Nyheter

Gold Extends its Strength in April

Publicerad

8 år sedan

den

15 maj, 2016

Market Review – Gold Extends its Strength in April. The gold market has moved from a position of strength to one of even greater strength. The gold price entered a consolidation in March but never traded below $1,200 per ounce. Late in April the gold price broke out of its consolidating pattern to reach its 2016 high of $1,296 per ounce and ended April at $1,292.99 per ounce for a gain of $60.28 (4.9%). On May 2 gold traded above $1,300 per ounce for the first time since January 2015. We believe that an increasing sense of financial risk and U.S. dollar weakness are driving investment demand for gold. When commenting on the global economy in a Bloomberg interview on April 5, International Monetary Fund (IMF) President Lagarde indicated that downside risks have increased and “we don’t see much by way of upside.” Gold moved to its high for the month following the Commerce Department’s April 28 release of weaker-than-expected first quarter U.S. GDP growth of just 0.5% annualized. Markets seemed confounded by the strength exhibited by the Japanese Yen (JPY) and the Euro (EUR), despite negative rate policies in both regions. As a result, the U.S. Dollar Index (DXY)1 declined 1.7% in April and fell to a 15-month low on May 2.

This year’s bull market in precious metals gained in breadth as silver kicked into gear in April. Like gold, silver is a monetary metal but it had been lagging gold’s performance. In fact, the gold/silver ratio reached a long-term high of 83.2 on March 1. Strong inflows into silver bullion exchange traded products (ETPs) in March and April enabled silver’s year-to-date performance to surpass gold on April 14. For the year, silver is up 28.7%, while gold has gained 21.9% and the gold/silver ratio ended the month at 72.4. We regard silver as a leveraged proxy for gold and wouldn’t be surprised to see the gold/silver ratio continue to fall further towards its long-term average of around 60.

Another sign of the strength of the current market is the performance of gold stocks. On April 8 the NYSE Arca Gold Miners Index (GDMNTR)2 surpassed its previous high for the year and never looked back, advancing 28.1% in April. Many of the larger producers announced favorable first quarter results in April, which boosted the performance of gold equities.

Our patience was tested in the first quarter by the underperformance of many junior producers and developers. The junior gold stocks had been lagging but our perseverance has appeared to pay off. The MVIS Global Junior Gold Miners Index (MVGDXJTR)3 gained 36.8% in April and had lagged the GDMNTR until April 8 but is now outperforming the GDMNTR by 11.7% for the year. The MVGDXJTR caught up with the GDMNTR for the year by outperforming in March with an 8.6% gain.

Market Outlook

We identified several reasons for this year’s spectacular rise in gold stocks, which has caused gold stocks (GDMNTR) to gain 87.4% and the juniors (MVGDXJTR) to gain 99.1% year-to-date:

• Positive changes in sentiment and investment demand for gold.
• Companies have successfully slashed costs, cut debt, gained efficiencies, and generated cash.
• Mean reversion in a sector that had been oversold during the worst bear market in history.
• Elimination of short selling pressure that had been weighing on gold and gold stocks since they crashed in 2013.
• Limited liquidity in a relatively small sector with a global market cap of just $260 billion.

These heady gains suggest to us that gold stocks have become overbought. We expect there will probably be a correction at some point this year. Seasonal patterns have been absent in the gold market for the past several years, possibly due to the overwhelming selling pressure that prevailed. Without such intense selling, we may again see seasonal patterns from Asia and India lead to some weakness in the summer months but strengthening in the fall and extending into the new year. We remain cognizant that GDMNTR is still down 61% from its 2011 highs, which translates to a 159% gain needed to return to 2011 levels. The gold price was much higher in 2011 as well, topping at $1,921 per ounce, but we think the earnings power of the gold sector is greater now than it was back then. We estimate that a $100 (roughly 8%) move in the gold price from $1,300 to $1,400 per ounce would result in a 38% increase in free cash flow for the majors in our research universe, while the mid-tier producers would see a 68% increase in free cash.

