Follow the ETP Flows: Corporates Rule

Wednesday, July 18th, 2012

by Dodd Kittsley, CFA, iShares

One of the advantages to working for the largest exchange traded product (ETP) provider in the world is that you have a lot of data at your disposal.  In my role as the Global Head of ETP Research for BlackRock, I deal in data every day, particularly as it relates to the in- and outflows of the 4500+ global ETPs currently in existence.  As you can imagine, examining flows can be a great way to spot investment trends, take the temperature of the market and reveal sentiment shifts.

Right now, for example, global ETPs just experienced their largest first half inflows ever.  ETPs attracted net new assets of $105 billion during the first half of 2012, representing a 16% increase on the $90.6 billion of flows posted during H1 2011.  Total industry assets now stand at nearly $1.7 trillion.

Not surprisingly, fixed income ETPs were a main driver of growth.  As global markets continue to be volatile, investors have increasingly been using these products to capture new and diversified sources of income.  Fixed income ETPs attracted 41% of all inflows with $42.0 billion on the year, or 114% above 2011’s comparable YTD figure of $19.6bn. In fact, June was the 18th consecutive month in which global fixed income ETPs have attracted net inflows.  Total assets invested in fixed income ETPs now exceed $300 billion and account for over 18% of total industry assets.

But here’s something you might not have guessed – within fixed income, investment grade corporate ETPs were the clear leader, bringing in $15.5 billion.  Throughout this year, investors have consistently committed new money to the category, with monthly flows ranging from $1.7bn to $3.2bn.  It appears that many investors may agree with Russ K’s feeling that investment grade debt is the place to look for relative safety (albeit less than Treasuries) with the opportunity for positive real yield.

So what do we think is in store for the second half of the year?  Well, if volatility remains an issue (and Russ K believes it will), we expect to see the flows into fixed income ETPs continue (see chart below).  In fact, if they continue to follow their current trajectory, FI ETPs could actually sextuple their assets over the next 10 years – from $300 billion to $2 trillion.  As my colleague and fellow blogger Matt Tucker has said many times, investors are starting to realize that fixed income ETPs are simply a better way to invest in bonds.

Fixed Income Cumulative Net New Asset Trends

Never one to keep a good story to myself, I’ll be sharing interesting ETP flow data and related insights on a regular basis here on the iShares blog.  And I’d love to hear from all of you – what questions do you have that our data might be able to answer?

Source: BlackRock Investment Institute

Tags: Assets, Blackrock, Cfa, Corporates, Diversified Sources, Dodd, Etps, Fixed Income Investment, Global Head, Global Markets, Investment Trends, Ishares, Nbsp, New Money, Relative Safety, Russ, Second Half, Sentiment, Treasuries, Trillion
Posted in Markets | Comments Off

One Sided Balance Sheet and Solvenquidity (Tchir)

Wednesday, June 13th, 2012

One Sided Balance Sheets

I’m seeing a lot of negative headlines about how much more debt Spain is adding. How much subordination there is going to be for existing creditors. That is in spite of a lack of detail. I’m not here to cheerlead this deal, but at the same time, falling prey to the easy headlines is dangerous.

No one seems to be talking about the “asset” side of this program. The FROB will borrow money and it will buy assets. The proceeds from either repayment or sale of those assets would be used to pay back FROB’s borrowing. If everything FROB buys is worthless, than yes, the Kingdom of Spain will owe a lot of money under those guarantees. If the FROB made great investments, all the debt could be repaid by the investment and no claim ever made under the guarantee.

Once again, the answer is likely to be in between. The U.S. has done okay on TARP. Since the U.S. forced some of the better banks to take on money, the recovery/repayment rate is artificially high but at least worth looking at. The IMF involvement is a good sign here. If Spain was completely in control of investing FROB’s money, I would quickly assume the assets would wind up with no value. That might be unfair to Spain, but I would not for a second trust them to make decent investments with the FROB money. The IMF, I will grudgingly admit, does seem to actually try and run numbers and make sane decisions. They seem less likely to lose all the FROB money.

When I see everyone talking about all the great points of the deal, I will reconsider my view, but right now, I see simple headlines and negative reactions to those simplistic headlines. I don’t see this deal as a game changer on its own, but I don’t think it is as bad as some are pitching it right now, and more importantly, am very scared as a potential bear that there are more ideas and programs in the global pipeline.

