Private Banking Americas March 2013 Volume Seven Compass Navigating the Investment Landscape Portfolio Strategies – How to Approach the Equity Market............ p6 Expert Insights – Outlook on MLPs........................................... p16 Introducing Our New Megatrends Framework..............................p21 Was It a Financial Crisis... or an Oil Crisis?.............................. p30 ForwordFo Private Banking Americas Asset Allocation & Investment Strategy Team Barbara M. Reinhard, CFA Chief Investment Strategist [email protected] Nicolo Foscari Director [email protected] Jimmy James Director [email protected] Philipp E. Lisibach, CFA Director [email protected] Scott Rosenblatt Vice President [email protected] Ryan Sullivan Assistant Vice President [email protected] Yogi Thambiah, CFA Managing Director [email protected] This publication is not complete without the “Important Legal Information” at the back of this publication. Please contact your Relationship Manager if you do not receive it. The Private Banking USA business of Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC is a regulated broker dealer and investment advisor. It is not a chartered bank, trust company or depository institution. It is not authorized to accept deposits or provide corporate trust services and it is not licensed or regulated by any state or federal banking authority. The issuers, securities, investment products, and companies referenced herein are not intended as a recommendation or solicitation to buy, sell, or hold any securities or implement a specific investment strategy. Contact your Relationship Manager for Credit Suisse investment research or marketing materials that contain the investment thesis, risks and potential rewards of particular securities or investment products. Any potential investment decision should be based on research and analysis and not on the limited information set forth herein. orewordForewordForewo Investing can be more art than science at times and a solid investment discipline can go a long way to guide how one navigates the financial markets. We use an approach that incorporates valuation, fundamentals, and sentiment across all asset classes. It has served us well. Since June, we have argued that elevated risk premiums in equities and credit-related fixed income would help produce solid returns. We continue to think that the return and risk profile is to the upside. But many markets have come a long way from the financial crisis. In fact, our proxy for US equities, the S&P 500 Index, is close to its previous all time high of 1565, reached in October 2007. While we have had conviction in our views, many investors are still skeptical. However, those same investors realize the peril of sitting in cash, waiting for the “buying opportunity.” For those readers interested in an approach to the equity markets in light of the recent move, we would encourage reading our Portfolio Strategy section. In this article, we help quantify the cost of a phase-in strategy versus going in all-at-once. Additionally, in this issue of Compass, we feature investment thought leadership from our Credit Suisse colleagues around the globe. Giles Keating, Head of Global Research, has authored a thoughtful piece on a timely question, was it a financial crisis or an oil crisis? His work points out that the consistently high oil prices of the last decade have spurred new technologies to pull energy resources out of some untraditional places. He helps us think through the economic growth implications of shale gas and what it means to us as investors. We also hear from Michael O’Sullivan, Head of Portfolio Strategy and Thematic Research, about Megatrends. What are Megatrends? They are major economic, social, and political forces relevant across decades. We group them into three overarching pillars: Demographics, Multipolar World, and Sustainability. Lastly, we tap a thought leader outside our organization to focus on one of the most interesting sub-sectors within the US equity universe, Master Limited Partnerships. David Martinelli, founding partner of Harvest Advisors LLC, opines on his outlook for MLPs. It is a must read for any investor thinking about the energy infrastructure and yield stories in the US. We hope you find this issue of Compass insightful. Barbara M. Reinhard, CFA Chief Investment Strategist Head of Asset Allocation & Investment Strategy Compass 3 Inside this issue: Page 16 Page 30 “Shale gas and oil is the game-changing moment for the US and energy independence. MLPs are critical to the shale boom and development of the US domestic production story.” Suppose the world had not run into an oil constraint in 2008 and instead there had been sustained strong growth – would the income streams of Americans with sub-prime mortgages and the tax revenues of southern European nations have been enough to service their debt? Page 21 Megatrends have accompanied mankind throughout history. From the Neolithic Revolution to the Information Age, innovation has been the catalyst for profound socio-economic, cultural, and political transformation. 4 Contents: Portfolio Strategies How to Approach the Equity Market 6 11 Strategic Asset Allocation 12 14 Conversations with Thought Leaders David Martinelli Introducing Our New Megatrends Framework 30 40 Panorama Shifting Dynamics on the World Stage 16 21 Was It a Financial Crisis... or an Oil Crisis? Key Forecasts Summary of American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 Compass 5 Portfolio Strategies How to approach the equity market Written by Barbara M. Reinhard, CFA and Philipp Lisibach, cfa, asset allocation and Investment Strategy Back to the Highs With its recent gains, the S&P 500 Index is quickly approaching its all-time high of 1,565, which was reached in October 2007. While equities have been climbing a wall of worry, it is interesting to note that the recovery from the March 2009 low has taken about 48 months. In the previous low from the 2000-2003 bear market, it took 57 months for the S&P 500 Index to return to its previous peak. What do we think about making an entry into today’s equity market? We point out that plentiful liquidity, attractive valuations, and low inflation make equities among our best options in an asset allocation context (see Table 1). Table 1 Financial Market Statistics Today vs. Previous S&P 500 Index Peaks Mar-00 Oct-07 Mar-13 1,527 1,565 1,544 23x 15x 13x S&P 500 Index Dividend Yield 1.1% 1.8% 2.1% US 10-yr Treasury Yield 6.2% 4.7% 2.0% Inflation (CPI YoY) 3.8% 3.6% 1.6% US Inv. Grade Credit Spread (bps) 146 138 135 US High Yield Spread (bps) 631 399 504 9,709 14,126 15,851 136 -169 -1,030 S&P 500 Index Level P/E Ratio (12-mth fwd) Nominal GDP ($Bn) US Deficit/Surplus (LTM, $Bn) As of 03/07/2013 Source: Bloomberg, Datastream One of the questions we hear most often from clients is, “How should one think about re-entering the equity market?” This question is especially poignant given that investors continue to maintain relatively high cash holdings in spite of several years of decent equity market returns. With two secular bear markets in the past decade so vivid in investors’ memories, we would not diminish the role investor psychology and emotions play in determining an entry point. 6 Portfolio Strategies Why? At the beginning of an initial investment, a pullback could put an allocation to equities in negative territory, which may lead an investor to make the classic investment mistake of selling at the bottom of a turbulent market just as it is about to make a recovery. One way to soften the ups and downs of the equity market when considering an initial or new investment is to phase-in over a defined time period. Which Is the Better Way, Phase-in or All-at-once? We analyzed 12-month rolling returns of the S&P 500 Index since 1926, using the index return as a proxy for investing all at once (i.e., “All-at-once Strategy”) and investing on a quarterly basis (i.e., “Phase-in Strategy”). The results are illustrated in Figure 1. The All-at-once Strategy had an average first year return of 11.0%, the Phase-in Strategy had an average first year return of 7.4%, -3.6% versus the All-at-once Strategy. In contrast, waiting in cash for an opportunity to buy would have generated a 3.3% return. The return profiles of the two strategies converge in year two, when both are fully invested. The All-at-once Strategy had the better average outcome because equity markets tend, over time, to be upward sloping. However, in our opinion, that does not necessarily make it the best strategy. Investing can be an emotional activity, subjecting an investor to feelings of panic and euphoria. Remember, it was Benjamin Graham who created the allegory “Mr. Market”, and sometimes Mr. Market is an emotional wreck, suffering from excessive highs, and, at times, suicidal lows. He can make investing at times very challenging. So, while there is an opportunity cost to any phase-in strategy, especially during rising markets, the simple fact is that phasing-in can help investors leg into equities rather than sit idly in cash, waiting for the “right time” to buy. Lastly, an extra benefit of a phase-in strategy is seen in Figure 1: the Phase-in Strategy had a lower standard deviation of return – almost 30% lower – than the All-at-once Strategy. A Look at a Few Phase-in Strategies As with any phase-in strategy, there is more than one way to execute for investors who have high cash allocations or who are simply looking to re-allocate towards equities. We analyzed three unique strategies – each with different upfront initial purchases and As the US equity market approaches its all-time high, many investors are maintaining high cash or short-duration fixed income positions. It is natural to ask, what is the best approach to think about reallocating to the equity market? Figure 1 The Phase-in Strategy Has a Cost, but One of the Benefits Is Lower Volatility Average 12-Month Total Return and Standard Deviation of Returns using the All-at-once Strategy (using S&P 500 Index), Phasing-in Strategy, and Cash since 1926 Total Return 12% 11.0% Standard Deviation 25% 10% 8% 20.4% 20% 7.4% 15% 6% 14.1% 3.3% 4% 10% 5% 2% 0% All-at-once Strategy Phase-in Strategy 2.8% 30-Day US T-Bill Index 0% Average 12-Month Total Return Annualized Standard Deviation of Returns As of 02/28/2013 Source: PB Americas Asset Allocation & Investment Strategy, Ibbotson, Bloomberg Note: Phase-In Strategy: 25% initial investment with 25% every 3 months thereafter Compass 7 Figure 2 The Fastest Phase-in Strategy Yields the Highest Return, but That Is Not Always the Right Path Average 12-Month Total Return and Standard Deviation of Returns using Three Phase-In Strategies, Since 1926 Total Return 12% Standard Deviation 20% 9.7% 10% 8.9% 8% 18% 7.4% 17.5% 16.5% 16% 6% 14% 4% 14.1% 12% 2% 0% Phase-in Strategy 1 Phase-in Strategy 2 Phase-in Strategy 3 10% Average 12-Month Total Return Annualized Standard Deviation of Returns As of 02/28/2013 Source: PB Americas Asset Allocation & Investment Strategy, Ibbotson, Bloomberg Note: Phase-In Strategy 1: 25% initial investment, 25% every 3 months thereafter Phase-In Strategy 2: 33.3% initial investment, 33.3% every 3 months thereafter Phase-In Strategy 3: 50% initial investment, 25% every 3 months thereafter Figure 3 Phase-in Strategy 1 Will Lag during Big Market Upswings but Preserve Capital during Market Weakness Average 12-Month Total Return of the All-at-once (S&P 500 Index) Strategy and Phase-In Strategy 1 Since 1926, Sorted Lowest to Highest by Quartile Total Return 150% Average Return Bottom Quartile 100% S&P 500 Index -14.5% Phasing-In -9.4% Average Return 2nd and 3rd Quartile All-at-once +11.5% Phasing-in +8.1% Average Return Top Quartile All-at-once +35.6% Phasing-in +22.9% 50% 0% -50% 258 Observations -100% 517 Observations All-at-once Strategy 258 Observations Phase-in Strategy 1 As of 02/28/2013 Source: PB Americas Asset Allocation & Investment Strategy, Ibbotson 8 Portfolio Strategies varying time periods to become fully invested. 1) Phase-in Strategy 1 is investing an initial 25% in equities, followed by a subsequent 25% investment every three months, so as to be fully invested after nine months. 2) Phase-in Strategy 2 is an initial purchase of 33.3%, followed by a subsequent 33.3% investment every three months, which leads to full investment in six months. 3) Phase-in Strategy 3 is an initial 50% allocation, followed by a subsequent 25% investment every three months, which leads to full investment after six months. The results are illustrated in Figure 2. Phase-in Strategy 1 had the lowest average return at 7.4%, and had the lowest standard deviation. While Phase-in Strategy 2 and Phase-in Strategy 3 had higher returns the first year, the drag of not participating in a potential gain was manageable, in our opinion, between 2.3% and 1.5%. As equity markets tend to be upward sloping, generally, the time delay factor associated with a phase-in strategy has a cost. The average cost of a phase-in strategy should be weighed against personal investment objectives and emotional comfort levels. For investors who are nervous about investing in equities, but recognize the potential pitfall of holding a large cash position, Phase-in Strategy 1 is the least aggressive tactic. But the above analysis assumes average returns over a very long time period. Let’s take a look at periods of weak and strong equity market returns. The Cost of a Phase-in Strategy during Various Return Environments We segmented the returns of the S&P 500 Index into quartiles to see what Phase-in Strategy 1 results would look like across various return environments. As illustrated in Figure 3, in the second and third quartiles, the Phase-in Strategy delivered an average return of 8.1%, 3.4% worse than the All-at-once Strategy. What we found interesting is that the results of the Phase-in Strategy are not symmetrical, meaning the results are not similar in the top and bottom quartiles. In periods of strong market returns, an all-atonce strategy would have generated an average return of 35.6% and the Phase-in Strategy would have generated an average return of 22.9%, a drag of 12.7% during the first year of working toward full investment. On the flip side, during periods of weak equity market returns, at the bottom quartile, the All-at-once Strategy generated an average return of -14.5% and the Phase-in Strategy delivered a return of -9.4%, avoiding about 5.1% in losses. The obvious question is, how does the return strength or weakness of the S&P 500 Index make a phase-in strategy effective? In Figure 4, we looked at the distribution of returns showing the number of observations of rolling 12-month returns in bands, from worse than -25% up to greater than 40%. We found that the Phase-in Strategy 1 historically has significantly reduced extreme outcomes, at the far left and the far right (highlighted). While the phase-in strategy will cost performance in the initial 12 months Figure 4 Phase-in Strategy 1 Produces Fewer Periods with Extreme Returns 12-Month Total Return of S&P 500 Index and Phase-in Strategy 1 since 1926, Number of Observations per Return Band 180 160 140 120 110 100 80 60 40 20 0 <-25% <-10% <-5% <-0% <+5% <10% <15% <20% <25% <30% <40% >40% Total Returns S&P 500 Index; # of Observations Phase-in Strategy 1; # of Observations As of 02/28/2013 Source: PB Americas Asset Allocation & Investment Strategy, Ibbotson during years of very strong S&P 500 Index returns, the protection comes from going slowly during periods of very weak S&P 500 Index returns. Incorporating Investor Expectations Therefore, we can conclude that if an investor