Connect with us

Government

After their 2020 run-up, do convertibles make sense for 2021?

2020 was a crazy year for investors, and convertible securities had an especially wild ride. From the beginning of the sell-off  on Feb. 20 to their low point on March […]

Published

3 years ago

on

2020 was a crazy year for investors, and convertible securities had an especially wild ride. From the beginning of the sell-off  on Feb. 20 to their low point on March 23 of 2020, the ICE BofA US Convertibles Index had declined by roughly 26%.1 After that dramatic – and brief – sell-off, convertible returns rebounded sharply, and the index was actually up 15% by the end of April from the March low. 1 And performance has continued to improve since then – the ICE BofA US Convertibles Index climbed by more than 46% in 2020, from Jan. 1 through Dec. 31. That puts the asset class in rarified air, trailing only the return on the NASDAQ 100 Index among the major equity and fixed income indices.1

What’s driven convertibles’ performance?

Recall that convertible securities are corporate bonds that have the ability to be converted into a fixed number of shares of the issuer’s common stock. In large measure, convertibles’ 2020 gains were fueled by the strong returns posted by the underlying stocks of issuers in technology and health care.2 An additional boost has come from a number of recent convert issuers whose businesses were significantly impacted by the pandemic – travel-related companies like airlines, ride hailing and cruise ship companies, retailers and restaurants, to name some – and have had sharp gains in their stock and convertible prices since the spring.

Record-setting issuance

In addition to, and in part because of those gains, the convertible market in the US had record-setting new issuance in 2020. Over $113 billion in new paper came from what we would refer to as its core constituent participants – technology and health care companies – and also from those previously mentioned companies most impacted by the pandemic, which sought out balance-sheet-firming capital to ride out the current period of little-to-no revenue generation.3 Indeed, converts from consumer discretionary sector issuers – many in that significantly impacted category – had comprised just 8% of the US convertible universe at the end of 2019 but now make up 18%.2 Adding up the returns and the issuance, the size of the US convertible market has expanded from $212 billion at the end of 2019 to $325 billion as of the end of November 2020, growth of over 50%.2

More broadly, issuance in 2020 has also been the result of the low interest rate environment and high stock volatility. Those attributes have enabled convert issuers to raise money on very attractive terms, and many issuers are using proceeds to refinance previously existing higher-cost debt or pursue earnings-accretive acquisitions, among other things.2

Do converts still make sense?

Given the returns, the issuance and the attention the asset class has gotten in the financial media, it’s not surprising that our team has received a large number of inquiries about convertibles in general and Invesco Convertible Securities Fund in recent months. In addition to questions about what has driven the returns and record issuance in 2020, one other key topic we’re addressing is does it still make sense to invest in converts? We think the answer is yes and three reasons come immediately to mind:

  • First, the asymmetric return profile of converts may allow investors to participate more in the upside in their underlying stocks than in their downside due to the converts’ fixed income floor.
  • Second is the yield advantage that converts have had relative to their underlying stocks. According to data from Bank of America Merrill Lynch, that figure is currently around 90 basis points. And while that’s not a big number by historical standards, in an environment where 10-year Treasuries have been yielding less than 1%, it’s significant.
  • Third is converts’ historical outperformance during periods of rising interest rates. We’ve talked about this one for a long time, and while rates have continued lower, they will eventually start to rise. Compared to non-convertible fixed income, converts have outperformed during periods of rising rates given their equity component and their relatively short duration relative to both investment grade and high yield bonds.
Source: Invesco, Bloomberg L.P. Basis point is the smallest measure used for quoting yields on bonds and notes. One basis point is one one-hundredth of a percentage point, or 0.01%. If the US Federal Reserve increases its short-term interest rate target by 50 basis points, or a bond’s yield rises by 50 basis points, the change would be 0.50% or one-half of one percent. The S&P 500® Index is generally representative of the US stock market. The Barclays US Government Credit Index includes Treasuries and agencies that represent the government portion of the index, and it includes publicly issued US corporate and foreign debentures and secured notes that meet specified maturity, liquidity and quality requirements to represent the credit interests. The ICE BofAML US Convertible Index is an unmanaged index that measures performance of US dollar-denominated convertible securities not currently in bankruptcy with a total market value greater than $50 million at issuance. The S&P LSTA Leveraged Loan Index is designed to reflect the performance of the largest facilities in the leveraged loan market. Past performance cannot guarantee future results. Returns less than one year are cumulative; all other performance figures are annualized. Does not reflect or imply the performance of any Invesco fund. An investment cannot be made directly in an index.