Solvenquidity

Solvency and Liquidity are usually two different concepts.

A “liquidity” problem is when a solid borrower who for some reason cannot get access to money at a particular point in time. There is usually some reason that the company cannot borrow, and it has less to do with the creditworthiness of the borrower than on the market as a whole.

A “solvency” problem is when a creditor is so weak, overleveraged, that they have no way to borrow because they are on the verge of default.

Typically those two situations are different. If some entity tried to address a solvency problem by lending more and more, they could do that, but eventually they would run out of money as the market would stop lending to them. If A is a horrible credit, B can choose to lend to B so long as B has money. If B is willing to lend cheaply and in ever increasing size, A can continue to avoid default. It is the doubling down on an unlimited table theory in blackjack. In the real world, B will start having trouble getting money to lend to A because its creditors will see how stupid it is behaving. That mechanism is what separates solvency from liquidity.

What happens when the lender can print its own limitless supply of money? If you can print money and are willing to continue to print money you can use liquidity to avoid solvency for a very long time. I don’t condone that. I think it is horrible in the long run. I think we should have let more entities go bankrupt, starting with Bear Stearns back in 2008, and Greece in 2010, but for whatever reason the politicians have been petrified to do that.

Will they finally step up and let failure and bloated balance sheets run their course? I hope so, but I doubt it. I think we will see more activity, and for all the talk that you can’t solve a solvency issue with liquidity, you are right, but sadly a lender with virtually unlimited access to cheap money (since he prints it) can provide enough liquidity to address solvency for a long time. The end result is likely to be ugly, but that doesn’t mean the central bankers won’t try.

Tags: Assets, Balance Sheet, Balance Sheets, Creditors, Different Concepts, Frob, Global Pipeline, Guarantees, Imf Involvement, Kingdom Of Spain, Liquidi, liquidity, Negative Headlines, Prey, Proceeds, Repayment Rate, Solvency, Spite, Subordination, Tarp
Posted in Markets | Comments Off

Asset Class Performance (April 2012): Another Good Month for Bonds

Friday, May 4th, 2012

The bar chart below, courtesy of Scott Barber of Reuters, shows the monthly performances of the principal asset classes.

“The “risk on/risk off” barometer moved back in the direction of “risk off” during April, as U.S. 10-year Treasury securities turned in the best investment gains (in U.S. dollar terms) during the month,” said Barber. “The 2.8% jump in the value of the Treasury securities came despite the almost universal perspective on the part of professional investors that the 30-year bull market for bonds is finally sputtering to a halt and that eventually interest rates will begin to climb. Investors displayed a clear bias in favor of assets that not only generated income but also offered them security – in other words, bonds of various kinds were the only major asset classes to end the month in the black.”

Source: Scott Barber, Reuters, May 2, 2012.

Tags: 10 Year Treasury, April, asset class, Asset Classes, Assets, Barometer, Bias, Bonds, Class Performance, Dollar Terms, interest rates, Investment Gains, Principal, Professional Investors, Reuters, risk, Scott Barber, Treasury Securities, Universal Perspective
Posted in Markets | Comments Off

AAPL-on, but will Ben drink the Calvados? (Tchir)

Wednesday, April 25th, 2012

by Peter Tchir, TF Market Advisors

As far as I can tell AAPL is driving everything. It’s no longer risk-on/risk-off, for the entire week, it has been AAPL-on/AAPL-off. As a result of AAPL earnings, stocks around the globe are reacting positively. Spanish 10 year bonds dipped below 5.70% at one time today, and CDS was 25 bps tighter, all the way to 465. Both are fading, and as far as I can tell, the move was a giant short squeeze as it outperformed Italy and it is hard to see any news out of Spain that would justify that sort of news.

I can’t really remember many days where a single company’s earnings could move the entire global market in all risk assets (though there may have been a day when GS earnings had a similar impact). So it is hard to figure out how real this is, or what it means. Clearly good earnings, clearly a big part of the index, but this seems like a very large move. It looked like many pros were selling AAPL vol into the earnings. Lots of comments on twitter in particular, about how the break-evens on strangles covered a 7% move. Well right now it looks like it’s a 10% move. Whenever there is so much talk about vol and such a big move overnight in a thin market, it is hard to tell how real that is. I won’t touch AAPL up here, but I think once some of the vol sellers have covered we will see the stock drop back decently below 600. That would drag the indices, especially NASDAQ, down with it.