expects the S&P 500 Index to return 25% or greater in the coming 12 months, an all-at-once strategy would produce the more favorable results. If expectations are that the S&P 500 Index will return less than 25%, a phase-in strategy can reduce the volatility of an initial equity allocation, coming at the cost of manageable underperformance. One way to soften the ups and downs of the equity market when considering an initial or new investment is to phase-in over a defined time period. Conclusion As the US equity market approaches its all-time high, many investors are maintaining high cash or short-duration fixed income positions. It is natural to ask, what is the best approach to think about re-allocating to the equity market? While we know that, objectively, investing all-at-once produces the best return over the long run, a phase-in strategy can help investors who are entering equities neutralize some of the emotion that may arise in the event of an interim pull-back. Compass 9 Equities: Regional Developed Markets ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ USD vs. BRL ▼ ▼ AUD vs. USD ▼ USD vs. MXN ▼ NZD vs. USD ▼ Asia ▼ Latin America ▼ Europe, Mid East, Africa ▼ Equities: US Sector Information Technology ▼ ▼ US Treasury Inflation Protected Consumer Discretionary Financials ▼ Emerging Markets Energy ▼ US Investment Grade Corporate ▼ Consumer Staples ▼ Telecomm Services ▼▼ Utilities ▼▼ Key Materials ▼▼ Positive US Municipal US Securitized ▼ US Treasury ▼ ▼ *3-month or 12-month forecasts as indicated **Level with USD as counter currency, price change with USD as base currency Source: Private Banking Americas Investment Strategy and Advisory Group 10 Portfolio Strategies ▼ Agriculture ▼ Energy ▼ Source: Private Banking Global Research, Bloomberg, Thomson Reuters DataStream ▼ ▼ Livestock ▼ Industrial Metals Neutral Negative▼ or ▼ ▼ Indicates a strong investment conviction in over/underweight position. or ▼ ▼ ▼▼ Commodities Precious Metals ▼ Industrials US High Yield ▼▼ Health Care Fixed Income ▼ Emerging Markets ▼ Europe ex-UK GBP vs. USD ▼ Japan USD vs. BRL ▼ U.K. USD vs. CAD ▼ Canada USD vs. JPY ▼ Asia Pacific ex-Japan ▼ Arrows represent the current Private Banking Americas Investment Strategy and Advisory Group absolute market view for 6-12+ months. EUR vs. USD ▼ (As of March 15, 2013) US Currency ▼ Outlook Summary Indicates a modest investment conviction in over/underweight position. Indicates a neutral investment conviction. Global Equity Indices US (S&P 500) 03/15/13 12M (Base Case) 1,561 1,518 Euro Area (Euro Stoxx 50) 2,726 2,654 UK (FTSE 100) 6,490 6,317 12,561 11,500 Japan (Nikkei 225) MSCI Emerging Markets Index Key Forecasts* (As of March 15, 2013) 1,042 1,071 Brazil (Bovespa) 56,869 70,000 Mexico (IPC) 42,605 46,000 Real GDP (In %) 2012E 2013E Inflation 13E 3.00 3.40 2.90 1.60 Global US Eurozone Japan 2.10 2.00 -0.40 0.00 1.80 1.70 1.40 -0.40 Non-Japan Asia 6.10 6.70 4.00 Latin America 2.80 3.70 6.60 Interest Rates (10-Year Government) US 03/15/13 3M 12M 1.99% 1.7 – 1.9% 1.8 – 2.0% Euro Area 1.45% 1.6 – 1.8% 1.8 – 2.0% UK 1.94% 1.9 – 2.1% 2.3 – 2.5% Japan 0.62% 0.7 – 0.9% 0.9 - 1.1% 03/15/13 3M 12M 93.45 96.00 100.00 3.87 3.25 3.50 1591.95 1600.00 1600.00 28.77 30.00 31.00 1589.75 1750.00 1800.00 Commodities Energy WTI Crude Oil (USD/barrel) US Natural Gas (USD/mmbtu) Precious Metals (Spot, USD/ounce) Gold Silver Platinum Base Metals (USD/pound) Aluminum 0.89 0.98 1.02 Copper 3.52 3.76 3.86 Agriculture (USD/bushel) Wheat 7.23 7.50 7.00 Corn 7.17 7.00 6.50 Currencies (USD vs.) Euro** 03/15/13 3M 12M 1.31 1.38 1.37 Japanese Yen 95.28 96.00 97.00 British Pound** 1.51 1.50 1.48 Swiss Franc 0.94 0.91 0.95 Canadian Dollar 1.02 1.05 1.01 Australian Dollar** 1.04 1.00 0.98 New Zealand Dollar** 0.83 0.83 0.80 Mexican Peso 12.43 12.40 12.00 Brazilian Real 1.98 1.94 1.93 Source: Private Banking Global Research, Bloomberg, Thomson Reuters DataStream *3-month or 12-month forecasts as indicated **Level with USD as counter currency, price change with USD as base currency Compass 11 Strategic Asset Allocation For US Ultra High Net Worth Individuals (As of March 15, 2013) Overview The Credit Suisse Global Asset Allocation Framework (GAAF) is a dynamic process that sets recommended benchmark weightings for each of the asset classes we believe should be incorporated in a balanced asset allocation. It is comprised of a long-term Benchmark Asset Allocation (BAA) and a shorter-term Strategic Asset Allocation (SAA). The Benchmark Asset Allocation (BAA) is based on the Credit Suisse Capital Market Assumptions and is expected to remain relatively static for a full market cycle. It is developed from the ideas and forecasts of the most accomplished senior strategists at Credit Suisse and incorporates all of the fundamental concepts of asset allocation. The Strategic Asset Allocation (SAA) Based on market behavior and recommendations from Credit Suisse’s global strategists, the SAA seeks to establish strategic over- and underweights relative to the BAA. It utilizes a 6-12 month time horizon. The primary goal of the SAA is to generate excess return and/or reduce risk relative to the BAA. KEY Recommended (SAA) Neutral (BAA) Source: Private Banking Americas Investment Strategy and Advisory Group 12 Portfolio Strategies Risk Budget 1: Low Risk Budget 2: Low-Medium 5 5 5 15 15 3 20 23 20 80 54 80 55 BAA Cash 5.0% SAA +/- 5.0% BAA Cash 20 SAA 3.0% -2.0% 5.0% 3.0% -2.0% USD 5.0% 5.0% USD Equities 0.0% 0.0% Equities United States 0.0% 0.0% United States Dev. Equities ex-US 0.0% 0.0% Dev. Equities ex-US 6.0% 6.0% Emerging Markets 0.0% 0.0% Emerging Markets 4.0% 4.0% Fixed Income 80.0% 80.0% Fixed Income +/- 5.0% 20.0% 23.0% 3.0% 10.0% 13.0% 3.0% 55.0% 54.0% -1.0% USD, Tax-Exempt 56.0% 56.0% USD, Tax-Exempt 38.5% 38.0% -0.5% USD, Taxable 24.0% 22.0% -2.0% USD, Taxable 16.5% 14.5% -2.0% Non-USD, Taxable Alternative Investments 0.0% 2.0% 2.0% 15.0% 15.0% Non-USD, Taxable Alternative Investments 0.0% 1.5% 1.5% 20.0% 20.0% Commodities 2.5% 2.5% Commodities 2.5% 2.5% Gold 2.5% 2.5% Gold 2.5% 2.5% Hedge Funds 5.0% 5.0% Hedge Funds 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Private Equity 0.0% 0.0% Private Equity Real Estate (Property) 5.0% 5.0% Real Estate (Property) Important Information: The proposed Benchmark and Strategic Asset Allocations for each of the risk budgets referenced above are created by the Private Banking Americas Investment Strategy and Advisory group. The Benchmark Asset Allocation (BAA), for a 3-7 year time horizon, is the neutral position reflecting the predefined risk budgets and meets investment objectives over a full market cycle. Risk Budget 3: Medium Risk Budget 4: Medium-High 5 5 2 25 44 25 Risk Budget 5: High 30 40 59 30 10 5 2 2 55 30 68 30 65 9 29 30 BAA Cash USD Equities SAA +/- 5.0% 2.0% -3.0% 5.0% 2.0% -3.0% 40.0% 44.0% 4.0% BAA Cash USD Equities SAA +/- 5.0% 2.0% -3.0% 5.0% 2.0% -3.0% 55.0% 59.0% 4.0% BAA Cash USD Equities SAA +/- 5.0% 2.0% -3.0% 5.0% 2.0% -3.0% 65.0% 68.0% 3.0% United States 20.0% 24.0% 4.0% United States 27.5% 31.5% 4.0% United States 32.5% 35.5% 3.0% Dev. Equities ex-US 12.0% 12.0% Dev. Equities ex-US 16.5% 16.5% Dev. Equities ex-US 19.5% 19.5% Emerging Markets 11.0% 11.0% Emerging Markets 13.0% 13.0% Emerging Markets Fixed Income USD, Tax-Exempt 8.0% 8.0% 30.0% 29.0% -1.0% 21.0% 20.0% -1.0% Fixed Income 10.0% 9.0% -1.0% 0.0% 0.0% USD, Tax-Exempt 7.0% 6.0% -1.0% Fixed Income USD, Tax-Exempt 0.0% 0.0% USD, Taxable 9.0% 8.0% -1.0% USD, Taxable 3.0% 1.5% -1.5% USD, Taxable 0.0% 0.0% Non-USD, Taxable 0.0% 1.0% 1.0% Non-USD, Taxable 0.0% 1.5% 1.5% Non-USD, Taxable 0.0% 0.0% Alternative Investments Commodities Gold Hedge Funds 25.0% 25.0% Alternative Investments 2.5% 2.5% Commodities 2.5% 2.5% Gold 10.0% 10.0% 30.0% 30.0% Alternative Investments 2.5% 2.5% Commodities 2.5% 2.5% Gold 30.0% 30.0% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% Hedge Funds 10.0% 10.0% Hedge Funds 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% Private Equity 15.0% 15.0% Private Equity 5.0% 5.0% Private Equity Real Estate (Property) 5.0% 5.0% Real Estate (Property) 5.0% 5.0% Real Estate (Property) 0.0% 0.0% The Strategic Asset Allocation (SAA), for a 6-12+ month time horizon, expresses views resulting in temporary deviations from the BAA to generate expected excess returns or reduce risk. Alternative investments are typically high-risk investment vehicles which are available only to qualified individuals or entities that are willing to assume above average risk and sustain limited liquidity with a portion of their net worth. Please refer to the attached “Important Legal Information” for important disclosures relating to alternative investments. Compass 13 Panorama is a 10,000-foot view of notable events and milestones reported around the world. Each event contributes in some way to the accelerating pace of global change, as independent events collectively shift our global perspective. 02.05.2013 For the US, the world’s largest pensions market, the 100 largest defined benefit corporate pension plans were underfunded by $500 billion at the end of October 2012, with assets covering just 73% of liabilities. 02.14.2013 The Mexican Auto Industry Association estimates that if more consumers gradually gain access to banking loans, annual car sales would rise nearly 60% to 1.6 million vehicles in the next six years. BMW, the world’s largest premium automaker, sold a recordhigh number of cars in 2012. 2013 started strong as well, with a record January, and sales in China rose 15%. China is BMW’s largest market, with a 25% share of global sales. 02.08.2013 Investment in the US oil and gas sector has grown to reach approximately $140 billion per year over the past two years. While only 1% of GDP, the sector has accounted for 10% of total business fixed asset investment. 12.31.2012 03.12.2013 Industrial production in the UK fell 1.2% in January from December, 15% below the prerecession peak, and is now at the lowest level since 1991. 02.07.2013 Though only 23% of houses there have electricity and only 9% of its roads are paved, Kenya is ripe for tech investment, as mobile phone penetration is 75%. Nearly everything in Kenya can be purchased via text message. Sources: Agence France Presse (2/14/2013), Bloomberg Markets Magazine (2/7/2013), Credit Suisse (12/31/2012, 1/23/2013, 2/5/2013), Reuters (2/8/2013, 2/14/2013), The Wall Street Journal (3/12/2013) According to the World Gold Council, global demand for gold fell last year in its first decline since 2009, as demand in leading market India slid, narrowing the gap with second-biggest buyer China. 02.14.2013 In China, the youngest end of the working-age population is achieving higher income levels. The typical 18–29 year old has an average monthly income that is 7% above that of 46–55 year olds and 15% above those in the 56–65 age group. 01.23.2013 Australia has been one of the two best-performing equity markets over the past 113 years, with a real return of 7.3% per year. 02.05.2013 02.05.2013 Today, South Africa has 90% of the world’s platinum, 80% of its manganese, 75% of its chrome, and 41% of its gold. Panorama V7.2013 Shifting Dynamics on the World Stage Compass 15 Conversations with Thought Leaders Interview by Jimmy James, Private Banking Americas asset allocation and Investment Strategy 2012 was the first year since 1999 that the total return of Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs) lagged that of the S&P 500 Index. Though still early, MLPs have started to play catch-up in 2013, as they have returned 13% this year, versus 9% for the S&P 500 Index. We think this can endure, as market participants continue to value alternative sources of yield given the current environment of ultra-low interest rates. Add to that their role as the infrastructure for US shale grows, and MLPs are compellingly positioned in 2013. To help us navigate the MLP landscape, we are pleased to share the insights of David Martinelli, portfolio manager of the Harvest MLP fund. 16 Private Banking Vol 1. 2013 David Martinelli is a founding partner and serves as the Managing Partner of Harvest Fund Advisors LLC, the Investment Advisor to the various Harvest MLP and Energy Funds. He currently serves as Chairman of the Investment Committee and is responsible for the growth and direction of the Company. Prior to Harvest, Mr. Martinelli served as principal and majority owner of the General Partner of Buckeye Pipeline Company (“Buckeye”), an NYSE-listed MLP. David J. Martinelli From 1996 through 2004, Mr. Martinelli held numerous positions within the Buckeye organization. During his tenure at Buckeye, Mr. Martinelli engineered the financial restructuring of the company and directed all corporate acquisitions. He ultimately directed the sale of Buckeye to the Carlyle Group in 2004 and started Harvest in 2005 with the goal of institutionalizing the MLP investor base. Prior to joining Buckeye, Mr. Martinelli was an investment banker with Salomon Brothers in New York; Paine Webber International in London; and Drexel Burnham Lambert in both London and New York. Mr. Martinelli has a B.S. in Finance from Syracuse University and an MBA from the Stern School of Business at New York University. Compass 17 MLPs returned 5% in 2012, versus 16% for the S&P 500 Index. What were the major factors that lead to the underperformance of MLPs relative to the S&P 500 Index? Expert Insights A Closer Look at Shale with John Edwards, Head of Energy MLP Equity Research, Credit Suisse Since many shale plays require significant infrastructure development, we believe the shale revolution should provide infrastructure companies and US Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs) with continued opportunities for capital allocation. With a relatively modest rise in price outlook for natural gas, the INGAA Foundation’s 2011 study1 concluded $338 billion worth of infrastructure would be required in nominal US dollar terms from 2011 to 2035. The trend in switching from coal to natural gas underpinned some of the INGAA’s views, along with incremental generation from natural gas. We believe the study underestimates the infrastructure opportunity. Given the 110,000 inch miles added each year and approximately $100,000 per inch mile estimated for 2013, this would translate to approximately $275 billion in total from pipelines alone – setting aside storage and gas processing. Underscoring the capital investment opportunity unleashed by the shale revolution, capital spending in the MLP sector has increased rapidly over the last six years, rising at a compound growth rate of over 22% per year, and expected to exceed $75 billion in 2012–2014. Significant investor demand for yieldoriented products offered by long-dated pipeline assets has had a positive effect on capex. Historically, low interest rates David Martinelli: We viewed 2012 as a transition year for MLPs. The energy industry has been the subject of a lot of headline news, and the lead story is one with which everyone is now familiar – US energy independence. As a result, the demand for new infrastructure to accommodate supply growth was enormous, and 2012 saw a year of heavy debt and equity issuance to fund the growth. Most retail investors respond negatively to MLP equity issuances, which depressed prices, but the reality is the debt and equity raised is funding enormous future growth. Additionally, we saw some partnerships negatively react to a weak natural gas, natural gas liquids (NGLs), and coal environment. Avoiding these names helped our fund outperform its benchmark. A third and final drag that persisted throughout 2012 was a misplaced concern over tax reform. This worry lifted