The $217 per ounce (23%) increase in the gold price since the U.S. Federal Reserve (the “Fed”) hiked interest rates in mid-December wasn’t caused by a crash or panic in the financial markets. There hasn’t been a systemic crisis and in fact, global conditions today aren’t that different than six months ago when gold struggled near its lows. In our view, the fundamental change that has enabled gold to perform well since the Fed’s rate announcement is a change in investors’ view of central banks. The U.S. dollar has weakened mainly because the market no longer anticipates a series of Fed rate increases. Investors are realizing that central bank policies lack efficacy and have run their course without accomplishing their intended results. In general, central banks appear to be rapidly running out of options to help stimulate economies. In fact, rather than helping, quantitative easing, zero rates, and negative rates have created distortions in capital allocation, leading to the mispricing of assets and currencies, wealth inequality, and possibly other harmful, unintended consequences on the financial system.

We think the solution to most of the world’s problems hinges on re-establishing robust economic growth. A major reason that central bank policies haven’t been able to foster as much growth as desired is that fiscal and regulatory policies are working against them. Governments around the world have increased debt to unheard of levels to raise capital to spend on projects, programs, and entitlements that generate a fraction of the jobs and growth that the same capital may have generated through private sector channels.

The popular perception that the banks were responsible for the subprime crisis has resulted in fines and regulatory burdens that hamper the formation of capital at the center of the financial system. The “wolf” character in the 2013 movie “The Wolf of Wall Street” ran a boiler room on Long Island that was unrelated to investment banks on Wall Street. The 2015 film “The Big Short,” an Academy Award nominee for Best Motion Picture, puts the blame for the financial crisis squarely on the banks. It makes barely any mention of the Government Sponsored Enterprises’ (GSEs such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac4) role in sponsoring subprime loans or the long-running government policies under the Clinton and Bush Administrations that enabled high risk borrowers to own homes despite their inability to service a mortgage. The tone was set in 2009 when President Obama labeled bankers as “fat cats.” While banks certainly played a part, the government played the lead, in our opinion. Unfortunately, these misperceptions and misplaced blame have guided policy, leading to a financial system that is probably weaker than it was before the crisis. We believe that the economy is clearly weaker.

In addition, regulations that burden the private sector have also increased. According to The Wall Street Journal, the Obama Administration is on track to issue 439 major regulations in its 8 years in office, more than the Bush Administration’s 358 or Clinton’s 361. Heaping on more and more regulations only serves to stifle business formation, profitability, and innovation.

A similar tipping point has been reached with tax policies. Some companies have been re-domiciling away from the United States to avoid tax rates that are among the highest in the world. Instead of revising and simplifying the tax code to address the problem, the U.S. Treasury implemented new regulations that force U.S. corporations to remain in the U.S., placing them at a disadvantage to their global peers.

How often do we see leaders in government promote policies that help make business more productive, efficient, or profitable? As to where we are heading, we look to possibly the most monolithic governmental institution in the world. An article published in The Wall Street Journal and written by a retiring United Nations (“UN”) assistant secretary general for field support articulated a sentiment worth sharing. After relocating to the New York headquarters of the UN, he became disheartened, remarking: “If you lock a team of evil geniuses in a laboratory, they could not design a bureaucracy so maddeningly complex, requiring so much effort but in the end incapable of delivering the intended result. The system is a black hole into which disappear countless tax dollars and human aspirations, never to be seen again.”

We believe this is the sentiment that gold investors feel when they see central banks resort to more radical monetary policies in an attempt to spur economies bogged down by taxes, regulations, and bureaucracy. Moreover, there are social policies that incentivize people not to work and foreign policies that have resulted in chaos. The investment demand evidenced by the strong inflows into the bullion ETPs this year suggests that many investors are making a strategic investment in gold to diversify and prepare their portfolios for the uncertainty of a financial system that may become increasingly dysfunctional.

by Joe Foster, Portfolio Manager and Strategist
With more than 30 years of gold industry experience, Foster began his gold career as a boots on the ground geologist, evaluating mining exploration and development projects. Foster is Portfolio Manager and Strategist for the Gold and Precious Metals strategy.

Please note that the information herein represents the opinion of the author and these opinions may change at any time and from time to time.

Important Information For Foreign Investors

This document does not constitute an offering or invitation to invest or acquire financial instruments. The use of this material is for general information purposes.

Please note that Van Eck Securities Corporation offers actively managed and passively managed investment products that invest in the asset class(es) included in this material. Gold investments can be significantly affected by international economic, monetary and political developments. Gold equities may decline in value due to developments specific to the gold industry, and are subject to interest rate risk and market risk. Investments in foreign securities involve risks related to adverse political and economic developments unique to a country or a region, currency fluctuations or controls, and the possibility of arbitrary action by foreign governments, including the takeover of property without adequate compensation or imposition of prohibitive taxation.

