Fixed Income According Andy Carter

"If Andy Carter did not invent active fixed-income management, he is one of its very earliest practitioners," comments Peter Bernstein, someone well qualified to observe fixed-income history. And perhaps nothing epitomizes the development of investment management more than the changes in fixed-income practice in the last 30 years. Classic investment finance reserves the function of providing funds to run a business to equity. Borrowing, whether short-term or long-term, is matched to the payment flows of specific projects for interest and repayment of principal.

We have come a long way since this basic early understanding. Today, fixed-income instruments have rather little to do with specific projects but are another device, like equity, to raise permanent capital. As such, bonds are expected to be refinanced and bond quality is as much a measure of the likelihood of new investors to step forward to replace those who wish to move on to other investments as it is a measure of the profitability of business projects.

Bonds in the 1950s and 1960s were purchased by institutional investors for the major part of their portfolios and were normally held to maturity. These investors might have occasionally altered their quality preference, using rating agencies to attest to bond quality and covenants, but the modest changes they made were almost entirely through their selection of new issues. It was a slow, deliberate process. And expected bond returns were likely to be the coupon return to maturity and the repayment of principal. Many fixed-income portfolios were carried on an institution's accounts at par or purchase price, unadjusted for fluctuations in market value. After all, there was unlikely to be a sale before maturity so recognition of market fluctuations by changes in interest rates or creditworthiness was immaterial.

But then came the emergence of active fixed-income management. Sometime around the bull market excesses of the late 1960s and the collapse of equities in mid-1970s, the thought occurred to Andy Carter and a few others that bonds presented an opportunity for swaps. By studying the underlying characteristics of one bond, it might be possible to find a comparable instrument at a cheaper price. And with the knowledge that a trade could be done with someone who lacked this insight, perhaps a small but promising gain could be captured. Thus, the bond trading business and bond capital gain business were born.

Andy Carter looks like a flashy, dour Scot. Wearing a signature bow tie, he is totally immersed in the full range of fixed-income active management, having been there from day one. It tells us much about Carter that he followed his father as the top student at Loomis School and donated a residence hall there in his family's name.

Carter started in the investment business at Irving Trust in 1964. But his exploration into active fixed-income management began with the Harvard University endowment in the mid-1960s. Just as interest rates began a huge rise, the opportunity was available to show how a bond portfolio could be energized by trading compared with the historic strategy of buy-and-hold.

Carter took active bond management to a new firm, Thorndike, Doran, Paine & Lewis in Boston and then started his own operation in 1972. At both places, he collected a blue chip roster of institutional clients who expected, and received, a different style of bond management and paid equity-like fees for the service. He collected mandates of billions from demanding clients for management. Currently, he is chief executive officer of Hyperion, a bond management firm based in New York City.

Today, fixed-income management is the most quantitative of investment disciplines, incorporating the most extensive use of sophisticated derivatives and advanced statistical techniques of risk management (see Quantitative Investing and Risk Management). However, the well-publicized near demise of LTCM was active fixed-income management carried to its extreme. And Andy Carter can take the credit or blame for starting it all.

Understanding Fixed Income

Fixed-income securities or bonds are generally thought of as safe rather boring investments, lacking the risks associated with equities. After all, no one seems to worry about the US government defaulting on its debt and US Treasuries make up a significant proportion of the bond market. In practice, though, it is possible to lose vast amounts of money by getting the bond markets wrong. Because bonds appear to have a more definable risk profile than equities, leverage tends to be more easily obtainable. And high confidence in understanding fixed-income relationships may lead to excessive leverage and unexpected out-comes, as the case of Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) in the late summer of 1998 vividly illustrates.

Bonds are debt instruments, securities sold by governments, companies and banks in order to raise capital. They normally carry a fixed rate of interest, known as the coupon (usually paid every six months), have a fixed redemption value (the par value) and are repaid after a fixed period (the maturity). Some deep-discount and zero-coupon bonds carry little or no interest, instead rewarding the buyer with a substantial discount from their redemption value and hence, the prospect of a sizeable capital gain.

