(ZH) German Car Production Crashes To 23 Year Low

It's official: the worldwide automotive industry recession is in full swing.
Car production in Germany has tumbled to its lowest levels in 23 years, according to Bloomberg. Names like Volkswagen, BMW and Daimler produced 4.66 million cars in German factories last year, which is the weakest number since 1996.
The 9% decrease was blamed on waning demand from international markets and estimates are for deliveries to drop to 78.9 million vehicles this year, from 80.1 million in 2019.
Pollution concerns led by Volkswagen's 2015 diesel-cheating scandal have threatened to dethrone Germany as a global manufacturing powerhouse. Combined with the global auto recession, trade conflicts and slowing economies, it's a recipe for falling output.


Germany has been more susceptible to emission regulations due to the country's propensity for making high performance vehicles. Brands like BMW, Porsche and Audi have made their names focusing on power and performance.
Meanwhile the industry is focused on investing in cleaner vehicles and self-driving features. The market has been rewarding these companies, with ride-sharing company Uber posting a market value nearly equivalent to Daimler.
This has been leading the industry to "explore unusual projects", according to Bloomberg:
At the CES electronics show in Las Vegas, Daimler’s Mercedes-Benz unveiled a concept car inspired by the film Avatar. The electric-powered vehicle features lateral crab-like movement and biometric controls to allow “human and machine to merge.”
The country's domestic autos market grew 5% last year after buyers registered 3.6 million new cars, the most since 2009. But the industry expects the market to contract this year and there is anticipation of job cuts amid the transition to electric vehicles. Germany maintained its lead over Norway as Europe's biggest EV market, after selling 63,281 EVs last year.

>>> Europe : Brokers Upgrades & Downgrades - 8th of January 2019 V2 (+)

>>> Up
* Alstom Raised to Buy at BofA (+)
* Covestro Raised to Outperform at Credit Suisse; PT 45 euros (+)
* Edenred Raised to Overweight at Morgan Stanley
* Elior Group Raised to Overweight at JPMorgan; PT 14.80 euros
* Essity Raised to Buy at Handelsbanken; PT 340 kronor
* Imperial Brands Raised to Sector Perform at RBC
* Premier Oil Raised to Buy at Stifel; PT 150 pence
* Signify Raised to Buy at BofA (+)
* Sipef NV Raised to Buy at Berenberg
* Sodexo Raised to Neutral at JPMorgan; PT 100 euros
* Voestalpine Raised to Buy at Deutsche Bank

>>> Down
* Air Liquide Cut to Neutral at Goldman; PT 131.50 euros
* BASF Cut to Neutral at Credit Suisse; PT 66.50 euros (+)
* Boostheat Cut to Hold at Berenberg
* Commerzbank Cut to Hold at Pareto Securities; PT 6 euros
* DNO Cut to Underperform at RBC; PT 11 kroner
* DSV PANALPINA A/S Cut to Neutral at Exane; PT 750 kroner
* Elementis Cut to Hold at Jefferies; PT 190 pence
* Elis Cut to Hold at Berenberg
* Genel Cut to Underperform at RBC; PT 160 pence
* Henkel Cut to Hold at HSBC; PT 101 euros
* ID Logistics Cut to Hold at Berenberg
* Kering Cut to Market Perform at Bernstein
* Kuehne + Nagel Cut to Neutral at Exane; PT 155 Swiss francs
* Maersk Cut to Neutral at Exane; PT 9,500 kroner
* MBB SE Cut to Hold at Berenberg
* Pandora Cut to Sell at Handelsbanken; PT 310 kroner
* Proximus Cut to Underweight at JPMorgan; PT 24 euros
* REC Silicon Cut to Hold at Arctic Securities; PT 3 kroner
* REN Cut to Sell at Goldman; PT 2.45 euros (+)
* Rieter Cut to Reduce at Baader Helvea; PT 143 Swiss francs
* Sparebanken Sor Cut to Hold at DNB Markets; PT 110 kroner
* Spirent Cut to Sell at Goldman; PT 175 pence
* Spectris Cut to Underperform at BofA (+)
* Standard Life Aberdeen Cut to Neutral at BofA (+)
* STMicroelectronics Cut to Neutral at Goldman; PT 24.50 euros
* STMicroelectronics ADRs Cut to Neutral at Goldman; PT $27.40
* TUI Cut to Add at AlphaValue
* u-blox Cut to Sell at MainFirst; PT 80 Swiss francs
* Unilever Cut to Reduce at HSBC; PT 46 euros
* Varta Cut to Hold at Commerzbank; PT 135 euros (+)