Please note that Joe Foster is the Portfolio Manager of an actively managed gold strategy.

Any indices listed are unmanaged indices and include the reinvestment of all dividends, but do not reflect the payment of transaction costs, advisory fees or expenses that are associated with an investment in the Fund. An index’s performance is not illustrative of the Fund’s performance. Indices are not securities in which investments can be made.

1U.S. Dollar Index (DXY) indicates the general international value of the U.S. dollar. The DXY does this by averaging the exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and six major world currencies: Euro, Japanese yen, Pound sterling, Canadian dollar, Swedish kroner, and Swiss franc. 2NYSE Arca Gold Miners Index (GDMNTR) is a modified market capitalization-weighted index comprised of publicly traded companies involved primarily in the mining for gold. 3MVIS Global Junior Gold Miners Index (MVGDXJTR) is a rules-based, modified market capitalization-weighted, float-adjusted index comprised of a global universe of publicly traded small- and medium-capitalization companies that generate at least 50% of their revenues from gold and/or silver mining, hold real property that has the potential to produce at least 50% of the company’s revenue from gold or silver mining when developed, or primarily invest in gold or silver. 4Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association); Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation)

Please note that the information herein represents the opinion of the author and these opinions may change at any time and from time to time. Not intended to be a forecast of future events, a guarantee of future results or investment advice. Historical performance is not indicative of future results; current data may differ from data quoted. Current market conditions may not continue. Non-VanEck proprietary information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of VanEck. ©2016 VanEck.

Liknande ämnen:Joe Foster VanEck

Nästa

Utdelningschema 2016 – XACT OMXSB Utd

Missa inte

Can mining strikes offset currency headwinds?

Fortsätt läsa

Annons

Klicka för att kommentera

Nyheter

Bitcoin Warms up to Climate Goals and Ethereum’s Next Milestone: What Happened in Crypto This Week?

Publicerad

8 timmar sedan

den

15 maj, 2024

Redaktionen

• European Economy Booms while Regulators Consider Adopting Crypto

• Bitcoin’s Growing Fundamentals and Institutionalization

• Ethereum’s Next Leap Forward: A Glimpse at the Upcoming Upgrade

European Economy Booms while Regulators Consider Adopting Crypto

Europe’s economy has exceeded expectations, with Germany’s gross domestic product (GDP) for Q1 2024 increasing by 0.2%, compared to the previous quarter’s reading of -0.5%. Additionally, France, Italy, and Spain are also seeing progress, picking up the bloc’s GDP from -0.1% to 0.3%. This is a good sign that Europe is on the right track away from a recession. Matching the positive outlook, regulators appear receptive to including new alternative assets within the EU’s most established regulatory framework.

Namely, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) is considering cryptoassets, among other asset classes like commodities and precious metals, in its Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS). Similar to mutual funds in the U.S., UCITS funds can be registered and sold in any country in the EU using unified regulatory and investor protection requirements. These funds are considered safe, well-regulated investments, hence their €12T market valuation and popularity among pension funds and risk-averse investors.

On May 7, ESMA invited investors and trade associations, among others, for a consultation to assess possible benefits and risks of UCITS gaining exposure to the selected 19 asset classes, having until August 7 to gather input. This is important since UCITS accounts for 75% of all collective retail investments in the EU. Thus, if the conclusions of this consultation are in favor of adopting crypto, it would attract an influx of investors and bring more regulated accessibility to this asset class. Moreover, although still under consultation, ESMA’s deliberation adds more credibility to crypto, considering the regulator’s renowned strict regulatory standards.

Further, the EU’s inflation is inching towards the 2% target, overshooting by only 0.4% in the past month, a level the U.S. is yet to achieve, with March’s inflation hitting 3.5%. Later today, a strong gauge for inflation is coming out, the Producer Price Index (PPI), measuring the change in the price of finished goods and services sold by producers. With the last consumer price index (CPI) disappointing, all eyes are on the CPI print coming out this Wednesday, along with data on retail sales. Although optimism seems to have checked out, a cooled inflation rate would recover investors’ appetite for risk-on assets like crypto, instigating more flows into Bitcoin spot ETFs, which have been especially quiet over the past week, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: US Spot Bitcoin ETFs Flows

Source: Glassnode

Nevertheless, Bitcoin’s narrative has been growing beyond its primary use case as a store of value, with companies and governments alike leveraging Bitcoin mining to reduce their negative impact on the environment, ironically something Bitcoin is often scrutinized for.