To sum up, 2020 was a very good year for convertibles from both an issuance and a return perspective. That said, we continue to see positives ahead as we move into 2021.

1 Source: ICE Data Services

2 Source: Bank of America Merrill Lynch, November chartbook

3 Source: Barclays CB Insights

Important information

Blog header image: Bonninstudio/ Stocksy

The ICE BofAML US Convertible Index tracks the performance of US-dollar-denominated convertible securities that are not currently in bankruptcy and have total market values of more than $50 million at issuance.

The S&P 500® Index is an unmanaged index considered representative of the US stock market.

An investment cannot be made directly in an index.

Convertible securities may be affected by market interest rates, the risk of issuer default, the value of the underlying stock or the issuer’s right to buy back the convertible securities.

An issuer may be unable to meet interest and/or principal payments, thereby causing its instruments to decrease in value and lowering the issuer’s credit rating.

Derivatives may be more volatile and less liquid than traditional investments and are subject to market, interest rate, credit, leverage, counterparty and management risks. An investment in a derivative could lose more than the cash amount invested.

The risks of investing in securities of foreign issuers, including emerging markets, can include fluctuations in foreign currencies, political and economic instability, and foreign taxation issues.

Junk bonds involve a greater risk of default or price changes due to changes in the issuer’s credit quality. The values of junk bonds fluctuate more than those of high quality bonds and can decline significantly over short time periods.

Interest rate risk refers to the risk that bond prices generally fall as interest rates rise and vice versa.

Preferred securities may include provisions that permit the issuer to defer or omit distributions for a certain period of time, and reporting the distribution for tax purposes may be required, even though the income may not have been received. Further, preferred securities may lose substantial value due to the omission or deferment of dividend payments.

A decision as to whether, when and how to use options involves the exercise of skill and judgment and even a well-conceived option transaction may be unsuccessful because of market behavior or unexpected events. The prices of options can be highly volatile and the use of options can lower total returns.

The Fund is subject to certain other risks.  Please see the current prospectus for more information regarding the risks associated with an investment in the Fund.

The opinions referenced above are those of the author as of Dec. 29, 2020. These comments should not be construed as recommendations, but as an illustration of broader themes. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future results. They involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions; there can be no assurance that actual results will not differ materially from expectations.

Before investing, investors should carefully read the prospectus and/or summary prospectus and carefully consider the investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. For this and more complete information about the fund(s), investors should ask their financial professionals for a prospectus/summary prospectus or visit invesco.com.

Read More

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Government

RFK Jr. Reveals Vice President Contenders

RFK Jr. Reveals Vice President Contenders

Authored by Jeff Louderback via The Epoch Times,

New York Jets quarterback Aaron Rodgers and former…

Published

40 mins ago

on

March 13, 2024

By

RFK Jr. Reveals Vice President Contenders

Authored by Jeff Louderback via The Epoch Times,

New York Jets quarterback Aaron Rodgers and former Minnesota governor and professional wrestler Jesse Ventura are among the potential running mates for independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the New York Times reported on March 12.

Citing “two people familiar with the discussions,” the New York Times wrote that Mr. Kennedy “recently approached” Mr. Rodgers and Mr. Ventura about the vice president’s role, “and both have welcomed the overtures.”

Mr. Kennedy has talked to Mr. Rodgers “pretty continuously” over the last month, according to the story. The candidate has kept in touch with Mr. Ventura since the former governor introduced him at a February voter rally in Tucson, Arizona.

Stefanie Spear, who is the campaign press secretary, told The Epoch Times on March 12 that “Mr. Kennedy did share with the New York Times that he’s considering Aaron Rodgers and Jesse Ventura as running mates along with others on a short list.”

Ms. Spear added that Mr. Kennedy will name his running mate in the upcoming weeks.

Former Democrat presidential candidates Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard declined the opportunity to join Mr. Kennedy’s ticket, according to the New York Times.

Mr. Kennedy has also reportedly talked to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) about becoming his running mate.

Last week, Mr. Kennedy endorsed Mr. Paul to replace Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) as the Senate Minority Leader after Mr. McConnell announced he would step down from the post at the end of the year.

CNN reported early on March 13 that Mr. Kennedy’s shortlist also includes motivational speaker Tony Robbins, Discovery Channel Host Mike Rowe, and civil rights attorney Tricia Lindsay. The Washington Post included the aforementioned names plus former Republican Massachusetts senator and U.S. Ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa, Scott Brown.

In April 2023, Mr. Kennedy entered the Democrat presidential primary to challenge President Joe Biden for the party’s 2024 nomination. Claiming that the Democrat National Committee was “rigging the primary” to stop candidates from opposing President Biden, Mr. Kennedy said last October that he would run as an independent.