As Michael Lewis explains in Liar's Poker, his entertaining account of life among Salomon's bond traders in the 1980s, the one thing you need to know about bonds is the relationship between their prices and interest rates. In short, as one goes up, the other goes down. This is because the fixed income paid by a bond which when calculated as a percentage of its market price is its current yield is equivalent to the rate of interest. If rates go up, the relative attractiveness of newly issued bonds over existing bonds increases. And since coupons are fixed, for yields to be comparable to those on new bonds, the price of existing bonds must fall.In most developed countries outside the United States, government bonds issued in the domestic market have traditionally dominated fixed-income investors' portfolios. But with the opening of markets around the world, the range of choices has increased enormously in recent years. There are now markets not only in the government bonds of developing and transition countries (see Emerging Markets) but also for numerous other debt instruments: corporate bonds, junk bonds, stripped bonds, mortgage-backed securities, convertibles, and so on. In the United States, the Treasury bond market is now significantly smaller than the mortgage and corporate bond markets.

Credit quality has become a key issue. For example, emerging market and corporate bonds generally carry a risk premium over US government bonds, with higher yields to reflect the more variable creditworthiness of their issuers and the greater risk of default. Periodically, bonds of an entire category sovereign debt, real estate, junk become nearly worthless. Under these conditions, there is a preference for liquidity and quality, making refinancing difficult or impossible for less than top quality issuers.

Interest rates and credit risks are crucial considerations in fixed-income investing but perhaps most important of all is the expected future path of inflation. Inflation is bad for bonds, eroding their value as prices and yields, unless index-linked, fail to keep pace with rising prices. What is more, higher inflation or the prospect of higher inflation is usually associated with higher interest rates, as policy-makers tighten monetary conditions in order to try to contain inflation or protect a weakening currency (see Foreign Exchange and International Money). This makes cash more attractive, pushing down bond returns.

The yield curve is a means of comparing rates on bonds of different maturities, as well as an indication of the tightness of monetary conditions. Longer term yields are usually higher because of the greater degree of time and inflation risk. They are a good indicator of expected trends in the rate of interest and the rate of inflation. When short-term rates are higher, there is an inverted yield curve. It is vital for active fixed-income investors to look for changes in expectations about the future rates of interest and inflation. Key indicators of these are the strength of the economy and the frame-work of fiscal and monetary policy (see Economic Forecasting and Politics and Investing). Bond markets tend to like signs of economic weakness since strong growth might trigger inflation. They also like fiscal policies that dampen the economy, squeezing out inflation.

Indeed, bond traders have become increasingly effective in preventing governments from introducing policies that may reignite inflation, hence driving interest rates higher and bond prices down. Their actual or implied threat to flee the markets in response to such policies has led to them being called vigilantes, and to presidential adviser James Carville's famous remark, ''I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the President or the Pope. But now I want to be the bond market: you can intimidate everybody."

The Future of Financial Engineering

Andrew Lo's research results and the implication that there are pockets of predictability in the stock market lend support to contrarian strategies of buying losers and selling winners (see Contrarian Investing). But he is less convinced by investment strategies based on the insights of behavioral finance into psychological biases inherent in human cognition, which aim to take advantage of individual "irrationality" As financial engineering attempts to define itself as a field with connections closer to the engineering disciplines than more traditional finance, associations are being set up, and the general engineering community does not quite know what to do. Patenting is becoming a big issue. Recent changes in patent laws and interpretations, along with encouragements for universities to do more patenting have led to an explosion of new patents. Some of these are in financial engineering but it is not clear which can be defended. Certainly, financial patents will have an impact on the efficiency of markets and the rate of financial innovation.

Financial engineering is also having an impact on banking. Innovation in combination with electronic technology is creating a world in which maturity transformation turning short-term deposits into long-term loans, the central function of banks is unnecessary. Economic agents individuals, households, companies will no longer require this service. Their portfolios of assets and liabilities will be broadly matched in maturity terms: short-term assets will match short-term liabilities, longer-term liabilities will offset longer-term assets. As a result, as Peter Martin of the Financial Times suggests, "traditional banking is dying. But the grieving throng around the deathbed face a long and expensive vigil."

Finally, what about market innovations? Financial innovations have been fast and furious over the past two decades. But why are market innovations so slow in coming? We have known for a long time what to do: integrate global markets electronically; pay shares in decimals not fractions; open the specialist books and stock exchanges like the New York Stock Exchange; record and display publicly the questions and answers exchanged by companies and analysts. Indeed, we could even go further and encourage insider trading, bringing insiders' wisdom into the market sooner rather than holding out, waiting for culprits to take advantage of us. It could be done, merely by identifying fewer insiders and letting them trade, at which point they would identify themselves. All of these things and more could be done in a stroke.