Bitcoin’s Growing Fundamentals and Institutionalization

On May 7, Genesis Digital Assets and Argentina’s state-owned YPF Luz, the country’s largest producer of oil and gas with a ∼40% share in 2021, announced their opening of a Bitcoin mining facility. The data center takes ‘stranded gas,’ a byproduct of oil and gas production that would otherwise be flared and contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, to power the mining operation with the potential to reduce carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by 25-63%. Notably, 50 major oil and gas companies, representing over 40% of global petroleum production, signed the Oil and Gas Decarbonization Charter (OGDC), thereby committing to end gas flaring by 2030. The Argentinian project serves as a prime example of how companies can achieve the goals outlined in the OGDC, an approach likely to be replicated by others potentially using Bitcoin.

Aside from the obvious environmental benefits, projects like these actually strengthen Bitcoin’s network! More miners joining the fray means greater computing power, reflected by the growing hash rate in Figure 2. This results in a more secure network, as 51% attacks become more costly to execute successfully. The development comes at a crucial point in time, calming fears over miners exiting the network to cover costs, a dynamic often witnessed post-halving and one we explored in our Bitcoin Halving Report.

Figure 2 – Bitcoin Growing Hash Rate

Source: 21co on Dune

On a more familiar note, institutions continue to gobble up Bitcoin as an investment opportunity. The recent 13F filings mentioned last week revealed a growing appetite for Bitcoin as investment managers continue to disclose their U.S. equity holdings to the SEC. Quantitative trading firm Susquehanna holds over $1B in Bitcoin ETFs, with Boston-based hedge fund Bracebridge disclosing their $380M position too. Furthermore, in Japan, a weakened yen and government debt reaching 250% of GDP confirms sustained economic pressure, which has led early-stage investment firm Metaplanet to adopt Bitcoin as a strategic reserve. They have acquired over $7M since April, another testament to Bitcoin’s value proposition as a safe haven. The continuous adoption of Bitcoin is no surprise, given the accessibility of Bitcoin ETFs to traditional institutions through a regulated and familiar investment vehicle.

The positive Bitcoin sentiment is amplified by continuous innovation on the network itself. Bitcoin’s prime scaling solution, the Lightning Network, has taken a significant leap forward. By leveraging the Taproot Asset Upgrade, the Lightning Network successfully tested a protocol for issuing stablecoins directly on Bitcoin. This underscores the trend of Bitcoin’s growing use cases following the launch of Runes, which unlocked the ability to launch fungible tokens on Bitcoin. The recent surge in on-chain activity is reminiscent of the ERC-20 explosion in Ethereum’s early days, and stablecoins would truly unlock Bitcoin’s DeFi potential. They facilitate a wide range of transactions, shown below by Ethereum stablecoins amassing $3.8T in 2024 processed volume so far.

Figure 3 – Ethereum Stablecoin Volume

Source: 21co on Dune

While still in the early stages, this development would also significantly boost miner revenue, offering them a much-needed additional income stream through transaction fees, following the halving of block rewards last month. The potential of stablecoins on Bitcoin will be monitored going forward, as they have clear implications for the network’s potential on-chain footprint.

Ethereum’s Next Leap Forward: A Glimpse at the Upcoming Upgrade

More information is finally starting to come out regarding Ethereum’s next major upgrade, slated for late this year or early next year. Known as Pectra, the upgrade promises to introduce a range of enhancements aimed at bolstering the network’s stability and refining user experience. For example, the upgrade will raise the maximum stake per validator from 32 to 2,048 ETH, streamlining the management process for large validators who spread their stake across multiple wallets. Moreover, Pectra will tackle the problem of empty accounts, those with zero assets or funds, by removing them from the network. This action reduces the network’s state size, which effectively leads to lighter transaction processing.

Although the upgrade will incorporate various Ethereum Improvement Proposals (EIPs), one in particular stands out. Referred to as EIP 7702, Vitalik Buterin’s new proposal aims to expand upon the advancements made in Account Abstraction (AA) on Ethereum by refining certain concepts introduced in an earlier proposal, EIP 3074. As a quick recap, AA transforms users’ wallets, externally owned accounts (EOAs), into more sophisticated accounts resembling smart contracts, enhancing security, flexibility, and simplified user management. That said, EIP 7702 addresses some of EIP 3074 criticisms by steering clear of dependencies on EOA-specific functionalities. It aims to establish a versatile system capable of meeting the evolving needs of the Ethereum ecosystem while helping to reduce technical debt for the network

However, EIP 7702 proposes several other enhancements, including batched transactions, which could enhance transaction efficiency and even reduce fees by consolidating multiple user actions. Another exciting feature is the introduction of s sponsored transactions, which allow third-party applications to cover transaction fees for consumers, an ideal solution for onboarding new users. Finally, the upgrade could make users’ accounts resistant to threats from quantum computing. That said, with the proposal’s introduction of a new transaction type enabling EOAs to temporarily transition into smart accounts, concerns arise regarding the heightened risk of malicious actors’ ability to swiftly drain user wallets. Nevertheless, Vitalik’s proposal is intriguing as it charts a more pragmatic course toward realizing the AA vision. This is pivotal because it echoes our thesis at 21Shares that crypto won’t onboard millions of more users without providing them with an intuitive interface resembling the user-friendly experience they are familiar with across Web2.

Now, while Ethereum’s long-term prospects remain promising, its status as a deflationary network has come under threat in recent weeks, as seen below in Figure 3. This decline is primarily attributed to decreasing on-chain activity, which peaked at the end of March. Furthermore, the DenCun upgrade, implemented in March, significantly reduced the costs L2s incurred for storing their data on Ethereum by 90%.

Figure 4 – Ethereum’s Inflation

Source: 21co on Dune

It is worth noting that while it is currently more cost-effective for L2s to operate on Ethereum, these reduced costs will eventually onboard a larger user base. This will make it more feasible for applications, especially those requiring a high volume of interactions, to operate within the Ethereum ecosystem, which was previously economically unviable. A pivotal piece of evidence supporting this perspective is Arbitrum’s recent milestone, onboarding approximately 600K daily active users, as depicted in Figure 4. This likely influenced Securitize’s decision to propose deploying Blackrock’s BUIDL on Arbitrum, considering its position as the pioneering L2 platform with such a vibrant user base, alongside being the first L2 to process over $150B in swap volume on Uniswap, putting Arbitrum as the leading Ethereum scaling solution. Nevertheless, readers shouldn’t be wary, as we expect a broader spectrum of applications to arrive at the Ethereum network, helping to fill in the gap for Ethereum’s lost revenue while expanding the universe for what is possible within its ecosystem.

Figure 4 – Daily Active Users of Ethereum’s Leading Solutions

Source: GrowThePie

This Week’s Calendar

Source: Forex Factory, 21Shares

Research Newsletter

Each week the 21Shares Research team will publish our data-driven insights into the crypto asset world through this newsletter. Please direct any comments, questions, and words of feedback to research@21shares.com

Disclaimer

The information provided does not constitute a prospectus or other offering material and does not contain or constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of any offer to buy securities in any jurisdiction. Some of the information published herein may contain forward-looking statements. Readers are cautioned that any such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and uncertainties and that actual results may differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements as a result of various factors. The information contained herein may not be considered as economic, legal, tax or other advice and users are cautioned to base investment decisions or other decisions solely on the content hereof.

Fortsätt läsa

Nyheter

CRPA ETF investerar i företagsobligationer och återinvesterar utdelningen

Publicerad

9 timmar sedan

den

15 maj, 2024

Redaktionen

iShares Global Corporate Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CRPA ETF) investerar i företagsobligationer med fokus på World. ETF:n innehar hela utbudet av obligationsförfall. De underliggande obligationerna har Investment Grade-betyg. Ränteintäkterna (kupongerna) i fonden återinvesteras (ackumuleras).

Den totala kostnadskvoten uppgår till 0,20 % p.a. Fonden replikerar resultatet för det underliggande indexet genom att köpa ett urval av de mest relevanta indexbeståndsdelarna (samplingsteknik). iShares Global Corporate Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc) har tillgångar på 116 miljoner GBP under förvaltning. ETF:en är äldre än 3 år och har sin hemvist i Irland.

Varför CRPA?

Diversifierad exponering mot globala företagsobligationer

Direktinvesteringar i företagsobligationer över sektorer (industri, allmännyttiga och finansiella företag)

Obligationsexponering med investeringsgrad

Investeringsmål

Fonden strävar efter att följa utvecklingen av ett index som består av företagsobligationer av investeringsklass från emittenter på tillväxtmarknader och utvecklade marknader.

Investeringsstrategi

Bloomberg Global Aggregate Corporate-index spårar företagsobligationer i amerikanska dollar utgivna av företag över hela världen. Alla löptider ingår. Betyg: Investment Grade.

Handla CRPA ETF

iShares Global Corporate Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CRPA ETF) är en europeisk börshandlad produkt som handlas på London Stock Exchange.

London Stock Exchange är en marknad som få svenska banker och nätmäklare erbjuder access till, men DEGIRO gör det.

Börsnoteringar

Börs	Valuta	Kortnamn
gettex	EUR	SXRB
London Stock Exchange	USD	CRPA

Största innehav

Emittent	Vikt (%)
BANK OF AMERICA CORP	1.83
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO	1.63
GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC/THE	1.29
MORGAN STANLEY	1.15
CITIGROUP INC	1.13
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY	1.12
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC	0.97
AT&T INC	0.95
APPLE INC	0.84
HSBC HOLDINGS PLC	0.78

Innehav kan komma att förändras

Fortsätt läsa

Nyheter

Timely and concise insights on Bitcoin & Cryptoasset Markets

Publicerad

10 timmar sedan

den

15 maj, 2024

Redaktionen

• Growing Mainstream Adoption of Digital Assets: Institutional investors and major asset managers are increasingly incorporating digital assets like Bitcoin into their portfolios, as evidenced by recent filings and the launch of Bitcoin ETFs in the U.S. Despite their current small market share, these investments reflect a broader trend towards mainstream acceptance

• Impact on Portfolio Performance: The inclusion of Bitcoin in portfolio optimizations, using strategies such as Maximum Sharpe Ratio and Risk Parity, has shown to improve the risk-adjusted returns compared to traditional portfolios. Portfolios optimized with Bitcoin not only offer higher returns for the additional risk taken but also present a wider range of efficient risk-return combinations

• Optimal Allocation Recommendations: Empirical studies suggest that even a small allocation to digital assets, specifically between 2% to 3% in broader asset mixes and up to 4% to 6% in more focused digital asset portfolios, significantly enhances portfolio performance without adversely impacting overall risk profiles

Gradually, then suddenly, as they say, digital assets are becoming mainstream.

The biggest asset managers in the world have launched spot Bitcoin ETFs in the US this year and adoption among institutional investors is rising rapidly.

Major financial institutions like Franklin Templeton themselves have just recently disclosed significant investments into Bitcoin ETFs via their latest 13F filings.

Institutional hedge funds that manage money for Ivy League university endowments have disclosed multi-million Dollar holdings. Stanford university’s Blyth Fund has recently disclosed that they hold around 7% allocation in Bitcoin ETFs.

Nonetheless, at the time of writing, US Bitcoin ETFs only account for approximately 0.6% of the overall size of the US ETF market based on data provided by ICI.

In Europe, Bitcoin ETPs also only comprise a tiny fraction of the 11 trn EUR UCITS market of only 0.05%, according to our calculations based on Bloomberg data.

In general, we expect the relative size of digital assets to increase further as even small allocations to digital assets are bound to increase portfolio risk-adjusted returns significantly as demonstrated in our latest deep dive on Bitcoin.

But what is the optimal allocation to Bitcoin and digital assets in general?

What is the optimal allocation to digital assets?

Most empirical portfolio studies usually look at how a classical 60/40 portfolio comprising of 60% allocation in stocks and 40% allocation in bonds responds to a gradual increase in digital asset allocation.

In our previous digital asset study, we did a similar exercise by investigating the effect of increases in digital asset allocation on overall portfolio risk and return metrics.

Since digital assets generally exhibit a higher risk-adjusted return (“Sharpe Ratio”) than other traditional asset classes, a marginal increase in allocation usually leads to an increase in overall portfolio risk-adjusted returns.