>>> Initiation
* Amigo Holdings Rated New Buy at Panmure Gordon; PT 137 pence (+)
* Chr. Hansen Reinstated Sell at Goldman; PT 480 kroner
* Cyan Re-Initiated Buy at Bankhaus Lampe; PT 29 euros
* FDJ Rated New Neutral at Oddo BHF; PT 23.50 euros
* MTG Reinstated Hold at Spin-Off Research; PT 107 kronor
* Novozymes Reinstated Buy at Goldman; PT 375 kroner
* Partners Group Reinstated Outperform at Credit Suisse
* Qiagen Rated New Equal-Weight at Wells Fargo; PT $36

>>> Call
* Alstom Upgraded to Buy at BofA, Backlog Gives Visibility (+)
* Kering Cut at Bernstein on Slowing Gucci, Top Manager Departure (+)
* ABI CFO Change May Lower Chances of Near-Term M&A: Jefferies
* Imperial Brands’ ‘Lowly’ Valuation Prompts Upgrade at RBC
* Pandora Gets Double Downgrade After ‘Unwarranted’ Rally: SHB
* Kurdistan-Focused Oil Firms DNO, Genel Energy Downgraded by RBC
* Edenred in Top Leisure Picks, Morgan Stanley Cautious on Sector (+)
* NMC Health Could Rise After Placing If Share Pledge Removed: MS (+)

FT : Index funds break through $10tn-in-assets mark amid active exodus

Index funds break through $10tn-in-assets mark amid active exodus
Relentless rise of passive investing has transformed the business of managing assets

Assets managed by global index funds have smashed through the $10tn level, buoyed by rising markets and an investor exodus from pricier, actively managed funds that often struggle to beat their benchmarks.

Cheaper, passive investment funds, which merely try to match an underlying index, were invented in the 1970s but took a long time in gaining traction, as asset managers were largely sceptical that anyone would accept the market’s average return.

However, index-tracking investment vehicles — whether in a more traditional mutual fund, or one traded on an exchange — eventually took off. Since the financial crisis they have exploded in popularity across stocks, bonds and commodities, radically reshaping the asset-management industry.

A decade ago there was about $2.3tn in index funds, according to Morningstar data compiled by the Investment Company Institute, a trade association, for the FT. The market recovery of 2019, and the ongoing shift into passive investing, lifted the global industry to $11.4tn at the end of November.

“It’s a big number,” said Ben Johnson, head of ETF research at Morningstar. “This has been a decade marked by the ascendancy of indexing.”

Even this figure may understate the extent to which index investing has caught on. Many big pension funds, endowments and sovereign wealth funds have set up internal strategies that mimic markets without having to pay an asset manager. Data on this is sparse, but BlackRock estimated in 2017 that such activity could amount to an additional $6.8tn. 

Index funds have gained the most ground in equities, and above all in the US, where it has proven particularly difficult for traditional, active stockpickers to consistently beat their benchmarks. The past year has been no exception.

Just 28 per cent of US equity fund managers investing in large companies managed to beat the US stock market last year, and over the past decade a mere 11 per cent managed to do so, according to Bank of America.

“The past 10-year period posed unique challenges for active funds,” Savita Subramanian, head of US equity strategy at BofA, said in a report this week. The toughest part was contending with “a wave of redemptions,” she wrote, as investors demanded their money back.

Indeed, about $1tn has left active equity funds over the past decade, according to Morgan Stanley, which estimates that only the top decile of fund managers, by performance, has been able to retain assets during that period. In the 1990s the top six deciles still enjoyed inflows, and in the 2000s the top three deciles did so.

The trend towards index funds is now accelerating in bonds as well, a market which is generally more opaque and less liquid than stocks, and therefore more amenable to active investing. Just over the past year, fixed income index funds attracted over $200bn of inflows, according to EPFR.