This year, Mr. Kennedy’s campaign has shifted its focus to ballot access. He currently has qualified for the ballot as an independent in New Hampshire, Utah, and Nevada.

Mr. Kennedy also qualified for the ballot in Hawaii under the “We the People” party.

In January, Mr. Kennedy’s campaign said it had filed paperwork in six states to create a political party. The move was made to get his name on the ballots with fewer voter signatures than those states require for candidates not affiliated with a party.

The “We the People” party was established in five states: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Mississippi, and North Carolina. The “Texas Independent Party” was also formed.

A statement by Mr. Kennedy’s campaign reported that filing for political party status in the six states reduced the number of signatures required for him to gain ballot access by about 330,000.

Ballot access guidelines have created a sense of urgency to name a running mate. More than 20 states require independent and third-party candidates to have a vice presidential pick before collecting and submitting signatures.

Like Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Ventura is an outspoken critic of COVID-19 vaccine mandates and safety.

Mr. Ventura, 72, gained acclaim in the 1970s and 1980s as a professional wrestler known as Jesse “the Body” Ventura. He appeared in movies and television shows before entering the Minnesota gubernatorial race as a Reform Party headliner. He was a longshot candidate but prevailed and served one term.

Former pro wrestler Jesse Ventura in Washington on Oct. 4, 2013. (Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)

In an interview on a YouTube podcast last December, Mr. Ventura was asked if he would accept an offer to run on Mr. Kennedy’s ticket.

“I would give it serious consideration. I won’t tell you yes or no. It will depend on my personal life. Would I want to commit myself at 72 for one year of hell (campaigning) and then four years (in office)?” Mr. Ventura said with a grin.

Mr. Rodgers, who spent his entire career as a quarterback for the Green Bay Packers before joining the New York Jets last season, remains under contract with the Jets. He has not publicly commented about joining Mr. Kennedy’s ticket, but the four-time NFL MVP endorsed him earlier this year and has stumped for him on podcasts.

The 40-year-old Rodgers is still under contract with the Jets after tearing his Achilles tendon in the 2023 season opener and being sidelined the rest of the year. The Jets are owned by Woody Johnson, a prominent donor to former President Donald Trump who served as U.S. Ambassador to Britain under President Trump.

Since the COVID-19 vaccine was introduced, Mr. Rodgers has been outspoken about health issues that can result from taking the shot. He told podcaster Joe Rogan that he has lost friends and sponsorship deals because of his decision not to get vaccinated.

Quarterback Aaron Rodgers of the New York Jets talks to reporters after training camp at Atlantic Health Jets Training Center in Florham Park, N.J., on July 26, 2023. (Rich Schultz/Getty Images)

Earlier this year, Mr. Rodgers challenged Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce and Dr. Anthony Fauci to a debate.

Mr. Rodgers referred to Mr. Kelce, who signed an endorsement deal with vaccine manufacturer Pfizer, as “Mr. Pfizer.”

Dr. Fauci served as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from 1984 to 2022 and was chief medical adviser to the president from 2021 to 2022.

When Mr. Kennedy announces his running mate, it will mark another challenge met to help gain ballot access.

“In some states, the signature gathering window is not open. New York is one of those and is one of the most difficult with ballot access requirements,” Ms. Spear told The Epoch Times.

“We need our VP pick and our electors, and we have to gather 45,000 valid signatures. That means we will collect 72,000 since we have a 60 percent buffer in every state,” she added.

The window for gathering signatures in New York opens on April 16 and closes on May 28, Ms. Spear noted.

“Mississippi, North Carolina, and Oklahoma are the next three states we will most likely check off our list,” Ms. Spear added. “We are confident that Mr. Kennedy will be on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. We have a strategist, petitioners, attorneys, and the overall momentum of the campaign.”

Tyler Durden Wed, 03/13/2024 - 15:45

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

The SNF Institute for Global Infectious Disease Research announces new advisory board

From identifying the influenza virus that caused the pandemic of 1918 to developing vaccines against pneumococcal pneumonia and bacterial meningitis in…

Published

4 hours ago

on

March 13, 2024

By

From identifying the influenza virus that caused the pandemic of 1918 to developing vaccines against pneumococcal pneumonia and bacterial meningitis in the 1970s, combating infectious disease has a rich history at Rockefeller. That tradition continues as the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Institute for Global Infectious Disease Research at Rockefeller University (SNFiRU) caps a successful first year with the establishment of a new advisory board.

