement. So that's a lot of tasks here, but basically, it's just take what you already have and use it better. And what I mean by that is you can invest in companies whose, you know, whose water pumps are seventy percent more effective, so they're reducing the utility's electricity cost.
Deborah Debas: You can invest in those companies that are producing better heat pumps. You can invest in companies who are using AI and augmented reality to streamline industrial processes, making them safer for the workers, but also allow faster, quicker, and less reliant on heavy energy costs. So you have all of these companies working at improving the use of resources that are extremely interesting.
Deborah Debas: On the other hand, you want to combat climate change and you want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But, you always want to keep in mind that when we analyze those companies, we look into the environmental side of things, yes, but we also can keep in mind the social, and the governance. So it's not because a company is producing something that will help the environment that we let the S and the G go. We need to look into them. So for now, a lot of solar panels are built in China. And sometimes in regions where workers rights are not necessarily defended with the same energy and laws that we're lucky enough to have here. Not only that, but there has been stories of forced labor in those regions as well. So, you really want to make sure that the companies that you include in the portfolio not only are doing good for the environment, but also are doing it the right way. You want to fight climate change, but not at any cost.
Dean Colling: Yeah, that makes a ton of sense. And you know, it makes me think about the potential of, you know, we were looking at impact investing, ESG investing, which is really ultimately a very, very long term objective.
Dean Colling: You know, a lot of the impact will be done over multi decades. Now, long term investing, or we would, you know, we would preach to any investor you have to take a long term view, but oftentimes we think of these types of investments as even longer. Like, do you think there's a disconnect at all between, you know, the, you know, having long term semi-permanent capital committed to these types of investments, you know, against what is, we often see as, attention deficit disorder, short term thinking that most investors have today?
Dean Colling: Have you noticed that? Have you seen that? Is that is that a problem at all?
Deborah Debas: In terms of long term, I think where you're right is that the fight against climate change is not something that is going to be finished tomorrow. So we need a lot of capital invested over the course of many, many years to be able to go on that. However, and on the positive side, when you invest with those companies, those companies and thematic impact, that clean tech or green bonds, for example, you actually see impact right now.
Deborah Debas: These companies are actually able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or treat water, or you know, treat waste and move it away from landfills. They're able to do it right now. You know, the earlier you invest, basically, the better the impact. And perhaps that's a way for investors to keep a long term view. You're investing now for your future, right?
Deborah Debas: So usually you have this long term project, maybe it's your retirement, maybe it's buying a house, maybe it's putting your kids through college. You have some kind of a long term thinking with your money, even though the headlines are still being published every day. But the way you invest today is really going to be shaping the world of tomorrow. That's the question you need to ask yourself, is how do you want your money to shape the world where you'll be living tomorrow, for your retirement, or for your kids school?
Deborah Debas: On the volatile side of things, I think we had some kind of a bubble at the very end of 2020, last year in terms of, you know, valuation and price for some securities was, might have, been overvalued, especially in the renewables. Bubbles are just part of what markets do, right? Sometimes prices will get inflated and you don't really understand why.
Deborah Debas: But that doesn't mean that the case for sustainability isn't strong. I think that investors need to do their homework, and they need to do their fundamental analysis, and they need to invest if the valuation makes sense. I think it's also true to believe that despite those bubbles, companies that have robust environmental, social, and governance practices are the companies that are really best equipped to navigate difficult market conditions, but also remain both flexible and solid enough to remain relevant as the economy transitions to a low carbon version of itself.
Dean Colling: From an investment perspective, taking a broad view of ESG compliant companies, impact companies, how do we measure this?
Dean Colling: I mean, sure, we're going to look at rates of return in a portfolio, but how do we, as investors measure the impact? You know, how did this investing, was it worth it to us? You know, again, besides, you know, your compounded average rate of return over years, did we do good? How can we, how do we figure this out? Is there, are there ways that we can evaluate that impact over time?
Deborah Debas: Yes, you can. And you're right that, you know, traditionally we would compare investments over two dimensions: risk and return, basically.
Deborah Debas: But now with impact investing, we've added this third dimension: so we have risk, return, and impact. Sometimes it's measurable, sometimes it's not as measurable. So one example of not so measurable impact would be what we're able to do with shareholder engagement. You know, when we invest in companies, we become shareholders of those companies, and so we are co-owners of those companies. And so, we have a say as to how the company evolves in the future and we're actually able to talk with them, and we're able to demand, and ask, and influence them into improving their environmental, social, and governance practices.
Deborah Debas: And we do that with a lot of companies in our portfolios, and we do that for companies in all sectors of the economy. Shareholder engagement is one way that we're able to have companies improve on their environmental and social impact, and really look into where the risks are to make sure that our investment is sound for the future.
Dean Colling: That's obviously important, and I think the one concern that, you know, if we try to look at the other side of the the argument, is can this get too much? To become too much of a fad, too much capital being thrown at investments that may not be truly sustainable, or really profitable, or economically viable?
Dean Colling: And also, does it put a lot of pressure on corporations, again at the C-suite or the boards, to allocate significant costs to ensure that they are implementing a based ESG plan, and they're maintaining compliance to it? Could it potentially become overbearing?
Deborah Debas: You realize really quickly that having good environmental, social, and governance practices are not really expenses for the companies. So of course, it seems like you're putting money away and diverting capital away from your core business, and what you're supposed to be doing in your mission because you're taking care of the environment on the side, or taking care of your employees or your stakeholders on the side.
Deborah Debas: But really, what research tells us and what we see from the track record of our responsible investment products or, you know, pretty much any responsible investing product on average out there in Canada is that those companies that have robust environmental, social, and governance practices, they really come out winners in their sectors. So companies that have higher female diversity in their employees, they tend to have higher returns than comparable companies in the same sector.
Deborah Debas: The reason is fairly simple, is that if you're more diverse, that means that you don't discriminate when you hire, you don't discriminate when you promote, and you have access to one hundred percent of the talent pool. And so you're able to really hire the best people out there to work with you on your mission. So putting in place diversity and inclusion policies, it might cost you, yes, but it really is an investment that the company is doing onto itself.
Deborah Debas: And that investment in turn, will have return in form of, you know, it could be increased goodwill, but usually you'll see increased stock prices as well or increased growth creation in the long term. It really is not that strenuous for the company to invest in their environmental or social practices, providing it's done sensibly. Of course, it needs to make sense, but it usually does make sense to be more sustainable.
Dean Colling: And I think the one thing that we've found just through our analysis of businesses that we're investing in, you may obviously have found the same, with actually greater statistics that show this, but clearly companies that have a positive ESG profile, they are really taking it very seriously, number one, attract talent. You know this, you know, generations, maybe, you know, before or after me are becoming much, much more aware and focused on these types of things and really look for that in an employer. So you're attracting talent.
Dean Colling: And, you know, companies like to do business with people who are, or with other companies that have a, you know, very thorough ESG process within their corporate strategy and are really very good, you know, environmental citizens in the corporate world. And they're really actually doing great stuff, and it does draw good relationships with customers and suppliers as well. So, yeah, you know, you may not see it immediately, but you know, we've noticed that that's a really good value added or strategic advantage for businesses when they're trying to build for sure.
Deborah Debas: Right. And I'm, if you don't mind, I'd like to come back to your comment about wondering if, you know, the way you invest you can ensure that you know the investment really goes to quote-unquote good companies or ESG compliant companies. And what I wanted to say is that there are many, many companies out there. I mean, we receive information, ESG ratings, on about 8000 companies. Of course, we don't invest in all of them. But what I meant to say is that there's no perfect company.
Deborah Debas: All companies have some sort of an impact on the environment and on society, and on communities. As an investor, what you want to do is you want to look into the process of the portfolio manager or the advisor, and make sure that you agree with the process. Because sometimes you might not agree with one choice, or one company, but it doesn't mean that a whole solution is to be thrown out.
Deborah Debas: We are engaging with those companies, we are talking to them, and we are trying to improve what they're doing. So, you know, responsible investing is not about investing in perfect companies. It really is into trying to make them better, and we can do that because we're invested in them. If we were to sell our shares, then it would be really hard to change anything from the inside because we wouldn't have the leverage anymore.
Dean Colling: And I think that's a good point to maybe even, sort of, leave with our listeners today is that, you know, everyone has a personal choice. Everyone has a personal view, and where ESG or responsible investing sits in their priority list. But it's important, you know, a group like ours, you know, we do have an ESG policy, we do have a responsible investment policy and how we assign that to not only companies that we're investing in directly, but also third party managers that we're evaluating, and how they're doing things. So we care about that to a certain degree, and certainly make that an important part of our process. And that's why we're talking about it with you today.
Dean Colling: But you're right, everybody is an individual and everybody can have a different view of it, but it's important that, you know, they know how that will then be translated into their own portfolio construction, and how it will impact in the future. As long as there's a process in place, they understand it, they understand what we're doing. Then they can, you know, through advisors like us, they can refine it and then they can have us go and seek, obviously, some third party managers that may do even more thematic investing and more focused investing, if that's something that they they want to do.
Deborah Debas: No, you're right. And I also commend you because you mentioned that your team can actually curate or select ESG solutions. And the reality is, in Canada, is still a minority of advisors that talk about ESG solutions to their clients. When you're guided and you have an advisor that can actually help you make a decision, then you're able to really choose the the solution or the companies that really are closer to your priorities and your values, and help you have the positive impact that you're looking for.
Deborah Debas: You know, you can look into engagement reports, and you can look into impact reports as well to make sure that the fund managers or the fund companies, when they make claims about having an impact or investing thematically, they actually have the data to back it up, and they're able to provide you with examples of companies and measurements of greenhouse gas emission reduction, or water that's been treated, or the diseases that have been prevented. So you have access to the data to understand how your money is being invested, and what we're able to get out of it on top of an attractive return.
Dean Colling: Yeah. And I think, you know, the more popular and the more focused ESG becomes within the investment community, you're always going to get some players that may claim to provide this level of analytics in the way, and this focus in their investing, but they don't necessarily deliver what they're saying.
Dean Colling: And that's incumbent on us, as portfolio managers and advisors, that's where we do our due diligence on behalf of clients and do a lot of digging to make sure that if there's an investment, or a process or a, you know, a third party manager that is claiming this, that we really go down through a deep process with them and ask them, as you say, for impact data. Talk to us about how you evaluate a company, let's look at your ESG score criteria, and tell us how you evaluate those businesses.
Dean Colling: And then we get a level of comfort that they'll be able to sort of execute the objective of our clients, I think that's important. And maybe I'll ask you that as well, have you have you seen that? Have you seen like with so many, you know, more opportunities coming out in the market today, you know, have you seen a wide array from ESG light to more thematic?
Dean Colling: And then a follow on question, It's a long question for you, but what about flow of funds too? Are you seeing the actual flow of funds these days really showing that there has been a serious interest in ESG over the last few years?
Deborah Debas: Yeah. So there's been a definite shift in the speed at which flows are entering ESG funds. If you look at the asset growth in Canada for 2020, in the responsible investment funds and ETFs it was about fifty five percent growth year over year. And if you look at the overall industry, the growth was twelve percent, so you can see that there's this huge difference there.
Dean Colling: Obviously, one's a lower base than the other, I would imagine, but still, that's a pretty, pretty sizable difference, yeah.
Deborah Debas: Of course, yeah, it is a sizable difference. You're right there. However, it also means that people are interested and that there is something interesting in there. And it also explains why since the beginning of 2021, we've seen over sixty new ESG product launch, they're not ours, but in the industry.
Deborah Debas: So, you know, we've been at it for for thirty years. I think the authenticity here is really not debatable. We were there because we thought it was important, and we thought it was a good way to make investment decisions and we've expanded on the way we do it. What we see, you know, it's true that because there's so much interest now from investors, you know, the temptation might be high to overstate the environmental or the social impact of your investment.
Deborah Debas: It really is a responsibility for investors and advisors to look under the hood of those investments, and make sure that when you see ESG, or responsible, or sustainable, that it's not just ESG marketed, but it's really ESG committed, and that there's a process in place, there's data being provided, and there's disclosure and reporting being offered to investors as well.
Dean Colling: Yeah, that's very good advice and obviously something we follow when we look at these investments. And you know, you mentioned your, you know, your group's thirty years plus in this space and that's the reason we wanted to have you on here today, for your expertise.
Dean Colling: And you know, you're not the new kid on the block when it comes to ESG, so we wanted to have a discussion on this, and it's certainly not the only one we'll have, but I do thank you for joining us today and providing your insight, and I look forward to catching up with you again soon, I hope, and I wish you the best of success in the future.
Deborah Debas: Thank you, Dean. Same to you.
[The microphone graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. On the left side of the screen are a list of disclaimers. The text reads: Credits; Music Provided by: Hot Coffee by Ghostrifter Official (soundcloud.com/ghostrifter-official), Licensed under Creative Commons – Attribution, ShareAlike 3.0 Unported – CC BY-SA 3.0., http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Disclaimers; This information, including any opinion, is based on various sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed and is subject to change. CIBC and CIBC World Markets Inc., their affiliates, directors, officers and employees may buy, sell, or hold a position in securities of a company mentioned herein, its affiliates or subsidiaries, and may also perform financial advisory services, investment banking or other services for, or have lending or other credit relationships with the same. CIBC World Markets Inc. and its representatives will receive sales commissions and/or a spread between bid and ask prices if you purchase, sell or hold the securities referred to above. © CIBC World Markets Inc. 2021.
CIBC Private Wealth Management consists of services provided by CIBC and certain of its subsidiaries, including CIBC Wood Gundy, a division of CIBC World Markets Inc.
Commissions, trailing commissions, management fees, and expenses may all be associated with hedge fund investments. Hedge funds may be sold by Prospectus to the general public, but more often are sold by Offering Memorandum to those investors who meet certain eligibility or minimum purchase requirements. An Offering Memorandum is not required in some jurisdictions. The Prospectus or Offering Memorandum contains important information about hedge funds – you should obtain a copy and read it before making an investment decision. Hedge funds are not guaranteed. Their values change frequently, and past performance may not be repeated. Hedge funds are for sophisticated investors only. Clients are advised to seek advice regarding their particular circumstances from their personal tax and legal advisors.
Insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services Inc. In Quebec, insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services (Quebec) Inc.
Dean Colling and Rocco Letterio are Investment Advisors with CIBC Wood Gundy. Alex Lee is an Associate Investment Advisor working with Dean Colling, Investment Advisor. The views of Dean Colling, Rocco Letterio, and Alex Lee do not necessarily reflect those of CIBC World Markets Inc.
If you are currently a CIBC Wood Gundy client, please contact your Investment Advisor.]
Announcer: Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed our show, please consider sharing the episode with your friends. Be sure to check out our website for new episodes every few months.
Wealthview - Episode 7 - Noah Blackstein.mp4
[The podcast opens on an introduction graphic with CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. The text reads: Wealthview, Hosted by Dean Colling, First Vice-President & Senior Portfolio Manager, September, 2021. On the left side of the screen are a group of graphics consisting of two speech bubbles, a stylized group of gears, and a bar graph with an arrow in an uptrend. The text on the left hand side reads: Philosophy, Strategy & Insights.]
Announcer: You're listening to Wealthview, the podcast where we share philosophy, strategies and insights, from some of Canada's top financial professionals.
[A brief montage consisting of a street level view of traffic in downtown Toronto, high-rise buildings, Dean Colling speaking on a microphone, and a bird’s eye view of a four-way intersection plays on the left side of the screen.]
Announcer: Hosted by Dean Colling, First Vice-President and Senior Portfolio Manager at CIBC Private Wealth. Edited and produced by the Colling Group. And now, onto the show.
[The introduction graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. In the centre of the screen is a graphic representation of a microphone. The text reads: Wealthview, Conversation with Noah Blackstein, Vice President & Senior Portfolio Manager, Dynamic Funds.]
Dean Colling: Welcome to Wealthview, I'm your host, Dean Colling, First Vice-President and Senior Portfolio Manager at CIBC Private Wealth. On today's edition of Wealthview, we're going to focus on investing for long-term growth. Joining us today is Noah Blackstein. Noah Blackstein is responsible for the management of over 12 billion U.S. dollars in global growth portfolios for Dynamic Funds.
Dean Colling: Noah started at Dynamic in 1997, when he became a founding member of the Global Growth Team. Since then, he's established himself as a successful U.S. and global growth fund manager, with a reputation That strengthened by a 25 year track record of success and numerous industry awards.
Dean Colling: Throughout his career, Noah has regularly appeared in many well-known publications, including Barron's and The Wall Street Journal, and has also been a featured guest on CNBC and other well-respected financial news programs. Noah graduated from the University of Toronto in 1992 and is a CFA Charterholder. Noah, welcome to Wealthview.
Noah Blackstein: Well, thanks for having me.
Dean Colling: Well, we're going to talk a little bit about growth strategy and investing for the long-term, because you have been known as one of the most prototypical, you know, long-term growth managers, focused primarily on transformative and disruptive technologies. And I think over the last couple of years, we've seen a fast forward and a lot of advancements in areas like fintech and cloud, and you know, obviously in biotech as well. Can you give our listeners a little bit of a commentary on what your thoughts are, on what's happened in the past couple of years?
Dean Colling: You know, when the pandemic set in and all those advancements that kind of went fast forward, and what're the biggest secular trends and disruptive trends that you're looking at and see the most opportunity in, in the years ahead?
Noah Blackstein: Yeah, for sure. I think, you know, we're growth managers and you know what we're really trying to find are companies where the growth opportunity remains sizable.
Noah Blackstein: So typically, I'm looking for companies that are growing high teens or better, both revenue and earnings, and also where that growth is sustainable. So once we find those companies, we're really trying to assess the length and the width of the runway that they're on, and what the underlying opportunity is. So, you know, that doesn't only have to be technology, it could be certainly in healthcare, could be in the consumer space for sure.
Noah Blackstein: But what I would say though, is that everything today is kind of affected by technology. And what I mean by that is, you know, in the 90s when I started, it was all about a PC computer that sat on your desk, and Microsoft software, and Intel chips, network by 3Com or Cisco. It was all one thing, and it was all sort of tied together in terms of that product that sat on your desk.
Noah Blackstein: I think though today where we've come is that the internet has changed all of that. And so, every business is a digital business, and every business has to have an online presence. Not only an online presence, but has to be able to attract customers online, be able to sell whatever product they're selling online, and then also to be able to make their business more productive. They need to push into the cloud as well. And so, you know, if you think about how your grandparents bought tickets for an airplane versus how most millennials or Gen Zs would go looking for airplane tickets.
Noah Blackstein: If you think about how retailing is done today, I remember sitting in a conference room at the Phoenician In Scottsdale, looking at Amazon when they were talking about their business model and today, you know, online dominates retail. But that's going to be true in healthcare, whether it's through telehealth, that's going to be true in other areas, especially in finance and in banking. As you have a continued push towards machine learning and AI, for sure in lending, but also attracting and keeping customers, and seeking out customers through a digital transformation.
Noah Blackstein: The easiest way to think about things is to think about every process that you have today internally that's done on paper, and think about that all being done over the computer. You know, I think about a stock that was a big winner for us, you know, going into the pandemic, and obviously the business exploded during the pandemic, which is a company called DocuSign. I think, you know, they were slowly gaining share, there was an environmental aspect of not using paper, et cetera, et cetera. But then the pandemic kind of accelerated the business, where you want to close a real estate deal, you use Docusign. And we're not going back, you know, we're going to continue that process overall.
Noah Blackstein: So I think we're at the point now where people are differentiating between what was work from home, whether that was VPNs, or extra computers or monitors, and stuff like that, and what's truly this digital transformation of enterprises. And you know, the first move to the cloud was sort of an ease of use thing, with companies like Salesforce.com. But now just given all the compute power that exists out there today at Google, at Microsoft, and Amazon, the three cloud titans, and others. Applications are now being developed in the cloud that you can never run on premise.
Noah Blackstein: So think about a Snowflake, it's just not something most companies have the computing power or capacity to do internally. And now we're sort of entering that new stage of the cloud where, you know, cloud native applications that run traffic not just north-south, but east-west, and can take advantage of all this computing power are really driving the next generation of applications.
Noah Blackstein: So in terms of technology, it's an exceptionally exciting period of time to be doing this. I've been doing it for a long time, and this is one of the most disruptive periods I've ever been witness to.
Dean Colling: Yeah. And you know, the speed of change has been breathtaking, certainly over the last 24 months. You know, you can go from a startup to, you know, $50 billion market cap in 36 months it seems like these days. Does that surprise you? And do you think that, you know, we as investors need to settle in for this type of fast paced change in the years ahead?
Noah Blackstein: Yeah, well, I think that, you know, our focus is on real revenue, real earnings, real companies, real businesses. And so that's really what our focus is on. So, you know, a lot of these sort of, you know, no revenue, no earnings type companies that get to $50 billion or whatnot, you know, those aren't kind of sustainable valuations if the fundamentals aren't there. So we do spend a lot of time on figuring out what the revenues look like, what do the earnings look like over the next three to five years, what can this company earn.
Noah Blackstein: You know, back when Google came public, I think a lot of people were calling it Dot-com 2.0 or whatever. But, you know, back then, if you did the work, I think they came public with just less than $2 billion in revenue.
Noah Blackstein: I think if you did the work back then, and you looked at what the advertising market was, how much could still move online, what Google's percent of the advertising market was, how much they owned of search, you know, you could really sort of figure out that if they executed, you know, Google can go from just under $2 billion of revenue, probably somewhere to $15 to $20 billion of revenue by 2010-2011 after their IPO.
Noah Blackstein: The earnings numbers weren't three dollars a share, they are much more likely to be twenty five to thirty dollars a share five years out. And you know, that process repeats. You know, you saw that with Facebook. Facebook after their IPO, sort of in 2012-2013, I think it got down to the mid-twenties. That type of work on Facebook could have got you seven to nine dollars of earnings power. And you know, that's sort of where they are now.
Noah Blackstein: So if you look at that, you're probably paying somewhere around three times five year forward earnings for Facebook, and that's the type of work we want to do. You know, the companies that are rocket ships that pull back, with no revenue, no earnings, they're not going to last. And we're going to enter a phase in the market today where I think the market is going to be much more discerning between real companies and fake companies.
Noah Blackstein: And so, it's not easy for sure, and you can't just rely on the hottest tip that you hear on television or elsewhere. You really do need to do the fundamental work, and you really do need to think out over the next five years, what does this company look like. I think there are some enormous opportunities, but it takes work. It's not just throwing darts.
Dean Colling: Right. So you say that there is, you know, obviously going to be a more discerning investor in the years ahead. And you know, the winners will win and the losers won't make it. Is it a function of where we are in the cycle? Obviously coming out of a short, deep recession over the last few years, you know, we're looking at the potential for rates rising, and so everybody's sort of sharpening their pencils here and saying, okay, let's focus on what works or is there still potential legs?
Dean Colling: Is there enough liquidity in the market today through stimulus that there is going to still be some money going at the the ones that, you know, really don't have the top line growth, or at least delivering the top line growth as per their so-called business plans?
Noah Blackstein: You know, I don't know. This is a weird cycle because it was a pandemic. It's a weird cycle because there was so much government support of consumers. So, you know, it's a weird cycle because in a lot of places, when people go back to work, they'll be making less than they're being paid by the government.
Noah Blackstein: So the cycle is a weird thing this time around versus any other cycle. What I would say, though, that is my experience, both in certainly when I started in the Peso Crisis in '94, but in Long Term capital and in the Russian Debt Default in '97 and '98, but also through 2000-02, the companies that were real, that had real revenues, that had real earnings, that were really growing, and grew throughout that period of time, went to new highs long before the Nasdaq ever did.
Noah Blackstein: And a lot of the companies that disappeared were the companies that were just sort of blue sky, and pipe dreams. So, you know, those companies that have no revenues, no earnings, require constant funding. And it's, you know, that could change on a dime overall. But companies that are generating revenues, generating cash flows, and are really seizing the opportunity to take market share from incumbents, or who are growing the market; you know, I remember one of the big knocks on Salesforce.com, which is cloud-based customer relationship management software, when they came out was that people would say look at the market cap, and look at the total addressable market, customer relationship management software isn't that big.
Noah Blackstein: The key moment for cloud software was when Salesforce.com signed a contract worth over $100 million, with State Farm, I believe it was. And why that was so transformative for the industry is because Salesforce wasn't replacing a Siebel system, or a Janus system, or some other customer relationship software. State Farm for customer relationship, I believe at the time, was using Microsoft Excel, which is incredible if you think about a company that size that was using Excel for that. And so, they never had CRM software before. And so this wasn't about market share within an addressable total market you could define, and this was really creating a market that didn't exist before.
Noah Blackstein: The fact that they were cloud-based really was the ease of the opportunity for a lot of companies to then go in, and subscribe to Salesforce.com. Just like when Apple came out with the iPod. I remember back then, when we were big shareholders of Apple, you know, people would tell me a number of things, but one of the things they said is, well, look at the MP3 player market. It's not that big a market. You know, you got RealPlayer and a bunch of other names in here, but you know, I mean, Apple won't be able to do that much in terms of units. But the vast majority of demand wasn't Apple taking share from other players.
Noah Blackstein: Apple created the market. So, you know, it's really, really important to make sure you have the right company, with the right products, and the right space, that's not only seizing share from incumbents, but it's also driving demand that you didn't even know existed before. And that's really critical.
Noah Blackstein: There's not a lot of companies that can do that. If you look at our portfolios today, whether it's in the global side or the U.S. side, we only own about twenty to twenty five companies. But those opportunities today exist, and I think they exist in a number of key areas and that really is exciting for us.
Dean Colling: Yeah. And that really is the exciting opportunity in technology, and disruption, and innovation, is a lot of the times we don't even know these new markets that will soon exist, we don't even know they do.
Dean Colling: And it's interesting, you know, I use this as one example of a company out there that provides services for whatever you might need, you know? I think you pay five bucks, without saying the name, and you can get something done for you. And you know, we actually have the intro to this podcast done by somebody off that site out of Nashville, Tennessee. Boom, boom done. And there you go. And it's a massive, massive business that we would never have even thought existed years before. So it is exciting.
Dean Colling: So if we look forward, what are some of the, you know, maybe one or two trends that you see that are very, very early stage right now that has a lot of runway for growth, that we may have seen coming or we may not have seen coming?
Noah Blackstein: Look, I think that, you know, we've talked about technology and digital transformation, for sure, I think those were sort of known before the pandemic. I think they got accelerated through the pandemic, but I continue to see a long runway for those businesses today. I do believe, though, that digital transformation is going to take over and accelerate in the financial services.
Noah Blackstein: You know, there's no industry that hasn't been transformed, whether that's travel and leisure, whether that's anything in technology, obviously. But I do think that in banking and finance, the use of machine learning and artificial intelligence, when it comes to making loans, when it comes to employing new digital technologies for banks in terms of how you interact with customers.
Noah Blackstein: If you think about a company like Square, for example, they've had point of sale terminals at merchants across the United States pre-pandemic. And they're able to extend small loans to these small businesses, because unlike going into a bank and having to meet with a loan officer with three years of data on your company or five years of data; you know, if Square has the point of sale terminal, they know, and you're using the Square for payroll, they know what your expenses are, they know what your revenues are. Most businesses don't need a $200,000 loan. Sometimes they only need, you know, twenty five or fifty thousand. And so you can see how technology is transforming lending, and how banks are now beginning to have to fight back, to keep market share by employing other companies. I think in emerging markets, we're really seeing the bypass of Visa and MasterCard.
Noah Blackstein: You know, if you go into some Latin American countries, or South American countries, I should say, and you visit their banks, these opulent, massive, you know, something the Romans would have been proud, for building with marble, and columns and everything. And if you ask their management teams, well, what about penetration of Visa and MasterCard, you know, those companies will tell you, oh yes, everyone in our country has Visa or has MasterCard. And then you go out for dinner and you ask the waiter, hey, you know, what have you bought off of Amazon or MercadoLibre recently? And they'll say nothing, because I don't have a credit card. So it's not true that many of these people have Visa and MasterCards.
Noah Blackstein: And so the idea of a digital wallet, which is empowered by both debit, perhaps credit, and also what's called BNPL or buy now, pay later technologies. You saw Square buy Afterpay, which is buy now, pay later. You have Klarna, you have companies like Affirm in the U.S.
Noah Blackstein: You know, this is sort of bypassing the Visa, MasterCard, and credit for some people in terms of buy now, pay later. And so all of this is empowered or powered by technology today. And so this digital wallet is really empowering the consumer, and putting the power into the consumer's hand when it comes to credit, when it comes to loans. And so it's a very, very, very disruptive period of time right now in finance, and there are some very exciting companies who compete with banks. And then there are other companies who are going to help the incumbent banks compete against these technology startups. But it's very, very exciting for sure.
Dean Colling: Does all this technological innovation then translate over into parts of biotechnology and healthcare? Obviously, we've all gotten vaccinations, or most of us have, in the last six months and thinking of like messenger RNA technology, and those types of new innovations, does that help speed along, you know, more cures, more vaccines, more things to enhance our lives?
Noah Blackstein: For sure. I think that, you know, I've seen Moderna a number of times at healthcare conferences. And, you know, I was always fascinated by the ability to use messenger RNA technology, for sure. I think that, you know, a lot of people talk about, well, man, if this was 1980, or 1990, or the year 2000, I don't know how we would have survived, you know, work from home without the internet, or without computers, or without the bandwidth.
Noah Blackstein: And that's all true, but I don't know how we would have made it without mRNA vaccines from BioNTech and Moderna. And so this sort of leapfrog the idea of using messenger RNA. And I think, you know, both for Moderna and BioNTech, and I think that matters when it comes to other things. I think other vaccines and vaccine development will continue. And, you know, it'll also forward us the next generation, which I think is even more exciting, which is CRISPR-Cas9 and gene editing.
Noah Blackstein: You know, the ability where you have a genetic mutation that gives you some disease. So think about cystic fibrosis, for example, where you can edit the DNA and fix it. The ability to edit, and reinsert, and fix, and cure is probably one of the most exciting things in the world today. I would also say in healthcare, you know, there's a lot of interesting things going on with robotic surgery, and telehealth, and all of that, and robotic surgery basically will be every surgery at some point in time.
Noah Blackstein: But I do think, even more simply, you know, where we are today in terms of oncology and other places like that, where I think that what we learned from HIV in the 1990s is that, you know, a disease that would have killed you within a few years, when you took a combination therapy of three drugs, you know, sort of turned HIV almost into diabetes. Today, a man with HIV has almost the same life expectancy as a man without HIV, if he sticks to the cocktail regimen of drugs. And that idea of the combination therapy has driven M&A over the last few years, especially in Oncology.
Noah Blackstein: So that maybe we don't have a cure for cancer, for example, but maybe we can hold it at a stage one for ten years, or fifteen years. Maybe we can just hold it at a stage two, for a significant period of time, or slow it down dramatically, like you can stop HIV from evolving into full blown AIDS in a patient.
Noah Blackstein: And so, you know, I think the places that we've been focused in on, in medtech with continuous glucose monitors, whether that's been in robotic surgery, or telehealth, have obviously done well for us. But also, we think about pharmaceuticals and drug companies. We've done well with combination therapies in Oncology. And more recently, I think that mRNA companies have obviously been huge winners, but the next move after that is in the gene editing.
Noah Blackstein: It's amazing how fast we've progressed on gene editing. And so there's a number of companies in the U.S. that are working on it, and it's going at a very rapid pace. It's still a little early for us. We know the companies, we follow the companies, they're all still in sort of phase two, phase three trials. And so we're probably three or four years out maybe, maybe two or three years out. So we're not there yet, but we're certainly following the space very closely and trying to stay on top of all the developments.
Dean Colling: You know, if we look back at the last, you know, several years, it's certainly been a tailwind for growth investors because of the low rates, low overall inflation. But we've come out of, sort of out of that, deep recession, deep and short recession in 2020. We've started to see a rotation of some of that capital over to, you know, deep value cyclical names.
Dean Colling: Took a little bit of money away from growth, you know, starting to see talk about rising rates and inflation. I know in some other earlier discussions with you, or other interviews you've done, you see that as maybe temporary. And so let's talk a little bit about your views on that, in terms of a cyclical rotation, or a continuation of growth. And what your view is on the impact of inflation, at least in the near term, and whether you see it as secular or not, and how that might effect your portfolio strategy?
Noah Blackstein: Obviously, you know, we've had a good number of years, but if you think, we were running the U.S. fund since 1998, global fund since 2001, but if I think over the last sort of six or seven years, I would look at two things: one, I think that in the fourth quarter of 2016, when Donald Trump got elected, you had a huge move up in interest rates and growth stocks sold off and banks took off. I think the 10 year yield during that fourth quarter of 2016 rose about 70 percent, which was odd.
Noah Blackstein: And it's odd because the correlation between growth stocks and interest rates is actually positive, not negative. So growth stocks typically are positively correlated to interest rates. But for whatever reason, you had this odd move. Similarly, I think what we saw, not really last year, a little bit around the vaccine news, but we saw more in the early part of this year, was a huge sell off in growth stocks and people buying deep cyclicals and other things like that. Which again, given the growth stocks have had a positive correlation to interest rates, I didn't quite understand. I think what it was, though, was the idea of growth became plentiful in that, you know, Nordstrom was growing its top line 40 percent, its bottom line 100 percent. You know, the GAP is now growing at 50 percent, but these are all simple year-over-year comparisons versus a pandemic when the world was shut down.
Noah Blackstein: Many of those companies, if you look at their revenues and earnings, are still below where they were in 2019, even though those stock prices went well beyond where they were in 2019. So that coincided with a 90 percent rise in the 10 year yield during that first quarter. So much like fourth quarter of '16, you had a 90 percent rise in 10 year yields, and you had this massive move of all these companies.
Noah Blackstein: Listen, I don't have any problem with value investors. I wish them luck. But you know, when you're looking at those types of growth rates, what you're missing is the duration. What is Nordstrom's ability to be able to sustain 40 percent growth, over the next five years? The probability is zero. And so, you can't just extrapolate from a one year year-over-year comparison, has nothing to do with the power of compounding that growth over time. During those periods of time where, you know, it's really cool, you know, where people are in the fidget spinner part of the market. Hey, look at this shiny new thing we can play with. Our success comes from sticking to our discipline and process. Even though, you know, stocks are headed through the roof on the cyclical side, or the other side, what makes money for us over time are growth stocks.
Noah Blackstein: So we watch it, we underperformed during that period of time. But why we've come all the way back, and off to new highs, in our funds is because we didn't switch. So all those people switched, and then got caught. We didn't switch. And so, it was the key for us, is this company growing high teens are better, what's the opportunity in front of it? Is it a long runway for growth?
Noah Blackstein: And that's sort of what we've consistently stuck with. That's what's driven the numbers over the last 20 plus years for the portfolios. And that's all you can sort of do. You know, in terms of inflation, like I heard a whole bunch of people a few months ago try to tell me Freeport-McMoRan is a growth stock, and I'm like, why is it a growth stock?
Noah Blackstein: Because copper is used in electric vehicles. I go, oh, well, copper is used in electric vehicles last year too, when it was a five dollar stock. But now that it's, you know, forty dollars a share, now it's a growth stock, right?
Noah Blackstein: So, like a lot of this stuff was, we're making up the stories after the fact. There is no question that we have a surge in prices right now. Much of that has to do with the pandemic. Much of that has to do with government policy. Every company cut back on their orders, especially in the automotive sector and in other sectors. They cut back.
Noah Blackstein: They figured demand was going to collapse during the pandemic. But it didn't collapse because the governments poured money, and gave it to individuals, right? So this is the first recession we've ever had, where the consumer's balance sheet has gotten stronger, not weaker following a recession. Right? People were being paid more to stay home, than they used to make on their jobs. And so you have this to $2.5 trillion of excess savings.
Noah Blackstein: Now, that's not printed money, right? The government is issuing bonds to pay for that. They're not monetizing the debt. They are issuing bonds to pay for their debt and deficits. You know, I think that a lot of the cyclical rally has to do with supply chains, supply chains getting caught, when demand didn't drop off even though they made cuts, and demand in fact began to surge. But I think a lot of that will normalize over time. The question becomes then, how much have we borrowed from future growth? And that becomes a much more interesting issue. I think you saw a crazy move in lumber prices this year, and then it gave it all back. The biggest driver of inflation in the U.S. then became, you know, used car prices, which have gone parabolic. I guarantee you a year from now that chart will look a lot like lumber.
Noah Blackstein: And I also believe that, you know, now people are talking about higher rents. But I believe that will begin to abate shortly. But what you're going to probably end up seeing is a lot more availability of apartments, now that you have the ability to foreclose, and now that you have the ability to move tenants who refuse to pay out of your building. I think the supply will begin to ease.
Noah Blackstein: So, listen, I studied economics, not just 101, I went all the way to 401. I studied the history of economics. It is a social science, not math. There is no general theory of inflation. Clearly, debt monetization, handing out money wheelbarrows definitely causes inflation. But we have no general theory of inflation. We can't say we did this, so that means higher inflation. We still, at the end of the day, don't know what translates into strong, high, and persistent inflation. And so, everyone telling you that they know for sure is likely wrong.
Noah Blackstein: And I still see a tremendous amount of deflationary forces, not only fueled by technology, but fueled by things of what's going on politically in China. You know, it's fairly clear that private companies, and private assets, are being slowly taken over by the government. Whether that's an inflationary, or deflationary, force is going to be interesting to watch over the next number of years. But certainly the demographics are working against China today.
Dean Colling: Yeah, definitely, demographics, we've seen as a big disinflationary theme over the last few years. And you mentioned China, which you know, you and I both know in this industry was the big narrative, you know, a decade ago and then moving forward as a huge driver of global economic growth. But that's changed this year. Do you want to talk a little bit more about that, and how you view some of the, you know, the global Chinese growth stories that we can invest in, on how, you know, poorly they've done as a result and whether you would even consider them these days?
Noah Blackstein: I think sometime in 2005, the Globe and Mail wrote an article about me and Power Global, and said I was one of the few investors that knew anything about Chinese internet companies. That has obviously changed over the years, with the IPOs and success of names like Alibaba, and Tencent, and others. Chinese companies and the opportunity for those companies was enormous, and has been enormous, and they have driven a tremendous amount of return in Power Global Growth. But if you follow me closely, you'll know that in 2018, I began to talk about the difficulties of regulations in China, whether that was cracking down on speech, on services like Weibo, which is the Twitter of China, whether that was cracking down on the language on WeChat from Tencent, or beginning to go after the after school education market in China.
Noah Blackstein: So a number of difficult regulatory things started coming down in '18 and then again in '19. And so China, which was, which could have been about 40 or more percent of Power Global Growth in 2015-16 was well, well down and in 2020 was zero percent of the portfolio. And so, you know, you watch the online and in-class tutoring services in China get wiped out in a single morning. You've seen tremendous pressure on Alibaba. Pre-IPO, the government just completely wiped out the value of Ant Financial, and continues to do so each day.
Noah Blackstein: And so, Communists believe everything belongs to the party. And so, it is not possible to invest in China today. And this is coming from an investor who's been there, who was there for a very long period of time, who was a large, top shareholder of many of those Chinese companies. In '18-'19 we began to pare back dramatically, and we really haven't had any exposure. The opportunities for us, whether they're in South America, Latin America, are large. There are a lot of opportunities in fintech in Europe, and then there are other ones in other parts of Asia. The emergence of places like Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, with companies like Sea, for example, which is both gaming and online shopping, for sure. But yeah, no, we've moved on.
Noah Blackstein: You know, even if you have a positive view on the opportunity, or the valuation, of the company, you can walk in tomorrow and that's, you know, the government just decides tomorrow to wipe out another part of the business. Or, wipe out the company in total, like we saw with online. So it's going to take a while. I think there's a lot of people who might own those positions, who are trying to convince himself that they should stick around. But until we see a change in policy, it's just not a place that's going to be investable.
Dean Colling: Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, I mean, as investment managers, where we get entrusted with clients funds to avoid risk like that, and that's probably a very good policy.
Dean Colling: So, let's just switch, last couple of things, back to macro a little bit. You know, you're a growth manager, you're looking at secular trends, you're looking at great disruptive businesses, how much does macro play into your overall strategy?
Noah Blackstein: Not much. We're cognizant of the macro. We realize that if we're going into a recession, certainly companies that we own could get hurt. But trying to figure out where the economy is, and then what sectors we should own is just not something we do. Our process begins with our bottom up process, looking for growth companies, and what you found consistently every decade has been that there's always been a group of great growth stocks. Whether that's the Wal-Marts, or the price clubs in the 1970s, whether that's the other names, the Toys R US's and other type of names in the 1980s, or whether in the 1990s, it's obviously the Cisco Systems and others during that period of time.
Noah Blackstein: There's always a group of growth companies in the market, and that's how we make money at the end of the day, is finding those companies. And so, you know, we're aware of the macro, but we're not using the macro to try and figure out how to position. What we're looking for are growth stocks at the end of the day, that can continue to drive while we go into a recession, and as we come out, that'll be the top performers.
Dean Colling: That makes sense. And that's, I think, a philosophy we agree with as well.
Dean Colling: So, maybe we won't bother talking about central banks like the Fed, and their ability to extract themselves out of this, you know, all hands on deck stimulus that they've done over the last few years. But maybe I'll just ask you very briefly, do you think they'll get it right? Do you think they can back out of this gently, and softly, without being too disruptive?
Noah Blackstein: No, I don't. And the only reason why I say that is because in 1994, I watched the Peso Crisis, which was engineered by rate hikes in the U.S., I watched the Russian Debt Default and Long Term Capital occur when they were raising rates. I watched central banks flood the system with liquidity, and then pull it all back very, very quickly into the bear market of 2000-02. I watched central banks continue to raise interest rates throughout 2005-06, even though subprime was beginning to crack and roll over, and they just continued to jack interest rates up.
Noah Blackstein: And so, you know, I watched in the fourth quarter of 2018 when the markets corrected 20 plus percent, when Jerome Powell decided to say that they're going to go well beyond neutral. You know, the central bank doesn't come up with an iPod. The central bank doesn't come up with software. The central bank doesn't come up with a new retailing concept. The central bank isn't coming up with gene editing and research. All the central banks can do is create an environment where people have confidence to invest in them, or mess everything up for everybody. And I would say that the biggest breaks of my career have come through central bank mistakes, and I suspect that will be true in the future as well.
Dean Colling: Well said, yeah, we sense that those opportunities will come at some point in the next twelve to twenty four months.
Noah Blackstein: But, well, I don't know if it's twelve or twenty four months, because I really don't believe, I believe that the bond market signals are correct. I believe that inflation is not going to be a problem. And I believe that while tapering will start this year, it'll be a while before they begin hiking interest rates. So, I think the bond market has it right, probably, and so, we're a ways from that. But when the cycle does start, it will start benignly and then end, as it always does, tragically.
Noah Blackstein: But, despite all of that, you can look at our long term numbers over 20 plus years, and those numbers include, even longer, twenty three years, those numbers include the bear markets of 2000 and 2002. They include the global financial crisis, and 2018, and even the pandemic. That's how those numbers were achieved. So it's very, very important, especially when you're looking at equities, and growth equities, to be focused in on the long term, not just the next twelve months.
Dean Colling: Yeah, I agree with that for sure.
Dean Colling: So, would you say that over these 23 plus years that you've been doing this, that the sort of greatest lesson you've learned has been, in fact, to be ultra disciplined and not let the noise get to you?
Noah Blackstein: Yes, well, it's as simple as that, and it is incredibly difficult to do. It's simple to say, and incredibly difficult to do. I've seen manager after manager, you know, talk about disruption, and innovation, and owning these companies for the long term, and then you get three months of a bank rally, and all of a sudden their portfolios are turned into value funds.
Noah Blackstein: I've seen it time, and time again over the years that people have done that and we try not to do that. But, that requires a tremendous amount of work on the companies, understanding what they are. It also requires a tremendous amount of ability to have the confidence in the names that you own, and to be able to withstand those periods of underperformance.
Dean Colling: You get compensated for feeling a little uncomfortable for short periods.
Noah Blackstein: It's all that nonsense, that you just have to tune out and shut off. I was lucky in my career that I started off at Dynamic Funds, working for Ned Goodman, who was a portfolio manager, founder of Beutel Goodman, and David Goodman, who was also a portfolio manager.
Noah Blackstein: There was something to be said about working with portfolio managers, and I remember during the first course of the bear market, I was involved with, that, you know, it was very, very difficult, of 2000 and 2002. And I remember talking with Ned at one point, and he had said that he has, you know, I said this, that and the other thing and he goes, listen, we have faith in you. We know every year is not going to be great, but we have confidence in you, and the confidence to stick with the manager is a tremendous amount of pressure, not only externally but internally.
Noah Blackstein: Luckily, I'm at the point in my career where we've withstood all of those types of pressures, but that leads to success over time. Finding managers that have that ability is critical to finding successful managers, not just ourselves, but other people like that. And that's why, you know, managers that aren't flopping around, that have a process and discipline, be they value or growth. Find people with that discipline, find people with that process, find people who are willing to suffer short term underperformance for long term returns, and you'll be a very successful investor over time.
Dean Colling: I couldn't agree more. I mean, that is the single biggest factor we look at in our due diligence process, and even how we run our own direct proprietary strategies as well.
Dean Colling: Clear disciplined process, and the ability to maintain that long term view despite the fact that there's, you know, a risk-off or risk-on environment, or some sort of short term noise that could, you know, bump them off that discipline, as long as they stick to it, then we're very comfortable in maintaining our exposure.
Dean Colling: And that's why we've, you know, we've enjoyed working with you for the years, and thank you for the good results, and it's been a pleasure. So, we look forward to more discussions like this, perhaps in the future. Thanks again for your time today Noah, we really appreciate it, and we'll chat again soon, and good luck along the way.
Noah Blackstein: Thanks very much. Thanks for having me.
[The microphone graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. On the left side of the screen are a list of disclaimers. The text reads: Credits; Music Provided by: Hot Coffee by Ghostrifter Official (soundcloud.com/ghostrifter-official), Licensed under Creative Commons – Attribution, ShareAlike 3.0 Unported – CC BY-SA 3.0., http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Disclaimers; This information, including any opinion, is based on various sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed and is subject to change. CIBC and CIBC World Markets Inc., their affiliates, directors, officers and employees may buy, sell, or hold a position in securities of a company mentioned herein, its affiliates or subsidiaries, and may also perform financial advisory services, investment banking or other services for, or have lending or other credit relationships with the same. CIBC World Markets Inc. and its representatives will receive sales commissions and/or a spread between bid and ask prices if you purchase, sell or hold the securities referred to above. © CIBC World Markets Inc. 2021.
CIBC Private Wealth Management consists of services provided by CIBC and certain of its subsidiaries, including CIBC Wood Gundy, a division of CIBC World Markets Inc.
Commissions, trailing commissions, management fees, and expenses may all be associated with hedge fund investments. Hedge funds may be sold by Prospectus to the general public, but more often are sold by Offering Memorandum to those investors who meet certain eligibility or minimum purchase requirements. An Offering Memorandum is not required in some jurisdictions. The Prospectus or Offering Memorandum contains important information about hedge funds – you should obtain a copy and read it before making an investment decision. Hedge funds are not guaranteed. Their values change frequently, and past performance may not be repeated. Hedge funds are for sophisticated investors only. Clients are advised to seek advice regarding their particular circumstances from their personal tax and legal advisors.
Insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services Inc. In Quebec, insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services (Quebec) Inc.
Dean Colling and Rocco Letterio are Investment Advisors with CIBC Wood Gundy. Alex Lee is an Associate Investment Advisor working with Dean Colling, Investment Advisor. The views of Dean Colling, Rocco Letterio, and Alex Lee do not necessarily reflect those of CIBC World Markets Inc.
If you are currently a CIBC Wood Gundy client, please contact your Investment Advisor.]
Announcer: Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed our show, consider sharing the episode with your friends and following us on social media. Be sure to check out our website for new episodes every month.
Wealthview - Episode 6 - Kate Lazier
[The podcast opens on an introduction graphic with CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. The text reads: Wealthview, Hosted by Dean Colling, First Vice-President & Senior Portfolio Manager, July, 2021. On the left side of the screen are a group of graphics consisting of two heads with a speech bubble, a silhouette of a knight chess piece, and a line graph in an up-trend. The text on the left hand side reads: Philosophy, Strategy & Insights.]
Announcer: You're listening to Wealthview, the podcast where we share philosophy, strategies, and insights from some of Canada's top financial professionals.
[A brief montage consisting of a street level view of traffic in downtown Toronto, high-rise buildings, Dean Colling speaking on a microphone, and a bird’s eye view of a four-way intersection plays on the left side of the screen.]
Announcer: Hosted by Dean Colling, First Vice-President and Senior Portfolio Manager at CIBC Private Wealth. Edited and produced by the Colling Group. And now, onto the show.
[The introduction graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. In the centre of the screen is a graphic representation of a microphone. The text reads: Wealthview, Conversation with Kate Lazier, Director of Philanthropy & Legacy Planning, CIBC Private Wealth.]
Dean Colling: Welcome to Wealthview. I'm your host, Dean Colling, First Vice-President and Senior Portfolio Manager at CIBC Private Wealth. On today's edition of Wealthview, we're going to talk about strategic philanthropy. Joining me today is Kate Lazier, Director of Philanthropy and Legacy Planning at CIBC. Kate's a lawyer by training and prior to joining CIBC, Kate spent 15 years practicing charity and non-profit law at a national firm. She's recognized for her expertise by Canadian Legal Expert Directory and Best Lawyers in Canada. She served on the executive of the charity and not-for-profit sections of the Ontario Bar Association and the Canadian Bar Association. As part of our family office team, Kate supports high net worth families to plan thoughtful and impactful charitable gifts. This includes helping families on the causes that matter to them most and communicating their values to the next generation. Kate leverages her extensive experience in charitable law to advise clients on tax efficient gifting, and she enjoys sharing her knowledge on philanthropy, donor-advised funds, private foundations, non-for-profit governance, gift agreements, social investments and much more. Kate, welcome to Wealthview.
Dean Colling: So in your words, what exactly is strategic philanthropy?
Kate Lazier: Strategic philanthropy has several meanings to different people, but really, it's integrating philanthropy into your life and your wealth plan. So part of that is looking at your financial plan, integrating philanthropy into that plan, looking at how to give tax efficiently and whether you're going to give now, or over your lifetime, or on your passing. But how to involve your family into philanthropy is part of strategic philanthropy, how to involve your kids or how to focus on the causes that matter to you in your family. And last piece of it is, you know, how you're going to measure success, how will you know when you've been successful in your philanthropy?
Dean Colling: Yeah. That makes sense, because a lot of people, I think, believe philanthropy begins at the end, for lack of a better description. And we find more and more that people want to be involved in the process throughout their life. And as you said, giving now, giving later, involving families. So it's certainly much more involved than maybe people think. You know, looking forward this is obviously becoming a much bigger topic for a lot of people these days. What have you seen trend-wise in strategic giving or philanthropy for high net worth families, recently and then maybe in years ahead? Where do you think things will be going?
Kate Lazier: Sure. So what we've seen over the last decade is a greater desire for people to have an impact and not simply writing a cheque, but they want to understand where their philanthropy is going, and know that they're doing a good job in the charities that they pick, and the impact that they're having. So helping them try to figure out how to measure that; some things are very measurable and others aren't, so it really depends on on the type of charity you're working with.
Kate Lazier: The other trend we've seen is a huge growth of assets held by private foundations and donor-advised funds. Part of that is that the markets have been really good and also the donor-advised funds have really grown, which gives people a simpler entry point into having their own type of private foundation.
Kate Lazier: We've started to see a new trend of of more awareness of some underfunded social issues. So think of grassroots organizations, reconciliation, the environment. People are looking beyond giving to the hospitals and the universities, which typically get some of the big gifts, and thinking about what what issues are underfunded and need more attention and donor dollars. And I think the last one that we're really seeing is impact investing. So donors and charities are starting to think about environmental social governance factors when investing, but also perhaps social investments that have less of a return as well in the impact investing space.
Dean Colling: Right. And I would agree with you that the new onset of these donor advised funds, I know amongst our clients and other investors we talked to, that it's really made the pathway towards giving a lot easier, a lot simpler than private foundations. And maybe we'll talk about a little bit about that in a minute.
Dean Colling: But before we do, you know, if you step back at the 30000 foot view as someone's sort of wanting to embark on a giving program as part of an overall wealth plan, what tips or strategies do you have on how to integrate that into the overall plan, that sometimes in many cases can be quite complex? And this is one sleeve of it, but it's certainly an important one to a lot of people. What do you think is the right way to approach that?
Kate Lazier: So I think a lot of people should start thinking about, you know, do they want to be giving sooner? One of the things I see people do, not wrong, but, you know, with regret is they come to me at the end of their lives. So they've had a very successful career or a successful business. They've amassed a huge amount of wealth. And now they are turning to think about giving back to their community. And often this is a place where they have lower income because they're now in retirement. They're not earning the big dollars, they're not selling the business that year. And it's great that they're giving back at the end when they've taken care of themselves, but it's not necessarily your best tax credit years. So your best tax credit year is your high income earning years or the year you sell the business, the cottage, or realize a whole bunch of gains in your portfolio. That's a great time to think about giving back. So I guess my big tip is, you know, people should think about giving earlier.
Dean Colling: Yeah, that makes a ton of sense. And obviously, taking advantage of high marginal tax rates is ideal when thinking about this.
Dean Colling: So maybe, let's talk for a second about structure. As I know a lot of people may think that it could be daunting to do something a little bit more complicated or a little bit more permanent than, let's say, just making a charitable donation themselves in a year. So let's maybe talk about the difference between a donor-advised fund and a more formal private foundation, and the differences between the two.
Kate Lazier: Sure. So a donor-advised fund is a public foundation. So it is a registered charity in Canada. So whether you do a private foundation or a public foundation, they're both registered charities. The entry point for doing a private foundation tends to be higher because you're doing your own expenses, so it's really for people who are starting to give at a bigger number.
Kate Lazier: So the first sort of, what should you do, if you're doing a lower number, you're probably already in the donor-advised fund space. But even some of my bigger donors love the donor-advised fund. And here's why: it's that you get privacy in the donor-advised fund, more privacy than you can in a private foundation. In both cases, the foundation will submit a tax return to CRA. And if you go on CRA's website right now, you can look up any private foundation or any public foundation and find out how much money they have in the fund, who they give it to, how much they give to each charity, who their directors are, what their address is. And some people choose not to want all of that information about their private giving available on CRA's website. So they choose to give it to a public foundation such as a donor-advised fund.
Kate Lazier: What the donor-advised fund does is it creates a separate account within the public foundation for each donor. So if I give to a donor-advised fund, then they'll create the Kate Lazier donor-advised fund. And every year they'll look to me and say, where would you like us to send those funds? And so I could say, you know, please send, you know, X amount of money to my favorite charity this year. And the public foundation will send that on my behalf. The nice thing is that you have somebody else running the charity. They're doing all of the work to make it compliant with CRA. My obligation's just limited to telling them where to send it. I can still involve my family by asking them, you know, where should we give it and making decisions as a group; and the only piece that we have to do is give the answer to the donor-advised fund as to where to send it.
Kate Lazier: Other people really like having a private foundation. They want to run their own corporation or trust, they're OK with doing all the administrative work, of having an audit, doing a tax return every year, holding board meetings and filing minutes. And so if you're OK with that, then I think private foundation is an option and it really appeals to people also who want to carry out their own charitable activities.
Kate Lazier: So normally foundations are the donor charities, they give to the do-er charities. For example, if you want to help people in need directly, then you're getting in applications for people who need help. You're making the decisions on how to help them and you're directly doing the work. In that case, you need to have your own private foundation because a donor advised fund only gives to other charities. Whereas a private foundation, it gives to other charities and if you want, it can also do its own activities. So you have that bigger option within a private foundation.
Kate Lazier: So if you're thinking about running your own scholarship program or, you know, cleaning up the marshlands around your house, you actually, if you're going to do the work yourself, then you need a private foundation. And the last reason I see people pick a private foundation is really they want to retain control and direction over those funds. So when you give to a donor-advised fund, it becomes the donor-advised fund's money. When you give to a private foundation, it is the foundation's money. But you might be on the board and still have more control over how those funds are invested, and set your own policies around gifting to other organizations. So you do have a bit more control in a private foundation.
Dean Colling: Right. And I can tell you from experience in managing assets for both, clients have donor-advised funds and private foundation funds. And you're right, essentially our client for the investment perspective with a donor-advised fund is the public foundation. And for the private foundation, it's directly with the client. Clearly, there's communication between the client in both situations. But you're right. It is a little bit more control with the private foundation.
Dean Colling: I want to talk a little bit about the strategy, about actually giving, sending capital into one of these vehicles, into a donor-advised fund or a private foundation. Clearly, both can accept cash and just make a transfer of funds. But what's the most effective way to start to fund one of these charitable initiatives?
Kate Lazier: So when you make a gift of cash, you get a charitable tax receipt for the value of that cash. And you can use that receipt personally as a credit against your taxes in Canada. Or if you gave the funds from a corporation, then the corporation can use a deduction against its income for the year. A better idea than giving cash is to give publicly traded securities, because in addition to that charitable tax receipt that you can get the credit or deduction for, you get no capital gains tax on the gift of those shares.
Kate Lazier: So in this case, I'm talking about, let's just say, CIBC shares. If I have some CIBC shares I want to give to charity, I give the shares directly to the charity. I'm deemed to have no capital gains tax on those shares, and I get a receipt for the full value of the shares I just gave. So this is really great if you've got huge capital gains in your portfolio and you're philanthropically minded, you get two benefits essentially. If you give that amount from a corporation that's holding the securities, so you have a private holding company that has a portfolio of securities, the corporation also gets an amount that falls into its capital dividend account, which then could be taken out of the corporation tax-free. So it's a great strategy, whether you do it personally or from the corporation, to look at what securities in your portfolio have appreciated and give those to charities.
Kate Lazier: A similar rule also applies for stock options. In terms of stock options, not to get too technical, but you get a taxable benefit instead of a capital gain. And we can also eliminate the taxable benefit if you exercise the options and gift within 30 days of exercising those options.
Dean Colling: That's fantastic. Those are significant benefits. And particularly these days with, as you mentioned, like the big capital gains. You know, you're essentially getting the value of the embedded tax liability and being able to transition that over to the foundation or, ultimately a charity. So it's really a fantastic way to do it and does require a little bit of planning. And that's why, you know, we're having a discussion like this today.
Dean Colling: So quick question for you on private shares. A lot of clients already have private companies, you know, we get that question a lot. Is that possible? Can you do anything with a private share from a donation perspective?
Kate Lazier: It's a tricky one. So, yes, you can donate private company shares, but you have to be careful who you're donating them to. So if you donate them to your private foundation, there's rules that prevent you from getting a charitable tax receipt until they're actually liquidated. If you're giving to a public foundation, or a charitable organization, charities that do the work, they have to be willing to accept a gift of private shares. But assuming they are, they can issue you a tax receipt. Typically, they're going to want to see liquidity. So, you know, hopefully there's an upcoming sale that you're gifting your shares to the charity, and then they're expected to be part of the sale event or the IPO. So that's where I typically see private company shares come into play.
Dean Colling: Right. And I guess that would apply, at least the liquidity rule, against any other type of assets. Typically things that aren't very liquid are generally not accepted as sort of in kind contributions, I would imagine?
Kate Lazier: Charities have to be careful about how they receipt. So, you know, there's a whole valuation of what are those shares worth, or that the other assets that you're thinking of, that are are not liquid. It can really impact value and might not be the best thing to give to charity.
Dean Colling: So what about insurance? You know, we've done a couple of podcast's on insurance as an asset class and how we integrate that into the overall portfolio strategy. What about using that as an asset to donate to a charity?
Kate Lazier: Yeah, life insurance is a great option for gifts to charity. You really have two different options though, in life insurance. You could decide whether you want the charitable tax receipt right now or do you want the charitable tax receipt later. The first way of doing it is you transfer ownership of your life insurance policy to the charity. So now the charity owns the life insurance policy on your life, and you get a charitable tax receipt for the fair market value of that policy right now. And if any premiums are still being paid after the charity becomes the owner, you can also get a donation receipt for premiums that you pay on behalf of the charity who is now the owner of the policy.
Kate Lazier: Later, when you pass away, the charity will get the death benefit. But they aren't getting any more receipts to you because they are already the owner of that policy. The other way to do it is to make the charity the beneficiary of the policy on your death. So you've written them into your policy, and when you pass away, they're going to get the death benefit. In that case, you stay the owner of the policy and they're just the beneficiary. Then you're going to get a charitable tax receipt that you can use in the year of death, year before death, or in the estate. Life insurance, I guess, to sum it up, is a great way to do it, but you should really think about whether you want the receipt now or do you want the receipt later.
Dean Colling: So, if we think about planning from a charitable perspective within an overall wealth plan, as I mentioned at the beginning, a lot of people may initially believe that charitable gifting begins at the end and it comes from direction from a will. Where have you seen in the past, maybe some mistakes that have been made, by maybe wills that weren't updated and they were these sort of directions were put in many years ago? But have you seen some fairly typical, what we would deem as mistakes, when we think about charitable gifting through the estate?
Kate Lazier: Yeah. I actually think gifting in your estate is a great idea. And you say most people think about it at the end, but the studies have shown that only about five percent of Canadians actually have a gift in the will. It's a great idea to offset taxes on death by making a gift in your estate; your RSP or RIF get pulled into income in your last year, as well as any unrealized capital gains come into income, so you can get a significant tax bill in what we call the terminal return.
Kate Lazier: So more people should have a gift in their will. In terms of what I've seen people do wrong: first, I see charities not named with their legal name. You need to make sure to use their legal name when you're naming them either as a beneficiary in the will or a beneficiary on your registered accounts, so double check what their legal name is. Second thing is, I think people mistakenly think that their executors could maybe have the discretion to add in a charitable gift, because your executor knows that you are philanthropic and that you would want to give to your favourite charity. Truth is that your executor doesn't have that kind of discretion. They actually need to have it in the will or in a beneficiary designation, or they can't choose to make a gift.
Kate Lazier: So you need to take that step to add them in your will or your beneficiary designation. And the last mistake I sometimes see is, is people being too specific about what the charity should get. So they've named them on the TFSA, or the RSP, or their gifting them a specific asset. So my last tip is that, you know, you should use the appreciated securities to fulfill the gift wherever possible. Just as I described before, you'll get no capital gains tax on that gift. So even though you are deemed to dispose of all your assets in the terminal return, when you gift them to charity, the appreciated securities, you're deemed to have no capital gains tax on that gift. So that's a great benefit, and you can still use that in the estate. So you should think about what assets you're mentioning specifically should go to charity.
Kate Lazier: Things like your TFSA and RSP might be better to transfer to your spouse if you have one, because you get certain rollover benefits and tax advantages for transferring the TFSA and the RSP, or RIF, to your spouse. And make sure that your will doesn't specifically say what asset you're giving to charity so that you're giving your executor the flexibility to use appreciated securities to fulfill that gift.
Dean Colling: Yeah, those are good ideas for sure. If we think about the bigger picture too, and as you know, clients, investors have created this level of wealth where we're considering charitable initiatives either while living or in the estate. I think one of the common themes we've heard from them is how do I get next generation to follow in my path, to you know, have a little bit of a philanthropic bent to them, because obviously this wealth has been created.
Dean Colling: We're creating strategies to waterfall that wealth down to multiple generations, and yet a big concern most people have are how to ensure that they think the same way I do, or at least have some sort of charitable strategy within their own wealth plans as they grow. In your experience, what's the best way to approach this with families?
Kate Lazier: My advice is talk to people about it. You can't pass on your values if your kids don't know what your values are. So talk to your children about philanthropy and involve them in your philanthropy. Be a role model in philanthropy to them, and that can start early. So young children, you know, I have a young son, he has an allowance and I talk to him, how much do you want to give to charity?
Kate Lazier: So he's allocated a certain amount and we talked about what charity mattered to him. So every month, we give a certain amount of his allowance to charity. Older kids, you know, you can ask them what causes matter to them and consider them giving pitches to your private foundation or donor-advised fund as to where you should allocate your charitable dollars. Visit the charities together, or review the impact statements that the charities are giving you, whether that's the stories about who was helped or, you know, whatever statistics they can give you about how your money is making a difference and have a conversation with them.
Kate Lazier: Do we think our charitable funds are being used in the best way? Do we want to keep giving to this charity? Is there any other ideas that people have? Are we happy with the results we're getting and the people we're helping with these donation?
Kate Lazier: Adult children, you know, think about putting them as board members of the private foundation, or involve them further in the discussions about the DAF and where to give. You know, give your kids a vote, to give your kid a say. Listen to what causes matter to them and involve them in your charity. I think that's the best way we can teach them is by integrating them as part of the process rather than leaving them on the sidelines.
Dean Colling: I agree. I think giving them a taste of the experience, what it's like and seeing the causes that, you know, mom and dad, or grandma and grandpa had in the past really resonates with them, especially as they're getting older. I think we found that to get them involved early is always a great idea.
Dean Colling: When we think about making these these plans and creating structures to create charitable distributions and making an impact, clearly, we need, and I think most people would think this is, they need some way to measure that impact. Certainly you can say, hey, we gave this amount of money, but since usually they are significant amounts, a lot of people like a method at least to track the impact value. How have we been helping people? Where do you suggest they go for that? What do you think is the best way to to measure the impact of all of these initiatives?
Kate Lazier: Yeah, this has certainly been a hot topic over the last decade, as I mentioned. And I personally think it comes down to what was the goal. Not everything's measurable. So a lot of these business metrics came into philanthropy and are really useful in some cases, but in some cases they're not. Some things are harder to measure and put business metrics on than others. You always have to think about, OK, well, what were we trying to achieve?
Kate Lazier: So, again, it depends on the activity. You know, if we're talking about families in need, how many people were helped? Were people brought out of poverty? If we're talking about medical research, you know, was the research advanced? Even if the research wasn't successful, did they learn something and maybe have a new idea about the disease and how to help it?
Kate Lazier: But I would say, you know, we don't need to recreate the will. You're not operating in a vacuum; talk to the charities and ask them how are they going to show the value to you. It might be with a metric that they've been able to come up with to show you their impact. But it also might be stories from the people that they're helping, or is it to the project to demonstrate what they're doing.
Kate Lazier: So some of these things in charity are actually like softer social things that are difficult to measure. But the charities will have thought about this, too, and a good charity will want to show their value to you. And so I would say, you know, discuss it with them. What can they show you to help you understand how you're contributing to the betterment of our society?
Dean Colling: Yeah, I agree. And, you know, I sit on the boards of a few charities and I know we are very proud to give the stats and things that we're doing to help the cause. And I think any charity would be very happy to be accountable to their donors, and provide that kind of data. So simply ask, you're right, it doesn't have to be more complicated than that, I think.
Dean Colling: So Kate, thank you very much. This is obviously only scratching the surface on this part of the overall wealth strategy for clients, strategic philanthropy and how we can integrate it into everyone's overall plan. But it certainly is an important and meaningful part of a lot of people's lives, and a lot of people's wishes for the legacy that they can leave. And I think it's an important discussion to have now and continuously.
Dean Colling: As you know, people's lives evolve and wealth grows, and families grow, and ultimately creating a plan that meets everybody's objectives. And of course, we're here to help them do that at any time. And with our partners, like Kate, can certainly create something very effective for all of our clients. So, again, Kate, thank you very much. Really appreciate you sharing your insight, and we look forward to seeing you again soon.
Kate Lazier: Thank you very much.
[The microphone graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. On the left side of the screen are a list of disclaimers. The text reads: Credits; Music Provided by: Hot Coffee by Ghostrifter Official (soundcloud.com/ghostrifter-official), Licensed under Creative Commons – Attribution, ShareAlike 3.0 Unported – CC BY-SA 3.0., http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Disclaimers; This information, including any opinion, is based on various sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed and is subject to change. CIBC and CIBC World Markets Inc., their affiliates, directors, officers and employees may buy, sell, or hold a position in securities of a company mentioned herein, its affiliates or subsidiaries, and may also perform financial advisory services, investment banking or other services for, or have lending or other credit relationships with the same. CIBC World Markets Inc. and its representatives will receive sales commissions and/or a spread between bid and ask prices if you purchase, sell or hold the securities referred to above. © CIBC World Markets Inc. 2021.
CIBC Private Wealth Management consists of services provided by CIBC and certain of its subsidiaries, including CIBC Wood Gundy, a division of CIBC World Markets Inc.
Commissions, trailing commissions, management fees, and expenses may all be associated with hedge fund investments. Hedge funds may be sold by Prospectus to the general public, but more often are sold by Offering Memorandum to those investors who meet certain eligibility or minimum purchase requirements. An Offering Memorandum is not required in some jurisdictions. The Prospectus or Offering Memorandum contains important information about hedge funds – you should obtain a copy and read it before making an investment decision. Hedge funds are not guaranteed. Their values change frequently, and past performance may not be repeated. Hedge funds are for sophisticated investors only. Clients are advised to seek advice regarding their particular circumstances from their personal tax and legal advisors.
Insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services Inc. In Quebec, insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services (Quebec) Inc.
Dean Colling and Rocco Letterio are Investment Advisors with CIBC Wood Gundy. Alex Lee is an Associate Investment Advisor working with Dean Colling, Investment Advisor. The views of Dean Colling, Rocco Letterio, and Alex Lee do not necessarily reflect those of CIBC World Markets Inc.
If you are currently a CIBC Wood Gundy client, please contact your Investment Advisor.]
Announcer: Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed our show, consider sharing the episode with your friends and following us on social media. Be sure to check out our website for new episodes every month.
Wealthview - Episode 5 - Eamonn McConnell
[The podcast opens on an introduction graphic with CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. The text reads: Wealthview, Hosted by Dean Colling, First Vice-President & Senior Portfolio Manager, March, 2021. On the left side of the screen are a group of graphics consisting of two heads with a speech bubble, a silhouette of a knight chess piece, and a line graph in an up-trend. The text on the left hand side reads: Philosophy, Strategy & Insights.]
Announcer: You're listening to Wealthview, the podcast where we share philosophy, strategies, and insights, from some of Canada's top financial professionals.
[A brief montage consisting of a street level view of traffic in downtown Toronto, high-rise buildings, Dean Colling speaking on a microphone, and a bird’s eye view of a four-way intersection plays on the left side of the screen.]
Announcer: Hosted by Dean Colling, First Vice-President and Senior Portfolio Manager at CIBC Private Wealth. Edited and produced by the Colling Group. And now, onto the show.
[The introduction graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. In the centre of the screen is a graphic representation of a microphone. The text reads: Wealthview, Conversation with Eamonn McConnell, Senior Managing Director, Chief Investment Officer, Kensington Capital Partners.]
Dean Colling: Welcome to Wealhview. I'm your host, Dean Colling, First Vice-President and Senior Portfolio Manager at CIBC Private Wealth. Today, we're going to talk about private equity, accessible private equity, to be specific, and how we utilize it within our overall portfolio construction for clients.
Dean Colling: Joining me today is Eamonn McConnell, Senior Managing Director and Chief Investment Officer at Kensington Capital Partners. Eamonn has over 25 years experience in global investment banking and asset management. Eamonn, welcome to Wealthview.
Eamonn McConnell: Well, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today. It's a great pleasure. It's an opportunity for me to talk a little bit about Kensington, Kensington Capital, who we are and what we do, really from a high level. The company on January 19th of 2021, so, hit its 25th anniversary. So we've been in business for twenty five years. You know we've really stuck to our knitting throughout the time, focused exclusively on the private markets, the alternative space. We really look at private equity and venture capital, where we have developed some expertise we believe. We've been doing this a long time and we've built out a really strong team. We're based in Toronto. We have an office in Calgary and Vancouver. We're a team of 26, 27 people, we just hired someone. And so we're a lean, mean machine and we all work together. What sort of is the cohesive glue is that we're all shareholders in the company and so there are no outside investors. It's employee owned and as I say, that keeps us very focused on the private markets. So that's our team. We're really divided, just to give you some color, we're divided into three groups. There's the business development team that brings in new capital and reports to clients. There's an accounting team that keeps oversight on the investments we make, and accounting for that, and reporting to investors. And then there's the investment team that are really focused on due diligence, working with companies and enhancing returns over time.
Dean Colling: Great.
Dean Colling: And, you know, one of the reasons we have a particular focus with your firm is, as we're building portfolios, looking at multi-asset class strategies, particularly in the alternative space, you know, we're looking for asset classes and allocations that are not really correlated to traditional equities or fixed income. You know, the great partnership we have with you is really a function of your team and how well you do. You give a unique sort of accessibility to private equity compared to more of the traditional institutional space, which comes with much higher brackets and longer illiquidity commitments. And, you know, capital calls versus open end and things. Can you tell us about, maybe, the genesis of how you developed your approach to kind of bring this accessible private equity to high net worth investors?
Eamonn McConnell: Yeah, thank you. Certainly. 25 years ago when we started, we were really working with institutional clients, and private equity has been pretty much the domain of the institutional or very high net worth individuals. And because just the requirements of large size, low liquidity and long term vision, it's really traditionally been set up as an institutional product as you comment. And frankly, looking at, across the board, large institutions, they have allocations of 30, 40 percent or sometimes more dedicated to alternatives with a good 25 percent of their investment pie, their portfolio, dedicated to private equity. But as we went forward, our first client was CPP, the Canadian Pension Plan, and that really got us started. Eventually, CPP got into private equity in their own way, and run their own portfolios, but at the time they allocated money to folks like us. So that was really our start. But we listened to many of our investing clients, and sort of, Kensington, is we work in the area of sort of small institution and large individuals. And a lot of the folks came back to us and said, you know, I can't allocate for 10, 10 plus years, so I need some form of liquidity.
Eamonn McConnell: I need a lot of diversification, and I need to put my money to work right now. I can't commit to a hundred thousand dollars, a million dollars, and only be drawn down over 5 years, which is your traditional structure. And so, we were able to respond to that by coming up with a strategy that we have in our Kensington Private Equity Fund that's been running since '07. And that's about an 800 million dollar fund now, where we have provided annual liquidity for investors. Your money gets put to work straight away. We calculate a net asset value on a monthly basis, so we can raise money on the back of establishing a net asset value every month. And so that provides a lot of data for those that like to look at numbers. But it also provides an entry point for investors. And so we think we've come up with a strategy, it's very unique in Canada, but we think that it talks to some of those concerns that individuals have about the traditional institutional structure.
Dean Colling: You mentioned about diversification, which is key when we're looking to partner with someone. Obviously, there's multiple private equity firms out there that are going to do something relatively unique. But to split that up amongst a number of different relationships, it's difficult. And if you reverse engineer the capital required in order to do that, it can become a significant amount of money. So what's unique, again, about what you do is this sort of hybrid structure, where you pair direct private investing that your team does, but you also are sort of funneling into really best in class private equity funds around the world that at least may be focusing more on North America, I suppose. But, gives the investors sort of that best of both worlds where you get that direct private, as well as a diversification to other private equity and really, really broaden out the portfolio when you're looking at within the context of an overall investment portfolio.
Dean Colling: Can you talk a little bit about that, how that came about and then how you manage the flow of capital when it comes in to, say, direct privates and then the allocation to third party funds as well?
Eamonn McConnell: Yeah, thank you. I think that's really what makes this fund quite unique and very accessible for individuals to take advantage of private equity across North America. We're really focused on North America. So we call it hybrid, where half our funds roughly are invested in other private equity funds across North America. And the other half of our funds are invested directly in companies where we sit on the board, where we influence management, where we think we're adding some value, or they're co-investments that come from our partners that we've allocated to, the private equity funds. So we like the hybrid strategy because it gets us tremendous diversification. As you look through either the funds or our direct investments, you have over 250 companies, nearly 300 companies in the portfolio. So you really don't have that concentration risk that you see with many funds where they might only have 10 investments, and you just hope that they do well. Here, we're very well diversified. We like allocating to funds, other private equity funds, because we really seek out the best funds we can find. And so that gives us performance. It gives us great diversification, because these fund managers are based in Miami, they're based in Texas, they're in California, they're in Montreal, they're in Toronto, they're in Vancouver, they're in Chicago, New York. And so you get this geographic diversification.
Eamonn McConnell: And we really believe that private equity, especially the venture capital world, is very localized. If there's a very strong company looking to raise money in the private markets in Texas, we're sitting in Toronto, we're really not going to see that deal. We're not going to have an opportunity to invest in that company. If we do see it, it probably means that quite a few people have already said no thank you. But by partnering with a firm in Dallas, so Trinity Hunt is a private equity firm with many years standing that many will remember, Bunker and Lamar Hunt, that cornered the silver market many years ago, probably dating myself, but we partnered with those folks, allocated money to them. We really like the way they approach business. They see opportunities in the southwest of the United States. So we benefit from their activity. We get to co-invest with them because occasionally they need to raise further capital. And so we get an opportunity to double down, as it were, on companies that we like, where they sit on the board, they influence it. And so it's very attractive. But we also get this tremendous diversification. So there's a geographic diversification.
Eamonn McConnell: Other funds give a sector focus. We have a manager in Colorado called Revelstoke that solely focus on the health care industry, the inefficiencies of the health care industry in the United States. And they've had a tremendous, they're about to raise fund three, but they've had a couple of funds that have done tremendously well and we're very pleased. And we're going to re-up with them. And so there's a real sector diversification, we also have many funds, we've been doing this for many years. So you avoid what we believe is a vintage risk. So if your fund was really an '08 fund, you probably had a tough time. But we have funds that we've been investing with since '05, '08, '10, '15 and allocated to funds last year. So you avoid this kind of concentration of a vintage, of a year. And so this diversification, we believe this strategy really is different from many of our competitors, other folks out there in the private equity world. And we really think it benefits the returns for our investors.
Dean Colling: Well, let's continue with this third party private equity allocation as part of the overall strategy. You've talked a lot about some of the groups you work with. How many in total would there be in the portfolio right now? And has that been relatively similar over the last 5 to 10 years, or does the bench change?
Dean Colling: Have you been looking at some emerging managers? Have you exited some managers for various reasons over the last few years?
Eamonn McConnell: Yeah, that's a good question that, you know, if we find a manager that we like and their performance is strong, when they have spent the money in that fund and are looking at raising a new fund, we're very interested in allocating. Often you'll see investment material that says past performance is no indication of future performance. Actually, in the private equity world where managers have maintained the same team, they're looking at the same markets, the same opportunities at about the same size, there's a really strong likelihood that they're going to perform the way they have in the past. So if we find a strong performer and they're looking to raise a new fund, we're very interested in looking at that closely. We also, you know, we get these opportunities that we're participating in, I use that example in Texas, but we have that in California, we have that in Florida. We have different managers across the board. We probably have 25 to 30 managers that we invest in. But we have probably about 40, 40 odd funds in the portfolio because we're in fund two and fund three and fund four, for example, with some of these managers. And we do make changes when performance lacks. And we find out, you know, we examine very closely why that performance didn't work. We'll make changes if the personnel changes, and we're not sure about the new folks running the firm, we'll make a change. But typically, if we find a manager that we're happy with and it fits our criteria, and it provides us that diversification, and performance, and opportunities for co-investment, we'll probably continue to allocate to those managers. So, you know that, if you think each of these funds might have, you know, some would have 10 or 12 companies in them, some might have 5 as they're winding down. That's how you look through and see so many companies that are in the portfolio.
Eamonn McConnell: So we think that's really beneficial, over the years has been very beneficial, to our investors.
Dean Colling: And internally at Kensington, you as a group, obviously, strategically are you sitting back and sort of looking at these managers and looking at potential, more macro themes, or what work goes on behind the scenes at Kensington to determine where the flow of capital goes?
Eamonn McConnell: Yeah, as you might imagine, there's a lot of research. Of our 27 people, 15 of us, I believe, are on the investment team. So, you know, and that's made up of gray hairs like myself. Investment Committee is made up, with Tom Kennedy, the founder of the firm, Rick Nathan, who runs our venture program, and myself as the Chief Investment Officer. The 3 of us are on the investment committee. But below that, we have folks that are in their 50s, in their 40s and 30s. And so for every fund we look at, or every company we look at, we divide ourselves up into a sort of core team, a SWAT team, that goes in and looks at those funds. We take meetings with managers all the time. So we're always looking at new opportunities, new funds that are coming together. Rarely do we invest in a brand new fund. Certainly we'll want to see how managers perform, how they work together. And so rarely are we in fund one. But we'll certainly look at that performance, and that gives us a lot of comfort. You know, sitting on both sides of the table, where we invest in companies, but we also invest in managers, we spend a tremendous amount of our time on due diligence. And we're a team that does that, we ask questions. In the private equity markets, obviously very different from public equity markets, in that in the public equity market, you can only know what is information in the marketplace. For us on the private side, whether it's a fund or it's a direct investment in the company, there are no bad questions.
Eamonn McConnell: We get to know everything. We get to know everything about their customers, everything about their processes, everything about the individuals running the company or running the fund. And so, these are long term relationships we're developing, it's not as if we can get out the next day if we bought a company, and it's not quite what we thought. We can't just sell it the next day. So we have to be sure. We have to be very careful about the pricing, the valuation that we go in to, because that's really how you generate strong IRRs and returns for investors. We typically try and make a 3x over a period of investments. And one thing we try and focus, or get potential investors to focus on, is the low correlation to the public markets. And so really what that means is when there's volatility in public markets, we tend not to see that. If we look at years like 2011, 2015, 2018, and certainly the first half of last year, you know, the markets were under real duress.
Dean Colling: Yeah. And that's really the reason we like adding it to our portfolios as well, because we are obviously a mix of public equities and fixed income, but having assets like this that don't have, aren't subject to mark-to-market, you know, pricing on a daily basis when, as you mentioned, all of those periods in the past where you get significant volatility or drawdowns and there's no, you know, there's no case required to necessarily mark down the assets which you hold on the private side. It's not subject to the emotion.
Eamonn McConnell: Yeah, that's very true. And that's when folks say, well, so how do you how do you maintain this low correlation? Some of that we believe is just the allocations that we make, or the sectors that we focus on, and the sectors we don't focus on. So if you look at the TSX as an indicator of a marketplace, we really don't invest in the financial services business. We don't invest in oil and gas. We don't really invest in resources. We don't really do anything in property. We don't really do anything in cannabis, we can't really find much value there. But anyway, those are sectors that are making up large parts of the TSX, that have tremendous volatility to them, that are as as you say Dean, are indicated or driven often by kind of a mode of activity where investors are swinging in too quickly and swinging out too quickly. And that sort of volatility we sort of avoid, partly because of the sectors we focus on. And I think the companies that we purchase.
Eamonn McConnell: But, you know, I think our portfolio is more closely aligned to the economy. And so as much as the stock market might be down, you know, 3, 4, or 5 percent, that doesn't mean the economy's down 3, 4, or 5 percent. And so we think that by buying some manufacturing companies, for example, by buying more mature, we tend to focus on the small-medium size companies in our portfolio. Companies with, say, 5 to 25 million dollars of EBITDA, and we're trying to buy those at single digit multiples. And so, you know, that really gives us an opportunity that if we buy properly, that in the fullness of time, and influencing the management and helping that company along, we think we can achieve that sort of 3x returns for investors.
Dean Colling: Yeah. And we, think of it, by being an equity investor in general, whether it's private or public, it requires you to have a long term view and be patient with your investing. But in the private space, it's essentially the single most important requirement and what actually happens. You just don't get the emotional short term view that often happens, sometimes in periods of distress, you know, that you get in the public markets. You just don't see that in private. It's just much more patient capital, long term capital, and working with companies and really building businesses, as you say, which is one of the great reasons we we allocate there.
Dean Colling: So with that in mind, let's talk a little bit about your direct investing. So the other side of the portfolio. You know, given the fact that you are allocating to a number of great managers around North America, you then have to, obviously, in your team, fill in the spot on the other side of the portfolio for that 50 percent. What's the thesis there? What's the objective? What are you trying to do there so that it rounds out the overall portfolio?
Dean Colling: And talk about maybe a little bit sort of the size of companies you look at, you already talked a little bit about manufacturing businesses. Where you'll go, where you won't go. What are you particularly focused on now? And maybe tell the listeners as well, some of the deal structures that you do?
Eamonn McConnell: Yeah, this is kind of the really interesting side of the businesses, is investing in companies, and visions, and management. And we really won't buy a company if we don't like the management, if we don't believe the management team and their vision. So we're there to support them, to provide financial assistance, to sit on the board. Where we have expertise in a space, we feel we can add a lot of value and so we look to help the company grow.
Eamonn McConnell: You know, there's a lot of talk about boomers selling their companies; there's a manufacturing company in southern Ontario with a 10 million dollar EBITDA and the children of the entrepreneur, the founder, really doesn't have interest in that company because it's not cool. We think they're really cool. Companies with sort of 10 million dollars EBITDAs don't really grow on trees. And so if we have an opportunity to buy into a company, and I think of a company we bought a few years ago called Prodomax, it's an engineering company essentially, based in Barrie, Ontario. And they designed the robotic arms mainly for the automotive assembly business. And it was a company with sort of 50 million dollars in revenues, sort of 12 million dollar EBITDA. Really solid company. Two founders, or two large shareholders. One of them wanted to get out. And so we were introduced to the company. We were able to buy that company at a low multiple to EBITDA, half of which financed with equity, half of with debt.
Eamonn McConnell: We drove sales over the next 3 years, from 50 to 70 odd million dollars, and EBITDA from 12 to 20, and we were able to sell that company. Not only did we increase the EBITDA, but we were able to sell that company to a German buyer at a much higher multiple to that EBITDA. So that was a, sort of, 4x to 5x return for investors. And, you know, there's a company that from the outside doesn't look that sort of sexy, especially when you look at a lot of the technology companies that are out there today, a lot of the SPACs that are going on in the public markets. But, you know, there's a solid business, solid management. We were able to get in, we did a lot of due diligence on the company. We were able to help the company grow. We bought 75 percent of the company and the other 25 percent was really management. And so, we were able to get some management who didn't have shares previously, the two co-CEOs that rose from head of sales and head of operations up to co-CEO, we were able to get them shares. And so there's a real incentive. And so we had 25 percent, which was on an earn-out basis. And frankly, that was very beneficial to those folks and to us. We think that alignment of interest to help grow a company is really attractive. So typically we'll do that.
Eamonn McConnell: We take majority positions. We will take minority positions if it makes sense. But, we try and have an understanding with the entrepreneurs, the owners of the company, that over a period of time, as they're looking to sell down more of the company itself, that we have a right of first refusal. So we protect ourselves, and if we like a company here, we get a chance to to put some more in. You know, I think of of other companies that where we, back at an early stage, so it's not really that kind of mature, we sort of divide the world into kind of venture, early stage companies, then a growth stage of company, and then the more mature buyout they call it. And so we've got a healthy mix between the three areas. We tend to do less of the start-up, early stage seed. We don't really do much of those. We allocate to managers that do that for a living, and are very good at that kind of mindset and working with young companies. But we really do like some opportunities that come up. And I think of a company I sat on the board of, it was called Mobile Klinik. The ex-head of Rogers Mobile and the partner at McKinsey who ran retail, got together and formed a company, seeing that cellular phones were moving up in price, and that instead of just getting a new one from Rogers or Bell, you said, I'm going to fix my phone when your screen broke.
Eamonn McConnell: And so we moved from having, early stage, I think 6 or 8 shops, to having 85 across Canada. And we're looking to build out to 120, to 150 stores, across Canada in malls and the like. Kensington was the first institutional investor into the company, helped it grow enormously. We spent a lot of time with the management of the company, and it was a really exciting project. And over a few years we were able to grow that company to the point where Telus, Rogers and Telus, were looking to expand and saw Mobile Klinik as an interesting operation for them. And there was a sort of a competition for the company, which Telus won. And we sold through the pandemic last year. We sold that company at a healthy multiple to our investment. There's still an earn out over the next few years where we can add to that return. But there was an example of a company that we helped build up, and real retail aspect to it, and then finding an incumbent, Telus, operator come in and buy the company and the company is doing very well. I'm no longer on the board because we don't own shares, but, you know, just to give you a sense of some of the diversification of companies that we have, we have manufacturing companies, we have some sort of companies that we've helped start up.
Dean Colling: If I could just stop you there for a second and ask, are the majority of those exits sort of private-to-private, they're private buyouts? Or how many of have you maintained an equity exposure into, say, a public offering?
Eamonn McConnell: Yeah, it's a good question. You know, when you buy a company, you should have a pretty good idea where you're going to sell it. If you don't, then it's kind of, you're just hoping somebody comes along. I do think if you build a very attractive company that has strong cash flows, and it's on a trajectory, somebody will come and buy that company. For the most part, we sell our companies to strategic investors, folks that it makes sense, like for Telus, Mobile Klinik made sense in their suite of offerings, especially on the repair side of cell phones, so that was of interest.
Eamonn McConnell: For Prodomax, the two examples I talked about, you know, that was bought by a German company in the same manufacturing space. So it made sense. We don't have a lot of companies that end up, you know, having an IPO. We own some Shopify through our partners at Georgian, and that was sold down through the marketplace. Through White Castle, we own some of Real Matters, and so we were able to sell that out as those IPOs happened.
Eamonn McConnell: Through one of our relationships, Novacap, we put in a pre-IPO round. We put 10 million dollars US into a company called Nuvei, which is a sort of point of sale processing business that has done fantastically well. They went public last year at a price of 26 dollars. We bought it at significantly less than that. And the stock is now at about 55 dollars, was 60 odd dollars recently. And so we're locked up. We can't get out of that stock right now, but we certainly like the way that it's performed. And you know, we're private equity guys, so when we get an opportunity to sell the stock out, we will do that.
Eamonn McConnell: But really to your question, you know, we tend to sell our companies to strategic buyers. Folks that are in that same business, or perhaps larger private equity firms that as we've grown a company, they're willing to pay more for cash flow. You know, most of our companies are in, as I said earlier, in the small to medium size market. So 20 to 25 million dollars of EBITDA. That really is, we think, is a sweet spot, where we don't have the large institutional investors, and certainly in Canada, the OMERs, Teacher's, CPP case, you know they're looking to write cheques of 500 million to a billion dollars. And so we really don't see them coming down to these areas where there's a lot of competition. And so for us, it's a real benefit. We tend not to buy companies where they're in a process, you know, an investment bank is taking a company around to the usual suspect investors, and we form an auction process. And so the highest bidder typically wins. That's not really how we operate, and that's not really how we find our companies. We've been doing this a long time, so we have a lot of referrals, and we have a lot of folks that say you should talk to Kensington, who've had a good experience in the past and are happy to introduce a company to us. And I think that's a real benefit for us.
Dean Colling: Yeah, absolutely. And when you look at, obviously, getting out of the auction process, you can maintain a fairly focused commitment on your valuation principles rather than getting in a bidding war.
Dean Colling: So with that in mind, in terms of valuation, obviously we're in a world today with super low interest rates and a ton of liquidity sloshing around. And you look at the periphery of the public equity markets, we definitely have seen some excessive valuation in certain businesses. You mentioned a few earlier on. How do you see it now, in the private equity space? Are you challenged to find, you know, good businesses at reasonable deals, at a multiple of EBITDA that you used to? Or is it a bit of a trick these days to kind of get the pricing that you like?
Eamonn McConnell: Yeah it's, I mean, it's true. You have to remain disciplined, as you mentioned. Yeah. There's a lot of cash on the sidelines. We call it dry powder, ready to go into transactions. There's no question about that. Multiples have probably moved up, you know, a bit. You know, we used to see companies at 5 to 7 times EBITDA, but that's probably 6 to 8 times. Larger companies and more consumer facing companies, and especially in the states, you see 10, 12 times EBITDA multiples, so that's quite concerning as they've risen. I think where, you know, we've been able to take advantage of just being in the marketplace for a long time, and we see companies at reasonably attractive prices. Through the pandemic, you know, we've been able to take advantage of a bit of a pandemic discount on certain companies and certain sectors. And so we're quite excited about that, having cash in troubled times is often a good thing. And so we've been able to take advantage of that.
Eamonn McConnell: But I think your question is a good one, and it requires a lot of discipline. And so there are situations when there's this much capital out, and there's this much competition for assets that, you know, we'll spend 6 months due diligence on a company. And right at the final, you know, the time we're all set up to buy the company, if we can't come to a reasonable valuation, a valuation where we feel that we're comfortable going forward because we're going to own this company for quite some time, we'll walk away. And so, that's really, it does take some discipline.
Dean Colling: Yeah. And I think as you know, as a portfolio manager myself, who is obviously allocating to your group as well, we recognize the impact of cash drag somewhat. But the trade off, of course, is better liquidity, and the hybrid model, and all those things that really kind of check a lot of boxes. So it's, you know, it's been a good partnership so far for sure, over the last number of years that we've worked with you guys. So we appreciate that.
Dean Colling: So why don't we end it there today Eamonn. I really appreciate you taking the time to talk to us about this, and give our listeners a little bit of a high level overview of your firm, the private equity space, and the particular advantages that you bring to the table. And as I said earlier, making private equity more accessible, particularly to high net worth investors. So I think you guys have a unique place in the Canadian market for that and wish you lots of success in the future. And I hope to talk to you again soon.
Eamonn McConnell: I thank you very much. It's a pleasure. And I really appreciate the opportunity to address your folks at CIBC. So thank you very much for this opportunity.
Dean Colling: You're welcome. Have a great one.
Eamonn McConnell: Thanks. All the best to you.
[The microphone graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. On the left side of the screen are a list of disclaimers. The text reads: Credits; Music Provided by: Hot Coffee by Ghostrifter Official (soundcloud.com/ghostrifter-official), Licensed under Creative Commons – Attribution, ShareAlike 3.0 Unported – CC BY-SA 3.0., http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Disclaimers; This information, including any opinion, is based on various sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed and is subject to change. CIBC and CIBC World Markets Inc., their affiliates, directors, officers and employees may buy, sell, or hold a position in securities of a company mentioned herein, its affiliates or subsidiaries, and may also perform financial advisory services, investment banking or other services for, or have lending or other credit relationships with the same. CIBC World Markets Inc. and its representatives will receive sales commissions and/or a spread between bid and ask prices if you purchase, sell or hold the securities referred to above. © CIBC World Markets Inc. 2021.
CIBC Private Wealth Management consists of services provided by CIBC and certain of its subsidiaries, including CIBC Wood Gundy, a division of CIBC World Markets Inc.
Commissions, trailing commissions, management fees, and expenses may all be associated with hedge fund investments. Hedge funds may be sold by Prospectus to the general public, but more often are sold by Offering Memorandum to those investors who meet certain eligibility or minimum purchase requirements. An Offering Memorandum is not required in some jurisdictions. The Prospectus or Offering Memorandum contains important information about hedge funds – you should obtain a copy and read it before making an investment decision. Hedge funds are not guaranteed. Their values change frequently, and past performance may not be repeated. Hedge funds are for sophisticated investors only. Clients are advised to seek advice regarding their particular circumstances from their personal tax and legal advisors.
Insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services Inc. In Quebec, insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services (Quebec) Inc.
Dean Colling and Rocco Letterio are Investment Advisors with CIBC Wood Gundy. Alex Lee is an Associate Investment Advisor working with Dean Colling, Investment Advisor. The views of Dean Colling, Rocco Letterio, and Alex Lee do not necessarily reflect those of CIBC World Markets Inc.
If you are currently a CIBC Wood Gundy client, please contact your Investment Advisor.]
Announcer: Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed our show, consider sharing the episode with your friends and following us on social media. Be sure to check out our website for new episodes every month.
Wealthview - Episode 4 - Aram Agopian
[The podcast opens on an introduction graphic with CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. The text reads: Wealthview, Hosted by Dean Colling, First Vice-President & Senior Portfolio Manager, February, 2021. On the left side of the screen are a group of graphics consisting of two heads with a speech bubble, a silhouette of a knight chess piece, and a line graph in an up-trend. The text on the left hand side reads: Philosophy, Strategy & Insights.]
Announcer: You're listening to Wealthview, the podcast where we share philosophy, strategies, and insights from some of Canada's top financial professionals.
[A brief montage consisting of a street level view of traffic in downtown Toronto, high-rise buildings, Dean Colling speaking on a microphone, and a bird’s eye view of a four-way intersection plays on the left side of the screen.]
Announcer: Hosted by Dean Colling, First Vice-President and Senior Portfolio Manager at CIBC Private Wealth. Edited and produced by the Colling Group. And now, onto the show.
[The introduction graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. In the centre of the screen is a graphic representation of a microphone. The text reads: Wealthview, Conversation with Aram Agopian, First Vice-President, Estate Planning Specialist, CIBC Wood Gundy.]
Dean Colling: Welcome to Wealthview, I'm your host, Dean Colling, First Vice-President and Senior Portfolio Manager at CIBC Private Wealth. Today, we're going to talk about insurance, however, not the standard or mundane kind. We're going to talk about how we utilize tax exempt insurance strategies to enhance the long term wealth of our clients.
Dean Colling: Joining me today is Aram Agopian. Aram is a First Vice-President and Estate Planning Specialist here at CIBC. He's a key partner of the Colling Group and an expert on tax and estate planning strategy. Aram, welcome.
Dean Colling: Great to have you here today, and look forward to talking about this very important topic that we spent a lot of time with clients on over the last several years. And, you know, it is a little bit of a topic that needs a bit of explanation for sure. A lot of people think of insurance as sort of the more traditional insurance that one would need, as you know, to protect a growing family.
Dean Colling: But we're often looking at this from a more strategic perspective and really more as insurance as an asset class itself. As we're building portfolios, looking at multiple asset classes - equities, fixed income, alternative assets, private equity, private real estate. You know, we do really look at insurance, and more permanent insurance that we're going to talk about today, as a really valuable piece of that overall portfolio strategy. So, let me ask you a question, and we can talk a little bit about sort of the different strategies that we that we use for clients, but why is this becoming so much more of a popular strategy amongst high net worth clients over the past, say, 10 to 15 years?
Aram Agopian: First of all, thanks for allowing me the privilege to be able to join. So looking forward to this dialogue. Very good question, and I've been with CIBC just over 17 years now, so we've seen it all over the years. But to your point, with regards to the increased awareness of this strategy, it really comes down to especially if we're talking about that permanent insurance strategy, primarily it's tax driven. And what we've seen over the last number of years is tax rates have gone nowhere but up, which is leading our high net worth clients to look to be that much more tax efficient with either their personal capital, corporate capital, and that's where insurance really shines because of the tax efficiency of it.
Aram Agopian: So TFSAs and other sort of planning options are a great way to be able to have access to it, but by way of significant capital to be able to allocate towards strategies, insurance is the last major one to be able to take advantage of tax sheltered growth.
Dean Colling: Maybe give a high level explanation of the main tax advantages that we as investors get when utilizing permanent insurance as a sort of an asset class within our portfolios.
Aram Agopian: Maybe I'll start with personal capital just because that has a certain simplicity to it. But really, with the strategy of being able to take otherwise tax exposed, non-registered capital and be able to move that into the tax sheltered insurance strategy; really, what that allows us to do is take capital once it makes its way into the insurance strategy, if done correctly, CRA gets zero from a tax perspective forever going forward. So what that allows our clients to do is if there is a certain amount of capital that's exposed to tax, they don't need immediately for their retirement lifestyle needs, we can take that, have it grow in a tax sheltered environment. We can gain access to it if we need to later on, tax-free.
Aram Agopian: And then upon passing when ultimate final tax liabilities are due, it is paid out tax-free, probate-free to beneficiaries. So from a tax perspective, checks off every box. And it's really a question of the higher the tax bracket, the more impactful this type of planning. And again, where we're seeing tax rates going, and it's crazy to think that the tax rates can go higher than where they are right now, but we are hearing a lot of our clients worried about the possibility of tax rates increasing, both personal and corporate, right now just because of this this current pandemic, and who's ultimately going to be paying the bill for this, which is leading them to look at the insurance very, very heavily.
Dean Colling: So it may be worthwhile to talk a little bit about the parameters that really govern the amount of capital that we could shelter into permanent insurance policies.
Dean Colling: Clearly, we can't take any arbitrary number we want. And, you know, if we've got a 10 million dollar account, and move five million dollars into a tax shelter right away, there is some sort of rules and regulations and the pacing in which we can do that.
Dean Colling: Maybe you want to map that out, so our listeners can understand sort of how we get this capital over the fence and into a tax sheltered strategy like this?
Aram Agopian: That's actually a very common question that comes up when we're having these conversations with our clients, because if we do have tax exposed capital and we want to move it into the tax sheltered insurance strategy, being able to see the numerical values and the power of the tax sheltered growth, it's impactful. It's significant. But the quantum that can be sheltered in any given year, that's largely dictated by CRA and it becomes a function of the size of the policy, will dictate the maximum amount that can be sheltered in a policy in any given year.
Aram Agopian: So there are some parameters, we typically have clients that have that amount of capital and they want to take advantage of the tax sheltering right away. But typically it's, let's say, for example, between 8 and 10 years is typically the shortest duration on which we can get it out of the tax exposed and into the tax sheltered and then be able to have that tax sheltered capability from that point going forward.
Dean Colling: And typically, that's sort of an equal weighted allocation over, you know, between 5, 8 or 10 years to fully fund that strategy?
Aram Agopian: Absolutely. There is a certain tax calculation, we can get into that in another more in-depth call, but we could look to to do different staggering amounts. There is some leniency if we're trying to maximize the efficiency to the penny each and every year. But for all intents and purposes, a set level amount is typically how we operate.
Dean Colling: Right.
Dean Colling: So I think it's important to look at this, and again reiterate, that this becomes, you know, we kind of have to take off our insurance hat once this is structured and look at it as an investment, because we, in fact, do look at target IRRs or internal rates of return of these strategies over the long haul to enhance estate values and create this tax sheltered growth to enhance the overall wealth of our clients. Let's talk a little bit about the investment options that we can go into in policies like this. There's really in our world, is probably two key ones, but maybe you want to go through the examples?
Aram Agopian: Within the confines of permanent insurance, there's primarily two types. One is called universal life, and that is the one where we can pick all the different investment options that we have available to ourselves, depending on what carrier we're looking to use. But that's one where we introduce risk because we're having to pick and choose funds that the insurance company is looking to offer, and also the management expense fee for having those funds is quite high. And if we have a negative return in any given year, it obviously undermines and brings risk into the equation, whereas we have the option if we are looking at that universal life, how we structure it, it is one hundred percent guaranteed. So it's not a situation where we need to shoot the lights out and be that much more aggressive with the yield.
Aram Agopian: The preferential tax treatment alone is that much more attractive, especially within using the GIC, which then allows us to say to our clients, every number on this comparison is one hundred percent guaranteed, nothing can change. The only thing that can change is that tax rates can go up and which only otherwise enhance the efficiency of the strategy, as compared to the alternative. So that's one option, universal life. The other option is using whole life. So this is one where, again, no one on the call has to make any investment decisions with regards to day-to-day management of the deposits that are making its way into that tax sheltered policy.
Aram Agopian: They're all done by the insurance company, so it's actively managed by them. A dividend is paid to all the policy holders each and every year. And what we do is we pressure test. Looking at what the current dividend rate is, and we'll look at more pessimistic views just to be able to show what it could do over time, or also the reality of the dividend increasing at a later date, which obviously makes the values that much greater. But those are the two different types.
Aram Agopian: And it really is a question of where we fall within the risk profile, where we fall within the need for having the liquidity value, or also where we feel we want to have a certain level of variability to the upside with regards to the whole life. But typically, what we'll do for our clients, depending on the age profile of the client that we're working with, we'll show two examples, we'll walk through so they understand and appreciate both. And then typically when we do that, the client has a good understanding and then we'll ultimately gravitate towards one over the other, or other clients will say, I'd like to hedge my bets, I'll take some of the guaranteed and then some of the the variable whole life option to be able to sort of cover off both sides.
Dean Colling: Yeah, that's a great explanation.
Dean Colling: And I think, the key is from our perspective as portfolio managers and overall wealth managers, is we really don't want to try to introduce too much return variability or risk in this type of a strategy. Ultimately, we see this as not a replacement, but something paralleling a long dated fixed income. You know, places where we can put something conservative, capture the value that we can get out of the tax shelter and then maximize that for a long period of time. And I think our philosophy has typically been one to be quite conservative in that allocation.
Dean Colling: And it's served us well, definitely over the years. When we look at creating the strategy, and you know there's lots of different variations that we can look at, one of the key things that we see, obviously, when we're talking to our clients about the potential of incorporating this into their strategy, is whether we're doing it on a personal side or in a personal hold co.
Dean Colling: Often we have, you know, probably an equal mix of clients that work with us just on a personal basis. Maybe they have RRSPs, joint accounts, maybe a family trust, TFSAs, et cetera. But some of our clients, a significant amount of clients actually, have hold cos as well. So let's walk through, because there is some obviously some benefits to both, but they are different.
Dean Colling: And maybe it's worth telling the listeners a little bit about the details of the tax benefits of doing it personally versus hold co, if they should have one.
Aram Agopian: From our perspective, the higher the tax bracket, the more impactful this type of planning. So for our perspective, if a client has non-registered capital, doesn't have a hold co, or a corporation, or a professional corporation, then obviously the value of being able to take advantage of tax sheltering is going to be significant. Whereas for other clients that have both personal and corporate capital, it really comes down to having that discussion. And in a lot of times it does become a question of the insurance strategy being housed within the corporation to be able to use, and there is an additional layer of tax that we ultimately are able to save by using the corporation.
Aram Agopian: And really what happens in that situation, the corporation becomes the owner and the beneficiary of that strategy, and the corporation, with their lower tax cost, is able to fund the strategy, and then through, and this is where we get into a lot of education for accountants, lawyers, who are the professional advisers for our clients, but there's a capital dividend account that the insurance proceeds create that is the funneling of the proceeds out of the corporation into the hands of the beneficiaries either one hundred percent tax-free or largely tax-free. And it really depends on a year by year basis. But if they have the ability to use corporate capital, then there is an additional layer of tax that we ultimately are able to save and take advantage of that capital dividend account.
Aram Agopian: And really in that situation, we have a special customized tool that allows us to be able to take that additional layer of tax savings through that capital dividend account into accountants, so the clients can make an informed decision. And the real benefit of being able to have a corporation is the deferral. So we see a lot of clients that have significant capital built up into their corporations and it stays in there, and it stays in there for good reason, because they don't want to take it out sooner than they need it, because there's no point in paying that second layer of tax sooner than they need the capital in their hands. But for a lot of our clients, they have significant wealth on the personal side to be able to deal with their retirement needs during their lifetime. And that corporate capital remains.
Aram Agopian: And that's really going to be passed down to the next generation where, well, when we have that conversation and we ultimately determine that there is surplus capital in that corporation, we then look at the value proposition of taking that capital that we're not going to use during our lifetime, that we're going to leave in the corporation. Does it make sense to then take that corporate capital, move it into the corporate owned insurance strategy and look at the additional upside that we can provide to the estate to be able to provide for the next generation? And a lot of times when we're going down that path, we quantify the exact upside of what's being made way to the next generation by doing nothing other than just being more tax efficient with the capital, whether it's personal or corporate.
Aram Agopian: We can quantify the additional estate value and some clients will say, great, the next generation I know they're going to get enough. So why go through the exercise of this of this type of planning? Which is a fair point. But really what it comes down to is, for our clients, their estate is going to go to one of three places, either CRA, to charity, or to the next generation. And I always say, typically, if charity is not your first choice, then this planning is important and impactful and we can even quantify for some of our clients, well, if we've enhanced the estate value by, I'm just throwing out a number, 3 million dollars, well, if we're not too concerned about the estate, but we understand and appreciate what this tax savings is allowing us to do, we can then freely spend an extra 3 million dollars during our lifetime and leave the estate in the exact same situation it was otherwise going to be in by just being more tax efficient with that amount of capital, by incorporating this type of insurance strategy.
Dean Colling: Great, yeah. And so, again, just to clarify, I mean, hold co situation, fantastic because of the extra layer through the capital dividend account gets a lot of preferential access to that capital tax-free over time, which is fantastic. And again, we look at this primarily as a efficient strategy for excess capital in a client's overall wealth picture. But sometimes, contingency comes in and access is important. You would think of a strategy like this as much more of a long dated, maybe even next generation strategy, where as you mentioned, we're pushing it through to the next generation or even skipping a generation down, as an efficient distribution of the wealth. But sometimes things change, and sometimes capital is required in the future. Can you talk a little bit about how you how we access this capital, even though it is more geared towards more of a permanent strategy? It certainly has the ability for clients to access in their lifetime.
Aram Agopian: And again, if we had the numbers in front of us, it becomes that much clearer, but high level, a lot of our clients notwithstanding the fact that they have significant wealth, they do like to know that it's not a situation of as soon as I put this towards this strategy, I'm never able to touch, taste or smell that capital ever again. But really what's happening is as that cash value within the policy, that's growing one hundred percent tax free is taking place, at any point in time in the future, we have the ability to gain access to it. We have access to it in a few ways. If, for whatever reason, the situation has changed considerably, we no longer care about the strategy, the next generation, or tax efficiency, we can always cancel, but it depends on the year in which we do so. But we have access to one hundred percent of the cash value at that point in time.
Aram Agopian: Whereas if the situation changes and it's not as drastic as that scenario, then it becomes a question of being able to take that policy, because of the tax free cash value that is currently building up, we can take that policy to any financial institution. Obviously, CIBC being a major one, and we can gain access to 90 percent of that cash value in any given year.
Aram Agopian: So that's a situation where we see that a lot of times where there's significant capital built up into the insurance values, the client wants to either bequest a certain amount of capital to the next generation now, and it becomes a question of if we know the next generation is going to receive the insurance proceeds, then allocating and extracting some of the value tax free from the policy to be able to pass down to the next generation is an option, or otherwise, in other cases, it becomes a question of I have a significant cash value built up, I now have an investment opportunity for it, or I want to be able to draw on it for my retirement lifestyle needs knowing that it's still growing, tax sheltered and it's still going to provide significant estate value. So, the cash value can be accessed in a few different ways; but that is, for our clients, a good comfort knowing that once it makes its way in they still do have access to it. But again, the good part of that planning is the fact that it is still growing and it is still growing tax sheltered, and it becomes a question of when and how and if the clients need access to it, that they've got some they've got some options and some levers.
Dean Colling: Yeah, I think most may be unaware that this is an asset that can be used as collateral as well.
Dean Colling: So it's certainly not, you know, once the capital is in there, it's not done and gone in terms of the balance sheet, certainly this can be used for business opportunities as a collateral asset for sure.
Dean Colling: So one of the things I want to talk about also as well is the fact that, or the special treatment, this type of a vehicle gets when used as a charitable donation. You mentioned it earlier. Obviously, there's three things: you're giving it to the CRA, maximizing it for kids, or a lot of our clients who do have charitable initiatives and we help them with that over time, to map out a plan for sort of an efficient distribution to charities of their choice, or creating foundations or endowments. So maybe talk about or just give a little bit of an overview of how insurance is used as a charitable tool as well from a tax perspective.
Aram Agopian: It all depends on the client's situation, whether they have the capital or if they have the cash flow, but they have the desire to make those charitable bequests. But insurance is a great tool to be able to enhance the efficiency during their lifetime from a tax perspective. But also then if the ultimate goal is to enhance the value from the charity, the insurance is a great way to do that as well, just because the tax efficiency and then to be able to compound that with the charitable donation. So there's a few different ways in which that can be created, but I guess high level, we can be in a situation where we either donate a policy to the charity today that we just, let's say, for example, facilitated for a client and then instead of the client making charitable donations to the charity, what they would make is charitable donations to the charity in the exact amount of the insurance proceeds. So what that allows them to do is if the charity does need access to all of that capital right now, then they've got that significant endowment that's going to come to them by way of the the insurance proceeds. And some of our clients, if they're looking at making larger donations instead of donating X of liquid capital right now, they would donate a policy and then fund that over time, but then they would still be able to get that recognition for the full insurance proceeds.
Aram Agopian: And then, being able to use appreciated securities to be able to donate to the charity and then be able to use to fund the insurance, that's another layer of tax efficiency that we that we have.
Aram Agopian: And then another one that's now become that much more of a hot topic is we have a lot of clients that, let's say, for example, have done some of this insurance planning or let's say, for example, they had a recent situation. We had a client that had sold a business, had a key man term insurance type of coverage, and was in a situation where they no longer needed it and it became a question of let's look to cancel it because we've sold the company, we no longer need that coverage. But we started talking and saying, well, there's this conversion privilege that's built into that contract that if we wanted to keep that policy without providing any medical evidence, we could do so. But then it became a question of what does that impact? What is that value? So we showed the client what that would look like. He said, you know what, the values of that strategy, being able to use some of my corporate capital, it looks great. But you know what? I'm not too concerned about the next generation or the efficiency. I just want to be able to spend all my money and not have to set anything aside, which is great. But then when we took it one step further and we said, well, this policy has significant value because your health has changed since the time that policy was originally taken out. So what we did is we engaged a charity and the charity did an actuarial calculation and determined that that policy with that conversion privilege to the permanent option with no medical evidence was significant.
Aram Agopian: And what we did is we donated the term insurance policy. The charity provided a donation slip for the fair market value of it. And in that situation, the insurance proceeds were one million dollar policy and it was roughly three hundred and eighty six thousand, I think was the final number. That was the donation slip. So for this client's perspective, he was going to walk away from that existing policy and not receive any commensurate value, whereas now he's able to donate the policy to the charity. The charity now has the ability to maintain those premiums going forward and know that they're going to receive that benefit. And in return, the client received that donation slip for the sizable amount that he can use this year and then five years going forward. So once we were able to explain that to the accountant and the accountant and the client were loving it, and it's really a question of what planning has already been put in place for us to be able to look to add some value. It would have been, and we see, unfortunately, sometimes we see this after the fact, but a knee jerk reaction, someone sold the business and no longer needs that term coverage because they're at the point where they can self insure. But there still are some advantages of being able to have that discussion, even if it's with temporary existing insurance for that conversion privilege.
Dean Colling: Yeah, I think that's a great point to bring up because I think a lot of the times we've started new relationships with clients, brought new people in, we obviously take them through a comprehensive planning process. And oftentimes we're going to find that clients have done some level of planning, some none, but some level of planning, either it's planning light or fairly comprehensive walkthrough with previous advisors, or accountants or lawyers. But we always find that it's very, very useful to do a deep dive again, particularly if some of this planning is 3, 4, 5 years old or more, we're able to really find some significant improvements or things, efficiencies we can do. Just on the basic fact that markets change, tax rates change, regulatory changes, impact these previous strategies. So it's always worth continuously looking at these to see what value can be added over time. And I know you're obviously finding the same thing as we work on some clients together. So obviously, that's one of the key things that you guys are doing when we bring you in. Is that typically what you're finding in your experience as well?
Aram Agopian: So it's really from our perspective, it becomes a question, whoever we're meeting with, looking at doing some long term tax and estate planning, if they've already have some existing planning in place, that we always typically say, well, that's not the point in time, which is to say, OK, great, let's move on to the next discussion. It becomes a question of let's take a look to see what you've done, because as you can appreciate, there's a lot of complexity with regards to insurance. And again, to your point, tax rates, tax rules, insurance and even their own personal situations can change over the course of time. So it's always worth a second set of eyes. And we do that for our clients where we're looking at existing planning that have been put in place prior to our relationship, and then it becomes a question of does it make sense? Let's look to keep it, lend some more efficiencies that we can have by making some changes, or sometimes in some cases it's you know what? This doesn't make sense, and let's stop throwing good money after bad. Let's look to make some changes, extract some value. And believe me, I've seen in my 20 plus years doing this, I've seen horror stories and it never surprises me, where even it's the most sophisticated high net worth client. And unfortunately, just because of the complexity of the insurance planning, we find some significant glaring issues for us to be able to make some changes or if nothing else, just bring to their attention if they want to continue to work with their existing advisor that put that strategy in place, happy to provide guidance from afar and then allow them to be able to to make those changes that we otherwise see as a significant upside for themselves.
Dean Colling: Right. Again, just to reiterate, this is, you know, I sort of call this insurance as an asset class, because that's as a portfolio manager and wealth manager, this is how I look at it. And we're very, very focused in how can this add value to the client's overall net worth.
Dean Colling: And we're calculating, again, long term internal rates of return and comparing it to other asset classes.
Dean Colling: And if it certainly provides a lift then and some other benefits, of course, from the tax perspective or estate planning perspective than we think it's a fantastic thing to add. But when we start to go out and build these strategies, let's walk through the process in how we essentially RFP to the carriers out there.
Dean Colling: We, as CIBC, we're obviously a national adviser and have relationships with all the big insurance carriers. Walk through the process of how we we go out and find the best solution for the strategy that we're trying to create for each individual client.
Aram Agopian: Yeah. So we do have access to all the major insurance companies in Canada. So for us it's really, we're agnostic as to the carrier, it's who's giving us the best value in the Canadian marketplace. And sometimes it's funny because we're all CIBC, but we're recommending an RBC product or a BMO product, or a Manulife, or a Sun Life. But it really just shows that, again, we're absolutely agnostic and it's really who's giving us the best value. So we have our own tools that allow us to be able to shop the market, to be able to determine who's giving us the best value in the Canadian marketplace. And every carriers product isn't actually created equally. So there are some efficiencies that can be had, whether it's from more preferential underwriting that can be had with one carrier, or better cash values, or better long term growth that's taking place with one carrier, higher depositary limits that are available. So that's where we pride ourselves in knowing everyone's product in and out, because the reality is our clients come from different walks of life, sometimes from different firms, and sometimes they've had relationships with other advisors for quite some time.
Aram Agopian: So we pride ourselves on being knowledge experts in everyone's product to know that even if they have had discussions with someone else, that we see this all the time, where someone's been working with an outside firm, they show us the proposal. If the proposal is fantastic, then I will say, you know what? It's fantastic, continue on at work. But what I would say it's probably more than nine times out of ten where we can find additional efficiencies or provide significant upside looking at using one carrier over the other. And we just had a situation the other day where someone had been working with another advisor, the proposal that we saw was a Sun Life proposal for a specific product. And we said, you know what, that exact same deposit limit, that you're obviously the exact same ages, and the planning strategy, if we just switch over to this different carrier, look at the additional upside. And it's not from the one carrier being more aggressive over the next. It's really understanding and appreciate everyone's product are different and in maximizing it for each and every client. So we pride ourselves and we do that all the time. And sometimes we'll give you the full list to the clients and then allow them to be able to make an informed decision. But typically, if we're providing the best values in the Canadian marketplace, that's typically where the client will go, unless there's a specific reason to want to work with one carrier over the other. But we would help them navigate through that.
Dean Colling: Yeah, and I think it's important to know, too, because this is essential in how we're structuring strategies like this, is that those differences, those product differences or those nuances of value, they're changing all the time.
Dean Colling: Certain carriers will have an appetite for a certain strategy, for a certain period of time, and that will change over to somebody else. And I think it's essentially on you, and your team are on top of these changes all the time and really understand at any particular moment, who's really out there providing the best value for our clients?
Aram Agopian: Absolutely. And then some situations where we will submit requests to, let's say, for example, two carriers and then be able to have them put their best foot forward and then be able to put the best foot forward to our clients or otherwise, if we have a great certainty as to which carrier is giving us the best value. But if in some situations it is close, we can look to obtain a bit of arbitrage. But that's all the back end work that we do for our clients.
Dean Colling: So let's talk a little bit about when this doesn't make sense.
Dean Colling: Clearly, this is a tax driven strategy to a certain degree. So high marginal tax rates are essential to get the maximum value out of it. And typically, those are the clients, the clients we are dealing with right now are in those higher marginal tax rates. But are there any other situations where, you know, this really isn't a great strategy for inclusion in an overall portfolio?
Aram Agopian: Again, every situation is different, but the higher the tax bracket, the more efficiency the strategy will bring to bear. But what we see with a lot of our high net worth clients, it all depends on their ability, because unlike a traditional investment where we like it, we understand it, we get it. There is that qualification process for the insurance. So sometimes, unfortunately, the decision is made for us where we we like it, we understand it, we want it, but we can't medically qualify for it or we don't have any existing insurance to be able to use that conversion privilege and then unfortunately it becomes a question of not available.
Aram Agopian: And then obviously Plan B and C become that much more of a prevalent option. But that's one area where, unfortunately, due to health, the decision is made for us if there's not existing insurance. The other times in which let's say, for example, it can possibly not make sense is, and how we look to quantify the value proposition, and again, if we were sitting together, we'd be able to walk through it. But whenever we're comparing this analysis, we always compare to the alternative investments. So just to be able to put some numerical value to it, whenever we're allocating towards the insurance strategy versus the alternative, what we do is we quantify what the hurdle rate is of the alternative investment in order for it to match the efficiencies of the insurance.
Aram Agopian: So for our perspective, what that really means is what you would have to earn on those exact same allocations, that would be making its way to the insurance, in a traditional investment that's otherwise taxable or through the corporation in order for, at life expectancy, those two numbers to match each other. And the insurance, again, it has an unfair advantage because the tax efficiency.
Aram Agopian: But for our perspective, if the equivalent is, let's say, 11 percent, or 12, or 8 or 9, depending on the age, that becomes our hurdle rate. So we're having the conversation with the client, it becomes a question of is that number high enough that it makes sense for us to allocate capital towards that strategy? I say this somewhat jokingly, but the reality is nowhere are we getting any fixed income, or without taking on significant risk, any yields in and around those ranges. But again, that's what we demonstrate to the client and allow them to make an informed decision as to the efficiency and then what amount of capital, if anything, they'd like to allocate towards the strategy.
Aram Agopian: If the alternative is you have a very aggressive client that is one hundred percent in equities, is very comfortable with risk and it doesn't have any estate goals or anything to that effect, well, then you know what? Maybe the tax efficiency or the underlying asset allocation being largely fixed income and the risk profile being lower than the traditional investment doesn't mean a lot to them. But really, that effective yield that we demonstrate that value proposition helps them make that decision. But at the end of the day, it is a client's decision as to how much, if any, to allocate towards the strategy due to the efficiency of it.
Dean Colling: Ok, thanks. And we, again, back to the portfolio management side of things, we kind of look at this as an alternative to long dated fixed income and in a super low rate environment, If we're in the right sweet spot in terms of client assets, client age, we're seemingly getting significant boosts in return on those assets that we shelter in the strategy over the traditional fixed income asset over the same time. We don't say definitively this is a replacement for fixed income, because there is some, you know, there's a long view on this, we're sheltering it in an insurance policy.
Dean Colling: But very similarly, how we would look at long dated fixed income, those are assets that we won't look at for some time. And we're just seeing such a gap between them right now, that interest rates would have to rise significantly for the traditional asset, long dated fixed income, to become elevated above the internal rate of return numbers that we can calculate on the current strategies that we're running. So it's pretty attractive these days for sure.
Aram Agopian: And for a lot of our clients this becomes the fixed income portion of their portfolio, which then allows us to have equity like returns with fixed income risk profile, and then obviously being able to rejig the asset allocation of the overall portfolio if this strategy is available and we do incorporate it. So when we have a full financial plan, we can look to model that and be able to scale further the additional efficiency to the estate by incorporating the strategy and then being able to take risk off the table for that amount of capital as well.
Dean Colling: Right.
Dean Colling: And I think the final point I would make is that it's so essential that a strategy like this is borne out of not only traditional portfolio planning, investment policy, asset allocation strategy, but even more so, a comprehensive financial plan. And without that, we're really flying blind.
Dean Colling: You're making up numbers in the dark as to what the proper allocation would be to a strategy like this. So, you know, it's essential that anyone thinking of a strategy like this goes through that process. And that's certainly what we do for all of our clients. And once we go down that road, map out all of the key strategies, key actions that we're trying to achieve over the next 5, 10, 15, 20 years or more, then and only then can we determine whether a strategy like this and the quantum of the allocation, whether it's right for the long term objectives. You know, we're certainly finding benefits for our clients in these strategies, particularly over the last 5 to 10 years. I think it's been excellent. So, Aram, thank you.
Dean Colling: I really appreciate you taking the time to go over this with us.
Dean Colling: It's important that, I think, people have sort of a high level overview of how these insurance strategies work and how the frame of reference is more from a longer term, again, estate planning or tax strategy perspective.
Dean Colling: I thank you again for your time and we hope to see you again soon.
Aram Agopian: My pleasure. All the best.
Dean Colling: Thank you.
[The microphone graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. On the left side of the screen are a list of disclaimers. The text reads: Credits; Music Provided by: Hot Coffee by Ghostrifter Official (soundcloud.com/ghostrifter-official), Licensed under Creative Commons – Attribution, ShareAlike 3.0 Unported – CC BY-SA 3.0., http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Disclaimers; This information, including any opinion, is based on various sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed and is subject to change. CIBC and CIBC World Markets Inc., their affiliates, directors, officers and employees may buy, sell, or hold a position in securities of a company mentioned herein, its affiliates or subsidiaries, and may also perform financial advisory services, investment banking or other services for, or have lending or other credit relationships with the same. CIBC World Markets Inc. and its representatives will receive sales commissions and/or a spread between bid and ask prices if you purchase, sell or hold the securities referred to above. © CIBC World Markets Inc. 2021.
CIBC Private Wealth Management consists of services provided by CIBC and certain of its subsidiaries, including CIBC Wood Gundy, a division of CIBC World Markets Inc.
Commissions, trailing commissions, management fees, and expenses may all be associated with hedge fund investments. Hedge funds may be sold by Prospectus to the general public, but more often are sold by Offering Memorandum to those investors who meet certain eligibility or minimum purchase requirements. An Offering Memorandum is not required in some jurisdictions. The Prospectus or Offering Memorandum contains important information about hedge funds – you should obtain a copy and read it before making an investment decision. Hedge funds are not guaranteed. Their values change frequently, and past performance may not be repeated. Hedge funds are for sophisticated investors only. Clients are advised to seek advice regarding their particular circumstances from their personal tax and legal advisors.
Insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services Inc. In Quebec, insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services (Quebec) Inc.
Dean Colling and Rocco Letterio are Investment Advisors with CIBC Wood Gundy. Alex Lee is an Associate Investment Advisor working with Dean Colling, Investment Advisor. The views of Dean Colling, Rocco Letterio, and Alex Lee do not necessarily reflect those of CIBC World Markets Inc.
If you are currently a CIBC Wood Gundy client, please contact your Investment Advisor.]
Announcer: Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed our show, consider sharing the episode with your friends and following us on social media. Be sure to check out our website for new episodes every month.
Wealthview - Episode 3 - Craig Chilton
[The podcast opens on an introduction graphic with CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. The text reads: Wealthview, Hosted by Dean Colling, First Vice-President & Senior Portfolio Manager, October, 2020. On the left side of the screen are a group of graphics consisting of two heads with a speech bubble, a silhouette of a knight chess piece, and a line graph in an up-trend. The text on the left hand side reads: Philosophy, Strategy & Insights.]
Announcer: You're listening to Wealthview, the podcast where we share philosophy, strategies, and insights from some of Canada's top financial professionals.
[A brief montage consisting of a street level view of traffic in downtown Toronto, high-rise buildings, Dean Colling speaking on a microphone, and a bird’s eye view of a four-way intersection plays on the left side of the screen.]
Announcer: Hosted by Dean Colling, First Vice-President and Senior Portfolio Manager at CIBC Private Wealth. Edited and produced by the Colling Group. And now, onto the show.
[The introduction graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. In the centre of the screen is a graphic representation of a microphone. The text reads: Wealthview, Conversation with Craig Chilton, Portfolio Manager, Merger Arbitrage, Picton Mahoney Asset Management.]
Dean Colling: Welcome to Wealthview. I'm Dean Colling, First Vice-President, Senior Portfolio Manager at CIBC Private Wealth.
Dean Colling: Today, we're going to talk about merger arbitrage. It's a unique strategy that we use in portfolio construction to diversify portfolios and reduce overall risk. Joining us today to talk about this subject is Craig Chilton, portfolio manager with Picton Mahoney. Craig is a expert in merger arbitrage strategy and has been running funds in Canada for quite a long time, and we're happy to have him with us today. Before we begin, Craig, why don't you give us a little bit of background on you and your history in the space and then let's get into some of the details about how the strategy works.
Craig Chilton: Great. Well, thanks for having me. So starting with my background, I've been doing M&A related stuff in finance for pushing 30 years now, which, you know, speaks not just to my age, but hopefully also to my experience. I've seen a lot of things in my time, and I, uh, it's funny because I kind of just fell into it. I was graduating from an electrical engineering degree in the early 1990s when I had an opportunity to do your typical investment bank two year analyst program. So I thought that would be a good break before I went back to do my master's in engineering. Then I went to work for an M&A advisory firm and I actually just fell in love with the business in terms of how dynamic it was, it was really interesting for me.
Craig Chilton: And so after a few years of doing that, I had the opportunity to move on to the trading side where I thought that actually my quantitative background might be a little more of a logical fit than investment banking. I did that for a couple of years before thinking, you know, maybe I kind of miss investment banking. And they said, well, hold on, before you decide, let's talk about an opportunity that's come up. And CIBC was expanding into the U.S. at the time. So I had the opportunity to go start their U.S. arbitrage book related to merger arbitrage. And so I went down to New York and I started off doing the merger arb, but then subsequently took over some of the converter arb business we had. And we had a vol arb business as well. And so I did that for 10 years before coming back to Canada with a couple little kids. And I was fortunate enough to have in Vancouver one of the the hedge funds that was doing most in the M&A space in Canada. And that was Vertex One where I joined along with my colleague.
Craig Chilton: I had hired Tom Savage in 2008 to join me. Yeah, we were brought in to manage just the arbitrage sleeve of a bigger fund. And we did that for three years before talking the partners there into offering our strategy as a standalone fund. And that's when the the first arbitrage fund was launched. So that was end of October 2013. And so that was really the start of having a pure play, a fund to offer out to the street and talk to investors about. And we subsequently started a levered version of it, the arb plus a couple of years after that. And then last year we were approached by Picton Mahoney. Our style of low risk conservative investing fits very well with their mission, which is, you know, to deliver good financial results with greater consistency and certainty to investors. And so we joined them in January this year. And it's been a great partnership so far. It's obviously been a crazy, crazy 2020, but couldn't have asked for it to be any smoother in terms of having a great platform to be on.
Craig Chilton: They offer tremendous support in the way of operations, and execution, and compliance, and all the institutional great things that you would want. And so we have that all now. So it's been really great.
Dean Colling: Yeah. And you know, obviously not to sound too callous in a quite a challenging environment for everyone globally in this year, it's certainly shown a spotlight; it was an opportunistic time, in a sense, to shine a spotlight on the value of a strategy like yours and what it brings to an overall portfolio. You guys have obviously done well this year, but the key is, is that it's essentially not correlated to a lot of traditional assets like like stocks and bonds.
Dean Colling: And it really certainly helps diversify the overall portfolio so that we can manage risk appropriately through periods like we saw back in March of this year. And I'm sure we're in for more, volatility hasn't left us yet. And hopefully we'll be through a period like this in the next 12 to 18 months. But certainly isn't the only point where you need to own a strategy like this, where we like to build into the portfolio. So let's talk a little bit high level, though. You know, merger arbitrage may sound complex, but in a way, it's actually a fairly straightforward strategy and very consistent often in how it delivers returns. Why don't you to walk us through the thirty thousand foot view of a merger arbitrage trade and the strategy in general, and how you put the portfolio together.
Craig Chilton: Sure. So what we're doing is, as you say, it's very basic in its essence. And we're really looking to just buy the target company in an acquisition at a discount to the price that we're going to get when it's done. And so when we capture that discount, that's the P&L that is generated. So if you think about a very simple example, hypothetical example, and we're only dealing with definitive deals here, announced friendly deals are the core of what we do. So if two parties agree to a merger and say one, the target company, is going to be acquired for one hundred dollars cash, what's normally going to happen is the stock will trade from wherever it was, up close to but not quite the deal price of one hundred. And it's going to leave a little bit of a discount because there's a time value of money; these things take time, usually a basic merger might take three months to get through the, you know, the proxy review process, shareholder vote, all that sort of thing. So that's one reason for a spread.
Craig Chilton: But then another reason is that not all deals are successful, though a high portion of them are. There is a risk that they may run into issues, and so there is some spread left for that as well. And so if in this hypothetical example is a one hundred dollar deal price, the target stock might trade up to ninety eight. So that two dollar discount or call it two percent, we would earn over, say, an average of four months. So considered, that's two percent over four months, that's six percent annualized. So that's really all we're looking to do, and to do that on a diverse portfolio of these situations. I know a lot of times people are surprised at how much M&A activity is going on because they're only aware of the ones that are so large they hit the front pages of the newspaper. But there's a lot that's off the radar. And so our challenge is to build a diverse portfolio of these so that we never have one really chunky allocation to a particular transaction. So that's the basic example of a cash deal.
Craig Chilton: Now, I should say it's not always the case that a company is being acquired for cash. Sometimes there will be a stock component or it could be all stock. In those cases, where the acquirer is offering their own shares, what we want to do is we want to pre sell them. We want to pre sell whatever we're going to receive when the deal is done, at the time that we buy the target company, so that we know that we're buying the target at a price that is a discount to whatever the value of the share consideration component is as well.
Craig Chilton: And by that, we're locking in that again, that discount to the value that we're ultimately going to be able to capture. And so that takes out any of the market risk. And that way we don't care whether the acquire stock goes up or down because we have hedged our long position with a offsetting hedge through a short position in the acquirer. But it has the same net effect, which is to just lock in that arbitrage spread.
Dean Colling: So that spread itself, historically, you know, we look at it the way you guys look at it; it's sort of a spread above a risk free rate, whatever risk free rate definition you want to use. We've typically seen in history three to four percent. Is that still generally the the spread that you're getting now or have you seen even wider spreads given what's gone on in the last six to eight months?
Craig Chilton: Yeah, well that spread isn't constant. It's not a fixed spread. So it will reflect things that are going on in the market. So, you know, at times of risk aversion that spread will widen. But in general, I would agree with the sort of level that you're talking about. But it is a function, too, of the absolute level of interest rates, I believe. So when I first started doing this business, you know, short rates, the risk free rates in the United States at the time were closer to six percent, if you can believe it. And so what we wanted to do, we always talked about earning a multiple of whatever the short rate was. So we wanted to earn somewhere between two to three times. So we were looking for 12 to 18 percent rates of return, which of course, seems inconceivable in this day and age with interest rates where they are. But if you think about it, it was really sort of basic - if we were going for 12 percent and short rates were six, we're looking for a six percent spread. And I would say that, that held for quite a long period of time. Then as we saw through the early 2000s, as interest rates went to close to zero, they got down to about one, we saw that narrow a bit so that instead of getting six over short rates, you know, you might be getting six percent nominal, which was maybe five over short rates. And now we're at a point where interest rates have come down to even lower. It's one percent or so. But for the last number of years, I feel pretty comfortable saying that the general rate of return has been somewhere around three to four percent on an unlevered basis over what short rates are. And given that rates seem like they're going to be low for a long time, I think that's a reasonable likely point that we're going to see as kind of a base case for what to expect.
Dean Colling: Would it be too simplistic to try to compare expected rates of return and merger arbitrage to kind of the general level of high yield bond rates?
Dean Colling: Is that sort of in the same ballpark?
Craig Chilton: No, I don't uh - yeah, I don't think it's too far different. I know the analogy gets made to between, is it like a spread over high yield or is it like a spread over investment grade? Because you have some deals which are very, let's say vanilla and blue chip. You've got a great buyer with no financing issues. There's no regulatory concerns. And it can all be wrapped up pretty quickly. That type of deal is going to trade more like an investment grade spread than something that has, you know, maybe there's some antitrust hair on it or some other regulatory risk that creates a little more question as to either timing or certainty. And so that would be more like a high yield spread that people would think about. So but somewhere in that range, I think is right.
Craig Chilton: And one thing you have to think about, though, is that spread in fixed income space has duration to it, too, because a typical high yield bond might be five to seven years in paper, in a term, whereas the merger arb spreads tend to have, you know, something like four months on average. So even though there's a similar sort of spread that you might be able to draw a connection to, there's still way more duration in that type of product. Even forgetting about the interest rate component of it, just the duration of the spread itself.
Dean Colling: Yeah, and that's what we tend to like about it when we're putting the portfolios together. If you sort of white label the asset class and just say, what is this delivering me on a risk adjusted basis? And however you measure risk, let's say by standard deviation, it seems to be significantly lower than a basket of global bonds. And that's probably particularly because of all the spreads that are built in. But the fact that you're right, I mean, you're talking about three or four month interest rate risk rather than a much longer term. Would you say that if you looked at standard deviation of your strategy or peers, the sort of the aggregate group of merger arb managers, that it's correct to say that on average, standard deviation of the group, volatility around the average price of the portfolio, is less than a sort of similar basket of global bonds? That's what I found. I'm not sure if you you would agree with that.
Craig Chilton: I think the volatility is somewhere around the - like, forgetting the global aspect of it for a moment, just because we're focused more on North America, we tend to look at U.S. and Canadian bonds aggregates. And I would say that the longer term volatility of the space is quite comparable to the Canadian or U.S. bond indices volatility. Now, that's including all hedge funds that, you know, contribute their results to particular indices. So there's some general sense there's going to be leverage in there because most hedge funds would be using leverage. If we look at our unlevered returns for, let's say, the past seven years, you know, there's an example where I think you would be right, that our volatility would look on an unlevered basis as though it's lower than the bond aggregates. And it's a little tricky because I think you get the sense that the question of how much leverage the user, the portfolio manager, is using becomes the big determinant here.
Craig Chilton: We know people who use this strategy in sort of a risk parity sense. And they say, look, the underlying base strategy is, you know, maybe three percent standard deviation where as-
Dean Colling: Which, for listeners is very, very low.
Craig Chilton: Very low, right, because, you know, equities might be 12 to 15, right? On average.
Craig Chilton: And so they say what I'm going to do, I want to deliver my, you know, arb investors the same sort of thing as equities in terms of the risk they're taking. And so I'm going to lever my arb portfolio four to five times so that they have the same risk as though they're taking equities. And that's the way the risk parity sort of approach would be. So you've got people who take that versus, you know, people like ourselves who tend to run just at much lower gross levels. And so our volatility tends to be very much on the low side.
Dean Colling: Right. And as I mentioned earlier, I think one of the key components of this is often just the correlation to traditional stock or bond asset within a portfolio. Unfortunately, we don't have the number in front of us. We know it's low, it's not negative, but it's certainly a low correlation. Have you found at any time over history that you've ever seen correlations come closer together through stress periods, or do you see predominantly a low correlation number with the strategy?
Craig Chilton: Well, for sure, it's a low correlation number. And the nice underlying explanation of why that is, is because it's very much an idiosyncratic risk that you're taking when you have a position in a particular deal. And by that its just simply a fancy word for saying that the merits of each individual deal, you know, the deal lives or dies on its own merits, as opposed to whether the equity markets are going up or down or the interest rates are changing.
Craig Chilton: The risk that you're bearing is the risk of the success of a particular deal. And generally, what that is tied to is meeting regulatory approval, shareholder approvals, that sort of thing.
Craig Chilton: And so just because you're having, let's say, one deal runs into a particular issue, that means nothing for the rest of the portfolio of deals. There's no reason why they would be exposed to that same sort of issue. And so, that is very low, that very idiosyncratic risk gives you a very low correlation to whatever else is going on. Now, that having been said, during times of general market crisis, risk aversion hits all assets. And so we do tend to see periods of spread widening. And part of it is just, you know, the merger arb spread is a risk premium. And so if there's a risk aversion, that premium should expand. So that's part of it. But second part of it is liquidity driven. And during times of market stress, you see, you know, participants more aggressive about wanting to de-lever or de-risk or to what have you. And so those two components do lead to a general increase, a short term increase in correlation with the rest of the markets. But generally, we have experienced that as an opportunity; frequently we'll get a couple week window where things get sloppy if the markets are acting in a volatile manner. And as I said, because that doesn't generally have any bearing on whether a deal is going to be successfully completed or not, it most often is just giving us an opportunity to capture wider spreads for a period of time.
Dean Colling: Right. So, again, one of the reasons we like integrating this into portfolios is low overall risk, low overall correlation, a pretty consistent return profile, absolute return versus a relative return to the equity markets.
Dean Colling: But I think one of the other things that we like, again I'm not saying this is a fixed income alternative because it isn't, but potentially from a risk perspective, it's a low risk asset. That's why we like it. One of the biggest advantages - or, rather not the biggest, but a good advantage is the fact that this is quite tax efficient from an income perspective. Instead of getting interest income, clipping coupons out of a bond, or managing a bond portfolio, this is actually quite a bit more attractive. Do you want to give us a little bit of a summary on the tax treatment?
Craig Chilton: Sure. So because what we're doing is trading equities, we're generating capital gains. Typically, our shorts are on the capital account as well. So if, we have let's say, it's a stock deal and we have a long stock going up but it's hedged with a short stock, we'll have a long on one side and the short on the other that offset each other; but with some net spread that we capture. But it's all capital gains, even though every individual position by its construct ends up looking a little like a bond.
Craig Chilton: And so when you put it into an overall portfolio, the overall return profile looks a lot like a bond portfolio. The reality is that they're comprised of individual equity positions that are contributing capital gains for the most part. We do get dividends and we do occasionally hold bond positions as part of an M&A trade. So there is some interest, but by virtue of the way the tax works, we're allowed to offset expenses and fees against those items first. So generally that all gets absorbed, that whatever dividends and interest income we might have, that typically gets absorbed by fees and expenses. And all that you're left with is capital gains. So it's not to say it's entirely capital gains, because there are times when we have some income distribution, but by and large, almost all of it is capital gains. And so that tax efficiency is quite considerable, particularly when you're talking about the high marginal rates that people are facing now. So if we could do four percent in capital gains, you know, that's something close to six percent if you were to compare it to all ordinary income in an unregistered account.
Dean Colling: Right. In high marginal, higher marginal rate. And we always, of course, never want to give tax advice on a podcast like this where we say, OK, seek tax advice from your tax professional. But this is just a general discussion on yes, this is absolutely designed to be a more tax effective vehicle than fixed income. So a couple of final points, I just want to go through a few things. But let's talk about, you mentioned earlier how most people would only kind of recognize the names that are on the front page of the, you know, of the Wall Street Journal or the Globe and Mail, these deals that are going through. Typically, though, how many deals are you participating in throughout a year? Even knowing the fact that many of them are only ninety days long, one hundred and eighty days long.
Craig Chilton: Right, right.
Dean Colling: What would that be?
Craig Chilton: Well, we would, as I said earlier, we'd try to build a diversified portfolio, which in a historical sense would be around thirty, thirty to forty at any one given time. And simple way to get how many we're doing in a year is if the the average number of or average duration of a deal for us is three to four months.
Craig Chilton: So, multiply that number and you end up with something like one hundred over the span of a year. That would be a reasonable starting point. Some years it would be more, some years it'll be lower, just depending on whether the deals we're involved with are average or not. But yes, something in the nature of 100 deals a year is not unreasonable to expect. It has been a little lower right now just because, as you can expect, there's less M&A going on given the COVID backdrop.
Dean Colling: Right. And I think that might surprise listeners to know that, you know, it's very rare if ever you're sitting around looking for a deal there. There's always a lot of there.
Craig Chilton: Yeah, you know, that's a constant it's a constant question we get. And so we have some data on that just showing that the number of deals is actually pretty consistent.
Craig Chilton: So as we measure our universe of, say, North American deals that are north of, greater than, one hundred million market cap, it's actually a fairly consistent amount that get announced every quarter. What we do find is that during, you know, better equity markets, you tend to get bigger, more prominent deals, and so the equity market cap of the M&A space grows. But in terms of the pure number of deals, it's actually fairly steady. And so given our size and given that we're trading in the hyper liquid U.S. market, for the most part, we don't need a ton of deals. We just need, you know, an adequate number to be able to, you know, build a diversified portfolio. And so, you know, right now, even though there's less going on, we still have 20 deals in the portfolio at this point in time. So there's never been a time in my 30 years of looking at this space where there's not something going on.
Dean Colling: Right. OK, so sort of moving in the more current space of, let's say, the last few years, there's been a higher amount of SPACs coming in. And that's sort of an interesting term. Special Purpose Acquisition Vehicle, I believe it sort of stands for. And we've seen a lot of these as part of merger arb strategy within the last few years. And it's been sort of this alternative way to go public for a number of companies. A lot of high profile companies have done that in the last little while. Can you give a little overview of the SPAC space and how you guys are utilizing it in the portfolio?
Sure. So we've been focused on SPACs for the last few years for sure. But we first started looking at them back in sort of 2007-08. This is really the third generation of SPACs. The structure has actually evolved a little with time. And this generation has some better attributes and structural features to it than in the past. So that's one reason why we think there's such a renaissance of it at the moment. So, as you said, SPAC stands for Special Purpose Acquisition Company. And it really is just an alternative way to go public. And it's important to note that it's an alternative because the reason, or rather another reason why, is there's a bit of a renaissance is that there is some frustration in the capital markets with the way the regular IPO process works in terms of, you know, how it's controlled by the investment banks and how long it takes and you're subject to market moves while you're waiting for your company to go public. And so, one of the benefits of the SPAC structure is that it's an alternative to going public the regular way, but it can be done quicker. It can be done with providing forward looking guidance and it can be done in a market where there's volatility like there is now, because there's a greater certainty of the amount of funds that can be raised. And so those are all benefits of the SPAC structure that are really contributing to its recent popularity. So but just to step back and say, you know, what exactly does this SPAC do in order to act as an alternative to going public?
Craig Chilton: So a management team will sponsor a SPAC. And what that means is they'll go out to investors like ourselves and say, look, we want to raise a few hundred million dollars to go look for a company that's currently private in some particular area of the market. It might be a management team that had experience, say, with the oil and gas or consumer products or whatever. But they say, you know, we think we can find some interesting private companies that should be ready to go public at this time.
Craig Chilton: And so they'll raise money through us and other investors and that will get the SPAC a listing, and it'll be either typically on the New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ. They will do the standard offering, is a unit which is comprised of, its priced at ten dollars, its almost always, is comprised of a common share and a warrant. Now, the nice thing is, is that the common share that is underlying that is fully backed by the ten dollars that we put up, OK? And so when this unit, after a certain period of time, it's actually like fifty two days after the unit starts trading, it's going to split into the pieces of the common and a warrant. So we end up, when we buy this unit on the IPO, we end up with a common share which is fully backed by the money that we invested. But we also have this additional piece of a warrant which is effectively free. So that's one way that we're able to generate a return on the strategies. We've got this warrant that has some value. Now, the money that we put up also sits in an escrow account in T-bills earning interest while this management team goes looking for a deal and they have a limited time in order to do this.
Craig Chilton: They have typically two years. So during that time, there's interest. So it's another way the strategy generates P&L. But the really critical way that the return gets generated is that the common share we hold, while it's backed by the ten dollars in the escrow account, and we always have the ability at the end to ask for our share of that escrow account to be returned to us so we can always get our full ten dollars at the end plus interest. But we also have the right to say, whatever if the management team brings a deal that looks really attractive and the market likes it, we also have the right to convert our SPAC shares into shares of that company that is going to go public through the merger of the SPAC and the currently private company. And so that has the potential to have incredibly asymmetric payoffs. So there's a number of high profile companies that have done this in the recent six months. You know, one example is Draft Kings. Draft Kings started out as a SPAC and once it went public, has done tremendously well in the in the aftermarket.
Craig Chilton: And you could participate in that as a SPAC investor while having full certainty that your underlying investment would always be able to be returned to you if you didn't want to approve that transaction and you didn't want to roll your equity, if you just wanted to redeem, you always could.
Craig Chilton: And so it's that asymmetry of having some upside potential to a, quote, hot IPO while always still having certainty of return of your capital. That makes it a really attractive vehicle for us. And we thought, particularly coming out of the pandemic, that, you know, that's a really appealing structure to have when you're at a time of high market uncertainty to know that worst case is I get my money back and best case is something good happens. You know, that's an upside call that we want to take.
Dean Colling: Yeah, I think a lot of people would, and it does, it is one of the most attractive features to this with a strategy for sure. So it's sort of the traditional M&A space paired with sort of a more SPAC related investment. And you can kind of get the best of both worlds. But it's, I think, it's very important that, you know, investors know that, you know, you do make that call and never really have your initial capital at risk if you don't like the deal.
Craig Chilton: That's right. And sometimes people confuse the companies after the SPAC has IPO'd, the private company, and it's now trading as its own equity, that stock can go up or down, whatever. But at that point, it's no longer a SPAC. It's a former SPAC. And our interest really lies in the time during which its still a SPAC and we still have the right to always have our capital returned to us. So we really like the certainty of that and as you said, it's kind of it's M&A again, but it's almost the flip side of what we do in merger arb spreads. Where, in merger arb we're buying the target company, in this case with SPACs, we're actually buying the acquirer that's looking to do the merger that's going to affect the IPO of the private company.
Craig Chilton: So we're kind of on the opposite side of it. But the ability to capitalize on these M&A events is ultimately where the strategy is able to generate the returns.
Dean Colling: Yeah, that's great. And so taking the lens back out again, I mean, some of that may sound a little complex, but ultimately, again, like we said at the beginning, this is a fairly straightforward strategy with a, you know, a lot of protection built in and a lot of it really in a way, in a sense, a lot of funds out there call themselves hedge funds these days, but they really aren't. This is as close to that as you get, you know, really, truly hedging out any specific market risk and just capturing spreads and, you know, a little bit of extra return in the case of SPAC situations. So I think we'll leave it at that today. I really do appreciate having you on and and walking through some examples for us. And again, the key reason that we look at these for client portfolios is, as we mentioned before, low overall risk, low overall correlation and essentially a return driver that's something much different than traditional equities and fixed income. And I think, you know, I know that's how you guys see yourself operating, of course, even within your own strategy. But would you add anything to that? Is that sort of the way you guys see it as well?
Craig Chilton: Yeah, I think it's really critical for people to try to recognize the extra diversifying effect you get from adding this type of uncorrelated asset. You know, even if you were really happy, you had a fund and it was, you know, delivering the same sort of return that we've delivered, call it, you know, in the neighborhood of four to eight percent. And jeez, I'm really happy with that guy. He's my he's my fixed income manager and I like him. The reality is that by substituting that product with something else that offers the same sort of return profile, but a different source of return and an uncorrelated source of return just makes your overall portfolio that much more robust.
Craig Chilton: So in the name of trying to build more durable, more balanced, more robust portfolios, I think adding these diversifying type of alternative return streams is really important.
Dean Colling: Yeah, exactly. It's absolutely when we're building these, it's a sum of the parts equation and all constituents have merits on their own, but it's all about bringing them together to provide that really attractive, long term, risk adjusted rate of return, real positively for our clients. So thank you for the work you guys have been doing. We appreciate, you know, the stuff you've been doing as we've been allocating to you and great communication. So we'll have you back again sometime soon. And I appreciate everything that you've been saying today. And if any of our listeners have any questions, you can shoot me an email any time, and we can go into a little bit more depth. But thank you very much, Craig.
Craig Chilton: Thank you very much. I appreciate being on, and if there's anything I can do to assist or help, please feel free to reach out.
[The microphone graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. On the left side of the screen are a list of disclaimers. The text reads: Credits; Music Provided by: Hot Coffee by Ghostrifter Official (soundcloud.com/ghostrifter-official), Licensed under Creative Commons – Attribution, ShareAlike 3.0 Unported – CC BY-SA 3.0., http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Disclaimers; This information, including any opinion, is based on various sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed and is subject to change. CIBC and CIBC World Markets Inc., their affiliates, directors, officers and employees may buy, sell, or hold a position in securities of a company mentioned herein, its affiliates or subsidiaries, and may also perform financial advisory services, investment banking or other services for, or have lending or other credit relationships with the same. CIBC World Markets Inc. and its representatives will receive sales commissions and/or a spread between bid and ask prices if you purchase, sell or hold the securities referred to above. © CIBC World Markets Inc. 2020.
CIBC Private Wealth Management consists of services provided by CIBC and certain of its subsidiaries, including CIBC Wood Gundy, a division of CIBC World Markets Inc.
Commissions, trailing commissions, management fees, and expenses may all be associated with hedge fund investments. Hedge funds may be sold by Prospectus to the general public, but more often are sold by Offering Memorandum to those investors who meet certain eligibility or minimum purchase requirements. An Offering Memorandum is not required in some jurisdictions. The Prospectus or Offering Memorandum contains important information about hedge funds – you should obtain a copy and read it before making an investment decision. Hedge funds are not guaranteed. Their values change frequently, and past performance may not be repeated. Hedge funds are for sophisticated investors only. Clients are advised to seek advice regarding their particular circumstances from their personal tax and legal advisors.
Insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services Inc. In Quebec, insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services (Quebec) Inc.
Dean Colling and Rocco Letterio are Investment Advisors with CIBC Wood Gundy. Alex Lee is an Associate Investment Advisor working with Dean Colling, Investment Advisor. The views of Dean Colling, Rocco Letterio, and Alex Lee do not necessarily reflect those of CIBC World Markets Inc.
If you are currently a CIBC Wood Gundy client, please contact your Investment Advisor.]
Announcer: Thanks for listening, if you enjoyed our show, consider sharing the episode with your friends and following us on social media. Be sure to check out our website for new episodes every month.
Wealthview – Episode 2 - Corrado Russo
[The podcast opens on an introduction graphic with CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. The text reads: Wealthview, Hosted by Dean Colling, First Vice-President & Senior Portfolio Manager, March, 2020. On the left side of the screen are a group of graphics consisting of two heads with a speech bubble, a silhouette of a knight chess piece, and a line graph in an up-trend. The text on the left hand side reads: Philosophy, Strategy & Insights.]
Announcer: You're listening to Wealthview, the podcast where we share philosophy, strategies and insights from some of Canada's top financial professionals.
[A brief montage consisting of a street level view of traffic in downtown Toronto, high-rise buildings, Dean Colling speaking on a microphone, and a bird’s eye view of a four-way intersection plays on the left side of the screen.]
Announcer: Hosted by Dean Colling, First Vice-President and Senior Portfolio Manager at CIBC Private Wealth. Edited and produced by the Colling Group. And now, onto the show.
[The introduction graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. In the centre of the screen is a graphic representation of a microphone. The text reads: Wealthview, Conversation with Corrado Russo, Senior Managing Director, Investments & Global Head of Securities, Timbercreek Asset Management.]
Dean Colling: Today, I'm joined by Corrado Russo, Senior Managing Director, Head of Global Securities for Timbercreek Asset Management. Welcome.
Corrado Russo: Thanks, Dean. Happy to be here.
Dean Colling: You know, Timbercreek has been a good partner. We've had a great relationship with you guys for probably the last five or six years. And really, the specialty that you guys bring to the table is real estate.
Dean Colling: We are trying to develop a multi asset class strategy that not only includes equities, fixed income, cash and alternatives, but within those alternatives, things that have really a low correlation, added diversification, among more traditional markets. And that's where you guys come in. And you know, we do a lot of looking around the marketplace and some of the options that are available, and you guys have always been really kind of a number one choice in that space.
Dean Colling: So I'm really glad to have you to here today. We're gonna talk a little bit about real estate. We'll talk about the markets, talk about interest rates, we're going to talk about specifically your four quadrant fund that we've allocated to for clients over the years. But before we begin, let's just turn it over you and give us a little bit of background on yourself and maybe a little bit more depth on Timbercreek.
Corrado Russo: Sure. So I started my career in the mid-90s at Ontario Teachers Pension Plan Board working for the real estate group there. Really built out that portfolio from what was sort of $3 billion of real estate when I started, to about 10 billion by the time I left. Really focused on buying and transacting and asset managing buildings and looking for a good risk adjusted returns for the pension plan. From there, I went into the public space looking at public real estate and really grew my expertise globally. I went to Citigroup, moved to New York and built out a global team there and their sort of global real estate securities platform for Citigroup. All the while I've sat on the board and watched Timbercreek grow their business and was very attracted to the entrepreneurial spirit there and joined Timbercreek in 2011 to build out the the real estate division there, build out the securities capabilities, as well as the four quadrant fund, which I know we're gonna spend some time talking about today.
Corrado Russo: So that's my background. In terms of Timbercreek's background, the company started in 1999 in real estate and that's really been the focus, we've retained that focus on real estate really over the last 20 years. We started by buying apartment buildings right here in Toronto. First building was in Oakville, cost about a million dollars, needed some some heavy lifting work and some renovation and, you know, fixing up a lot of parts of the building.
Corrado Russo: But we were able to produce a better product that people are willing to pay higher rent for, and that allows us to sell it at a profit. And we took that profit and bought two more buildings and did it all over again. Today, if we fast forward from the last 20 years, we sit around $10 billion of assets under management. And we've built out capabilities not only in apartments, but across all asset classes like office, retail, industrial, hotels, self-storage.
Corrado Russo: But we've also expanded outside of direct real estate and we've added other facets of real estate that helped diversify the complete picture like we used to do at Ontario Teachers. So we've added a lending platform where we lend capital to other real estate owners and we've added a securities platform with portfolio managers and analysts on the ground around the world in places like New York, Germany and Hong Kong, in addition to Toronto, that really look for attractive, publicly traded companies that have great assets and great long term potential and are trading at a discount to their intrinsic value.
Corrado Russo: So we combine that sort of private equity, private lending and publicly traded companies both in the equity as well as the debt business to really round out our complete core competency within real estate.
Dean Colling: Yeah, it's fantastic. And it's really kind of one of the things that attracted us as investors on behalf of our clients to Timbercreek, because at the end of the day we do like the difference between private and public equity. There's very significant differences, which we'll talk about, I think in a little bit. But the challenge, of course, with the private markets is liquidity.
Dean Colling: And what we really liked about Timbercreek was the best of both worlds, combining some of the advantages of private with the liquidity features of public, but also of the alpha generating ideas that you get out of the public markets as well. So, the big fund that you're running, for Timbercreek, that sort of really displays that type of expertise is the four quadrant fund. Why don't you go through the four quadrant strategy, talk a little bit about those four quadrants, how they come together, what maybe the portfolio looks like today?
Corrado Russo: Yeah. So sort of first to define the four quadrants and why it's called that. Our view is there are four distinct different quadrants within real estate investing. If you just choose that one asset class, the first one being private equity - so this is traditional, buying bricks and mortar, leasing out that space to tenants, collecting the rent, paying off all the expenses and obviously taking the residual cash flow and paying it to our unit holders.
Corrado Russo: The second quadrant being private lending; so, rather than on the underlying building, you're lending or creating a mortgage that we originate with other owners of real estate and obviously collect interest payments that we use to pay our unit holders as well.
Corrado Russo: And then the third one being public equity which effectively buys publicly traded companies that have great quality assets in many markets around the world, obviously making it easier for us to get into different markets and different types of cycles in niche types of asset classes within real estate as well.
Corrado Russo: And then the fourth one being public debt, which again looks at other lenders of capital that publicly traded companies that lend capital like we do. And so they at any point in time in the cycle can have different risk adjusted returns. Sometimes one quadrant may be overvalued versus another. So having the ability to move capital around is very important.
Corrado Russo: But the biggest benefit is just how they interact with each other. Like you mentioned, you do get the best of all worlds by combining them all together. The public piece gives you the liquidity. As you mentioned, the private piece gives you the stability, the sort of non-mark-to-market daily with the public markets. You get a very stable yield by having a debt component in there that allows us to pay out that distribution that we pay out on a monthly basis.
Corrado Russo: And then, the private equity component really gives you and the overall equity component, private and public, gives you that long term total return, that capital appreciation, potentially inflation protection that so many people turn to real estate to help them get as well.
Dean Colling: So let's talk about the private market. That's one of the things that really attracted us to this strategy when we were building client portfolios. A lot of the due diligence we did with you guys really gave us good insight into how you add value to properties where you can see the amount of capital that could go in, what the intrinsic value could go up to raise rents along the way and exit the position.
Dean Colling: So it's really not a long term hold per say. And maybe you'll go into the life cycle of these investments and how long they stay in the portfolio. But it's very different from what a lot of Canadian investors think about when they think of a private real estate. They think a lot about buying a condo, buying a house, renting it out and keeping it forever.
Dean Colling: What we liked, again, was more about income as a sort of second derivative of what you do, it's capital value from all the value added strategies that you do, and then you exit and you move on to something else. So talk a little bit about how you do that and what the what the process is on the private side.
Corrado Russo: Sure. So when it comes to value add, what it's really all about is trying to create a product that is worth more than what our entry price was when we bought it. And the way we do that is if you look at what the perfect piece of real estate is and what is most sought after and what people will pay premiums for, it's really what we would call a core asset. And a core asset typically has is five major factors. It has a great location. It is a fully occupied building. It has long term leases, high credit quality tenants, and it is fully renovated.
Corrado Russo: And effectively, that is as close to a bond that you can come to in real estate. And that means that people will pay a premium, whether it's institutions, insurance companies, large pension funds, that are looking for an alternative income product, an alternative to fixed income, will pay a premium for those types of assets.
Corrado Russo: So what we're looking for at Timbercreek and what we typically buy is we'll buy an asset that is in a great location because it is the one thing that we can't change but one or all of the other four things are missing and that's really where our value add comes. And so there may be some vacancy and we have to use our tenant relationships to try to get that building to full occupancy. It may have short duration of leases, so that creates a different risk profile.
Corrado Russo: So again, using our expertise to bring in other tenants to lengthen the leases, work with that tenant to get a longer maturity schedule on those leases. And then our biggest bread and butter is renovating. As you mentioned, going in and looking at a building that has discounted rents to, let's say, the three buildings that are surrounding it, because the on there over overriding aesthetics are lower.
Corrado Russo: It just hasn't been freshly renovated, hasn't been painted, lobbies are not to today's modern standards. It doesn't have the amenities that tenants are looking for, whether it be a gym or laundry facilities or a coffee shop.
Corrado Russo: So being able to sort of fix what's missing is really what generates that value. And the more things are missing, you know, one versus four of those are missing, the bigger the discount to that future intrinsic value. And if you can use the the teams that we've built up at Timbercreek to effectively fix what's missing, now, you're selling something at a higher intrinsic value.
Corrado Russo: And you really generate intrinsic value, growth in value-add in two different ways. By doing them, you're creating a better product. By creating a better product and delivering a better product to the market, people will pay more for a better product. So your rents are typically higher. Therefore, your cash flow stream that you're generating when you go to sell it is higher than when you bought it. But the second way you do it and you use the example of buying a B building and creating an A building, well, what that means is that cash flow that's higher is a higher quality cash flow stream and a lower risk cash flow stream.
Corrado Russo: So people will pay up a higher multiple on that cash flow stream. So when you combine those two, that's when you generate that value add. And then effectively our role is once you've created that perfect core asset and people will pay a premium, we take that premium, sell it into the market and then find the next transaction where we believe we can add value.
Dean Colling: Can you talk a little bit about deal sourcing? Obviously, now you guys are North American focused. Probably half the allocation is in Canada, half the of that allocation in the U.S. But then you're starting to branch out significantly. And, you know, if you look at the list of assets that you have maybe 15 to 20 total countries in the portfolio. But take me through a little bit of the deal sourcing process.
Corrado Russo: Yeah. So there's really three main sources to deal sourcing. First off, we have a dedicated deal sourcing team and acquisitions team whose role is to go out there and turn on the stones, knock on doors, look for opportunities that we're willing to buy. Figure out who buys them and how we get involved, whether that's through a broker process, which is very rare for us versus actually going direct to the owner and just working with them to try to solve what their personal issues are and by by trying to do that, we typically will have a higher success rate of getting them to sell and a better purchase price because, you know, we're working with them directly. So I think that's the first source. The second source is obviously, if you look at the senior executives at Timbercreek, the portfolio managers, the founders and some of those, you know, executives that have been in the industry for 20 plus years, you create relationships over time and you've done transactions with individuals either at other firms or partnered up with them on other transactions that continue to bring products or opportunities or investment ideas to us. And that creates a huge inflow of deal flow that then gets sent to our acquisition team to vet through them, underwrite them and evaluate whether it's an opportunity for our fund. And then the third source, I would say, is just working with other partners. We find a lot of partners in these different regions. We look for who is the local sharpshooter for multi-family in Vancouver, who is, you know, local sharpshooter for office in Silicon Valley in California, you know, who knows how to do value-add office conversions in Boston and Chicago.
Corrado Russo: And so you work with these partners and set up these joint ventures where you effectively they become tentacles of Timbercreek and you create these relationships that allow you to have a much more far reaching and higher amount of deal flow.
Corrado Russo: Because at the end of the day, the more deal flow you have, the more you have the ability to cherry pick which opportunities you think are best to put into the portfolios.
Dean Colling: Are most of your non-GTA investments JV's, are they joint ventures with other groups like that, or do you do some of those?
Corrado Russo: I would say it's 50/50. Some are joint ventures or partners where we're either the manager or we're outsourcing some of that, you know, infrastructure in the trades and the renovation program, but always retaining the buy-sell decision, the budgeting, the capital program where we're going to spend and setting the rents or we're doing it directly ourselves and we're doing it right from the beginning and taking on and using our own capital in-house group to to hire trades and get the work done that we need done.
Dean Colling: Right.
Dean Colling: So maybe for the listeners, if you you can give us some details on a couple of examples or maybe one private example that either is new to the portfolio or that was a recent exit that gives a little more flavor for for what you guys are doing?
Corrado Russo: Sure. So I'll give you a couple examples. One being right in the middle of a renovation program that we're currently doing, a building called Century Plaza in Boston, in downtown Boston. And this was the old FBI headquarters. The FBI had been in downtown for 20 plus years at this building. Their lease was up for renewal. And for those that know what's happened in their urbanization, in some of the downtown big markets, Boston not excluded. Pricing has significantly gone up. Rents have gone up. And so the FBI has moved out into the suburbs. And what that's created is this big vacancy within this building, which we saw as a huge opportunity. The location is phenomenal. It's it's one of the best locations in Boston, has, you know, great parking. It's right at the center of all of, you know, condo development that's gone up around it. And effectively, what this has done is it's created an opportunity to renovate and bring that up to a standard type office. So we're, you know, increasing the lobby floor-to-ceiling windows, it's going to a two story atrium, bringing up to modern standard lobby that you'd get in an A-type building, redoing all of the elevators, redoing all of the signage and the facade outside, and all of the different floors. And that will allow us to bring in a much higher quality office tenant and then obviously be able to increase the rents and the value of that building.
Corrado Russo: We just signed Spotify, was one of the tenants that has just signed a deal to go into that old FBI space. So just to give you a type of quality of tenants that we're starting to get through that building. So we're pretty excited about that one. We have a new one that we're actually just closed on last week in Silicon Valley. It's an office complex of five contiguous buildings in one office complex, I.T. related tenants and biotech. You know, some laboratory space that's in there as well. So very highly sophisticated purpose built office buildings. You know, it was a very high cash on cash. We're gonna get, you know, relatively high cap rate. The financing is very attractive. So we'll give very strong cash flow. And there is less of a renovation program and more of a lease duration program. There are a couple of tenants that are rolling-over over the next three years.
Corrado Russo: So we'll be working very closely with them to blend-and-extend and extend their duration of their lease term to get it to a longer term or work with other tenants that are coming in and sign longer term, 10 year, 15 year leases.
Dean Colling: Obviously, in your day to day, you're going to run into individual real estate investors. How do you answer the question when they say, well, I've got some investments on my own or I own a commercial building here or there. What's the value difference that investing in something like this can bring versus someone doing it themselves?
Corrado Russo: Yeah, I think you've got to look at that in a few ways.
Corrado Russo: Obviously, diversification is the most obvious one if you're an individual investing in real estate, you may be able to buy 1, 2, 5, 10 properties, you may be in just one market or two or three of them. So you're much more susceptible to the underlying demand-supply fundamentals that exist in your specific area that you're investing in. So if something goes wrong, if demand drops off for one reason or another, if supply in your specific area goes through the roof and impacts your ability to keep your building full into and to drive rents higher, it's very difficult to have that diversification.
Corrado Russo: So by putting it into a portfolio like ours, you're obviously getting many different markets across Canada, the U.S., Europe and Asia, across different asset classes being debt, equity, public and private.
Corrado Russo: So it just gives you a broader diversification benefit. I think the other one is sort of, you know, what we call the 2 a.m. call.
Corrado Russo: So if you're managing assets on your own and you're taking care of those assets, obviously you get that 2:00 a.m. call that, you know, my toilet's plugged, you know, my windows broken. I need this repaired and that repaired. Obviously, investing in a product like ours just gets rid of that headache. You get this same return and risk profile that you want real estate for and the ability to kick the tires and know exactly what you're buying in that transparency that there is a you know, there's tenants on the other end that are obligated legally to cut you a check every single month. And it just gives you that confidence of cash flow. But you don't have to manage it on your behalf. And obviously, with that management comes, you know, a sophisticated, you know, in-depth team that, you know, just has best practices and continues to make sure that they manage those efficiently and that they can bring costs down, that they can deal with new environmental maximum and minimums that are out there, that you have to make sure that you continue to keep on top of. So it's just, you know, obviously the workload and the hassle and headache is reduced by investing in a product like ours.
Dean Colling: Let's talk about actual results. And one of the reasons we like adding a strategy like this to our overall portfolios is, as I mentioned earlier, low correlation to traditional assets, lower overall volatility and an ability to really add value in difficult market conditions. When difficult conditions we go back to periods like 2015, we can go to Q4 of 2018 and really look at the type of diversification benefits that something like this brings to the overall portfolio. And maybe from a data perspective, if you've got that handy, you know, we were talking about it earlier, but maybe give us a little bit of insight of how the portfolio reacted in what we would deem a market distressed period like those ones. I just mentioned in '15 and late Q4 2018.
Corrado Russo: Yeah. So the whole goal of this product is to really try to reduce the extremes of the experience of the investor. So you're not going to have those huge highs and you hopefully shouldn't have any of those huge lows. So again, you know, to the point on the examples that you mention, 2018, when the market's general equity markets were down 8 percent, our portfolio was up 8 percent.
Corrado Russo: And obviously, it's a function of just some of the projects that we had finished on and brought to market and created value in. And I think by selling those assets, we really crystallize that value. So it's not just a paper value, but a true value. At the same time, you look at 2019 when the markets are up 20 plus, we were up eleven percent. So again, it just sort of cuts down the extreme and gives you a much more steady experience.
Dean Colling: So as we start to wrap this up, let's talk a little bit about the year ahead, maybe the next 24 months for the real estate market. We know we're in an extremely low interest rate environment, which typically is very supportive for yield oriented investments. But how do you and your team view the next 12 to 24 months, maybe some risks ahead, but some of the opportunities as well?
Corrado Russo: Yeah, so I mean, in terms of our existing view, we continue to be very comfortable that we can sort of deliver returns in that 8 to 10 percent for the portfolio. When we look at the deal flow that we're seeing come across our desk every single day, it is as healthy as it's ever been, both on the private equity side as well as the private debt side. When we look at the underlying returns that we expect to get out of the deals that we're looking at, in the deal we just closed on, we continue to be very comfortable in the long term outlook of of real estate. I think with respect to your question on interest rates, interest rates doesn't really fazes that much.
Corrado Russo: I think it's really important to understand why interest rates are moving one direction or the other, in our view, as if interest rates go up, but they go up as a function of the economy is very strong, GDP growth is strong, job growth is very strong, inflation is starting to come back. Those are sort of the major drivers of that cash flow that I talked about earlier. So in a strong economy, strong job growth and inflation, we're gonna be able to get higher cash flows that we're going to effectively sell in the long term. So as long as they're going up tied to that, I think we're okay. I think obviously the one that we worry about is a recession. If you get an overall decline in economic activity in general, people are not shopping, companies are not expanding their job force and office buildings, they're not moving goods through industrial warehouses or staying at our hotels. You know, that's the part that we worry about and that's the part, frankly, that we spend the most amount of time on when we buy something.
Corrado Russo: Just understanding, how do we mitigate them, the risk that we see, how do we protect ourselves from a potential downturn? How do we lock in potential leases? How do we get a strong credit quality tenants that are not going to go bankrupt in that environment? How do we make sure that we stagger all of our projects such that you don't have part of your portfolio that's rolling in a potential long, you know, economic downturn and that's another beauty of real estate, is because you have locked in leases it gets you through some of the short movements within the economy.
Corrado Russo: So that, you know, that's obviously if we wanted to point out one risk, you know, where where we would where would we focus.
Dean Colling: So let's leave it on one final question that I'm sure all the listeners want to know, and they will ask me all the time and they've been asking me all the time for the last 10 plus years.
Let's talk about the Canadian real estate market, from a personal perspective. Principal residences in places like the GTA and Toronto here or in places like Vancouver. What's your outlook?
Corrado Russo: So probably one that your listeners are not going to want to hear in terms of personal resonances. Look, we've been in an environment where housing prices have been going up for a very long time. They've been going up at a faster pace than inflation and a faster pace than wage inflation. So at some point, that impacts affordability. So it is something that you want to be careful of in terms of buying a residence for an investment or for a speculative rental product.
Corrado Russo: Just make sure that you have the staying power and your financing is attractive for the long term, because over the long term, we believe that there's still an attractive environment even for single family homes. Just given the immigration, the living standards and quality of living in Canada and in Toronto specifically, we believe we will continue to get a greater market share of population growth, which will drive that further. I think if you look at what we're doing, it's really more on the commercial real estate side. It's about cash flow. So we haven't really focused on single family homes.
Dean Colling: Great. Thank you. Corrado, appreciate your time today. This was very informative.
Dean Colling: I hope everybody got a little bit more insight into your strategy, how Timbercreek works. Certainly how we integrate the four quadrant fund into our overall portfolio construction. It's been an excellent vehicle for us to express that view on global real estate, global private real estate, adding value, lower correlations. And you and your team have done a fantastic job in terms of delivering returns. So we thank you for that and wish all the best in the upcoming quarters and we'll do this again sometime soon.
Corrado Russo: Great. Thanks, Dean, and thanks for your continued support.
[The microphone graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. On the left side of the screen are a list of disclaimers. The text reads: Credits; Music Provided by: Hot Coffee by Ghostrifter Official (soundcloud.com/ghostrifter-official), Licensed under Creative Commons – Attribution, ShareAlike 3.0 Unported – CC BY-SA 3.0., http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Disclaimers; This information, including any opinion, is based on various sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed and is subject to change. CIBC and CIBC World Markets Inc., their affiliates, directors, officers and employees may buy, sell, or hold a position in securities of a company mentioned herein, its affiliates or subsidiaries, and may also perform financial advisory services, investment banking or other services for, or have lending or other credit relationships with the same. CIBC World Markets Inc. and its representatives will receive sales commissions and/or a spread between bid and ask prices if you purchase, sell or hold the securities referred to above. © CIBC World Markets Inc. 2020.
CIBC Private Wealth Management consists of services provided by CIBC and certain of its subsidiaries, including CIBC Wood Gundy, a division of CIBC World Markets Inc.
Commissions, trailing commissions, management fees, and expenses may all be associated with hedge fund investments. Hedge funds may be sold by Prospectus to the general public, but more often are sold by Offering Memorandum to those investors who meet certain eligibility or minimum purchase requirements. An Offering Memorandum is not required in some jurisdictions. The Prospectus or Offering Memorandum contains important information about hedge funds – you should obtain a copy and read it before making an investment decision. Hedge funds are not guaranteed. Their values change frequently, and past performance may not be repeated. Hedge funds are for sophisticated investors only. Clients are advised to seek advice regarding their particular circumstances from their personal tax and legal advisors.
Insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services Inc. In Quebec, insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services (Quebec) Inc.
Dean Colling and Rocco Letterio are Investment Advisors with CIBC Wood Gundy. Alex Lee is an Associate Investment Advisor working with Dean Colling, Investment Advisor. The views of Dean Colling, Rocco Letterio, and Alex Lee do not necessarily reflect those of CIBC World Markets Inc.
If you are currently a CIBC Wood Gundy client, please contact your Investment Advisor.]
Announcer: Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed our show, consider sharing the episode with your friends and following us on social media. Be sure to check out our Web site for new episodes every month.
[The podcast opens on an introduction graphic with CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. The text reads: Wealthview, Hosted by Dean Colling, First Vice-President & Senior Portfolio Manager, February, 2020. On the left side of the screen are a group of graphics consisting of two heads with a speech bubble, a silhouette of a knight chess piece, and a line graph in an up-trend. The text on the left hand side reads: Philosophy, Strategy & Insights.]
Announcer: You're listening to Wealthview, the podcast where we share philosophy, strategies and insights from some of Canada's top financial professionals.
[A brief montage consisting of a street level view of traffic in downtown Toronto, high-rise buildings, Dean Colling speaking on a microphone, and a bird’s eye view of a four-way intersection plays on the left side of the screen.]
Announcer: Hosted by Dean Colling, First-Vice President and Senior Portfolio Manager at CIBC Private Wealth. Edited and produced by the Colling Group. And now, onto the show.
[The introduction graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. In the centre of the screen is a graphic representation of a microphone. The text reads: Wealthview, Conversation with Royce Mendes, Executive Director & Senior Economist, CIBC Capital Markets.]
Dean Colling: Welcome to Wealthview. I'm your host, Dean Colling, First Vice-President and Senior Portfolio Manager at CIBC Wood Gundy. Today, we're featuring Royce Mendes, Senior Economist with CIBC Capital Markets and a good friend of mine. Both of us went to Queens together. So I thought we'd get him in here today and talk a little bit about the Canadian economy, US and global markets, and a little bit of outlook over the next 12 months. Royce, welcome.
Royce Mendes: Thanks for having me, Dean.
Dean Colling: You're welcome. So, give us a little bit of background on yourself.
Royce Mendes: I currently lead the monitoring and forecasting for the Canadian economy for CIBC Capital Markets. Prior to working at CIBC, I was actually at the Bank of Canada. I was a portfolio manager for Canada's foreign reserves. I ran a research group focusing on the financial system. And prior to that, I worked on research regarding the communications of monetary policy. I'm really happy to be here today on the inaugural podcast we've got going, so I'm ready for the questions.
Dean Colling: Perfect.
Dean Colling: Yeah. Obviously, Royce is a guy that we know very well within the firm itself and really respect a lot of the forecasting that him and his team do as we start to disseminate that stuff into portfolio strategies.
Dean Colling: So why don't we just start with a general comment about the Canadian economy. We're just entering into 2020 here. How do we sit?
Royce Mendes: Decidedly mixed at the moment. We received a labour force survey that showed for the second month in a row, apparently there were a large number of jobs created in Canada. But we always tend to take that survey with a huge grain of salt. I've called that survey before the random number generator. It tends to be an extremely volatile survey that you really need to look at the trend over some period of time, at least three months, if not six months. Right now, other data series in Canada are showing weakness, particularly household spending. We've seen spending per capita growth reach its lowest level since the last time the Bank of Canada had to cut rates. It means that Canadians are becoming more cautious with the incomes they're earning.
Dean Colling: So why do you think that is?
Royce Mendes: Well, we've actually outlined three reasons in our research. One, Canadians haven't been saving a lot of money recently, so they haven't put aside enough of a nest egg to draw on if they get into trouble with regards to their job or their incomes.
Royce Mendes: Number two, Canadians are spending a lot of money just servicing the debt that they already have. A lot of their income is going to paying interest and principal on mortgages, on other debt, consumer debt that they've taken out, and on rent as well.
Royce Mendes: And third, Canadians are borrowing less at a slower pace. So while the stock of debt is elevated, the growth in that debt has actually slowed down. So typically, if a Canadian lost their job or had a shock to their income, they would have gone out and been able to take on more debt. The question we have is whether it is their ability or willingness to go out and borrow more. I can't speak to the willingness because that is a personal household decision. But when we look at the ability, we're seeing some signs that Canadians are less able to go out and borrow. First of all, there is a larger share of Canadians with credit scores below 680, so tending to be a relatively low credit score. Number two, we're starting to see increases in insolvencies. You might have seen in the news recently that insolvencies hit their highest level since the financial crisis. And we're seeing this across provinces and across age groups, even older Canadians above the ages of 55, who we tend to think as relatively financially stable are seeing an uptick in insolvencies. So again, the question is why is that happening? Because right now for most of the country, the unemployment rate remains very low and job gains remain relatively strong.
Royce Mendes: That's not usually a time when insolvencies start to increase. There's a couple of reasons here. First of all, insolvencies are being driven by proposals, not bankruptcies. Bankruptcies are when banks have to write off almost all of the debt that that a household would owe them. Proposals are restructuring of debt. So this is not as acute a problem as maybe it was in the past when they were focused on bankruptcies. Secondly, mortgage debt, which is between two thirds and three quarters of all debt outstanding, is rock solid. That's not where the arrears and issues are showing up. It's showing up in consumer debt, things like home equity lines of credit and unsecured lines of credit. And what's the common denominator between those two types of debt? Well, it's the rate of interest that people pay on them. It's tied to the prime rate of interest. The Bank of Canada had been increasing interest rates and that pushed the prime rate of interest higher. And that is what caused some Canadians to have issues paying that debt. Now, a lot of clients ask us, what does that mean for the Bank of Canada moving forward? Well, it does give them a little bit of an incentive to maybe cut interest rates to ease that debt burden for those Canadians.
Dean Colling: So when you talk about credit scores, interestingly, and maybe I'll ask you about the comparison between Canada, the US. We've recently heard data where actually the U.S. consumers has the best FICO scores ever, and it's actually sort of spun as a positive for continued consumer spending. So we're seeing obviously a very different story here in Canada.
Royce Mendes: The data I was quoting earlier where Canadians have very low savings rates and high financial obligations ratios are the exact opposite of what we're seeing in the U.S., where Americans actually became very prudent following the financial crisis. They have been tucking away large sums of money into savings. They've also had a lower financial obligations ratio as a result of not taking on excess debt. They actually have relatively low debt to disposable income ratios. Now, that was a painful deleveraging. We all remember that debt to disposable income before the financial crisis in the US was relatively elevated. Then the crisis hit. People lost their jobs, they went bankrupt, they defaulted on their debt. That's the reason the debt level is starting from a low level. But they have been prudent and we've actually seen expenditures in the US grow at a slower pace than household income, which means that this growth in consumer spending appears sustainable. And that's really good news because 70 percent of the U.S. economy is consumer spending. And why does that matter for Canada? Well, Canada hasn't fallen into recession since 1951 without the U.S. being right there with it; the U.S. has fallen into recession without Canada falling into recession, but Canada has not fallen into recession without the U.S. also being in recession. So if the U.S. isn't in recession, you know, it makes the likelihood of a Canadian recession even lower.
Dean Colling: Interesting. That makes sense.
Dean Colling: So if we look at the level of debt here in Canada from an absolute and then relative basis, that's one of the things we're always concerned about sort of identifying and saying, sure, yeah, the debt levels have risen, relative asset levels have risen against that, but the cost of servicing that debt has come down significantly. How does that look today versus, say, back in the past on a sort of absolute versus the servicing level? Is it that stretched at this point?
Royce Mendes: Well, I mentioned that fire financial obligations are actually relatively high as a share of income. And that's one aspect that is eating away at overall consumer spending. But you're right, the elevated level of debt needs to be put into perspective. A lot of that debt, as I mentioned, is tied to mortgages. And as long as house prices are stable or rising, that debt is not as vulnerable as it would be, obviously, if house prices were falling.
Dean Colling: Right. Which they aren't. And that's one of the things we, you know, we've always heard for probably the last decade since post-financial crisis is, you know, the housing market continues to go up, continues to go up. Clearly, it's been a nice long run here. And that is going to be a typical question that all clients and investors have is, you know, what about the housing market? Where are we at? Is just being fueled by strictly immigration and low rates? Is there more room to run? You know, is my house price going to continue to go up forever?
Royce Mendes: Well, in the GTA, we did see a policy induced slowdown. We saw regional rule changes from the Government of Ontario. We had the tighter mortgage lending standards, the so-called B20 rules, and we had the aforementioned Bank of Canada rate hikes and that did cause a slowing in the Toronto housing market. What we're seeing now is a return to growth. And the question is, are we just seeing a return of froth? Or are we heading towards bubble territory? I would argue that we're on a much more sustainable path today. The froth has been taken off of the market in Toronto. The market looks more balanced. We're actually going to see a number of condo buildings come onto the market in 2020. And that's going to add supply because that was always the underlying issue in Toronto, was that we didn't have enough supply and that led to speculation, and that's what really happened. That's when you saw that 30 percent year-over-year house price gains - that was speculation. We've taken away some of that speculation, so it's now being driven by more fundamentals; those fundamentals still look pretty good to me. We have very strong population growth. And that's what you always want to see when you're forecasting housing markets. You want to see strong population growth because that creates a floor under the market. There's always going to be demand for housing units in Toronto.
Dean Colling: So what about places like Vancouver? Obviously, Vancouver was sort of the lead of value growth in Canada and maybe compare that to a place like Calgary that seems to be a little bit softer.
Royce Mendes: Yeah, in Vancouver's case, there was a lot of speculative activity going on as well, maybe more so than Toronto. And you're still seeing declines in house prices in Vancouver. The issue there was that, you know, you had foreign buyers, but we heard that, you know, foreign buyers were a much more fundamental part of that market, and the reason why you were seeing house price gains. Some of those foreign buyers were buying many units and leaving them empty, something that wasn't happening in Toronto as much according to the anecdotal evidence that we have. In Calgary, of course, we know the housing market is weak because, you know, the economy is still recovering from that oil price shock that so many years ago. It's transitioning, it's still finding an equilibrium out in Calgary, and that's the issue there. So, I think a slightly different reason for sluggishness in housing markets between Calgary and Vancouver. A lot of people years ago were comparing Toronto and Vancouver because they were seeing such a large house price gains, but now you can see the differences. Toronto is rebounding, Vancouver is still looking sluggish.
Dean Colling: That makes sense.
Dean Colling: So I guess we can sort of look at the the Canadian housing market in aggregate, as you said, kind of balanced. You know, cost of debt probably remains stable. Supply looks pretty good. You know, certain pockets of softness are balancing themselves out, but no real concern on the forecast.
Royce Mendes: Overall, we're seeing a return to growth from that soft patch. And when we talk about the national housing market, it does look more sustainable. And that's good news for the Canadian economy, because the Canadian economy has been heavily reliant on two things: household spending, which we talked about cooling, and housing markets. Housing markets, while they're not on the same trajectory as they were a few years ago, they're going to provide a little bit of growth in the next couple of years.
Dean Colling: So let's talk a little bit about inflation and interest rates, obviously very important inputs to investment decisions over the long term. Clearly, we've been in a extremely low interest rate, low inflation environment, yet we're sitting at full unemployment for and we don't really see a ton of pressures. That's kind of a really great environment if you're an equity investor. But, you know, when you look over your shoulder every once in a while, so when you guys are doing your forecasting, where do you see inflationary pressures, if any, coming up?
Royce Mendes: There are structural changes in the economy that mean that inflationary pressures are not going to be as strong as they were before. So first, wage pressures. So we always talk about wage push inflation. That's the main way economists think about inflation in a globalized world.
Royce Mendes: You can outsource work, much easier, to low cost parts of the world. So if your worker in North America is becoming too expensive and they're asking for raises, you can outsource that work. Usually, that makes workers ask for less raises. You've also seen unionization rates drop in North America. It makes it more difficult to bargain with your employer when you're not doing it collectively. You also have technology that can replace labor more easily in today's world. Think about going the grocery store - how many of you use self-checkout lanes? You don't need someone to scan your items anymore. Those are reasons why maybe wages are not picking up as much and reacting as quickly. You're also importing deflation; so when we buy goods from low cost parts of the world, we're generally buying them because they're cheaper. They may be very similar in quality, but they're cheaper. So you're getting very low inflation rates from that part of the product basket. So overall, I think these structural changes mean it's more difficult to generate the types of inflation you had before. You also have central banks, for roughly 30 years, that have been targeting inflation and have anchored inflation expectations. Unlike four or five decades ago when you had un-anchored inflation expectations and a quick spike in oil prices could see overall inflation spike because people were worried about costs increasing. People generally know that the central bank will try to keep inflation under control. And that brings me to my last point - that even if inflation started to tick up a little bit, the central bank has all the tools in the world to cool it back down.
Royce Mendes: It can raise interest rates. It can reverse some of the asset purchases its done, or quantitative easing its done. So overall, that means that the inflationary environment is going to remain relatively muted. And that's why I think you see some of the term premium at the long end of the curve disappearing.
Dean Colling: Yeah, that makes sense. We kind of see that as well. And I guess the one thing we look at is given this low level of inflation and again, obviously corresponding low interest rates. Is it possible - this is what we hear a lot, a narrative going on quite regularly now, the global economy, primarily the U.S. economy, is set for this perpetual low growth, slow growth environment with no real recession risk in any time in the near future?
Royce Mendes: It does seem like the developed world is set for a slow growth path and it seems like it is, for one reason or another, there is a deficiency in demand. And that's what's keeping interest rates relatively low. Could be an aging demographic, it could be because companies no longer require capital to build factories and machinery with as much intensity. Think about the largest stocks on the S&P 500 30 years ago. There were companies like Ford, GM and G.E. They required a ton of borrowing to build the factories and buy the machines they needed to build those cars and other goods. Today, some of the largest companies in the world are technology companies. They don't require as much capital. That's kind of the switch in the economy that has caused interest rates to to be so low and there's just no demand. That's why we we've seen sluggish business investment for so long. We've actually seen business investment very tame since the financial crisis. A lot of people are talking about Donald Trump and the uncertainty surrounding trade that's suppressing the appetite for capital spending by businesses. I would argue that you've seen it for much longer than that since Donald Trump has been in office. So I think this is a a secular issue. And I think you're right, it's going to lead to persistently low interest rates for a long time.
Royce Mendes: Now, the question about a recession is interesting. For now, I don't think we see a recession in our base case scenario. That doesn't mean that there can't be one. But, you know, generally, there's a trigger for a recession. Typically, in the recent past, it's been asset price bubbles. The housing market bubble in 2008, The tech stock bubble in 2001. Prior to that, it was central banks hiking too fast or too much. We haven't seen that recently. The Federal Reserve actually reversed its course on interest rate hikes, and before that it was things like higher oil prices pushing consumers in large economies into recession. Today, the US is as large a producer of oil as it is basically a consumer of oil. So, higher oil prices don't mean the same thing. But whenever an advanced economy does face a recession, well, we need to keep in mind is that there's not a lot of room to stimulate via monetary policy. Generally in Canada and the US, you've had to cut interest rates by about 5 percentage points. In Canada, the overnight rate is one point seven five percent. In the US, it's slightly lower than that. So there is less than half the room that monetary policy makers need to stimulate the economy. And you know, that will probably leave interest rates in the future whenever we hit that next recession even lower for a prolonged period of time.
Dean Colling: So that leads to the question about negative interest rate policy. Obviously, not much further you can go. Natural market forces may put some existing bonds priced at negative rates, but it's a whole other thing from a policy perspective to move to negative rates. And I guess we've seen that experiment happening in certain parts of Europe - doesn't look like worked too well. I'd be curious to see what you guys think about that as a policy.
Royce Mendes: The evidence is, as you say, that it hasn't worked particularly well. We've seen it used in the Eurozone and Japan in both cases subsequent to the introduction of negative interest rates. What you saw was an increase in household savings rates and a decrease in consumption. That's the exact opposite of what your economics textbook would tell you. Usually when you lower an interest rate or you ease monetary policy, you're trying to induce spending and you're trying to get people to save a little bit less. That's the exact opposite of what happened. So I would say the policy overall appears to not be working.
Royce Mendes: In the U.S., the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, has said that he doesn't think the Federal Reserve would consider negative interest rates in the next downturn. And while the Bank of Canada hasn't commented on this recently, I would tend to believe that just given the evidence out there, that they would be gradually coming to the same conclusion.
Royce Mendes: But while we're not forecasting negative interest rates in North America, we as I said, we are forecasting a period of low interest rates. I actually want to put it back to you and ask you, what does that mean for asset allocators in this country?
Dean Colling: Yeah, it's a good question, especially if from an asset allocation perspective, income is an important part of it. You know, obviously fixed income assets in particular are low volatility, low risk assets in general in the overall asset mix. But they do perform two functions, among others. But one is as an equity hedge and the other one is that it is an income generator. Today's interest rate environment, especially if there's no new fixed income being issued, low coupon debt, it's really not going to help too much. So you're finding that most portfolios are shifting right to sort of the top end of their equity ranges depending on each individual client. We're doing that for sure. And we're getting a lot of our income from the equity side, dividends as well. You know, and the other side of things we're trying to what we would more call volatility matching. You know, we might look at and like the low risk aspect of fixed income, but don't love all the drivers that come with it - credit spreads and the potential for rates to go back up. So we start to look to the alternative asset classes to, you know, add things that will give the same type of low volatility return, but drivers really something else. So it's a challenge from an income perspective, but we're certainly managing and I think if we look at all across all of our clients and all of our strategies, I would say that we tend to be tilted a little bit more to the end to the equity side and certainly looking for our income from that asset class.
Dean Colling: And the one thing that I think a lot of people talk about today is valuation and PE multiples. And, you know, are the markets going to continue higher, are they overvalued. And, you know, going back to our discussion on rates and inflation. I think it's important that most people when they talk about valuation, they talk about the PE multiple of a market, they can't do so independent of rates and inflation. And the reason that is, is clearly, you know, if you go back in time and look at periods where you have much higher interest rates, much higher inflation, you know, the present value of a dollar of earnings is worth a lot less. You know, you discount that back at a much higher discount rate, it's not worth that much. So you kind of have to pay a little bit less multiple in the market in order to feel comfortable with that stream of earnings. But today you've got super historical low rates. And you know we always say that rational investors should feel quite confident to pay up a little bit more for that for that dollar of earnings, because against the backdrop of super low interest rates and inflation, it's worth a lot more today on a present value basis.
Dean Colling: So, you know, we don't think markets are super cheap, but we certainly aren't thinking they're very expensive nonetheless. But as I always say, I reserve the right to change my mind tomorrow if the data changes.
Dean Colling: So when we build the portfolios, though, it's interesting; we have to look at currencies, obviously, we're building multi-asset class strategies and we take into consideration other currencies that come into the portfolio. Typically, our philosophy has been not to hedge, particularly with the U.S. dollar; we believe in reversion to the mean. Sometimes that will be a headwind for us when we look at things in Canadian dollar terms. Sometimes it will be a tailwind, but we like the added diversification. We certainly like having the U.S. dollar as a strong piece of the portfolio. It's been a bit weaker, interestingly, against CAD over the last 18 months, but we were interested to see what you guys think. I mean, my view is based on where interest rate policy goes in the next six to twelve months, kind of feels like the Canadian dollar should come off against the U.S. dollar started to a little bit this year, but kind of interested to see what you guys think about that.
Royce Mendes: Well, we agree with the interest rate part of what you're saying. We think the Bank of Canada is going to have to trim rates a little bit later this year. But we also believe that a Canadian dollar that is weaker is necessary to drive a rotation in demand away from household spending and housing markets and towards things like exports and business investment in Canada. Over the last 10 years, business investment and exports in Canada haven't been particularly strong, but they've had the cover of strong housing markets and strong consumption gains. Today, That's no longer true. We're seeing consumption weak. We're seeing housing markets on a slower trajectory. So something has to give, because if the Canadian economy is growing less than about 1.7 or 1.8 percent per year, it means that the unemployment rate is going to rise. So what we see as the stabilizing force is a change in the Canadian dollar. What happened around the year 2002-2003 is we started to see an increase in manufacturing unit labor costs in Canada. It means that Canada became an expensive place to produce goods, and that's relative to producing in the US. Subsequent to the oil price shock, we saw some of those costs come back down. Now some of that is because the Canadian dollar depreciated. It previously appreciated and then it depreciated, but there's still a gap. Now there's two ways to solve that gap. One would be increasing productivity in Canada; so every worker becomes more productive. In essence, you don't pay the worker less, but it costs less to produce each unit of a good. The other way is to see an even weaker Canadian dollar. It's very difficult to drive productivity gains. We talk about productivity a lot, but there's no silver bullet to drive productivity growth. So we think the most likely way to narrow that competitiveness gap is to see an even weaker Canadian dollar.
Dean Colling: So do you think that is currently sort of the formal policy behind the scenes at the Bank of Canada? That they're looking at that - or is that something that just sort of will develop over the next coming quarters?
Royce Mendes: I think if you saw the Canadian dollar begin to appreciate in the months to come, it would give them more reason to cut rates. I think if you saw it move towards the 1.25 level, you'd start to see a little bit more concern coming out of Ottawa and the Bank of Canada on the level of the exchange rate and it becoming too expensive.
Dean Colling: Right.
Dean Colling: And I think, you know, it's always a moving target. You use purchasing power parity or some sort of fair value - we always know it's certainly not par.
Dean Colling: You know, it's probably not simply 70 cents or 65 cents. But do you guys have a forecast of where you might think that it will be? And we won't hold you to it necessarily.
Dean Colling: Well we actually believe that we're moving towards the 1.40 level. So we actually think, and you know, if you flip that around, that is closer to the 70 cent level. So it's not a great story if you're looking to travel to Florida and do some shopping or buy a house somewhere in the US. But it may be what's needed to keep the economy at full employment, the full employment that you mentioned. Keep as many Canadians employed as possible.
Dean Colling: Okay, well, that makes sense. And certainly a weaker dollar in Canada is definitely stimulative. And I think we both concur that that's probably the direction we see the dollar heading versus USD, at least in the next and the next 12 months.
Royce Mendes: Royce, thanks for your time today. It was great talking to you. Nice to see you again. We'll do this again another time. And have a great day, everybody.
[The microphone graphic fades to black. A new graphic fades in from black, in the top right hand corner is CIBC Private Wealth Management’s logo. On the left side of the screen are a list of disclaimers. The text reads: Credits; Music Provided by: Hot Coffee by Ghostrifter Official (soundcloud.com/ghostrifter-official), Licensed under Creative Commons – Attribution, ShareAlike 3.0 Unported – CC BY-SA 3.0., http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Disclaimers; This information, including any opinion, is based on various sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed and is subject to change. CIBC and CIBC World Markets Inc., their affiliates, directors, officers and employees may buy, sell, or hold a position in securities of a company mentioned herein, its affiliates or subsidiaries, and may also perform financial advisory services, investment banking or other services for, or have lending or other credit relationships with the same. CIBC World Markets Inc. and its representatives will receive sales commissions and/or a spread between bid and ask prices if you purchase, sell or hold the securities referred to above. © CIBC World Markets Inc. 2020.
CIBC Private Wealth Management consists of services provided by CIBC and certain of its subsidiaries, including CIBC Wood Gundy, a division of CIBC World Markets Inc.
Commissions, trailing commissions, management fees, and expenses may all be associated with hedge fund investments. Hedge funds may be sold by Prospectus to the general public, but more often are sold by Offering Memorandum to those investors who meet certain eligibility or minimum purchase requirements. An Offering Memorandum is not required in some jurisdictions. The Prospectus or Offering Memorandum contains important information about hedge funds – you should obtain a copy and read it before making an investment decision. Hedge funds are not guaranteed. Their values change frequently, and past performance may not be repeated. Hedge funds are for sophisticated investors only. Clients are advised to seek advice regarding their particular circumstances from their personal tax and legal advisors.
Insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services Inc. In Quebec, insurance services are available through CIBC Wood Gundy Financial Services (Quebec) Inc.
Dean Colling and Rocco Letterio are Investment Advisors with CIBC Wood Gundy. Alex Lee is an Associate Investment Advisor working with Dean Colling, Investment Advisor. The views of Dean Colling, Rocco Letterio, and Alex Lee do not necessarily reflect those of CIBC World Markets Inc.
If you are currently a CIBC Wood Gundy client, please contact your Investment Advisor.]
Announcer: Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed our show, consider sharing the episode with your friends and following us on social media. Be sure to check out our web site for new episodes every month.