Index funds have been dogged by criticism from traditional investment groups, but their growth is now so dramatic that some analysts are warning that it could damage the efficiency of financial markets by impeding price discovery, or imperilling standards of corporate governance.

“There are the external benefits of active management that are in danger of being eroded,” said Simon Hallett, co-chief investment officer at Harding Loevner, and a member of the Active Managers Council, a body set up to defend the investing approach.

“One of the benefits of active managers is that we care more than passive managers about stewardship, about good governance of companies.”

>>> Stoxx 600 Pre-Market Indications

  • BP (BPE5 TH) +0.6%
    • Watch These Stocks in Europe as Tensions in Middle East Climb
  • Saint-Gobain (GOB TH) +0.5%
  • Shell (R6C TH) +0.5%
    • Watch These Stocks in Europe as Tensions in Middle East Climb
  • Vodafone (VODI TH) +0.5%
  • Total (TOTB TH) +0.4%
  • EasyJet (EJT1 TH) -1.8%
  • Commerzbank (CBK TH) -1.8%
    • Commerzbank Cut to Hold at Pareto Securities; PT 6 euros
  • STMicroelectronics (SGM TH) -1.9%
  • Evotec SE (EVT TH) -1.9%
  • Orsted (D2G TH) -2%
    • Orsted Offering by Holder Prices 9.53m Shares at DKK645/Share
  • Nokia (NOA3 TH) -2.1%
  • Delivery Hero (DHER TH) -2.5%
  • TUI (TUI1 TH) -2.9%
    • TUI Cut to Add at AlphaValue
  • Anglo American (NGLB TH) -3%
    • Anglo American in Talks Over Possible Offer for Sirius Minerals
  • NMC Health (0N1 TH) -18%
    • NMC Health Could Rise After Placing If Share Pledge Removed: MS

FT : LVMH’s ‘hacks’ for luxury innovation

LVMH’s ‘hacks’ for luxury innovation
As the consumer landscape continues to shift, the group taps staff for cutting edge ideas

In the pristine white reception of LVMH House in the chichi surroundings of London’s Mayfair, an assistant was on the phone urgently sourcing caviar.

Upstairs, the atmosphere was rather less intense, despite a competition taking place on various floors. Over the course of four days, 60 participants from across the luxury goods group — which includes fashion, cosmetics, wines and spirits companies, as well as travel — were divided into 12 teams to pitch their ideas to senior executives, for a chance to see their proposal made into reality.

Prior to the competition, these employees had never met, and came from the Middle East, Europe and Africa. And being a luxury goods group, platters of fruit were laid out for sustenance, as well as the option to have a massage.

This was the Disrupt, Act, Risk to be an Entrepreneur (Dare) initiative, a rolling programme launched in 2017 to find innovative ideas and uncover talent across the sprawling group. So far seven events have taken place — four in Europe, and one in Shanghai, Tokyo and New York. Two more are planned for this year.

The challenge for this latest competition was to “reinvent the customer experience for tomorrow”. Previous themes have included the future of luxury, sustainability and gender equality.

Chantal Gaemperle, who oversees human resources at LVMH and pioneered Dare, says since she joined 13 years ago, the workforce has grown from 60,000 to almost 160,000, across 75 houses. “In a group of [so many] people how do you find the talents? Sometimes the best are far away from you. People rise to the occasion [and] gain maturity through presenting their ideas . . . coached by CEOs.”

The skills required by LVMH have changed too, she says. Today she recruits not just from luxury sectors and retail but also entertainment and technology. In demand are those able to collaborate across the group.

Over time, she has also noticed an uptick in young people joining the workplace who want to have an impact quickly. “That is still a challenge,” she says and hopes the Dare programme can reinforce a sense of purpose in young employees’ work.

The London competition received 450 applications. These were whittled down to 60 and divided into 12 teams. The jury included Toni Belloni, LVMH’s group managing director, Serge Brunschwig, chairman and CEO of Fendi and Roeland Vos, president and CEO of Belmond, a hotel brand.

The winning projects — which the company says are being worked on but are confidential — looked at enhancing the travel experience, zero waste packaging in wines and spirits and eco-design.