Credit: Lori Chertoff/The Rockefeller University

From identifying the influenza virus that caused the pandemic of 1918 to developing vaccines against pneumococcal pneumonia and bacterial meningitis in the 1970s, combating infectious disease has a rich history at Rockefeller. That tradition continues as the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Institute for Global Infectious Disease Research at Rockefeller University (SNFiRU) caps a successful first year with the establishment of a new advisory board.

This international advisory board was created in part to give guidance on how to best use SNFiRU’s resources, as well as bring forward innovative ideas concerning new avenues of research, public education, community engagement, and partnership projects.

SNFiRU was established to strengthen readiness for and response to future health crises, building on the scientific advances and international collaborations forged in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Launched with a $75 million grant from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF) as part of its Global Health Initiative (GHI), the institute provides a framework for international scientific collaboration to foster research innovations and turn them into practical health benefits.

SNFiRU’s mission is to better understand the agents that cause infectious disease and to lower barriers to treatment and prevention globally. To speed this work, the institute launched numerous initiatives in its inaugural year. For instance, SNFiRU awarded 31 research projects in 29 different Rockefeller laboratories for over $5 million to help get collaborative new research efforts off the ground. SNFiRU also supports the Rockefeller University Hospital, where clinical studies are conducted, and brought on board its first physician-scientist through Rockefeller’s Clinical Scholars program. “One of the surprises was the scope of interest from Rockefeller scientists in using their talents to tackle important infectious disease problems,” says Charles M. Rice, Maurice R. and Corinne P. Greenberg Professor in Virology at Rockefeller and director of SNFiRU. “The research topics range from the biology of infectious agents to the dynamics of the immune response to pathogens, and also include a number of infectious disease-adjacent studies.”

In the past 12 months, SNFiRU often brought together scientists studying different aspects of infectious disease as a way to spur new collaborations. In addition to hosting its first annual day-long symposium, SNFiRU initiated a Young Scientist Forum for students and post-doctoral fellows to meet regularly, facilitating cross-laboratory thinking. A bimonthly seminar series has also been established on campus.

Another aim of SNFiRU is to develop relationships with community-based organizations, as well as design and participate in community-engaged research, with a focus on low-income and minority communities. To that end, SNFiRU is helping develop a research project on Chagas disease, a tropical parasitic infection prevalent in Latin America that can cause congestive heart failure and gastrointestinal complications if left untreated. The project will bring together clinicians practicing at health centers in New York, Florida, Texas, and California and basic scientists from multiple institutions to help the communities that are most impacted.

“The SNFiRU international advisory board convenes globally recognized leaders with distinguished biomedical expertise, unrivalled experience in pandemic preparedness and response, and a shared commitment to translating scientific advancements into equitably distributed benefits in real-world settings,” says SNF Co-President Andreas Dracopoulos. “The advisory board will advance the institute’s indispensable mission, which SNF is proud to support as a key part of our Global Health Initiative, and we look forward to seeing breakthroughs in the lab drive better outcomes in lives around the globe.”

The new advisory board will hold its first meeting on April 11th, 2024, following the second annual SNF Institute for Global Infectious Disease Research Symposium at Rockefeller.

Its members are: Rafi Ahmed of Emory University School of Medicine, Cori Bargmann of The Rockefeller University, Yasmin Belkaid of the Pasteur Institute, Anthony S. Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Peter Hotez of Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development, Esper Kallas of of the Butantan Institute, Sharon Lewin of the University of Melbourne Doherty Institue, Carl Nathan of Weill Cornell Medicine, Rino Rappuoli of Fondazione Biotecnopolo di Siena and University of Siena, and Herbert “Skip” Virgin of Washington University School of Medicine and UT Southwestern Medical Center.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Congress’ failure so far to deliver on promise of tens of billions in new research spending threatens America’s long-term economic competitiveness

A deal that avoided a shutdown also slashed spending for the National Science Foundation, putting it billions below a congressional target intended to…

Published

6 hours ago

on

March 13, 2024

By

Science is again on the chopping block on Capitol Hill. AP Photo/Sait Serkan Gurbuz

Federal spending on fundamental scientific research is pivotal to America’s long-term economic competitiveness and growth. But less than two years after agreeing the U.S. needed to invest tens of billions of dollars more in basic research than it had been, Congress is already seriously scaling back its plans.

A package of funding bills recently passed by Congress and signed by President Joe Biden on March 9, 2024, cuts the current fiscal year budget for the National Science Foundation, America’s premier basic science research agency, by over 8% relative to last year. That puts the NSF’s current allocation US$6.6 billion below targets Congress set in 2022.