at year-end, as investors realized that the MLP structure was unlikely to be dragged into the fiscal cliff discussions. With tax worries removed and issuances pre-funding multiple years of growth, we think the MLP sector is poised to see strong returns over the next few years. Despite lagging the S&P 500 Index last year, you more than doubled the return of your benchmark, the Alerian MLP Index. Given that your universe is so condensed (there are roughly only 95 publicly traded MLPs), how did you add alpha? DM: Our proprietary financial models are the foundation of our investment process, and we feed those models with the very best information flow. Anyone can pull numbers from a 10-K (annual report) or read a call transcript, but our unique relationships, our individual and collective experiences, and our operating knowledge are best-of-breed and allow us to draw unique insights into the companies we cover. Our portfolio manager, Eric Conklin, who established the MLP research practice at Credit Suisse before joining Harvest, also has an understanding of the partnerships and insight into valuing energy companies that is simply unparalleled. He has developed a proprietary eight-factor risk scale that allows us to properly assess risk versus reward. Overall, this contributes to an institutional approach to portfolio management that separates Harvest from our peer group. What is your outlook for MLPs in 2013, and what will be the key drivers of performance? DM: We see 2013 as the first in a sequence of expected growth years. We expect total returns of approximately 15%, two-thirds of which should come from distribution growth. The fundamentals of what will work and drive alpha in 2013 are similar to what drove our outperformance last year: being in the right basins, being in the names where growth is transparent, and avoiding partnerships with capital structure concerns or ambiguous growth projects. Further, we expect the space will be further buoyed by generalist investors seeking both exposure to the domestic energy story and yield. As much as we emphasize the growth side of the total return equation, it is worth noting that MLP yields at 5.5% provide investors a superior yield relative to other income-oriented investments. This alone has put the sector on the radar for a lot of institutional investors. Which subsectors of the MLP space look most promising? DM: The partnerships we own are not subsector-driven, but thematically driven. We see names we favor and ones we do not in each subsector, although broad themes will sometimes point us to emphasize some fundamentals over others. Three themes we are likely to be discussing a lot in 2013 and beyond are crude oil infrastructure, NGL basins, and dropdown stories. On the crude side, we see how undersupplied the US is in takeaway capacity. There has been an explosion in domestic production, especially in areas like the Bakken, but the US does not have the infrastructure in place to move and store the crude. 18 Conversations with Thought Leaders Thus, we continue to buy exposure to quality crude logistics build-out. On the NGL side, we see the opportunity as basin-specific. Geography can make or break the investment in an NGL name and that is why we spend a lot of time researching the economics of all the basins, carefully choosing the ones to which we want to gain exposure. Finally, we expect dropdown MLPs to be among the highest growth rates in the space. The dropdown story exists across a number of subsectors, and even though these partnerships are not always attractive relative to their peers on a yield basis, the distribution growth rates provide very attractive total returns. Along the same lines, C-corporations levered to high-growth MLPs look unusually attractive on a valuation basis and should do well in 2013. Interest in “fracking” and “shale” has exploded in the past year, with the International Energy Agency (IEA) going as far as saying the US could become the world’s largest producer of oil by 2020, a feat largely owed to a surge in unconventional oil sources like shale. How do MLPs fit into the shale boom? DM: Shale gas and oil are a game-changing moment for the US and energy independence. MLPs are critical to the shale boom and development of the US domestic production story. As production both increases and shifts its locations, there will be an enormous demand for takeaway capacity, transportation, and storage for the new supply. MLPs are hard at work accommodating this build-out throughout the US. Our role as an institutional manager is to anticipate the areas where the need will be greatest and to identify the MLPs that can answer the demand most profitably. While we do not see inflation as an imminent threat, it will eventually rear its head. Do MLPs provide a hedge against inflation? DM: MLPs are a sound option in an inflationary environment. As many MLP investors know, inter-state pipelines have inflation-adjusted tariffs – currently the producer price index (PPI) plus 2.65% annually. In addition to that automatic tariff adjustment, good MLPs can essentially “outgrow” inflation. Our investments tend toward partnerships with high distribution growth driven by long-term, demand-driven projects. This growth component should more than offset potential yield compression in an inflationary environment. I should also mention that MLPs are hard assets – literally steel in the ground – and for this reason, we have always believed MLPs are an actual physical hedge against inflation. Finally, in a period of broad inflation where commodity prices rip, investors will see production companies going at full bore to take advantage. As production flows, a corresponding demand for infrastructure would direct capital to our space, as MLP management teams raced to meet takeaway demand and accelerate projects to cater to the boom of new supply. What’s the bear case for MLPs – what could disrupt your thesis? DM: Energy demand in the US is fairly inelastic. Broad demand destruction could certainly negatively affect MLPs, but the fundamentals of energy use in the US, and the role of MLPs in the transportation and storage of this energy, mitigate this risk. Essentially, as long as people fly, drive, heat their homes, and take delivery by truck, all that energy will need to travel from Point A to Point B, and will assuredly travel through an MLP’s system. provide a rather compelling argument for the cash flow predictability, duration, and somewhat unique growth offered by infrastructure companies. The shale revolution is at least likely to drive demand for infrastructure through the end of the decade. Consequently, we are not overly concerned about the growing capex figures in the current environment. Notably, changing sources of natural gas supply from relatively new shale plays have altered transportation patterns. These changes provide investment opportunities, but can also significantly alter natural gas basis differentials at various geographic locations. Very wide basis differentials provide a signal for incremental infrastructure investment, whereas relatively flat basis differentials signal that pipeline capacity is adequately supplied and can raise questions about the underlying value of existing assets due to renewal risk with regard to existing gas transportation contracts. However, the existing pipelines are largely needed for basin connectivity, as shale natural gas produced close to consuming regions is not necessarily sufficient to satisfy demand in many cases. Over a longer period of time, basis differentials should allow a reasonable return on capital for the infrastructure assets and for the producers. Clearly, the changes to natural gas flows provide considerable opportunities for greater infrastructure buildup. For more information, please see the Research Institute publication, “The Shale Revolution”, published December 2012. 1 “ North American Midstream Infrastructure Through 2035 – A Secure Energy Future,” INGAA Foundation, 28 June 2011 Many US corporations are flush with cash on their balance sheets. MLPs, however, distribute a meaningful portion of their earnings and tend to rely heavily on the capital markets to fund projects. Given that backdrop, do you see merger & acquisition activity as a potential catalyst for the MLP space? DM: Absolutely. We just saw an enormous amount of M&A activity at the end of the year. Almost $10B in deals were announced in November and December 2012 alone. Part of this, of course, was driven by flush balance sheets and open capital markets, but another Compass 19 part was driven by various partnerships acknowledging the need to diversify their asset base to crude and liquids exposure in order to set up long-term growth. For the larger partnerships, M&A is the best way to do this, literally overnight. Fifteen of the twenty-three M&A transactions in the space in 2012 were crude-based acquisitions. Multiples on these transactions are creeping up, and we have benefited a great deal from the activity by sitting on the seller’s side of such transactions. Given that our research effort is broader than the MLP universe alone, we have been able to seek out and own some names with “MLP-able” assets that we have correctly expected would be targets of MLP M&A. Further, we have seen the scope of MLP-able assets continue to grow...This expansion will likely provide us with opportunities to invest in businesses with the ability to generate high risk-adjusted total returns. Continuing with the capital markets theme, there were three MLP initial public offerings (IPOs) by mid-January in 2013. In 2012, the third IPO didn’t occur until the end of July. Why the rush to go public this year, and do you see opportunities in new issues? DM: We often see a lot of secondary issuances in the first quarter, if for no other reason than some partnerships seek to avoid coming to market in December. While it depends on the name, we often see opportunity in a secondary – assuming we correctly assessed the near-term capital need, waiting for the offering, and the discount, to build a position. As far as IPOs are concerned, the backlog has been long and is growing. This, too, is less a calendar-year rush than a realization by a lot of businesses that there is enormous value within the MLP structure and that reorganizing a C-corporation with fully depreciated assets as an MLP can unlock enormous value. Further, we have seen the scope of MLP-able assets continue to grow. Today there are retail gasoline MLPs, refinery MLPs, and even a petrochemical plant MLP. As the umbrella of MLP-qualified businesses potentially widens further to other utility-like infrastructure businesses, as well as renewable energy opportunities, we believe we will see more IPO activity. This expansion will likely provide us with opportunities to invest in businesses with the ability to generate high risk-adjusted total returns. There was some fear that the preferential tax treatment of MLPs was in jeopardy during the fiscal cliff debates, but MLPs emerged relatively unscathed. Discuss the tax advantages of MLP investing, and do you think those advantages are in danger of repeal in the near future? DM: Interestingly enough, from discussions with various members of Congress and our lobbyist at the National Association of Publicly Traded Partnerships, there was actually no talk regarding a change in the tax treatment of partnerships or MLPs during the fiscal cliff drama. There were sell-side analysts writing about whether MLPs “could” or “might” get dragged into the debate, but this was pure speculation and bore no connection to the actual negotiations. I should add that this is not unusual, as unfounded tax chatter tends to cause self-inflicted volatility in the space a couple of times every year. These moments create lots of stress for managers and investors alike – but also can present some good buying opportunities. The tax mechanics and advantages of investing in MLPs are not complicated, but they are a little intricate and revolve around the tax-deferral of income until the time of sale. The fact that MLPs return a form K-1 instead of a form 1099 acts as an impediment, and frequently has the back office dictating the investment policy. Finally, I guess I should end the interview where I started, which is to highlight that we do not see any threat to MLP tax status, principally because both the Obama Administration and members of Congress realize the importance of energy infrastructure in the United States and, we most certainly agree. 20 Conversations with Thought Leaders Introducing Our New Megatrends Framework Written by Michael O’Sullivan, Head of Portfolio Strategy & Thematic Research Megatrends are major economic, social and political forces relevant across decades. We group them under three overarching pillars – Demographics, Multipolar World and Sustainability. At Credit Suisse, we believe that the analysis of megatrends enables successful investments into growing markets. But we also understand that markets move on a very different timescale from these underlying trends. Investors can become enthusiastic about securities related to a Megatrend theme, driving valuations to high levels, and then become disenchanted, causing a major sell-off even as the underlying theme remains in place. Understanding these investment cycles allows for a strategic and sustainable approach to investment in global Megatrends. With this in mind, we introduce our new Megatrends Framework, which aims to give exposure to the long-term opportunities of a given Megatrend while also allowing for the tactical aspects of the megatrend's investment cycle. In addition, it stresses the benefits of a cross asset and portfolio approach towards Megatrends investing. Compass 21 Figure 1 Adoption of New Technologies Has Become Faster Over Time Years to adoption (90% of countries) 180 Steam- and motorships 160 140 Railways 120 Telephone Telegraph 100 Electricity 80 Cars 60 40 Blast Oxygen Steel 20 0 1750 Aviation PCs MRIs 1800 1850 1900 1950 Cellphones Internet 2000 Invention year As of 04/01/2008 Source: D. A. Comin & B. Hobijin (2008), An Exploration of Technology Diffusion What is a Megatrend? We define a Megatrend as a profound and long-lasting social and/ or economic change that has been spurred by factors such as technological breakthroughs, shifts in the balance of geopolitical power, altering demographic patterns and environmental change. Megatrends are typically long-term in their effect and duration and involve a steep change in the rate of economic growth in a region, or in the rate of revenue growth in a particular industry. Megatrends have accompanied mankind throughout history. From the Neolithic Revolution to the Information Age, innovation has been the catalyst for profound socio-economic, cultural and political transformation. The major inventions that led to the industrial revolution some 250 years ago affected virtually all aspects of everyday life. Even the recent wave of globalization that started after the fall of communism was preceded by a similar episode of very intensive global trade and unrestrained capital flows which started in 1870 and lasted for over 40 years. While past and present Megatrends have common features, recent transformations such as the social media revolution seem to have materialized at a much faster pace: while it took more than 50 years for steam energy to reshape the industrial and transportation landscape of Europe in the 19th century, it took much less time for the Internet to change individuals’ lifestyles (Figure 1). Within only 15 years, Internet penetration reached 2bn people. Even more strikingly, mobile phone subscriptions increased from only 12% in 2000 to almost 80% in 2010. Clearly, market penetration rates have sped up as technologies have developed (Figure 2). The causes and consequences of Megatrends Technological innovation has been both an enabler as well as a consequence of Megatrends. For example, advances in medicine have helped increase the worldwide life expectancy from 48 years in 1950 to almost 70 years in 2012. In turn, the increase in chronic diseases that has resulted from aging populations has been continuously fueling innovation in healthcare, expanding life 22 Megatrends expectancy even further. While technology has a central role in the evolution of Megatrends, other factors such as changes in industrial organization can also play an important part. The emergence of large firms, for example, allowed for greater division of labor as well as better production management, supervision of workers, quality control and increase in scale. This permitted the automation of certain repetitive tasks and later the adoption of the assembly line and mass production, which significantly reduced the costs borne by manufacturers by the early 20th century. Certain Megatrends have far-reaching political consequences. For example, the 19th century saw a revolution in transportation: between 1840 and 1910 global railway mileage increased from 5,500 miles to 640,000 miles, while global freight carried in steamships more than doubled in the 25 years after 1873 . Falling transportation costs fostered trade but also allowed for greater centralization in the control of states and colonies, thus increasing the role of the nation state and the internationalization of conflict, culminating in the outbreak of World War 1. Over the last 20 years the rapid expansion of international trade (Figure 3) has also had far-reaching political consequences. Several large developed economies have become net debtors, which has changed the balance of power with large emerging economies such as China becoming net creditors. As a result, the global balance of power is increasingly shifting towards a multipolar world. Megatrends and markets Megatrends have historically had a significant impact on markets, although this relationship is rather complex. Some Megatrends gave rise to entirely new markets: in the 1860s, the transatlantic telegraph cable revolutionized communication and paved the way for a first wave of globalization, including the establishment of a synchronized transatlantic currency and commodity market. Even today, the dollar-pound pairing is referred to by traders as ‘the cable’. Other Megatrends have altered either the way existing markets function or their overall size. Just before the fall of communism for example, the capitalization of the MSCI Emerging Markets index was just 1% of that of developed markets, or some $50 billion. Today, it is almost 13.6% or approximately $4 trillion. Figure 2 Mobile Phone Penetration Which Megatrends are likely to shape the future? We identify Megatrends within three distinct, yet interrelated drivers or pillars: rapidly changing demographics, the increasing emergence of a multipolar world, and the rising relevance of sustainability. We will delve into each of these trends in the coming sections. Asia & Pacific The demographic challenge Rapid population growth in emerging markets and increasing aging societies, mainly in developed markets, represent the starting point of the current cycle of Megatrends. The world’s population has more than doubled in the past 40 years to almost 7 billion – the highest growth rate ever recorded. The United Nations (UN) forecast that global population will grow another 50% by 2050. More importantly, a growing part of the population chooses to live in urban areas, making urbanization one of the most robust trends of our times. Advances in medicine have enabled people to live longer. In turn, longevity and falling fertility rates have also resulted in declining working populations, putting serious strain on productivity to maintain growth and prosperity. Urbanization One key development which has run in parallel to the demographic shift is Urbanization. Ever since the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia, Egypt, China and India, cities have attracted people in search of opportunities, but never have these dynamics accelerated as dramatically as in recent years: While in 1950, only about a third of the world’s population lived in cities, the proportion of urban population is expected to reach two-thirds by 2030. According to the UN, 83% of this growth will likely occur in Africa and Asia alone (Figure 4). Over the next 10 years, per capita income is set to nearly double throughout major cities in Africa and Asia, creating demand for additional infrastructure, housing and consumer staples. Today, urbanization is not simply about the expansion of an urban jungle; it is about transformation. This inevitably creates a wide range of opportunities for the private sector, including efficient transportation systems and information and communication technology to manage flows of people and goods. Health and aging The healthcare market, worth some $2.4 trillion in 2010, will continue to expand in the coming years. The public sector accounts for a higher share of this spending than the private sector in advanced countries. Combatting both old and new illnesses will require technological advances in healthcare, which will stem from fields like genomics to e-healthcare and medicine delivery. According to the UN, global life expectancy could rise to more than 75 in 2050 (Figure 5). In the least developed countries, life expectancy will likely rise by more than 10 years to 69, while in more developed regions it could exceed 82 years. As a result attention will turn to combatting illnesses associated with old age such as Alzheimer’s and cancer, which will rise in prevalence not only in advanced economies but also in emerging markets. Also, poor diets have Africa Syrian World Arab World Egypt The Americas Tunisia Qatar Europe Libya 50 100 150 Phones per 100 inhabitants 200 As of 12/31/2011 Source: World Bank, Credit Suisse Figure 3 Merchandise Exports as % of Global GDP % 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1870 1913 1929 1950 1973 1998 2007 2010 2017E As of 12/31/2012 Source: A. Maddison, IMF, Bloomberg, Credit Suisse Figure 4 Net Increase in Urban Population 5-Year Interval Millions 300 Forecast 250 200 150 100 50 0 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 DMs China EMs ex. China As of 12/31/2011 Source: United Nations, Credit Suisse Compass 23 caused a rise in obesity, which has created new opportunities for the pharmaceutical industry (Figure 6). Figure 5 Life Expectancy Set to Rise Further Globally Life expectancy at birth, in years 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 1950/55 1980/85 2010/15 2040/45 2070/75 World More developed regions Less developed regions Least developed countries As of 12/31/2012 Source: United Nations, Credit Suisse Figure 6 Global Obesity Prevalence Americas Europe Middle East and N. Africa World Africa Eastern Asia and Australia South and South-East Asia 0 15 5 10 20 25 30% Prevalence of obesity among adult population As of 12/31/2008, Latest data available Source: World Health Organization 24 Megatrends Knowledge economy From a macroeconomic perspective, assembly line manufacturing and affordable personal computers caused unprecedented jumps in productivity. In turn, amid declining productivity growth, rising labor costs and declining working populations, innovation and knowledge have become key to productivity enhancements and long-term economic growth. The knowledge economy spans all areas of human activity, including production. Automation already dominates many production processes such as car manufacturing, but it will become the norm in a number of industries from agriculture to medicine. This process has also led to a higher demand for highly-skilled workers, since the skill to handle and use knowledge is becoming crucial. Crowded world Global population is set to reach 9 billion before 2050, led by increases in populations in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The rise in global population and the rapid increase in living standards are already putting great pressure on natural resources. To meet the dramatic increase in food consumption (Figure 7), farming will inevitably need to become more efficient. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), crop production is required to increase by 70% by 2050 – a very challenging target that is complicated by weather extremes and water stress. As agriculture accounts for some 70% of freshwater withdrawals, better water management will be required to meet rising demand. Furthermore, a recent study by the UN estimates that, at current consumption levels, two-thirds of the world population will suffer from water scarcity by 2025 (Figure 8). Growing energy demand is also a stress point. Oil prices continue to be at very high levels underpinned by growing demand from emerging economies. Total oil demand from China and other emerging markets rose rapidly between 1998 and 2008, by about 16%, from 74.1 million barrels per day (bpd) to 85.8 million bpd. The global economy is highly geared to non-renewable energy use as it is an important input for several production processes from transportation, to cement and steel manufacturing. High oil prices 10 Wheat Pork Fish Beef Rice Coarse grains Sheep Protein meals 0 Sugar 20 Butter Globalization The last two decades have seen global trade in goods and services rise from 18.5% of GDP in 1990 to 31.5% in 2011, doubling their value in real dollar terms. Trade integration was particularly strong between emerging market countries. Companies are looking for new export markets to mitigate the effects of home market downturns. Supply chains are increasingly global which benefits companies who are able to source their inputs at a lower cost. Mobility is now not only affecting capital and goods but also people. International travel is no longer dominated by the affluent, but is increasingly available to lower-income passengers. The advent of the European Union has opened borders for millions who can travel 30 Poultry Developing countries World As of 06/30/2012 Source: Food and Agriculture Organization, Credit Suisse ROW Figure 8 Global Water Stress BRIC Emerging world Emerging and developing economies accounted for approximately 85% of the global population, 38% of global GDP and yet only 13.6% of global investable stock market capitalization as of December 2012. Since 1990 these economies have grown at a rate of 5.1%, against 2.1% for developed markets. According to IMF estimates, emerging economies could grow at a rate of almost 6% over the next five years against 2.3% for developed economies. Consequently, new growth will predominantly originate in emerging markets (Figure 11). EM consumption has already surpassed the level of the United States (Figure 12). Emerging markets are benefitting not only from more favorable demographic trends but also the spread of technology which allows them to upgrade their capital stock, and higher educational attainment which makes their workforce more productive. Capital will inevitably focus on regions that are developing at a higher pace, so we could see many emerging markets re-rated in the coming years. Finally, wealth has also risen considerably over recent years, particularly in China, where total wealth will outpace that of Japan by 2017 (Figure 13). % 40 Veget. Oils Transition to a multipolar world The world is increasingly becoming multipolar. For several years, economic growth in emerging markets has been outpacing advanced economies. As a consequence, wealth has transferred from the developed to the developing world. The size of the global middle class is expected to grow from its current 2 billion to almost 5 billion in 2030, entirely driven by emerging markets. As a consequence, Asia’s share of global spending is expected to surge from 25% today to almost 60% in 2030. Compared to the OECD countries, emerging markets have been far less plagued by indebtedness and the need to pursue austerity measures. The growing importance of these countries, especially the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China), is also reflected in their increasing voice in multilateral bodies, such as the G-20. Investments that account for the rise of emerging markets in the world’s geopolitical and economic balance of forces will gain more significance in the coming decades. Figure 7 Expected Increase in Consumption of Food Products 2012 to 2050 OECD are making it more profitable to invest in new energy sources such as shale and tar sands, while deep sea drilling is also becoming worthwhile. Moreover, the shale revolution in the United States has the scope to reduce US energy import dependency (Figure 9), prompting other governments to tap their own shale resources as well (Figure 10). 2030 2005 2030 2005 2030 2005 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 Million people Severe Medium Low No As of 12/31/2012 Source: UNEP, OECD, Credit Suisse Figure 9 US Production and Imports of Petroleum and Other Liquids Bn barrels 5 4 3 2 1 0 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Net Imports As of 12/31/2011 Source: EIA, Credit Suisse Production Compass 25 Figure 10 Estimated Recoverable Shale Gas Resources Trn cubic feet 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 The need for sustainability The two previous pillars are placing an extraordinary burden on existing resources, with a potentially catastrophic impact on our environment. As a consequence, the situation requires investment in sustainable and cost-effective alternatives to traditional sources of energy, as well as in technologies that allow for a more efficient use of scarce resources, such as water. Investments that guide capital towards projects and companies that help to manage resource sustainably and responsibly are gaining traction. China US Argentina Mexico South Africa Australia Canada Libya Algeria Brazil Poland France As of 12/31/2009 Source: EIA, Credit Suisse Figure 11 Economic Growth is Predominantly Created in Emerging Markets 2030 EM share: 2020 BRICS add twice 50% 2012 as much as US EM share: 1990 2000 EM share: BRICs overtake 50% 25% Eurozone Real GDP growth (USD bn) 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 -1,000 -2,000 1981 Japan not only for leisure but also business and employment. In 2011 2.8 billion passengers travelled by air. According to Boeing, this number could increase by 4% per annum over the next 20 years. 1989 Eurozone 1997 US 2005 2013 2021 2029 Other advanced Other developing BRICs Adaptability Adaptability refers to the ability of people or infrastructure to adjust to a new or changing environment. The term famously evolved in the climate change debate. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines adaptation as “adjustment in natural or human systems to a new or changing environment [...] which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities.” The need to reduce vulnerability to the adverse consequences of climate change becomes very apparent by the fact that the economic losses from weather-related natural disasters have been constantly rising (Figure 14). Early warning systems, resilient infrastructure and resistant crops in agriculture are all viable solutions to moderate the potential damage of natural disasters. Adaptability is not limited to climate change: There is a potentially large list of known and less known risks that will require management. Cyber security has become a major concern for governments and businesses alike who have to protect information and shield critical infrastructure from potential attacks. Foodborne diseases and pandemics are potential threats to global health. Finally, companies increasingly have to address environmental, social and governance-related matters, all of which can affect long-term profitability. Resource efficiency Alternative forms of energy are not new. In the aftermath of the two oil shocks of 1970s, countries were increasingly looking to diversify their energy sources. More recently, the increasing evidence of Figure 12 EM Consumption has Surpassed the Level of the United States the impact of human activity on climate change has led to the implementation of carbon emission (CO2) targets in several counShare of global consumption tries, which has increased the attractiveness of alternative energy. 40% Despite this, global carbon dioxide emissions have almost tripled since 1965. Emerging economies account for more than 70% of 35% this increase and are now responsible for more than half of the 30% global CO2 emissions but they are still behind rich nations on a per capita basis. Alternative forms of energy are catching up fast: since 25% 2001 wind capacity has increased more than eightfold while solar capacity has increased 39-fold. Across the board, investment into 20% renewables has been on a steady rise over the last two decades (Figure 15). There is still scope for strong expansion, as alternative 15% forms of energy including hydroelectricity only account for 8% of 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012E global primary energy consumption, according to BP. US Emerging markets As of 12/31/2012 Source: Datastream, IMF, Credit Suisse As of 12/31/2011 Source: Datastream, IMF, Credit Suisse 26 Megatrends Outside energy, better waste management and recycling will also help make human activity more sustainable. For example, the EU Choosing the right investments While Megatrends are ongoing, investment performance can be mixed. Moreover, a Megatrend can unfold in different ways in different parts of the global economy. For example developing countries are recording rising urbanization rates, while developed countries are already highly urbanized. So in certain regions new housing and infrastructure investment is a high growth area, while in other regions resources are oriented towards enhancing the quality of life and increasing the efficiency of urban environments. As a consequence, investment opportunities can differ between regions and sectors. To account for this, we distinguish between Megatrends and the underlying Megatrend investments, which represent the available investment opportunities (Table 1). Our four principles of Megatrend investment Principle 1 – Focus on all aspects of innovation A company’s success in being innovative does not always manifest itself in its ability to spend large sums on research and development (R&D) or the amount of pieces of breakthrough innovation it launches. Innovation is about opening new markets and making products accessible to people. Some of the successful pieces of innovation have been disruptive rather than breakthroughs. For example, cassettes and tapes disrupted the market for vinyl records in the 1970s, but were eventually replaced by compact discs in the late 1980s. Ten years later, compact discs were replaced by downloadable digital music files. Principle 2 - Don’t believe the hype As a general rule, investment into early stage Megatrends can come at significant risks and need to be monitored very carefully. In this context, the rule often mentioned with regards to growth stocks – namely that investments need always to be long term – does not apply at all, as investors need to be prepared to exit from these themes at virtually any time during the early lifecycle. At the same time, investors often fail to understand the potential of tech 30 20 Eurozone 2012 60 50 40 China 2012 70 Japan 2012 Japan 2017 China 2017 90 80 Korea 2017 How to invest in Megatrends? Identifying Megatrends early can reward investors in the long run, but finding suitable investment opportunities is not always straightforward. This is especially true for Megatrends at the early stages of their life-cycle, where a small number of unlisted companies can dominate. In addition, the hype that sometimes accompanies a trend can lead to a rush of capital in an investment theme, pushing valuations to bubble territory. In this case, the investor who is willing to wait for the dust to settle can achieve higher returns than someone who entered early. To guide investors through the lifecycle of Megatrend investments, we have created a traffic light system for Megatrend investments. Figure 13 The Rise of Chinese Wealth Russia 2017 Korea 2012 produces 2.5 billion tons of waste and statistics indicate that disposal (including landfilling, land treatment and release into water bodies) accounted for 50% of the end treatment in 2006. Households account for only a small portion of waste generated (about 6%) while hazardous waste is about 3% of the waste generated. With electronic waste playing an increasing role, waste remains a great challenge for richer as well as poorer countries. 10 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Total wealth in the US (in trillion USD, constant prices) Forecast As of 12/31/2010 Source: Credit Suisse Figure 14 Insured Catastrophe Losses USD bn 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1970 1980 Weather-related 1990 Man-made 2010 2000 Earthquakes As of 10/24/2012 Source: Swiss Re Figure 15 New Investment in Renewables USD bn 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Q1-04 Q1-05 Q1-06 Q1-07 Q1-08 Q1-09 Q1-10 Q1-11 Q1-12 1 yr rolling average Quarterly investment in renewables As of 09/30/2012 Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Credit Suisse Compass 27 Table 1 Megatrends and Megatrend Investments Megatrend Urbanization Health and aging Knowledge economy Crowded world Emerging world Globalization Adaptability Resource efficiency 28 Megatrends Megatrend investments Description Construction Companies exposed to infrastructure, residential and office construction and urban mobility, primarily in emerging markets but also in developed markets. Smart cities Sectors such as navigation, smart grids, traffic management, escalators and air-conditioning are set to benefit from the emergence of sustainable and smarter cities. Health Industries exposed to new trends in diagnostics and treatments, particularly age-related diseases, increased access to healthcare in developing countries, personalized medicine and e-health. Lifestyle Companies set to benefit from increased consumption of lifestyle-related goods and services, including leisure and recreation, healthy food and cosmetics. Networks Industries exposed to hyperconnectivity, including data storage, person-to-person and person-to-machine communication, or wireless modules and devices. Automation Machinery and control systems which aim at increasing precision and efficiency in manufacturing processes, including human-machine interfaces, industrial robots and self-guided vehicles. Energy Companies exposed to new trends in global energy consumption, including increased energy demand in emerging markets and new energy sources. Food Technologies which provide effective solutions to increase agricultural productivity, including farm machinery, precision agriculture, crop science and fertilizers. Water Industries active in water treatment, desalination, filtration, supply and distribution. Emerging consumers Companies, both local and multinational, with strong industry positioning set to benefit from the steady increase in emerging market consumption. Emerging producers Emerging market industries which penetrate global goods and services markets through unique business models, brand value or competitive advantage. Frontier markets Companies exposed to the next wave of growth markets in Africa, Southern Asia and Eastern and Central Europe. Transportation Companies active in the transportation of goods, particularly those operating on fast-growing trade routes between emerging markets. Industries include maritime transport, air freight and transportation infrastructure. Tourism Includes industries exposed to the global travel industries, including booking services, hotels and resorts and passenger airlines. Global workforce Companies active in human resources, corporate outsourcing and educational services. Climate change Includes solutions to cope with the adverse effects of climate change, including climate insurance, resilient infrastructure and early warning systems. Emerging risks Companies which provide risk management solutions for emerging technological, economic and societal risks. Renewables Producers of alternative sources of energy, including among others wind, solar, hydroelectricity and biomass. Waste and recycling Sectors active in the collection, transport, processing and recycling of waste materials. New materials Producers of advanced composites, nanotechnology and bio-based or biodegradable materials. nologies which have been subject to previous bubbles, therefore ignoring the genuine growth potential of technologies and industries. To guide investors through these lifecycles, we have developed the traffic light system. Principle 3 – Invest across asset classes Investors should always consider the full range of asset classes when making investment decisions. Although our Megatrend investments focus predominantly on innovation and are therefore geared towards equity markets, there are several examples where Megatrend exposure can be enhanced by a cross-asset approach. Early lifecycle-stage investments are often only accessible through venture capital and private equity. Commodity prices are a direct consequence of global resources demand. Other Megatrends such as climate change have created unique asset classes themselves – for example insurance-linked securities. Finally, currency movements are particularly relevant for long-term investors, since they can either enhance or offset equity market gains. Principle 4 – Consider portfolio aspects Megatrend investments differ from standard equity investments as they consider non-standard drivers which go far beyond short-term earnings expectations. However, given the uncertainty of future earnings, they also tend to be more risky, expressed through higher betas. In any case, Megatrend investments can add diversification to virtually every asset allocation. Regardless of whether exposure to Megatrends investments is sought to complement an asset allocation or intended in the form of pure exposure, we always advise people to invest in a broad portfolio of companies. The lifecycle of Megatrend investments Throughout history, Megatrends have been subject to investor hype and euphoria, eventually resulting in bubbles and consequent bursts. The most famous was the dot.com bubble of the early 2000s, when a surge in investor money and initial public offering (IPO) activity dramatically overestimated the ability of a premature market to generate revenues at that point in time. In the year leading up to the dot.com bubble, 40 new internet companies were listed on the Nasdaq Composite Index, chasing virtually no revenues at all. Three months later, the index lost more than half of its value, bringing internet IPOs to a near complete halt for almost three years. In retrospect, most investors were right in assuming that e-commerce and mobile communication were future growth markets. How genuine the trend was can be seen by the example of Amazon: the online retailer which raised $54 million in its IPO 15 years ago now has a market capitalization of $108 billion. During that time, revenues increased from $100 million to over $60 billion, making it one of the most successful IPOs in history. On a bigger scale, sales growth of companies listed on the Nasdaq 100 was close to zero for almost four years before revenues started to grow consistently. The market pattern of the tech bubble is not unique. Indeed, investing in Megatrends can be demanding in that early and emerging trends can initially be difficult to access, and then can command a high investment premium. While only a few investors are competent or lucky enough to spot the next Amazon, a large number typically fall victim to what the US advisory company Gartner has famously termed “hype cycles.” New technologies which make bold promises are at the heart of what Gartner calls “inflated expectations,” even if they are not yet commercially viable. A series of failures usually leads to an abrupt collapse of investments and a complete loss of interest. Quite interestingly however, new technologies are not abandoned altogether and eventually re-emerge in a second generation, eventually making their way into mainstream production. How the traffic light works Megatrends are typically slow moving, taking years or even decades to unravel. However, as demonstrated by the example of the dot.com episode, their investment applications tend to follow market cycles and can be fairly volatile because of uncertainty surrounding future returns. To address this issue, we have created a tactical (1 – 6 month outlook) traffic light system. It should help investors navigate through these market fluctuations by signaling optimal entry points or times to reduce exposure. Themes with a poor score receive a red signal (denoting underweight/take profits) and those with high scores receive a green signal (denoting overweight/build exposure). Scores depend on a variety of metrics that include factors such as relative valuation, earnings revisions, long-term growth prospects, price momentum, price trend and risk profile. These six metrics are computed on a bottom-up basis for each Megatrend investment theme, and are then combined to determine the overall score of each investment theme. The advantages of this approach include the fact that there is no need for additional forecasts that can potentially increase the error, while the model is quite flexible and can be calibrated over time. Compass 29 Was It a Financial Crisis … or an Oil Crisis? This essay argues that the financial crisis was exacerbated by, even caused by, an energy crisis, as the world ran out of oil due to surging emerging market demand, illdisciplined OECD energy policies and a lack of new supply. Looking ahead, this suggests the world can escape the “new normal” of slow growth by increasing energy supply and efficiency via new production processes and new sources. Some of these are already well on the way, including shale gas. Written by Giles Keating, Head of Research for Private Banking and Asset Management 30 Megatrends Figure 1 Real Oil Prices USD/barrel (2012 prices) 140 1973 oil crisis 120 1979 oil crisis 100 80 60 40 20 1994–2005 0 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 As of 10/31/2012 Source: BP, Datastream, Credit Suisse Note: Data frequency is annual prior to 1957, monthly thereafter. Prices shown are US Average until 1944, Arabian Light posted at Ras Tanura for 1945 to 1983 and Brent dated thereafter. The global oil shortage The standard view of the 2007–09 crash and recession, and the subsequent Eurozone crisis, focuses on excess leverage through banks and governments. Most of the received views about today’s world build on that analysis to conclude that growth in Europe and the USA must stay subdued for a long period as the wounds of financial insobriety gradually heal. In this essay, I aim to challenge that view and argue that the financial crisis was exacerbated by, and indeed largely caused by the explosion in oil prices after 2005, as rapid Asian expansion ran up against Western profligacy to create an unexpected energy shortage. I show that these high oil prices are encouraging increased energy supply and adaptation of our economies and argue that this will allow a resumption of robust global growth in coming years, which will in turn help resolve the remaining financial problems. From consumer power to producer power: Oil, 1950–80 There is never a clear starting point for a macroeconomic story, but a convenient place to begin is in the USA and Western Europe of the 1950s and 1960s. The hydrocarbon boom was shaping an automobile-based society with its suburban sprawl and roadbuilding, and the baby boom was starting, helped rather literally by the new freedom of personal transport (Figure 2). In Asia, Japan shared the same oil-based economic and demographic explosion, but China’s baby boom was delayed by the terrible famine of the late 1950s, and hydrocarbon-based economic expansion was impossible in Mao’s communist economy. As North America and Western Europe consumed more oil, real oil prices were in a declining trend in the 1950s and 1960s, helped by the low extraction costs in the Middle East and the domination of global oil production by the “Seven Sisters” – the giant companies controlled explicitly or implicitly by their governments in the USA and Europe, and supported by their diplomatic and military power. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was created in 1960, but was ineffective, while other producers like the Soviet Union were price-takers. The result was that real oil prices (adjusted to today’s US consumer prices) fell from around $16 a barrel in the early 1950s to a low of around $10 in 1970. Cheap oil was a crucial support of the rapid economic growth enjoyed in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries at this time, supporting an equity bull market that lasted two decades until the late 1960s (Figure 3). After 1970, things began to go badly wrong and, by mid-1973, real oil prices had risen about 40% from their lows. Energy demand was boosted by money-financed US fiscal expansion to finance the earlier Great Society and the intensifying Vietnam War. Supply was constrained by under-investment during the low-price era, with US oil production peaking in 1970, implying growing dependency on imports from the Middle East (Figure 4). Rising oil prices were just one symptom of a broader inflation stoked by lax US macroeconomic policies, and as Germany, Switzerland and others followed a tighter monetary path, the system of fixed exchange rates agreed at Bretton Woods a generation earlier collapsed (in stages in 1971 and 1973) and the gold price soared. The OPEC crisis in late 1973 propelled prices to about $58 in today’s prices. While this may not sound high, it is difficult to overstate the shock effect at the time. It was about six times the lowCompass 31 Figure 2 US Motor Vehicle Registrations Per Capita point reached just three years earlier. The proximate cause of the OPEC shock was the oil embargo imposed by Arab nations in response to the USA supplying Israel during the Yom Kippur War. More strategically, it reflected a fundamental shift in power from oil-consuming to oil-producing nations, given the rising US dependence on imports and pent-up geopolitical tensions in the region. The embargo ended after six months, but OPEC emerged as a powerful force in global oil, for a while dominant, exercising market power through a system of quotas on its members that allowed it to keep real oil prices close to their 1973 peak throughout the 1970s (Figure 5). Registrations per capita 0.6 Roaring 20s 0.5 0.4 The Great Depression 0.3 0.2 WW2 Urban sprawl 1st Gulf War 1st Oil Crisis T-model 0.1 0.0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Automobile registrations per capita As of 12/31/2010 Source: US Census Bureau, Highway Information Administration, Credit Suisse Figure 3 US Stock-Market Cycle Real return index (log scale) 64000 32000 Bull market 16000 8000 4000 2000 1000 1941 1944 1947 1950 1953 1956 1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 As of 03/31/1974 Source: Global Financial Data, Credit Suisse Figure 4 US Production and Imports of Petroleum and Other Liquids Bn barrels 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 Production Net Imports As of 12/31/2011 Source: EIA, Credit Suisse 32 Financial Crisis or Oil Crisis? 2000 2011 In response to the oil shock, the USA was reluctant to tighten macroeconomic policy to cut oil demand, but panic microeconomic measures were introduced. A blanket 55 mile per hour speed limit was imposed across the entire Federal interstate highway system, only to be breached in many cases, especially given the use of Citizens’ Band radio, which we could think of as a pre-digital audio social network favored by long distance drivers. Gradually, more effective measures were introduced, including US federal targets for fuel efficiency of automobile manufacturers. Globally the supply response was slow, but one major area ready to grow was the North Sea, with UK oil production rising from virtually zero in 1970 to one million barrels per day (bpd) as early as 1978. 1979 saw the second OPEC shock, associated with the Iranian revolution. Prices surged to levels that in real terms look quite high even from the perspective of 2012, at around $107 per barrel (again, adjusted using US consumer prices). This time, the macroeconomic policy response was near-textbook among many major oil consumers, with tight monetary policy in the USA (under new Fed Chairman Paul Volcker) and many European countries, implying short-term pain, but ensuring that the risks of inflation were brought under control relatively swiftly. The emergence of the oil glut: 1980–98 Following each of these two OPEC price shocks, energy efficiency in the OECD countries began to improve decisively, reflecting both government measures and the market signals from an enormous relative price shift. Energy consumption per unit of GDP fell by 22% in the decade after the first shock in 1973, and oil usage per unit of output fell even more as other energy sources were brought into play (Figure 6). Equally important, at these elevated prices, there was an incentive to accelerate existing projects and to search for and develop oil and gas reserves in previously impractical or uneconomic locations. New technologies appeared and existing ones improved, for example making offshore drilling possible at gradually increasing depths. The industry started a sizeable investment program. In the UK, production from the North Sea rose rapidly to above 2.5 million bpd in the mid-1980s, while Norway witnessed a comparable boom and US drilling began in the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 7). These new technologies had an important feature – they would still be available for use even after prices had fallen back. And fall they did – in fact the 1979 price spike was followed by a quarter-century that saw a deep bear market and then rangetrading at a radically lower level. The macro forces behind this change are clear. On the demand side, ongoing energy conservation allowed economic growth to resume without generating a corresponding rise in oil demand. On the supply side, exploration and development of oil boosted output and, moreover, with much of the new production outside of OPEC, the power of that cartel was progressively weakened and its ability to police quotas among its members eroded. Rising oil production in Europe and other locations such as Mexico (where output rose sixfold from 1974 to 1984) meant that the world had moved into a period of structural oversupply for oil, with a pronounced effect on prices. By the mid1980s, real oil prices had fallen into a $20–40 band (at today’s prices) that lasted for about two decades until 2005, apart from a brief upward spike during the first Gulf War in 1990 and a brief downward spike during the Asian crisis in 1997–98. This long period of broad oil price stability was good for global financial assets, underpinning simultaneous bull markets in both equities and bonds, as it allowed a progressive decline in inflation to be combined with sustained economic growth. Unsurprisingly, this was also a long bear market for gold. The false sense of security from this long phase of low prices had another effect of eroding the enthusiasm for energy-saving measures and, more disastrously, creating a global coordination failure between the existing industrialized countries in Europe and North America on the one hand, and the newly industrializing ones in Asia, on the other. To understand this, we must look back to 1978, with the appointment of Deng Xiaoping as leader of the Chinese Communist Party. Imperceptible move from glut to shortage: Emerging market expansion 1978 up to 2008 Mr. Deng was given, in effect, a mandate for profound economic reform. While the need for this was obvious after the disasters of the Cultural Revolution, an added urgency was given by the demographic explosion that had been going on for a decade and a half. Since the early 1960s, as the economy recovered from the horrors of the Great Famine, fertility had been running at around six children per woman and the death rate had fallen. Despite initial family planning programs from 1970 onward, the result was a population expansion on an absolute scale not seen before or after in such a space of time in any other country – a rise from 660 million in 1961 to 994 million by 1980 (Figure 8). Even with the full One-Child Policy from 1979 (in practice only gradually bringing fertility below two children per woman), the “echo effect” from the large new cohort of women of childbearing age born in the first phase of the baby boom meant that, in absolute terms, population continued to expand rapidly, reaching 1.26 billion by 2000 (and around 1.34 billion now). There was an urgent need in the first instance to feed everyone, then to provide improved living standards and beyond that lay the broader basis for restoring China’s long-lost pre-eminence among nations. The early results of reform were impressive in percentage terms, with GDP growing at a compound annual average rate of almost 10% in the 20 years after Mr. Deng came to power, but the starting point was so low in absolute terms that the effect on the rest of the world became Figure 5 OPEC Versus Non-OPEC Oil Production Million barrels per day 80 70 60 Second oil shock First oil shock 50 40 30 20 10 0 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2007 2011 OPEC Non-OPEC (excl. Soviet Union) (Former) Soviet Union As of 12/31/2011 Source: BP, Credit Suisse Figure 6 OECD Energy and Oil Intensity Index (1970 = 100) 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2011 Energy consumption per unit of real GDP (rebased 1970 = 100) Oil consumption per unit of real GDP (rebased 1970 = 100) As of 12/31/2011 Source: BP, Datastream, Credit Suisse Figure 7 Global Oil Production and Regional Changes: 1973 vs. 1983 Million barrels 35 per day 1973 OPEC US & Canada 40 45 50 Production: -31.6% -12.9 -1.2 +2.4 UK & Norway China 60 58.5 Mexico Other Europe 55 +3.0 Production: +87% +3.8 +1.1 +1.9 Others 1983 56.6 As of 12/31/1983 Source: BP, Credit Suisse Compass 33 apparent only gradually during the second of these two decades. China’s GDP was barely 1.8% of the global total in 1978; by 1998, it was still only 3.4%. This low starting point also meant that impact of China on global oil demand was virtually negligible over most of this period; indeed China was actually a net oil exporter until 1994. All that changed from the late 1990s onward. China’s GDP, underpinned by its extraordinary demographic expansion, was now significant in global terms and yet did not slow down, with growth slightly faster in the decade after 1998 than before. An economy that represents 3.4% of world GDP and grows at over 10% a year when everyone else averages about 3% will end up generating around one sixth of the world’s increase in output over ten years. And China was following the hydrocarbon-based economic model pioneered in the USA, implying high energy intensity at this stage of development. In Shanghai, cycle lanes in the vast new Pudong district were segregated from the main highway by portable barriers and, as motor traffic grew, these barriers were taken away, removing the cycle lanes. China’s oil consumption began to rise rapidly, going from 4.2 million bpd in 1998 to 7.9 million bpd in 2008. By comparison, total global consumption of oil at this time averaged about 80.5 million bpd. In India, oil consumption rose by 1.1 million bpd, and the aggregate increase in other non-OECD countries was almost six million bpd. Over the same period, US oil demand also rose, from 18.9 million bpd to 19.5 million, reflecting weakening energy discipline and strong consumer spending backed by the credit boom. Europe was better disciplined and slower-growing, so its imports were broadly stable. 34 Financial Crisis or Oil Crisis? Putting all this together, oil demand from OECD countries increased only slightly over the period from 1998 to 2008, but with demand from China and other emerging markets rising rapidly, total oil demand rose about 16%, from 74.1 million bpd to 85.8 million. Essentially, energy demand in most countries continued as if the low oil prices seen for over two decades were set to stay (Figure 9). Producers also responded to the low prices, so that the cushion of spare capacity built up in the 1980s was eroded and, even as this gradually led to upward price pressure in the early 2000s, they were reluctant to invest, remembering the glut from two decades before. So exploration and development were subdued even as demand grew. The result was that slowly and almost imperceptibly, the oil glut of 1998, when prices hit a low of about $18 per barrel (in today’s prices on an annual average basis, and as low as $13 per barrel on a daily spot basis in nominal terms), turned into a chronic oil shortage by 2008, when spot prices for Brent briefly touched almost $150 per barrel on a nominal basis. Forward prices never really sounded a warning – 5-year forward prices for WTI never traded more than 20% above current spot prices in the period from early 2007 until the oil price peak in 2008 (Figure 10). And the global community of oil consumers did not coordinate in order to understand where the various independent policies were collectively leading. The oil shortage and the financial crisis: 2008 Each component of the credit boom – US consumer borrowing, expanding bank balance sheets, and exploding deficits in Europe’s periphery – reflected both permissive financial rulebooks and also interest rates at ultra-low levels by the standards of the day. These policy levers were set by regulators and by the world’s central bankers, led by the Fed under Alan Greenspan first and then Ben Bernanke. With hindsight their approach appears too lax, but at the time they acted in good faith on the expectation that economic growth could continue more or less indefinitely at a strong pace without inflation or supply shortages. They saw the digital productivity boom and the benefits to inflation from cheap imports from China and elsewhere. They discounted the risks of supply constraints from commodities and oil, for which prices had been quiescent for a quarter-century and for which the creeping new uptrend was difficult to distinguish from market noise. Both the Fed and Bank of England focused on inflation measures that excluded oil prices! In parallel, China’s authorities continued to pursue record-breaking growth centered round exports and investment. This is not a matter of blaming any one player, but rather of noting that all the key players were pursuing paths, which taken together, would soon be demanding more oil than the world could produce. It was a coordination failure. Suppose the world had not run into an oil constraint in 2008 and instead there had been sustained strong growth – would the income streams of Americans with sub-prime mortgages and the tax revenues of southern European nations have been enough to service their debt? We will never know for sure, but continued strong growth is by far the easiest way to reduce debt burdens. As it was, the world did hit an oil constraint, oil prices soared, growth slowed, debts that previously had seemed good turned sour, and the financial crisis exploded, further damaging growth and turning more loans from good to bad. Some people might say that the surging oil price was the catalyst that caused a nascent financial crisis to appear. I prefer to put the solid reality of physical energy ahead of the alchemy of finance, and say that the lack of oil was finally and shockingly revealed to a complacent world by the financial crisis, which was the mechanism that forced global demand for oil down from an unsustainably rapid uptrend. As rising oil demand pushes prices up, it becomes economically viable to bring high-cost mothballed supplies on stream to help dampen the price increase. Economists say the short-term supply curve is “not very inelastic,” which seems to describe much of the decade up to 2008. As demand keeps on trending upward, there comes a point where more or less all of the idle supplies have been brought on stream. At this point, even a very large rise in price will not bring forth extra supply (until new oil fields can be developed, which takes years) – economists now say that the short run supply curve has become highly inelastic (Figure11). This is roughly what seems to have happened in the middle of 2008 when the price of Brent rose to almost $150 a barrel. While there was much talk of “speculation,” there is no evidence of this – speculative longs were actually low and falling (Figure 12). The process was described at the time by my colleague Jonathan Wilmot 1. To reduce oil demand, a worldwide slowdown was needed, and it happened. Global industrial production growth (three month Figure 8 China Fertility Rate and Number of Births Children per woman 7 Million 35 6 30 5 4 25 3 20 2 15 1 0 10 1950 1956 1962 1968 1974 1980 1986 1992 1998 2004 2010 Cultural Revolution Number of births (Ihs) Great Chinese Famine Fertility rate (rhs) As of 06/30/2010, Latest data available Source: Datastream, Credit Suisse Figure 9 Net Change in Oil Consumption Since 1998 Million barrels per day 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 1998 USA 2001 China 2004 Other developed 2007 2011 Other emerging economies As of 12/31/2011, Latest data available Source: BP, Credit Suisse Figure 10 Percent Premium or Discount of Spot to 5-year Forward 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% -60% Nov-05 Nov-06 Nov-07 Nov-08 Nov-09 Nov-10 Nov-11 Nov-12 Premium of WTI oil spot price versus 5-year forward rate As of 11/09/2012 Source: Bloomberg, Credit Suisse Compass 35 Table 1 Sectors Impacted by Higher Oil Prices Impacted industries & beneficiaries Oil impact Transportation (Airlines) Aerospace & Defence More efficient aircraft and engines are a competitive advantage, given that fuel accounts for 30%–50%of an airline’s costs. As a result, order backlog at Airbus and Boeing has reached a high. Transportation (Truckers) Capital Goods Truck companies are switching to natural gas engines as natural gas is cheaper than petrol/diesel. Transportation Automotive/Capital Goods CO2 regulation (i.e. basically the same as fuel efficiency) has become tougher globally. While, in the longer term, the electrification of the powertrain is an important solution, improvement in the efficiency of combustion engines is more important in the short/medium term. Borg Warner expects turbocharger growth of 150% between 2012 and 2017 versus vehicle production of ca. 50%. All producing industries, mainly energy intensive (e.g. Pulp & Paper, Cement, Steel) Capital Goods High energy costs in the production process have increased demand for automated solutions (a key long-term theme, the other two drivers are wage inflation and product quality). One example is variable-speed-drives instead of fixed-speed drives. ABB highlights the benefit of the convergence of automation and power. Chemicals & other energy-intensive sectors Chemicals (with operations in the USA) High oil prices relative to low gas prices in the USA have resulted in investments in the USA, e.g. BASF modified its US cracker in Port Arthur so that it can also crack light feedstock (i.e. gas). Chemicals Enzyme providers Chemicals (that offer bio-based chemicals) Substituting oil as a carbon source with bio-ethanol, methanol, CO2 or the like. Cement Construction industry (thanks to lower prices) Cement companies that can afford investments Highly energy intensive and local industry. Oil has usually been used as an energy source in remote areas, but is now being substituted by other energy sources such as electricity, waste, etc. As of 10/03/2012 Source: Credit Suisse annualized) peaked at just over 6% in late 2007. As oil prices rose and financial conditions worsened, it slowed and then fell to –4% in July when oil peaked, reaching –13% in October, just after Lehman Brothers went into bankruptcy in September. After this, the financial crisis began in earnest. Credit and trade contracted rapidly. By early 2009, the OECD countries were entering the deepest recession since World War II (Figure 13), with oil demand falling sharply and oil prices collapsing. With their credit systems imploding, policymakers in the USA and Europe turned to fiscal policy for stimulus – but in developed countries, this is a slowacting instrument. By contrast, as China saw its exports declining, Beijing took urgent action to fill the demand gap, announcing a major fiscal expansion at the end of 2008 that was far larger as a percentage of GDP than in any OECD nation, and implemented more swiftly (right at the start of 2009). Multiple infrastructure projects were dusted off and given the instant go-ahead: while in China in February 2009, I remember hearing how engineers had been recalled from their Chinese New Year celebrations to start work on these projects. The effect on China’s GDP was dramatic: within a few months, growth had rebounded strongly (Figure 14). Naturally, there was a correspondingly rapid rebound in China’s oil demand, which by late 2009 was also growing strongly again. Oil prices responded, rising sharply from post-Lehman lows to establish a new equilibrium range that has persisted until now of 36 Financial Crisis or Oil Crisis? about $85–125 per barrel for Brent (with West Texas cheaper, the gap reflecting factors such as periodic excess supply at the Cushing hub and differing in oil grades). This is high – about triple the average for the period from the mid-1980s to 2005! Yet, in contrast to that era, it is happening at a time when OECD demand has been weak. All of the (modest) increment in supply has been absorbed by China and other fast-growing emerging markets, keeping spare capacity low. Periodically, heightened geopolitical concerns have pushed prices up, but the central part of the price range seems to reflect a supply-demand balance in which feeble OECD demand is offset by strong emerging economy demand – more than offset, in the sense that prices are much higher than in earlier decades. This is more evidence for the idea that poor economic growth in developed economies since 2008 is as much about an energy shortage as it is about credit stress. Looking to the future: Is there a “new normal” of slow growth? The effect of higher oil prices is to reduce domestic spending in oil-importing nations as incomes are diverted into paying for oil, with increased spending by oil-exporting nations initially offsetting only a fraction of this lost demand. If this were the only effect, it could be countered by oil-importing nations using expansionary fiscal and monetary policies, temporarily borrowing from the oil Our production processes, indeed the whole structure of our economies, are based on the old prices. We make cement using oil to heat limestone. We operate airplanes built ten years ago when oil prices were low. We make kitchen utensils from aluminum that is in turn made by an energy-intensive smelting process. We build sprawling cities without proper public transport, and install air conditioning. Even the so-called “virtual” world of data requires energy-intensive cooling plants for its servers. When oil prices rise, it becomes uneconomical to make some of the products that use aluminum, so we shut down that factory. Less-patronized airline routes cannot be operated any more. To save fuel, we turn down the air conditioning, making us irritable and less productive. Our trucks drive more slowly to save fuel, so that the number of deliveries made on a single shift declines. And so on. In short, the productive capacity of the economy has declined (economists say that in the short run, the economy uses fixed proportions of factor inputs). Is this one of the reasons, perhaps a major reason, why output has been so disappointing in the USA and Europe since 2009? We focus so much on financial forces and government austerity measures that we ignore this – but surely a tripling of prices to their highest-ever sustained level must have a major impact. Of course, this fixed production structure does not apply in the medium to long run. Once we realize that energy is going to be much more costly, we start to make adjustments. Cement manufacturers install solar energy to heat limestone. An accelerated airplane renewal cycle brings fuel efficiency, making closed routes viable again. Smaller PVC plants are closed and replaced with larger ones that use economies of scale to reduce costs. Buildings are built with natural cooling, new cars are more efficient, software gets smarter and uses less server power. And, we search for new sources of energy. Shale gas is the key example. As all this happens, economically viable output can gradually go back up again. It is difficult to measure how far this restructuring process has gone, but we have now had very high oil prices for about five years and quite a lot has been done to make production more fuelefficient, as shown by the examples in Table 1. And on the supply side, shale gas is starting to have a major impact in the USA (Figure 15). As more and more measures of this kind are implemented, output should start to gradually accelerate, rather than staying mired in the slow growth of the “new normal.” This assumes that it is energy supply constraints rather than a lack of macroeconomic demand that are now the main force holding back the economy, so that the economy can re-accelerate as restructuring eases those constraints. This seems plausible in the USA (where macroeconomic demand is supported by the Fed’s continued aggressive monetary stimulus), as well as in Europe’s largest economy, Germany, and in most emerging markets. It is Figure 11 Oil Price Consistent with 0% Growth in Oil Demand Growth 600 USD per barrel 500 400 300 200 100 Global GDP growth 0 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75 5 5.25 5.5 5.75 6 producers until the latter were able to boost their own spending. Unfortunately, there is another, possibly much more important impact from higher oil prices, which can prevent such policies being effective: an adverse supply shock. High Low Medium As of 11/09/2012 Source: Credit Suisse Investment Banking Note: Chart shows rise in oil prices needed to constrain oil demand to zero growth on various GDP assumptions. Figure 12 Crude Oil Net Speculative Long Positions Versus Oil Price % 14 USD per barrel 140 12 120 10 100 8 80 6 60 4 40 2 20 0 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Crude oil speculative net long positions in percentage of open interest WTI crude oil price in USD (rhs) As of 10/25/2012 Source: Bloomberg, Credit Suisse/IDC Figure 13 Developed Market Industrial Production Versus Trend Index (January 1998 = 100) 125 120 115 110 105 100 95 90 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Developed market industrial production 2008 2010 2012 1998 –2008 trend As of 08/15/2012 Source: Datastream, Credit Suisse Note: Developed Market growth after 2008 well below trend – was the primary cause the Credit Crunch or an oil shortage? Compass 37 Figure 14 Industrial Production Levels by Region more debatable in Eurozone periphery countries, where fiscal and credit conditions remain tight, but even they should benefit from demand elsewhere. If this is correct, it implies a more positive outlook for output in the next few years than many expect, which should help to support equity markets. Index (2005 = 100) 280 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Advanced Economies Emerging markets (incl. China) As of 08/15/2012 Source: Datastream, Credit Suisse 2012 China Figure 15 US Natural Gas Versus Oil Production Forecasts (Net Change Since 2009) Million barrels per day equivalent 2.5 2.0 Forecast 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 20092011 2013 2015 2017 2019 20212023 2025 20272029 20312033 2035 Shale gas Crude oil total As of 06/30/12 Source: EIA, Credit Suisse Natural gas excl. shale Future energy prices: Toward a new supply boom, but demand also strong For oil prices, there are two broadly offsetting effects: OECD economies that are gradually becoming less energy-intensive, but that are set to grow somewhat faster than central estimates expect. This suggests that oil prices remain in roughly the same elevated range seen over the last five years (about $75–105 for WTI, about $85–125 for Brent, with trading usually closer to the center than the edge of these ranges). Oil production growth has risen over these last five years, thanks to deep-water drilling and the surge in shale oil production, but we are still much closer to capacity constraints than during the 1980s and 1990s, and new oil supply comes at a much higher cost than in the past, with oil sources from tar sand or shale being much more capital-intensive to produce than the “traditional” Middle Eastern oil. If anything, this implies an asymmetric risk, with prices more likely to break out on the upside temporarily, partly because monetary policy is likely to be kept too expansionary for too long, pushing demand into the area where supply becomes inelastic, and partly because of the danger of a geopolitical shock. We cannot be sure how long this historically high range might persist, but over the medium to long term it almost certainly contains the seeds of its own destruction. Over a 10–15-year horizon, the supply of oil and other energy is likely to be very responsive to high prices, which encourage large-scale investment and foster new technologies that reduce costs permanently and open up totally new sources of supply. Shale gas is the most visible of the new energy supply sources. Already present on a large scale in the USA and expanding rapidly, this is the leader in a range of new supply sources that many people believe could turn North America into a net energy exporter within about ten years, which is not only a crucial event for energy prices, but also geopolitically. It can also encourage growth of energy intensive activities in the USA. Countries around