Durable goods at 8:30, seems to be about the hardest number to predict. It is all over the place, and to the extent it has any correlation with housing data, then it is even harder than usual, as housing data has jumped all over the place with some major revisions. Yesterday’s housing numbers were a case in point. The markets rallied on the home sales data, but it was hard to tell whether the rally was because of 7.1% decline, making QE more likely, or because of 40k positive revision to the prior month, making the building sector a potential real driver of growth? Case-Shiller data, although lagging, wasn’t nearly as strong, I personally I trust their methodology more, so I remain dubious that housing is having any real bounce, and that the good numbers remain heavily influenced by great weather.

So, then all eyes will turn to the Fed and the Fed statement. I think we get a slightly more dovish statement. More language that the economy shows signs of weakening and that the Fed is vigilantly watching the data to determine if additional actions are necessary. No change in low rates for extended period, though maybe their they soften the language further hinting that it could go on longer than 2014 if moderate economic growth continues. I don’t think they will say anything new on inflation, though they might try to hint that it is moderating in their eyes, again, paving way for more QE. So I suspect a dovish statement, but no QE. I think the market will initially like that, but we will see the enthusiasm wane as that seem very well priced in, and without QE, and once AAPL stabilizes, we can get back to focusing that on the whole the data here has been weak, and that the situation in Europe is deteriorating rapidly.

Tags: 10 Year Treasury, Assets, Buil, Case In Point, Correlation, Decline, Durable Goods, Earnings, Global Market, Nasdaq, Qe, Rally, Revisions, Short squeeze, Single Company, Stock Drop, Tf, Thin Market, Time Today, Twitter
Posted in Markets | Comments Off

Goldman on the Three Risk World

Friday, April 20th, 2012

Three key issues remain at the heart of current markets: the strength of the US growth cycle; the sovereign and financial risks in the Euro area; and the risks of ongoing deceleration in Chinese growth. Goldman has created proxies for these various risks and the sensitivities of different assets to those risk factors. They further note that looking at those three proxies over time confirms what general qualitative commentary has also spelled out. From late November to early February, the market relaxed about all three risks, as better global data and the impact of the LTROs on European financial risks provided a strong tailwind. From February until mid-March, China fears reappeared and the market downgraded its views of China significantly while still relaxing about European and growth risk. Since then, both European – and to a lesser degree – US growth risks have re-emerged, but at the same time there are some very tentative signs that the market is becoming a little less worried about China. They, however, remain increasingly cautious on them all: Europe seems increasingly in the hands of governments, not the ECB, raising volatility; unspectacular growth trajectory in the US continues as outlooks adjust down; and even thouigh China’s risk has stabilized they have avoided active exposures ‘given the muddiness of news’. Understanding which assets are more sensitive and how these risks evolve might help prognosticators understand the need to pay attention to Europe – as opposed to merely Apple’s earnings.

Tracking the Three Risk Perceptions Through Time…

And asset sensitivities to these risk factors…

Charts: Goldman Sachs

Tags: Assets, Chinese Growth, Deceleration, ECB, Exposures, Global Data, Goldman Sachs, Growth Trajectory, Late November, Mid March, Nbsp, Outlooks, Prognosticators, Proxies, Qualitative Commentary, Risk Factors, Risk Perceptions, Risk World, Tailwind, Volatility
Posted in Markets | Comments Off

Eric Sprott: Paper Vs Physical Gold

Friday, April 20th, 2012

While Eric Sprott obviously has a modest axe to grind, his open and honest discussion with Charles Biderman on the difference between gold ETFs methods of owning gold, so-called physical vs paper gold, is noteworthy given the depth he goes into. After explaining the concerns of GLD, Pisani’s putterings, and tax-related differences, Eric goes on to discuss his and other physical trusts and how he started down this route. The latter end of the discussion shifts from the practicalities of owning ‘sound money’ or ‘hard assets’ to the thesis for doing so – the debasement of fiat currency and the printing press fanaticism being exhibited globally. Concluding with his thoughts on what could change this thesis, he sees the greatest risk that “we come to our financial senses” – a highly unlikely scenario given the dominoes likely to fall should that occur.

Tags: Assets, Axe, Debasement, Dominoes, Eric Sprott, Fanaticism, fiat, Fiat Currency, Paper Gold, physical gold, Pisani, Printing Press, risk, Senses, Sound Money, Thesis, Trusts
Posted in Markets | Comments Off

Annualized Rebalancing Premium (Nairne)

Tuesday, April 10th, 2012

by Michael Nairne, Tacita Capital

“Buy and hold” is not an effective strategy for risk conscious investors. Any portfolio’s asset mix will drift from its strategic target as asset prices move differentially in response to changing economic and market forces. Over time, the higher return assets will comprise a larger proportion of the portfolio and distort its return and risk dimensions from those originally constructed.

Sound portfolio management is founded on “buy and rebalance”. Rebalancing involves selling the asset classes that have done relatively well to buy those assets that have lagged in order to restore the portfolio’s target mix. Rebalancing is vital in risk management since it ensures that a portfolio’s risk dimensions stay within an investor’s defined tolerance limits. This is illustrated in the following graph which compares the return and risk of a portfolio  comprised of 40% US bonds and 60% US stocks which was rebalanced annually (in red) to those of the same portfolio that was never rebalanced (in orange).

The rebalanced portfolio experienced much lower risk while the never rebalanced portfolio drifted into a much riskier asset weighting dominated by stocks. Its return was lower but that is because it avoided the escalating risk of the never rebalanced portfolio. Critically, the rebalanced portfolio had better risk-adjusted performance .

Rebalancing has a second vital role in a portfolio. Rebalancing is a source of diversification return  that arises from the contrarian act of selling assets that have appreciated on a relative basis and buying the lagging assets in order to restore the weights of the target asset mix of a particular investment strategy.

A return premium is created by the disciplined act of regularly “selling high and buying low” while maintaining the risk profile of the portfolio. It can be calculated by comparing the return of a rebalanced portfolio to the weighted average geometric return of the assets which comprise the portfolio . An example of the rebalancing premium is illustrated in the following table which sets out the returns of the individual assets in the 40% bond/60% stock portfolio, the weighted average return of the two assets, the return of the rebalanced portfolio and the rebalancing premium.

The rebalanced portfolio had an annualized return of 8.60% compared to the weighted average return of 8.06% for the two assets that comprise the portfolio.  Rebalancing resulted in an annualized return premium of 0.54%.

The rebalancing premium can be increased by adding more assets when they exhibit the right blend of volatility and covariance (i.e. tendency to move in tandem) with the overall portfolio – the more volatile the assets added and the lower their covariance, the higher the rebalancing premium. This is illustrated in the following graph which portrays the annualized rebalancing premium for the period January 1972 to January 2012 that resulted from sequentially adding asset classes to a two asset portfolio comprised initially of 40% US bonds and 60% US stocks. The assets added in order are: international stocks, US small value stocks, Canadian stocks, US REITs, and finally gold .

The rebalancing premium more than doubled – from 0.44% to 0.99% – as assets were added. It increased initially as international stocks increased rebalancing opportunities. Then, the addition of volatile small cap value stocks had a large premium as its wide return swings created an even greater rebalancing effect. Adding real estate and commodity-biased Canadian stocks also increased the premium. Finally, adding gold which is very volatile and has a low covariance to other assets had a particularly large premium as there were frequent opportunities for substantive rebalancing.

Earning the rebalancing premium is easier in theory than in practice. Selling winners to buy losers seems to go against human nature. In fact, the vast majority of investors either don’t rebalance or don’t rebalance as frequently as they should .

That’s too bad. Rebalancing earns a return premium while maintaining the risk profile of a portfolio – to paraphrase Scott Willenbrock, rebalancing adds a “free dessert” to the “free lunch” served by diversification.  Serious investors need to stay seated long enough at the investing table to enjoy both.

Footnotes:
1. Bond and stock returns are from Ibbotson’s intermediate-term government bond and large company stock series. Rebalancing is undertaken on an annual basis.
2. Although not shown, the rebalanced portfolio had a higher Sharpe Ratio, Sortino Ratio and M-Squared Ratio.
3. Booth, D.G., Fama, E.F., Diversification Returns and Asset Contributions, Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 48, No.3, p. 26–32, May/June 1992.  Booth and Fama define the incremental return from a rebalanced portfolio compared to the weighted average asset compound return as the “diversification return”.
4. Willenbrock, Scott, Diversification Return, Portfolio Rebalancing, and the Commodity Return Puzzle, Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 67, No. 4, pp. 42-49, July/August 2011. Willenbrock states that “the diversification return is the difference between the geometric average returns of both a rebalanced portfolio of volatile assets and a balanced portfolio of hypothetical assets with the same weights and geometric average returns as the true assets but zero volatility.” Practically, the latter term is the weighted average geometric return of the assets comprising the portfolio.
5. All return data is from Morningstar Encorr.  The asset classes are based on the following indices: international stocks – MSCI EAFE; US small value stocks – Fama-French Small Value; Canadian stocks – S&P/TSX Capped Composite in US$;  US REITs – FTSE NAREIT All Equity REIT; and gold – London Fix Gold PM US$. Proportions added vary but are based on practical weighting considerations. Rebalancing is undertaken on an annual basis.
6. AllianceBernstein Investment Research and Management Asset Allocation Research 2005.  Findings of a nationwide telephone survey of 1000 investors.

www.tacitacapital.com

Tacita Capital Inc. (“Tacita”) is a private, independent family office and investment counselling firm that specializes in providing integrated wealth advisory and portfolio management services to families of affluence. We understand the challenges of affluence and apply the leading research and best practices of top financial academics and industry practitioners in assisting our clients reach their goals.

Tacita research has been prepared without regard to the individual financial circumstances and objectives of persons who receive it and is not intended to replace individually tailored investment advice. The asset classes/securities/instruments/strategies discussed may not be suitable for all investors and certain investors may not be eligible to purchase or participate in some or all of them. The appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor’s individual circumstances and objectives.

Tacita recommends that investors independently evaluate particular investments and strategies, and encourages investors to seek the advice of a financial advisor.

Tacita research is prepared for informational purposes. Neither the information nor any opinion expressed constitutes a solicitation by Tacita for the purchase or sale of any securities or financial products. This research is not intended to provide tax, legal, or accounting advice and readers are advised to seek out qualified professionals that provide advice on these issues for their individual circumstances.

Tacita research is based on public information. Tacita makes every effort to use reliable, comprehensive information, but we make no representation that it is accurate or complete.  We have no obligation to inform any parties when opinions, estimates or information in Tacita research changes.

All investments involve risk including loss of principal. The value of and income from investments may vary because of changes in interest rates or foreign exchange rates, securities prices or market indexes, operational or financial conditions of companies or other factors. There may be time limitations on the exercise of options or other rights in securities transactions.  Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance.  Estimates of future performance are based on assumptions that may not be realized. Management fees and expenses are associated with investing.

Tags: Asset Classes, Asset Mix, Asset Prices, Assets, Buy And Hold, Diversification, Graph, Investment Strategy, Portfolio Management, Portfolio Rebalancing, Proportion, Relative Basis, Retu, Risk Management, Risk Profile, Sound Portfolio, Tacita, Target, Tolerance Limits, Weights
Posted in Markets | Comments Off

This Is The World’s Balance Sheet

Wednesday, March 28th, 2012

It is rather surprising that in a world in which anything and everything is only about money, it is next to impossible to find a consolidated balance sheet of the world’s insolvent economies (i.e., the developed countries: US, Japan and the Euro Area). So for all those seeking a visual presentation of all the liabilities that have to be inflated away by the central banks (because that’s what this is all about), rejoice: the broke world is presented below in its glory. The irony is that the problem would be quite fixable if it weren’t for one minor issue: the bulk of the world’s assets also happen to be its liabilities! At the end of the day, this may prove to be the fatal flaw in the chairman’s attempt to dilute the global liabilities, he will be doing the same with the assets.

We will follow up with an analysis of what this actually means shortly (those who have been reading in the past year can come to their own conclusions), but more importantly we well next show how the global “household” sector is invested across these three distinct economies by assorted asset class. Prepare to be rather surprised as various conventionally accepted notions are thoroughly debunked…

Tags: asset class, Assets, Attempt, Central Banks, Conclusions, Consolidated Balance Sheet, Developed Countries, Distinct Economies, Household Sector, Irony, Japan, Liabilities, Money, Notions, Visual Presentation
Posted in Markets | Comments Off

Is Needing EU Help a Good Thing? I Really Cannot Remember.

Wednesday, March 28th, 2012

by Peter Tchir, TF Advisors

Markets are up a little this morning, basically getting back the late day fade.  S&P Futures up 4.  IG18 is ¾ of a bp tighter.

In Europe, bonds in Spain and Italy are better after an initial round of weakness.  As far as I can tell, they both bounced on rumors that the EU was going to help out the Spanish banks.  Maybe it’s too early today, but I’m beginning to have trouble seeing the logic of rallying sovereign debt on a story that the banks need help.  I continue to be a little surprised that Italy is back to moving up and down in lock-step with Spain, as I think Spain is doing a lot to distinguish itself – and not in a good way.  Italian 5 yr CDS is actually 4 bps wider on the day at 371 while Spanish 5 yr CDS is 2 tighter at 423.

I will dig into the Spanish debt issuance and budget issues in more detail, but yesterday’s news should scare investors.  The deficit in the first two months of the year was worse than expected, and worse than last year because they transferred money to various regions and municipalities.  Now they will just guarantee debt of those regions, so no transfer, and improved deficit.  All fixed?  Hardly, just accounting games and another sign that somehow Europe does not understand that guarantees count.

Yesterday in fixed income ETF’s, we saw gains across the board, but with treasury related assets outperforming credit assets.  Junk bond ETF’s had the smallest gains, but that was a bit of catch up from the prior day, and the reality is that they are running out of room for any significant upside, which is why we still like HY17 vs HYG.  HY17 is back to 99 and does seem to be benefitting from the roll.  We are also finally seeing some “compression” as HY outperformed IG.  That trade has been hurting people as the “compression” story has been compelling, but the market hasn’t played nice with that trade.  Looking at it now, but not yet in it.  IG18 still seems like a reasonable short.  Even with creeping back into 88.75 this morning, it feels like the market is underhedged and even a bit long and it has failed to come back to its tights of 85.5 in spite of a spirited stock market.

Durable goods orders have a chance to break the trend of weak data, but that series is so volatile, I’m not sure a positive reading does much.  My guess is that we miss this number as well, but in this day and age of central banks dominating market moves, that miss might not do much.

VIX and TVIX (trading with almost no premium again) both bounced.  Stocks leaked, but the reality is that everyone is still digesting Monday’s move and really trying to figure out if all that matters is central bank liquidity.  I think that has its limits, and we have had sell-offs with big central bank policies in place, but even my faith was shaken on Monday as Ben seemed almost single-minded in his pursuit of more ways to “accommodate” the market, in spite of our concerns that he may be doing more harm than good to the economy, both in the short run and in the long run.

Copyright © TF Advisors

Tags: Accounting, Amp, Assets, Bonds, Bp, Bps, Budget Issues, Debt Issuance, Fixed Income, Futures, Guarantees, Ig, Junk Bond, Logic, Months Of The Year, Municipalities, Sovereign Debt, Spanish Banks, Tf, Treasury
Posted in Markets | Comments Off

Scott Minerd: “A Wide Range of Assets Are About to Make Large Gains”

Thursday, March 1st, 2012

Scott Minerd, Guggenheim Partners CIO, discusses his long-term strategy, investing for an asset bubble, the risk-on trade, and shorting Treasuries. Also, how best to implement and apply the trend, with the Fast Money traders.

From CNBC:

“The world is being flooded with liquidity,” says Minerd in a live interview on CNBC’s Fast Money. “Money is coming out of central banks around the world.” And he adds that the Federal Reserve is committed to keeping rates low for an extended period of time.

With so much liquidity chasing return, Minerd thinks a wide range of assets are about to make large gains. “Over the next 2-3 years, it’s risk on,” he says. And he’s planning to position as follows:

- Long High-Beta Equities
- Long gold and silver
- Long junk bonds
- Buy art & collectibles
- Short Treasurys

In the near term, that sounds good for your equity portfolio –but if you have a longer time horizon, Minerd also makes some troubling comments.

Tags: 3 Years, Art Collectibles, Assets, Central Banks, Cio, Cnbc, Federal Reserve, Guggenheim Partners, Junk Bonds, liquidity, Live Interview, Money Money, Period Of Time, risk, Term Strategy, Time Horizon, Treasuries, Treasurys
Posted in Markets | Comments Off