Celia Roussin, a senior product innovation manager for champagne producer Veuve Clicquot, pitched to senior LVMH staff in the New York Dare in 2018. It was nerve-racking, she says but “you learn how to pitch your ideas, test your programmes and create something that is bigger than your original idea”.

Gustavo Marin, purchasing and new product development manager at Chandon Argentina, was one of last year’s winners with the “Gold in the Seeds” project — which recycles grape waste from wine to the cosmetics industry. He says: “We encouraged people to join us with different expertise. We learnt a lot from other people.”

Projects that have been developed through the competition include: My Fav, a social commerce platform (a kind of Shazam for shopping), and Canvas of the Future, which displays digital images on Louis Vuitton’s bags using digital screen technology.

Ms Gaemperle says LVMH wants “cross-generation transmission” where young people come with digital skills and learn the value of the “magic” of the luxury experience.

“At the end of the day it’s [about] beautifully crafted products, it’s a human-centric sector,” she adds.

Katia de Lasteyrie, high jewellery global marketing and product development group manager at Louis Vuitton, initially worked on someone else’s Dare project, but it spurred her to go back and pursue her own idea, which became Canvas of the Future. It is now being developed at Station F, a Parisian start-up campus. LVMH announced in 2018 that it was incubating 50 new businesses there each year.

Ms de Lasteyrie brought a team together that has more technical expertise than herself. “I had to challenge my own assumptions,” she says, “and think what leadership is. I learnt how to motivate people.”

While there have been “some low moments”, Station F, she adds, “kept the right energy and kept me focused on pursuing the idea”. The project was unveiled at VivaTech, an innovation fair in Paris, last June.

Jonathan Noel, Kenzo’s Asia retail excellence manager adds that winning the competition is tough going. “I’d never sweated more in my career,” he says of taking part in 2017.

His Nugget Club project, a retail experience, was a winner that has also joined Station F. “When you go to the office you feel you will change the world, it’s a super energy. This is the power of start-up culture.”

>>> TradeGate Pre-Market Indications

DAX:
  • BMW (BMW TH) -1.2%
  • Wirecard (WDI TH) -1.3%
  • SAP (SAP TH) -1.4%
  • Deutsche Bank (DBK TH) -1.5%
  • Infineon (IFX TH) -1.6%
MDAX:
  • Uniper (UN01 TH) -0.5%
    • Uniper Eyes Offering to Switch Off All Its Coal Plants: RP
  • Cancom (COK TH) -1.7%
  • Commerzbank (CBK TH) -1.8%
    • Commerzbank Cut to Hold at Pareto Securities; PT 6 euros
  • Varta (VAR1 TH) -2%
  • Evotec SE (EVT TH) -2.1%
  • Delivery Hero (DHER TH) -2.3%
SDAX:
  • Encavis (CAP TH) +0.9%
  • Nordex (NDX1 TH) +0.5%
    • Nordex Wins Three Dutch Turbine Orders Totalling 172 MW
  • SAF Holland (SFQ TH) -1.7%
  • Leoni (LEO TH) -1.7%
  • RIB Software (RIB TH) -2.1%
    • GMT Capital Takes 1.66% Short Position in Rib Software
  • Aixtron (AIXA TH) -3.1%
  • Deutsche Euroshop (DEQ TH) -5.6%
    • Deutsche EuroShop Sees Negative 2019 Valuation of About EU123M

WSJ : A Borrower Will Be 114 When Bonds Backed by Her Student Loans Mature

A Borrower Will Be 114 When Bonds Backed by Her Student Loans Mature
Billions in bonds wouldn’t be paid off in time, so issuers extended maturities by decades to avoid downgrades

Julie Chinnock is 50 years old and owes about $250,000 in student loans. She was happy to get a new payment plan that lowered her monthly bill, but the holders of two bonds backed by her loans were probably less cheerful.

The two bonds were due in 2043 and 2054, but Ms. Chinnock and other borrowers were paying less each month under a new government plan that tied debt payments to income. Because borrowers were taking longer to pay off their loans, there was a risk the bonds backed by the loans wouldn’t be paid off in time. Bond-rating firms were watching and getting ready to downgrade the highly rated bonds, potentially causing losses for investors.

The issuer of the bonds and the investors who owned them hatched a plan to avoid the downgrades. Their solution: make sure bonds were paid off in time by extending their maturity dates by decades. The bonds that include a big chunk of Ms. Chinnock’s loans now mature in 2083, when she will turn 114.

Today, the bonds are rated triple-A. Altogether, issuers have extended maturities on about $11.5 billion of outstanding bonds backed by mostly older-vintage student loans, extending maturity dates by as much as 54 years.

“I certainly wish that there was a better system for affording education in this country,” says Ms. Chinnock, a nurse anesthetist in Seattle who sold her house to help pay down her student loans.

Investors who hold on will eventually get paid back, but a downgrade might cause them to suffer a temporary loss. “People don’t want to buy bonds that get downgraded,” said Theresa O’Neill, a research analyst at BofA Securities.

Some bonds went on a ratings roller-coaster ride, including a $406 million chunk of triple-A debt that Moody’s downgraded to junk on Nov. 1, 2016. Later that month, the maturity date was moved from 2026 to 2055. Within weeks, Moody’s upgraded the bond back up to triple-A.

Other bonds ended up with widely divergent ratings. A $30 million chunk of a 2008 student bond deal is either triple-A, if you believe Moody’s, or deep inside junk territory, if you believe Fitch. That bond is also now due in 2083.

A Moody’s spokesman said the firm’s ratings may differ from those of other firms “and that is precisely their value—they reflect our view, no one else’s.” He said the firm updates its ratings to account for new information, such as a change in the maturity date.

Congress created the maturity issue when it let borrowers tie their payments to their income. The program, known as income-based repayment, began in 2009. The program capped federal student loans’ monthly payments at 15% of discretionary income, which meant some loans wouldn’t be paid off when the securities they backed came due.

These particular bonds were sold by private lenders that originated federally guaranteed student loans. About $262 billion of those loans remain outstanding and 26% are in default, Education Department data show. Under the guarantee, the federal government pays off the loans when borrowers die.

Congress ended that program in 2010 and replaced it with direct lending via the Education Department. These newer loans, which are held by the government, total about $1.2 trillion, of which 10%, or about $120 billion, are in default, department data show.

In 2015, Moody’s put approximately $37 billion worth of bonds originated by the private lenders on review for potential downgrades as it revamped its methodology to account for slower repayments. Big student loan bond issuers Navient Corp. and Nelnet Inc. argued the moves were overly punitive.

Bond fund manager TCW Group Inc. reached out to Navient to figure out how to avoid downgrades on the securities, according to Scott Austin, co-head of TCW’s $86 billion securitized products portfolio. TCW owned one of the bonds that includes Ms. Chinnock’s student loans. A provision included in the deals allowed issuers to extend their final maturities—but only if all bondholders agreed.

Getting 100% approval from bondholders was tricky since it is hard to know who owns a bond at any given time. Navient reached out to investors at industry conferences and at its own investor day meetings, worked the phones and used a social network to identify owners and ask if they would be willing to extend the final maturities by many years, often decades.

TCW’s Mr. Austin readily agreed because doing so “mitigated the risk that the rating agencies would have to downgrade the bonds,” he said in an interview. So did Columbia Threadneedle Investments, which owned on behalf of a bank one of the bonds backed by Ms. Chinnock’s debts. A downgrade would mean the bank would have to hold more capital against the bond because it would be considered riskier, according to Jason Callan, a senior portfolio manager at the firm.

In total, Navient managed to get 100% bondholder approval on 62 securities with about $9.1 billion outstanding, or about 14% of its $65.7 billion book of federally guaranteed student loan bonds. Nelnet won approval for about $2.4 billion, or about 12% of its book, according to data compiled by the companies and Wall Street Journal research.

The threat of downgrades got the attention of federal regulators at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In a 2015 report, the agency’s student loan ombudsman cited issuers’ “economic incentive to ensure that bonds backed by these loans perform on schedule” as a concern because it might mean issuers steer borrowers toward temporary payment pauses and away from income-based repayment plans that provide longer-term relief.

In January 2017, the CFPB sued Navient for allegedly “failing borrowers at every stage of repayment. ” Navient says the CFPB’s allegations are false and is fighting the lawsuit.

None of the drama over the bonds’ struggles did anything to change Ms. Chinnock’s plight. Ms. Chinnock earned two bachelor’s degrees, two masters and a doctorate. She says she kept going back to school to boost her income to pay off her accumulated debt. In 2017, she sold her house in Portland, Ore., and used about $185,000 to pay down her student loans. She now rents and has deferred saving for retirement and buying a new car to make ends meet while servicing her student debt.

“I take responsibility for the loans,” Ms. Chinnock says.

FT : Russia’s oligarchs must soon decide how to pass on their empires

Russia’s oligarchs must soon decide how to pass on their empires
Succession and shareholdings critical to questions of corporate governance and economic growth

Ask any Russian oligarch how he made his fortune, and you will almost certainly get a well-rehearsed, rags-to-riches story of a plucky self-made entrepreneur who took advantage of a lucky opportunity that came his way.

But ask him how he plans to give it away, and you are likely to get a blank stare.

Tycoons whose wealth depends on how successfully they snapped up plum industrial assets in the 1990s through controversial rigged auctions, murky bank loans or straightforward theft, and then how deftly they protected their gains through political manoeuvring and relations with the Kremlin, must soon contemplate how to pass on their empires.

The looming transition will be critical. A single generation of oligarchs in their late sixties or early seventies control vast swaths of Russia’s $1.7tn economy. All grew up in a country that saw private property banned for 70 years under Soviet rule and where regulations safeguarding corporate ownership since 1991 have flexed to suit those in power.

Just as many are keenly watching the Kremlin for clues as to what President Vladimir Putin may do as the end of his fourth term approaches in 2024, the future of many of Russia’s largest business groups — and thus control of the country’s most important economic assets — is also up for question.

“Life is not forever. Life is a gift. You must squeeze sweetness from this gift from God. Some businessmen, like Warren Buffett, find sweetness in working every day. I think we have a much more interesting time in our life doing things other than making money,” Alisher Usmanov, who controls the USM industrial group, told the Financial Times last week.

He said he had already drawn up plans as to how his $16.5bn empire would be divided, including lists of names as to who would be offered shares.

“Many people have helped me. So I want to help my management and my relatives by giving them my shares,” he said. “Fifty per cent to family, 50 per cent to management, who deserve this, in my view.” The shares would be sold “at a friends and family price”, he added.

Mr Usmanov’s public admittance of a plan to step down from his businesses is rare among Russian tycoons who have sought to make themselves indispensable to their companies, or have built a reporting system where even the smallest decisions must be signed off by them. In one case, this included signing off on cleaners’ overtime in the company headquarters.

Aside from some form of advisory board or nominal group of directors, typically created on the advice of a London-based public relations company and stuffed with friends or retired western politicians, many lack any form of solid corporate governance structure that could take over in the event of an unforeseen change of ownership.

But they will soon need to explain to others just how to run conglomerates that have been, by and large, built and controlled by one man for more than two decades, sprawling across industries and sectors as a testament to their fluctuating whims.

Some have made tentative steps. Vladimir Yevtushenkov, 71, in 2018 gave 5 per cent of his Sistema holding company to his son.

Others have little idea who will run their empires when they are gone. Vagit Alekperov, the 69-year-old who controls Lukoil, Russia’s second-largest oil producer, has admitted he expects to run the company into his seventies and cannot imagine his son taking over in the future.

Russia has much to gain from a situation where control of many of the country’s largest business groups is passed from one man to a group of shareholders.

Diversified shareholdings should mean more transparent operations and stronger corporate governance. Passing on shares to trusted lieutenants would also signal confidence in safeguards protecting private property, the lack of which has damaged Russia’s standing among foreign investors over the past two decades.

Russia’s crony capitalism, where political influence reigns and the Kremlin-controlled security services and bureaucrats wield more power than the market economy, relies heavily on a tiny group of men controlling the country’s biggest businesses.

The starkest illustration of this can be seen every December when Mr Putin summons about 50 businessmen to the Kremlin for an annual get-together. The men who control all the biggest businesses in Russia fit around one meeting table.

Many of them have been reluctant to share their wealth, but soon will be forced to. 

If every oligarch left their shares to a few dozen people, Mr Putin would be likely to find he does not have a room big enough to host them all. When it comes to reforming Russia’s economy, that would be a welcome sign.