the world are keen to emulate the success of the USA, though geological and environmental considerations vary widely. China is aiming to exploit is substantial shale gas reserves as are others including the UK and Argentina, although exploration in continental Europe has so far been mixed 2. Other new sources include those based on deep-water drilling technology, which, with the appropriate postMacondo safeguards, is increasingly crucial – not just in Brazil, but other areas such as the Eastern Mediterranean and off the coast of East Africa. Investment opportunities, new energy sources, new energy efficiencies The current era of high oil prices, the technologies it is spawning, and the new energy sources it is helping to uncover, will change the world energy map beyond recognition in the next decade. To 38 Financial Crisis or Oil Crisis? take a few examples, Tanzania and some other east African countries will face an oil and gas boom and, if they can manage to avoid the resource curse seen in the West of the continent, there will be prosperity for their peoples as well as impressive investment opportunities. Brazil may be able to finance the next phase of its economic development, and Cyprus and even perhaps Greece may eventually be able to repay all their debts. Nuclear energy is part of the story: Germany and Switzerland are stepping back, but emerging countries from Turkey to China have tried to adapt the technology to the lessons of Fukishima and move forward. Electric car technology will likely improve substantially within a decade, but will probably take longer to become a dominant force, while other energy-switching and saving technologies like smart meters could have a bigger impact sooner. As investors, we should be starting to look beyond the financial crisis and its sibling, the Eurozone crisis, focusing instead on the way that the current era of high energy prices is changing our economies, potentially allowing output to surprise to the upside, thus supporting equity markets without necessarily causing major damage to bonds initially. The focus can be on the opportunities for investment in energy, while being aware that at some point, perhaps after a decade or so, the pendulum will swing back once again to an era of lower energy costs with a whole new set of opportunities. Wilmot et al, “How Much Demand Destruction?”, Market Focus, Credit Suisse Fixed Income Research, 17 July 2008 2 Credit Suisse Research Institute is planning to publish a report on shale gas in December 2012 1 Compass 39 Wealth Planning Summary of American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 Written by ALVINA LO, PRIVATE BANKING USA WEALTH PLANNING GROUP The “American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012” (the Act) became effective as of January 1, 2013. The Act is intended to avoid some of the issues related to the so-called “Fiscal Cliff”, which would have automatically increased taxes for most individuals. Below is a summary of the major tax provisions contained in the Act related to high net-worth individuals. Income Tax The Act increases the top Federal ordinary income tax rate to 39.6% (up from 35%) for taxable income over $400,000 (for individuals) or $450,000 (for married couples filing jointly). The tax rate for qualified dividends and long-term capital gains also increases to 20% for taxable income over $400,000 (for individuals) or $450,000 (for married couples filing jointly). The rate remains at 15% for amounts below this threshold. Note: Although not a part of the Act, the new “Medicare tax” is also effective beginning in 2013. A 3.8% surtax is applied on the lesser of net investment income or modified Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) in excess of $200,000 (for individuals) or $250,000 (for married couples filing jointly). Furthermore, there is an additional 0.9% increase in the Medicare hospital insurance tax on the amount of earned income in excess of $200,000 (for individuals) or $250,000 (for married couples filing jointly), bringing the total tax to 2.35% (up from 1.45%). Estate, Gift and Generation Skipping Transfer Tax The Federal estate tax exemption remains at $5 million, indexed for inflation since 2011, which is projected to be $5.25 million in 2013 for individuals or $10.5 million for married couples. In addition, the gift tax is “unified” with the estate tax so that the Federal lifetime gift tax and the Generation Skipping Transfer (GST) tax exemptions are also projected to be $5.25 million for individuals or $10.5 million for married couples. The new top estate, gift and GST tax rate is 40%, which is an increase from the temporary rate of 35% in 2011 and 2012. Individuals who fully utilized their exemptions last year may leverage their existing trusts and/or other wealth transfer vehicles for additional gifts. “Portability” – the ability for a surviving spouse to use the exemption of a deceased spouse for gift and estate tax purposes – is also made permanent under the Act. Although portability may appear to simplify estate planning, taxpayers should consult with counsel on the various implications of relying on this provision. Itemized Deduction Limitation and Personal Exemption Phase-out The Act reinstates the phase-out on certain itemized deductions and personal exemptions for those with AGI over $250,000 (for individuals) or $300,000 (for married couples filing jointly). Under the “Pease” limitation, the total amount of itemized deductions that can be claimed is reduced by the lesser of 3% of AGI in excess of this 40 Wealth Planning threshold amount or 80% of the itemized deductions. Under the Personal Exemption Phase-out, the personal exemption is reduced by 2% for each $2,500 of AGI that is in excess of this threshold amount. Social Security Payroll Tax The Act does not extend the 2% reduction on Social Security payroll taxes that had applied for 2011 and 2012. As a result, wages earned up to $113,700 (per individual) will be taxed at a rate of 6.2% (compared to 4.2% in such years). Alternative Minimum Tax The Act provides a permanent patch for the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) by indexing the AMT exemption for inflation. The exemption amount for 2012 is $50,600 (for individuals) or $78,750 (for married couples filing jointly). This provision is effective retroactive to the 2012 tax year. Distributions from IRAs to Charities The Act permits tax-free distributions from Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) to charity for 2013. Specifically, an individual that is age 70 ½ and older may distribute up to $100,000 from his or her IRA directly to a qualified charity without tax consequences through the end of the year. In addition, an individual making the charitable distribution in January, 2013 may elect to treat the distribution as being made in 2012. The new top estate, gift and GST tax rate is 40%, which is an increase from the temporary rate of 35% in 2011 and 2012. Individuals who fully utilized their exemptions last year may leverage their existing trusts and/or other wealth transfer vehicles for additional gifts. In-Plan Roth Account Conversion The Act permits individuals to convert an existing 401(k) plan to a Roth account, if employers offer Roth accounts in the employers’ retirement plans. This applies to the entire 401(k) balance, as compared to only the amount eligible for distribution under prior law. Qualified Small Business Stock Under previous law, gain for qualified small business stock was excluded if the stock was acquired between September 27, 2010 and January 1, 2012 and held for at least five years. The Act extends the exclusion for two years so that it will now include stock acquired before January 1, 2014. Therefore, if a taxpayer acquires qualifying small business stock before January 1, 2014, and holds it for at least five years, the taxpayer may dispose of the stock without incurring any Federal income tax. GRATs and FLPs The Act does not contain any provisions related to Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts (GRATs) or Family Limited Partnerships (FLPs). Later rounds of revenue increases, likely in conjunction with Congressional action to increase the debt ceiling and cut entitlement spending, may, however, include a robust discussion of extending GRAT terms. Compass 41 Contact Us For more information about the topics and views discussed in this report, please contact your Relationship Manager. To arrange a meeting or to learn more about Credit Suisse Private Banking Americas, please visit us at www.credit-suisse.com. Important Legal Information: The Private Banking USA business in Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (“CSSU”) is a regulated broker dealer and investment advisor. It is not a chartered bank, trust company or depository institution. It is not authorized to accept deposits or provide corporate trust services and it is not licensed or regulated by any state or federal banking authority. This report is not directed to, or intended for distribution to or use by, any person or entity who is a citizen or resident of or located in any locality, state, country or other jurisdiction where such distribution, publication, availability or use would be contrary to law or regulation or which would subject CSSU to any registration or licensing requirement within such jurisdiction. The information, tools and material presented in this report are provided to you for information purposes only and are not to be used or considered as an offer or the solicitation of an offer to sell or to buy or subscribe for securities or other financial instruments or to purchase any of the products or services mentioned. CSSU may not have taken any steps to ensure that the securities referred to in this report are suitable for any particular investor, and this information is not intended to be a recommendation or opinion regarding the equity securities of the referenced companies. This material does not purport to contain all of the information that an interested party may desire prior to making an investment and, in fact, provides only a limited view of a particular market. This material may not be used or relied upon for any purpose other than as specifically contemplated by a written agreement with CSSU. CSSU does not provide legal or tax advice. Consult your personal accounting, legal, and tax advisor with respect to any legal or tax implications. Unless otherwise specified, the term “Credit Suisse Private Banking” generally refers to the combined capabilities of Credit Suisse Group subsidiaries and affiliates that provide private banking services to high net worth clients worldwide. Each legal entity in Credit Suisse Group is subject to distinct regulatory requirements and certain products and services may not be available in all jurisdictions or to all client types. There is no intention to offer products and services in countries or jurisdictions where such offer would be unlawful under the relevant domestic law. This material has been prepared by the Asset Allocation and Investment Strategy Team of the Private Banking USA business of CSSU and not by the CSSU research department. It is intended only to provide observations and views of the Investment Strategy and Advisory Group, which may be different from, or inconsistent with, the observations and views of CSSU research department analysts, CSSU traders or sales personnel, or the proprietary positions of CSSU. Observations and views expressed herein may be changed by the Asset Allocation and Investment Strategy Team at any time without notice. Past performance is not an indication or guarantee of future performance, and no representation or warranty, expressed or implied is made regarding future performance. The material set forth above has been obtained from or based upon sources believed to be reliable but CSSU does not represent or warrant its accuracy or completeness and is not responsible for losses or damages arising out of errors, omissions or changes in market factors. The material does not constitute objective research under FSA rules. The most recent CSSU research on any company mentioned is available to online subscribers at www.creditsuisse.com/pbclientview. Private equity funds, hedge funds, and other alternative investments are complex instruments that are not suitable for every investor, may involve a degree of risk, and may be appropriate investments only for sophisticated investors who are capable of understanding and assuming the risks involved. Before entering into any transaction, an investor should determine if the product suits his or her particular circumstances and should independently assess (with his or her professional advisors) the specific risks and the legal, regulatory, credit, tax and accounting consequences. CSSU makes no representation as to the suitability of any alternative investment product for any particular investor nor as to the future performance of any such products. Any offering of interest in any private equity fund, hedge fund or other alternative investment product shall only be made pursuant to the offering material for each such product, which will be provided to each prospective investor before making his or her investment decision and which contains information about such product’s investment objectives, the terms and conditions of an investment in such product and tax information and risk disclosures that involve significant risks, such as loss of the entire investment, illiquidity, restrictions or transferring of interests, volatility of performance, and currency risks. Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs) combine the tax benefits of limited partnership with the liquidity of common stock. An MLP has a partnership structure but issues investment units that trade on an exchange like common stock. In order to qualify, a firm must earn 90% of its income through activities or interest and dividend payments relating to natural resources, commodities or real estate. MLPs are not subject to corporate income taxes. Instead, unitholders of an MLP are personally responsible for paying taxes on their individual portions of the MLP’s income, gains, losses, and deductions. Tax-exempt institutional investment funds such as pensions, endowments, and 401(k) plans are restricted from owning MLPs because the cash distributions received are considered unrelated business taxable income (UBTI) – income that is unrelated to the activity that gives the fund tax-exempt status. This could create a tax liability on any distribution of more than $1,000. This is also true for individuals when holding MLPs in an IRA account. CSSU does not provide tax or legal advice. Please consult your legal and tax advisors to understand the tax implications of investing in MLPs. For the definition of certain benchmark indices referenced herein, please refer to: https://www. credit-suisse.com/us/privatebanking/en/glossary_indices.jsp Internal Revenue Service Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regulations, advice (if any) relating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any plan or arrangement addressed herein. This material may be distributed in Mexico by Banco Credit Suisse (México), S.A., for information purposes only, this may not be construed as an offer or an invitation to enter into any transaction or purchase any security or investment product that may not be undertaken under Mexican applicable regulation. ©2013 Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC. All rights reserved CREDIT SUISSE Eleven Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010 www.credit-suisse.com
© Copyright 2024