CLOSE

We permit the publication of our auditors’ report, provided the report is published in full only and is accompanied by the full financial statements to which our auditors’ report relates, and is only published on an access-controlled page on your website https://www.hermes-investment.com, to enable users to verify that an auditors’ report by independent accountants has been commissioned by the directors and issued. Such permission to publish is given by us without accepting or assuming any responsibility or liability to any third party users save where we have agreed terms with them in writing.

Our consent is given on condition that before any third party accesses our auditors’ report via the webpage they first document their agreement to the following terms of access to our report via a click-through webpage with an 'I accept' button. The terms to be included on your website are as follows:

I accept and agree for and on behalf of myself and the Trust I represent (each a "recipient") that:

  1. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”) accepts no liability (including liability for negligence) to each recipient in relation to PwC’s report. The report is provided to each recipient for information purposes only. If a recipient relies on PwC’s report, it does so entirely at its own risk;
  2. No recipient will bring a claim against PwC which relates to the access to the report by a recipient;
  3. Neither PwC’s report, nor information obtained from it, may be made available to anyone else without PwC’s prior written consent, except where required by law or regulation; and
  4. PwC’s report was prepared with Hermes Property Unit Trust's interests in mind. It was not prepared with any recipient's interests in mind or for its use. PwC’s report is not a substitute for any enquiries that a recipient should make. The financial statements are as at 25 March 2016, and thus PwC’s auditors’ report is based on historical information. Any projection of such information or PwC’s opinion thereon to future periods is subject to the risk that changes may occur after the reports are issued and the description of controls may no longer accurately portray the system of internal control. For these reasons, such projection of information to future periods would be inappropriate.
  5. PwC will be entitled to the benefit of and to enforce these terms.
I accept
CLOSE

1. Select your country

  • United Kingdom
  • Austria
  • Australia
  • Belgium
  • Denmark
  • Finland
  • France
  • Germany
  • Iceland
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Luxembourg
  • Netherlands
  • Norway
  • Singapore
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • Switzerland
  • USA
  • Other

2. Select your investor type

  • Financial Advisor
  • Discretionary Investment Manager
  • Wealth Manager
  • Family Office
  • Institutional Investor
  • Investment Consultant
  • Charity, Foundation & Endowment Investor
  • Retail Investor
  • Press
  • None of the above

3. Accept our terms and conditions

Proceed

The Hermes Investment Management website uses cookies to remember your preferences and help us improve the site.
By proceeding, you agree to cookies being placed on your computer.
Read our privacy and cookie policy.

Does Emerging Market hard currency debt belong outside of the Global High Yield Index (HW00)?

Home / Spectrum / Does Emerging Market hard currency debt belong outside of the Global High Yield Index (HW00)?

Mitch Reznick, Co-Head of Credit and Head of Credit Research
18 June 2015
Uncategorised

At the end of April, Bank of America (BAML) released the annual review of its bond indices for 2015. Given that it was only four years ago that BAML decided to include Emerging Market (EM) hard currency debt in the Global High Yield Index (HW00), we were very surprised to see that it is now considering pulling EM out of that index. At that time in 2011, we praised the inclusion of EM debt in HW00 as prescient because by including EM debt in the global bond index BAML acknowledged the truth that the globalisation of credit is here to stay. And, as the investment consultant Russell Investments concluded in a market thought piece in April 2013, “we prefer to invest where we believe the market is going, rather than where it has been.” As such, it would be a mistake for BAML to reverse the decision it made a mere four years ago simply because “a number of high profile emerging markets corporate downgrades – including PETBRA, currently the largest name in HW00, and a large contingent of Russian corporates – have refocused attention on this particular aspect of the index rules”.

We fail to see the logic that BAML cites for the reason it is considering the change. It makes no sense to acknowledge the increasingly global nature of high yield credit in 2011 and then to reverse course simply because some managers’ expectations failed to consider the prospect that fallen angels could have a meaningful impact on the global high yield index. The fact is, the changing character of the index must reflect the changing character of global high yield credit. Just as the high yield indices reflected the impact of the move to high yield for large fallen angels such as Telecom Italia, ArcelorMittal, Centurylink, among others we believe that HW00 should do the same. Meantime, despite its large size in HW00, PDVSA has been in the index for years, and yet there has never been a question of its presence. Therefore to remove EM credit from HW00 simply because ““a number of high profile emerging markets corporate downgrades – including PETBRA, currently the largest name in HW00, and a large contingent of Russian corporates – have refocused attention on this particular aspect of the index rules” implies an inconsistent approach.

And, to those that take the view that the hard-currency credit from EM names is inappropriate because of the sovereign risk analysis involved, we would say that it is, in fact, no different than what is involved in investing in Greece today; both core and peripheral Europe during the debt crisis of 2011 and 2012 or even the UK during the recent elections. Note that during this European sovereign debt crisis Italian and Spain sovereign five-year CDS traded as wide as 600 basis points. France was as wide as 250 basis points, compared to its 35 basis points today. What were the recent wides for Brazil and Russia? 320 basis points and 630 basis points respectively. The point is the volume of sovereign risk that goes into investing in credit dials up and down depending on the ebb and flow of politics, economics and interest rate fluctuations across all jurisdictions - be they developed or emerging.

Beyond acknowledging the structural change in global credit markets, there are obvious benefits to the existence of a truly global index. First, it provides a reference for performance for those managers who believe, as we do, that managing on a global basis opens up new opportunities to deliver superior performance to clients by capturing valuation anomalies across the world, whilst at the same time avoiding having to be a forced buyer of one particular jurisdiction. Second, the prospect of investing globally allows investors to take full advantage of the benefits of diversification by region, sector and currency. Against a backdrop of reducing liquidity, global diversification provides a further risk control mechanism providing it is managed through a robust framework. Third, we, like many managers in the market, have built and are managing products around this exact change. To change the benchmark now would create superfluous disruption and moreover, it would disappoint existing and prospective investors of global credit products who actively seek this diversification.

Finally, from an ESG perspective, because investors in global, public markets have high expectations for corporate governance, the presence of EM companies in the global bond markets fosters the development of more open and transparent reporting and dialog with investors from these EM jurisdictions. And, we believe the presence of a truly global index can lower the cost of capital for issuers of hard currency debt from the EMs because it supports an active market place into which the companies can issue bonds. Both of these reduce cost of capital and volatility.

In summary, we encourage BAML to acknowledge the inexorable globalisation of credit markets and take the decision to keep EM hard currency debt in HW00.

Share this post:
Mitch Reznick Co-Head of Credit and Head of Credit Research Mitch joined Hermes in February 2010 as head of research on the Hermes Credit team. Prior to this he was co-head of credit research for the global credit and hybrids team at Fortis Investments. Other roles at Fortis included portfolio manager of European high yield funds, based in London, and senior credit analyst, based in Paris. Before this he worked as an associate analyst in the leveraged finance group at Moody’s Investors Service in New York. Mitch earned a Master’s degree in International Affairs at Columbia University in New York City and a Bachelor’s degree in History at Pitzer College, one of the Claremont Colleges in California. He is a CFA charterholder.
Read all articles by Mitch Reznick

Find posts by author

  • Andrey Kuznetsov
  • Audra Stundziaite
  • Filippo Alloatti
  • Fraser Lundie
  • Jonathan Lee
  • Mark Sherlock, CFA
  • Mitch Reznick

Find posts by category

  • Select category
  • uncategorised