However, most institutional asset managers don’t employ a 60/40 portfolio in the first place because of high portfolio volatility and the dominance of the equity allocation for the whole portfolio’s risk-return profile.

In fact, most institutional asset managers in practice allocate based on optimized risk metrics such as portfolio Sharpe Ratio or portfolio volatility which is why we perform a similar exercise here.

In a first step, we looked at optimized multiasset portfolios comprising of global stocks (MSCI World AC), global bonds (Bloomberg Global Aggregate USD-hedged), and commodities (Bloomberg Commodity Index).

More specifically, we optimized these portfolios based on the following approaches:
• Minimum Variance/Volatility
• Maximum Sharpe Ratio
• Equal risk contribution (Risk parity)

The Minimum Variance approach tries to minimize the average portfolio volatility.
The Maximum Sharpe Ratio approach tries to maximize the ratio between average portfolio return (minus a risk-free return) and the corresponding average volatility. The Equal risk contribution or Risk Parity approach varies the respective portfolio weights until every asset has an identical relative contribution to the overall portfolio volatility.

In a second step, we added Bitcoin to the set of potential assets into the optimization. Our period of investigation (July 2010 – May 2024) was constrained by the fact that reliable market prices for Bitcoin only exist since 2010 as it is still a relatively young asset.

Here are the results for the different optimizations. The upper panel excludes Bitcoin while the lower panel includes Bitcoin in the optimization:

Several observations are in order:

Firstly, the minimum variance approach excludes Bitcoin completely since Bitcoin generally exhibits a higher level of volatility than the other assets.

Secondly, the maximum Sharpe Ratio approach excludes commodities in the traditional portfolio but includes Bitcoin in the new portfolio. The Bitcoin allocation is made largely at the expense of the stock allocation.

Lastly, the risk parity approach also includes Bitcoin at the expense of all other asset classes.

Furthermore, a comparison between the historical performances of the traditional portfolios that exclude Bitcoin and those that include Bitcoin reveals that the max Sharpe Ratio and the Risk Parity (ERC) portfolio were able to significantly outperform the Minimum Variance portfolio which didn’t allocate to Bitcoin at all.

It is also important to highlight that the Risk Parity portfolio with Bitcoin even exhibited a smaller maximum drawdown than the Minimum Variance portfolio without Bitcoin. In other words, the increase in portfolio volatility was largely due to an increase in positive upside volatility.

Moreover, investors are over-proportionately rewarded with higher returns for unit of additional risk as the risk-adjusted returns (“Sharpe Ratio”) increase significantly by adding Bitcoin.

The Sharpe Ratios for optimized portfolios with Bitcoin are even significantly higher than for optimized portfolios without Bitcoin.

In fact, by including Bitcoin and digital assets into their portfolio optimization, the universe of potential multiasset portfolios increases vastly.

Asset managers are not only enabled to provide investors with more efficient portfolios, i.e. higher risk-adjusted returns, but also provide investors with a much larger set of risk-return combinations compared to traditional portfolios that only include stocks, bonds, and commodities.

So far so good. What about other digital assets?

We also applied the same portfolio optimization approaches to a basket of the top 20 digital assets based on the MSCI Global Digital Assets Select 20 Capped Index.

–> The optimal % allocation is even higher in case of the Maximum Sharpe Ratio and Risk Parity portfolio optimization.

It is important to note that the period of investigation (November 2019 – May 2024) is much smaller due to the fact that younger digital assets within the top 20 digital assets like Solana or Ethereum have a smaller track record than Bitcoin.

All in all, the abovementioned results imply that even a small allocation to digital assets can have very positive effects on risk-adjusted returns without compromising the risk characteristics of the portfolios.

While highly risk-averse investors should probably avoid digital assets, the optimal allocation based on the Max Sharpe Ratio and Risk Parity approach appears to be between 2% and 3% for the full sample with bitcoin and between 4% and 6% for the smaller sample with a basket of the top 20 digital assets.

The results generally support our previous findings that we presented here.

Most portfolio optimization approaches also include digital assets within the optimal portfolio allocation which demonstrates that any modern portfolio approach that doesn’t include digital assets like Bitcoin is probably sub-optimal.

We recommend that agile asset managers familiarise themselves with this emerging asset class for the benefit of their clients and to remain competitive.
Bottom Line

To read our Crypto Market Compass in full, please click the button below: