|
Summary: No matter how wild they get, financial markets don't impose
upon the calculation of mortality rates. Unfortunately, the ivory tower culture
of actuarial work is vulnerable to the vast but recurring changes in fashions
in stocks, bonds, real estate, and (shudder) now in commodities.
Recently, HSBC estimated that by the end of 2006 institutions will hold some
US $100 billion in commodity indexes. This compares to US $10 billion held
at the end of 2003 and very much less at the cyclical low for commodities in
late 2002.
This is the first direct venture by such funds in history and marks a remarkable
departure from "The Prudent Man Rule" into the fad de jour.
In the past, the clash between the aloof long term view and undeniable market
forces has resulted in corporate damage.
Observations: In this article, the term actuarially-driven investors
refers to insurance companies and almost anything related to pension funds.
These, of course, include sponsors and pension fund managers, with the connecting
theme being long term studies by actuaries on mortality rates as well as projected
investment returns. Obviously, so-called federal government pension plans are
not included as falling under a heading of electorally-driven promotions.
In contrast with a rapidly changing financial world (particularly with volatility
exceeding that typical of previous new financial eras), mortality rates change
at a glacial pace. Often this culture of a virtual constant state sets itself
up as removed from the variable nature of investment markets. At other times,
it locks on to investment fads.
It is one thing to be detached from shorter term fluctuations, but the pedestal
of the "dignified long term perspective" has, in a number of cases, been isolated
- particularly from the remarkable financial volatility typical of great asset
inflations.
For example, at interest rate lows in the 1940s and 1950s, insurers were very
comfortable with the fashion to favour fixed income investments over risky
equities.
Regrettably, the unthinkable was building and that was soaring CPI inflation
which, in the early 1960s, was considered a plague that could only happen in
inferior countries. Looking back on it, the irony is exquisite. As bonds were
being trashed, salvation was found in equities which, in turn, were soon trashed
by soaring alternative investments in commodities or real estate, which eventually
turned disappointing as well.
Some History: As with generals always fighting the last war, the complacency
that seems to go with many large funds leaves them vulnerable to the inevitable
major changes in investment fashions. Since the late 1600s, insurance companies
have been the largest investors, but this review is limited to North American
life insurers since the 1860s. One observation is that the financial violence
found with our period of asset inflation occurred in two previous examples.
Another is that the steadiness of mortality calculations may foster a complacency
vulnerable to the extraordinary events that attend great asset inflations.
In the mid-1800s, some insurers in England had shown a long success of operating
conservatively, providing full protection for their policyholders, with a return
of 3% on their funds. In Canada and the U.S., this was about half the return
from first class securities.
Businessmen in Canada, for example, saw the opportunity that, with a wider
margin of safety, they could charge lower premiums and show a good return to
shareholders.
The Sun Insurance Company of Montreal was incorporated in 1865 and initially
the Board of Directors reviewed each policy applicant and investments. Disqualifying
rules were complex and included sailing on ships crossing the Atlantic and
travelling too far south into the U.S. Malaria and a variety of enteric diseases
in the hotter climates were a real risk.
Of interest, the fine print also forbade payout on death due to suicide, dueling,
or at the "hand of justice".
Sun, which became a global giant, is a suitable representative of the industry.
Actuarial review by a consultant was first engaged in 1876 and a full-time
actuary was appointed in 1881.
The New Era That Ended In 1873: While our review is by no means thorough,
the sampling is random as to which reports were readily available. For example,
the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance company started in Sacramento had their operations
reviewed in 1871 by an actuary from Boston. In 1873, one was hired who had
the only calculating machine in the West.
This was an "Arithmometer of Sir Thomas de Colmar" and the company's history
describes it as a big brass machine that, in accomplishing astonishing feats, "its
wizardry brought in many visitors". Unfortunately, it required frequent trips
to San Francisco for repairs by an expert watchmaker.
In the 1870s' boom, the Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company extrapolated
confidence and took "long term" positions in higher yielding but lower grade
securities. The "new era" climaxed with a bubble in 1873 and narrowing quality
spreads reversed to widening in the consequent distress and collapse of liquidity.
Chagrined, the investment committee discontinued the policy of trying to obtain
high returns through risky investments. The 1873-1895 contraction was called "The
Great Depression", which became an enduring illustration of risk forcing prudent
investing.
The New Era That Ended in 1929: The next new era developed in the 1920s
and Sun became one of the great companies in the world. T.B. Macauly was both
an actuary and a visionary who had, at the end of WWI in 1918, sensed the coming
of a new era of industrialization. As history records, he didn't understand
the risks of the subsequent great financial boom. His way to participate was
through equities, with selection the key, and no investments were to be made
for early sale or making a quick profit. In the mid-1920s, Macauly wrote, "We
are conservative in our selections and we retain our holdings
indefinitely, regardless of market fluctuations.". The rationalization was, "We
have enlisted the brainiest and most experienced men on the continent to manage
the investments.". (This compares with the boasts from a hedgefund in March,
1998 that their staff included "a disproportionate number of the world's leading
computer scientists, system architects, and financial engineers". The fund
became insolvent in September, 1998.)
With the benefit of hindsight and the duress of the early 1930s, this policy
came into question and was rejected.
But, in foresight, this was an impossible view as the 1920s progressed and
Sun's aggressive approach to equities was unique in North America and was matched
by only a few life companies in England. In 1927, 55% of their investments
were in various classes of corporate bonds and some 30% was in common shares
which, at the top in 1929, amounted to 52% of the company's assets. This was
well appreciated by speculators as the stock soared from 560 in January 1927
to 4100 in September 1929. The low on the consequent debacle was 145.
Infatuation With Fixed Income At Secularly Low Interest Rates: A 1971
history of the company observed that if the wagon is hitched to the star it
must follow the star. Sun's business contracted with the bust and no dividends
were paid for four years. In the mid-1930s, management proudly announced that
since 1931 they had exclusively invested in "fixed interest-bearing securities".
This, of course, brings us around to the regard in the 1940s for fixed income
that pushed long treasury yields down to less than 3% as concerns for risk
in equities had investment-grade shares at a 6% dividend yield. Since the early
1700s, there have been six "new eras". Typically at bear market lows, investment-grade
stocks traded at a 6% dividend yield and with the enthusiasms at bull market
tops at 3%. On the credit cycle, interest rates for senior government bonds
typically traded around 3% at an economic trough and at the height of a boom
near 6%. (Over 300 years, the 15% in 1980 was the exception.)
By the late 1960s, widespread concerns about another depression were dispelled
by a wonderful bull market. As that one was peaking, the popular projection
claimed there would be so much institutional money coming into the stock market
that there would be a "shortage of equities". Expanding earnings multiples
and new issues were also featured.
Despite this allure, the policy at a large life company was that any investment
that fluctuated in value had no value because the actuary could not match with
any certainty the sanctified 30-year forecast of mortality rates. Investments,
therefore, required fixed income. All bonds were held to maturity. Even if
the issue was rated as junk, it qualified as an "in" investment while equities
and real estate were "out". In the early 1960s, equities were restricted to
15% of investment funds and undesirable real estate was kept at 1%.
Infatuation With Real Estate At Secularly High Interest Rates: The
greatest bear market in history for bonds accelerated in the 1960s, making
fixed income investments unpopular. As the rate of inflation was getting well
beyond most coupons, actuarial assumptions suddenly forced direct investments
in real estate. Pension funds bought a wide variety of properties at inflated
prices.
Out of the speculative real estate collapse in the early 1980s, another great
bull market for common shares started. With this, another cult of equities
developed with actuaries eventually recommending a 60%+ weighting. Despite
the collapse of radical speculation in techs, this has maintained. This compares
with the aggressive 52% weighting by Sun Life in 1929.
Using the DJIA, equities didn't break even until 1955. This, so to speak,
is an actuarial life-time and, although there was little change in mortality
rates, the investment culture had changed to minimize rather than celebrate
equities.
More recently, equities are very much in fashion, real estate again has been
wonderful, and confidence in the Fed's ability to depreciate the dollar "forever" is
so strong that former champions of fiduciary responsibility are speculating
in commodities.
Recent changes in the yield curve and credit spreads are indicative of the
financial stresses that accompany the culmination of any great boom. This review
starts with the asset mania that blew out in 1873 when the leading New York
newspaper editorialized that nothing could go wrong because, without a central
bank on a gold standard, the Treasury Secretary had ample powers to prevent
a contraction. It lasted from 1873 to 1895 and senior economists called it "The
Great Depression" until as late as 1940.
However, as history has shown, institutional infatuation with a fashionable
asset class provides a reliable indicator of a paradigm change.
For around 150 years and despite an august dedication to the long term, financial
institutions have flocked to fashion and then suffered chagrin. This ranged
from being overweight in bonds at a 3% yield in the 1940s to being overweight
equities in the late 1960s when the S&P started a 66% decline in real terms.
If Sun Life, for example, suffered considerable remorse in being overweighted
in stocks in 1929 at a 3% dividend yield, is a similar remorse possible with
being overweight now at a 1.84% dividend yield?
Taking this line a little further, what is the potential for chagrin when
positioned in commodities with no coupon, let alone dividend?
The history of the investment behaviour of financial institutions provides
an answer.
|