And the president’s budget blueprint for the next fiscal year, released on March 11, doesn’t look much better. Even assuming his request for the NSF is fully funded, it would still, based on my calculations, leave the agency a total of $15 billion behind the plan Congress laid out to help the U.S. keep up with countries such as China that are rapidly increasing their science budgets.

I am a sociologist who studies how research universities contribute to the public good. I’m also the executive director of the Institute for Research on Innovation and Science, a national university consortium whose members share data that helps us understand, explain and work to amplify those benefits.

Our data shows how underfunding basic research, especially in high-priority areas, poses a real threat to the United States’ role as a leader in critical technology areas, forestalls innovation and makes it harder to recruit the skilled workers that high-tech companies need to succeed.

A promised investment

Less than two years ago, in August 2022, university researchers like me had reason to celebrate.

Congress had just passed the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act. The science part of the law promised one of the biggest federal investments in the National Science Foundation in its 74-year history.

The CHIPS act authorized US$81 billion for the agency, promised to double its budget by 2027 and directed it to “address societal, national, and geostrategic challenges for the benefit of all Americans” by investing in research.

But there was one very big snag. The money still has to be appropriated by Congress every year. Lawmakers haven’t been good at doing that recently. As lawmakers struggle to keep the lights on, fundamental research is quickly becoming a casualty of political dysfunction.

Research’s critical impact

That’s bad because fundamental research matters in more ways than you might expect.

For instance, the basic discoveries that made the COVID-19 vaccine possible stretch back to the early 1960s. Such research investments contribute to the health, wealth and well-being of society, support jobs and regional economies and are vital to the U.S. economy and national security.

Lagging research investment will hurt U.S. leadership in critical technologies such as artificial intelligence, advanced communications, clean energy and biotechnology. Less support means less new research work gets done, fewer new researchers are trained and important new discoveries are made elsewhere.

But disrupting federal research funding also directly affects people’s jobs, lives and the economy.

Businesses nationwide thrive by selling the goods and services – everything from pipettes and biological specimens to notebooks and plane tickets – that are necessary for research. Those vendors include high-tech startups, manufacturers, contractors and even Main Street businesses like your local hardware store. They employ your neighbors and friends and contribute to the economic health of your hometown and the nation.

Nearly a third of the $10 billion in federal research funds that 26 of the universities in our consortium used in 2022 directly supported U.S. employers, including:

  • A Detroit welding shop that sells gases many labs use in experiments funded by the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Defense and Department of Energy.

  • A Dallas-based construction company that is building an advanced vaccine and drug development facility paid for by the Department of Health and Human Services.

  • More than a dozen Utah businesses, including surveyors, engineers and construction and trucking companies, working on a Department of Energy project to develop breakthroughs in geothermal energy.

When Congress shortchanges basic research, it also damages businesses like these and people you might not usually associate with academic science and engineering. Construction and manufacturing companies earn more than $2 billion each year from federally funded research done by our consortium’s members.

A lag or cut in federal research funding would harm U.S. competitiveness in critical advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence and robotics. Hispanolistic/E+ via Getty Images

Jobs and innovation

Disrupting or decreasing research funding also slows the flow of STEM – science, technology, engineering and math – talent from universities to American businesses. Highly trained people are essential to corporate innovation and to U.S. leadership in key fields, such as AI, where companies depend on hiring to secure research expertise.

In 2022, federal research grants paid wages for about 122,500 people at universities that shared data with my institute. More than half of them were students or trainees. Our data shows that they go on to many types of jobs but are particularly important for leading tech companies such as Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Intel.

That same data lets me estimate that over 300,000 people who worked at U.S. universities in 2022 were paid by federal research funds. Threats to federal research investments put academic jobs at risk. They also hurt private sector innovation because even the most successful companies need to hire people with expert research skills. Most people learn those skills by working on university research projects, and most of those projects are federally funded.

High stakes

If Congress doesn’t move to fund fundamental science research to meet CHIPS and Science Act targets – and make up for the $11.6 billion it’s already behind schedule – the long-term consequences for American competitiveness could be serious.

Over time, companies would see fewer skilled job candidates, and academic and corporate researchers would produce fewer discoveries. Fewer high-tech startups would mean slower economic growth. America would become less competitive in the age of AI. This would turn one of the fears that led lawmakers to pass the CHIPS and Science Act into a reality.

Ultimately, it’s up to lawmakers to decide whether to fulfill their promise to invest more in the research that supports jobs across the economy and in American innovation, competitiveness and economic growth. So far, that promise is looking pretty fragile.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on Jan. 16, 2024.

Jason Owen-Smith receives research support from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and Wellcome Leap.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending