Global Asset Allocation Update

By Joseph Calhoun of Alhambra

There hasn’t been a lot of change in our indicators since the last update and therefore, despite my discomfort with the altitude of this stock market, there are no changes to the Global Asset Allocation this month. For the moderate risk investor, the allocation between risk assets and bonds is unchanged at 50/50.

Bond markets moved around some during the last month but are today almost exactly where they finished at the last update. Other markets have moved to indicate a still ravenous appetite for risk but growth and inflation expectations are essentially unchanged. Stock and junk bond – I refuse to call them “high yield” with HYG yielding just a bit over 5% – investors seem quite a bit more sure of the outcome of the developing policy debate than the more sober Treasury participants. Commodities also moved a bit higher since the last update but the best performer was gold, not exactly a growth investment. It was very tempting to just move some out of stocks and into cash simply because valuations have gone completely off the reservation but our process requires something more than gut reaction to make a change. Momentum continues to favor stocks – US stocks mostly – and that has to be respected. Our allocation to stocks has already been reduced due to high valuations and absent more information I can’t justify moving the allocation even lower. I have decided though that I will consider making an intra-month move if I think it is necessary. That isn’t something I would normally do as I think one of the most common mistakes investors make is doing too much. But I think this market is so far beyond what is “normal” that one must make concessions to reality.

Indicator Review

  • Credit Spreads:   Junk spreads continued to narrow, down another 7 basis points since the last update. They are still about 60 basis points from the lows of this cycle and nearly 150 from the lows of the last cycle. There is still plenty of room for improvement and there is no indication right now that spreads are about to reverse. The most likely culprit, if last year is a template, would be a fall in oil prices. While inventory would argue that might indeed be in the offing, momentum argues for the opposite. And as we’ve seen in the past, oil market moves owe a lot to the direction of the dollar which has recently found upside hard to come by.

Continue reading Global Asset Allocation Update

A Trade Deficit is Never a Problem

By Steve Saville

It’s not just Donald Trump. Many political leaders around the world operate under the misconception that a trade deficit is a problem to be reckoned with. This misconception has been the root of countless bad policies over the centuries.

Trade, by definition, is not an adversarial situation resulting in a winner and a loser. Rather, both parties believe that they are benefiting, otherwise the trade would not take place. Most of the time, both parties do benefit. In general, one side wants a particular product more than a certain quantity of money and the other side wants the quantity of money more than the product. When the exchange takes place, both sides get the thing to which they assign the higher value at the time.

All the hand-wringing about international trade deficits is based on the ridiculous notion that the side receiving the money is the winner and the side receiving the product is the loser, but how could this be? If the side receiving the product was losing-out then it wouldn’t enter into the trade. Furthermore, given that today’s money is created out of nothing, if a trade were to be viewed as a win-lose situation then surely it’s the side receiving the product that should be viewed as the winner.

That being said, I don’t want to confuse the argument by asserting that it makes sense to view the side receiving the product as the winner in the exchange of money for product. Both sides are winners, because both sides get what they prefer at the time of the exchange.

For example, if you shop at Wal-Mart then you run a trade deficit with Wal-Mart. Is this trade deficit a problem for you? Obviously not, otherwise you wouldn’t shop there. Would it make sense for the government to step in and slap a tax on all Wal-Mart products, thus forcing you to buy less products from Wal-Mart and thereby reducing your trade deficit with that company?

Some will claim that a trade deficit is only a problem when it happens between different countries, but countries aren’t entities that trade with each other. People trade with each other, and political borders don’t determine what is and isn’t economically beneficial. If John and Bill have been trading with each other for years to their mutual benefit within the same political region, placing a political border between them wouldn’t mysteriously alter the mutually-beneficial nature of their trading.

Another point that should be understood is that a “trade deficit” for a country results in an investment surplus for that country. The reason is that the monetary surplus on the trade account doesn’t disappear or get placed under a mattress, it gets invested in securities (stocks and bonds), real estate, businesses and projects. A trade deficit therefore isn’t associated with a net flow of money out of the economy, it is associated with a re-routing of money within the economy. There is no good reason to expect that this re-routing will lead to a net loss of jobs. In fact, the opposite is the case.

Unfortunately, while a so-called trade deficit is not a problem, the taxes, tariffs, subsidies and other government measures that are implemented to reduce a trade deficit definitely do cause problems.

How to Easily ID Support and Resistance

By Elliott Wave International

See an example in the chart of Bank of America (BAC)

You’ve probably heard the terms “support” and “resistance.” Common technical analysis terms, they are price points on a chart that can help determine when a move will pause, or even stop and reverse.

There are many different ways to identify support and resistance on your charts. In this 6-minute lesson, the editor of our Trader’s Classroom education service, Jeffrey Kennedy, shows you one of the easiest and most effective methods (example: Bank of America, NYSE: BAC).


6 Lessons to Help You Find Trading Opportunities in Any Market

Get 6 free lessons that will teach you how to spot trading opportunities in the charts you’re using every day Elliott Wave International’s Jeffrey Kennedy shows you how to use Elliott waves, Fibonacci analysis, candlestick analysis, and more, to help you become a more successful technical trader.

Get instant access

This article was syndicated by Elliott Wave International and was originally published under the headline How to Easily ID Support and Resistance on Your Charts. EWI is the world’s largest market forecasting firm. Its staff of full-time analysts led by Chartered Market Technician Robert Prechter provides 24-hour-a-day market analysis to institutional and private investors around the world.

Is Market Breadth Waving Bearish Flags?

By Chris Ciovacco

All things being equal, during a healthy rally, we prefer to see a high number of stocks participate in the move (strong market breadth). In recent weeks, you may have come across something similar to the MarketWatch headline below:

Market breadth can be tracked in numerous ways. One of the most logical is to compare the health of narrow indexes, such as the Dow which contains only 30 stocks, to broader indexes, such as the NYSE Composite, which contains over 1,900 stocks.

Breadth Before 10% Plunge In Stocks

As described in this week’s video in detail, the S&P 500 experienced a waterfall decline of over 10% following the close on August 18, 2015. Notice in the chart below how vulnerable the trends were in the broad NYSE Composite Stock Index before the S&P 500’s big drop.

How Does The Same Chart Look Today?

The answer to the question above is “much better”. Instead of the moving averages making a series of lower highs and lower lows, the 2017 version of the same chart looks much healthier (see below). Recent gains have been much more broad-based than what transpired in the spring and summer of 2015.

Continue reading Is Market Breadth Waving Bearish Flags?

The Song and Dance Man

By IKN

I wasn’t really sure how well it came out, not my best rant at all, but when separate subscribers write in with feedback about the screed saying that it should make the open blog, I don’t see any reason to argue. Here’s one of the two opening pieces to IKN404, out last night:

The song and dance man

It’s oh so quiet, Shh shh
It’s oh so still, Shh shh
It’s Oh So Quiet, Betty Hutton, 1951*

Preamble: I’ve tried to tighten up this semi-disjointed rant up a bit, but part of its message seems to be its very disjointed nature so in the end I edited it down but kept its disparate nature. I’m not in the running for a Pulitzer anyway. The TL:DR is “Trump isn’t really much of a factor to our investments and the world isn’t about to end just because he’s in the Oval Office”.

We need to talk about President Donald Trump. Soon we’ll need not to talk about Trump, the subject will get too repeated and too boring and as already noted on the blog (1) I’m going to curtail references to The Donald over there as much as possible (my tiny contribution to online well-being), but as The US government and its declarations are in the centre of all things newsy at the moment, there’s no avoiding at least some comment.

And the main comment is that, so far at least, there’s very little that really matters to me about President Trump’s administration. For sure there has been constant noise, sometimes close to deafening, about the executive orders and decisions handed down, along with the pushback from politicians and legal beagles alike. For what it’s worth, my fave to date is his picking a fight with the US judiciary. Really not a very good idea, Donald, it’s your four/eight year tenancy vs jurisprudence of two plus centuries, you’re taking a knife to a gunfight.

But it’s all rather inconsequential so far because it’s nearly all domestic policy. For sure building a big beautiful wall, re-doing NAF(F)TA and not letting people in from dangerous countries will affect people from countries other than The USA, but all of those are domestic and not foreign policy decisions and if you piss off an Australian politico or two along the way, big deal. The only thing we mining investors should care about are either domestic fiscal policy decisions that have a knock-on effect through Wall St, or true foreign policy decisions by The Donald, so far at least we’ve had none. Yes, we’ve had mutterings about a “phenomenal” (bless him) tax plan (2) which people are guessing will be “stimulative” (translation: rich get richer) and just the rumour saw bank stocks pop higher last week. When that one gets rolled out we can see how much optimism is already baked in, but you don’t need to take my word for the lack of real fiscal or economic news out there as yet, take it from somebody much smarter than I am about the subject (3):

U.S. Federal Reserve Vice Chair Stanley Fischer said there was significant uncertainty about U.S. fiscal policy under the Trump administration, but the Fed would be strict in meeting targets of creating full employment and getting inflation to 2 percent.

Speaking at the Warwick Economics Summit on Saturday, Fischer also said he thought Dodd-Frank financial regulation would not be repealed as a whole, and he hoped capital requirements for banks would not be significantly reduced.

“There is quite significant uncertainty about what’s actually going to happen, I don’t think anyone quite knows. It’s a process which involves both the administration and the Congress in deciding fiscal policy,” Fischer said, in response to a question.

Translation: “We don’t know what he’s going to do to the US economy yet. And we’re the freakin’ Fed, we’ve got computers and stuff, you guys out there don’t have a chance!”

Meanwhile, when it comes to foreign policy and foreign relations The Donald has found out quickly that “The Art of the Diplomatic Deal” is a missing chapter from his best-seller, a good thing for all of us. Remember all that “recognizing Taiwan” thing? Remember the “China nasty people playing nasty currency games”? Remember the trade war Trump threatened if China didn’t start giving America a good/fair/better deal? I’m sure President Xi Jiping of China remembered all of them when he told The USA that he wouldn’t even pick up the phone if The Donald wasn’t ready to accept the One China policy. Trump agreed, he now recognizes China as a single entity offshore islands and all, the two had a long conversation (4) and once it was done, the two were telling us of their assurances to work together for the greater good of both countries. Donald, that’s what having your wings clipped feels like. So here’s my bet; domestically Trump will continue to make waves, cause controversy and shake up “the system” (or the bit of the system he has identified as the nasty bit), but when it comes to the fate of the world he’s not going to make much of a difference, the smarter world leaders (China, Russia, some parts of EU and that does not include the UK) have got his measure already. The most insightful thing I read about Trump this week came from an unusual source, but a whipsmart brain. Here’s Mel Brooks (5) on his new President and entourage (and before you send in any stuffy mails, “anti-Muslim travel ban” are the words of The Guardian, not Brooks’ or mine):

Brooks, who views Trump’s anti-Muslim travel ban as poorly planned and poorly executed – his parents came to the US as kids – does not revile the new president in the kneejerk way most movie people do. “Trump doesn’t scare me,” he says. “He’s a song-and-dance man. Pence [the vice-president] and Bannon [Trump’s scheming henchman, a kind of Dick Cheney without the radiant, cherubic charm], those guys make me nervous.” He adds: “We are not talking about Athenian democracy here.”

I agree. However much his style and persona might agree/disagree with you or I, this whole drain the swamp” and “break the rules” schtick is only going to travel so far. Will “The Resistance” in The USA change my life, or even my financial situation? About as much as the Tea Party did (i.e not at all). Will a Trump tax law that allows the rich to get richer have a knock-on effect on my portfolio? Maybe, but only in the same way the rich got richer through Reagan/Bush1/SlickWilly/Dubya/Barry did. As long as Trump defines himself as a financial force for change, be it ultimately positive or negative, I’ll be able to handle his character and mouthiness. The way he’s already being put in his place on the world stage augurs well, he’s turning into a net neutral for my life and that’s a welcome turn of events.

*Though you may remember the 1995 Björk cover version

Silver Futures Market Assistance

By Keith Weiner of Monetary Metals

This week, the prices of the metals moved up on Monday. Then the gold price went sideways for the rest of the week, but the silver price jumped on Friday. Is this the rocket ship to $50? Will Trump’s stimulus plan push up the price of silver? Or just push silver speculators to push up the price, at their own expense, again?

This will again be a brief Report this week, as we are busy working on something new and big. And Keith is on the road, in New York and Miami.

Below, we will show the only true picture of the gold and silver supply and demand fundamentals. But first, the price and ratio charts.

The Prices of Gold and Silver
gold and silver prices

Next, this is a graph of the gold price measured in silver, otherwise known as the gold to silver ratio. It fell this week.

The Ratio of the Gold Price to the Silver Price
gold-silver ratio

For each metal, we will look at a graph of the basis and cobasis overlaid with the price of the dollar in terms of the respective metal. It will make it easier to provide brief commentary. The dollar will be represented in green, the basis in blue and cobasis in red.

Here is the gold graph.

The Gold Basis and Cobasis and the Dollar Price
gold and us dollar

Again, we see a higher price of gold (shown here in its true form, a lower price of the dollar) along with greater scarcity (i.e. cobasis, the red line).

This pattern continues. What does it mean?

First, it means the price of gold is being pushed up by buyers of physical metal. Not by buyers of futures (which would push up the basis, and reduce scarcity).

Second, if it continues too much more, it means nothing good for the banking system. There is one force that can make all the gold in the world—which mankind has been accumulating for thousands of years—disappear faster than you can say “bank bail in”. The force is fear of counterparties, fear of banks, fear of currencies, fear of central bank balance sheets… fear of government finances.

We want to emphasize that the gold basis is not signaling disaster at the moment. It is merely moving in that direction, for the first time in a long time. It has a ways to go yet.

Our calculated fundamental price is up another $40 (on top of last week’s +$40). It is now about $130 over the market price.

Now let’s look at silver.

The Silver Basis and Cobasis and the Dollar Price
silver and us dollar

Note: we switched to the May contract, as March was becoming unusable in its approach to expiry.

In silver, the story is a bit less compelling. The scarcity of the metal is holding, as the price rises. However, scarcity is not increasing.

Were we to take a guess, we would say there is some good demand for physical, and the price action had futures market assistance.

While the market price moved up 44 cents, our calculated fundamental price moved up … 46 cents.

Bubbles, Money and the VIX

By Doug Noland

Credit Bubble Bulletin: Bubbles, Money and the VIX

February 10 – Financial Times (John Authers): “The Importance of Bubbles That Did Not Burst:”

“Is there really such a thing as a market bubble? I feel almost heretical answering this question. I and most readers have lived through two decades that were dominated by two vast investment bubbles and the attempt to deal with their consequences when they burst. Getting into definitions is beside the point. As US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once said to define pornography: ‘I know it when I see it.’ And there is no point in arguing that the dotcom bubble that came to a head in 2000, or the credit bubble that burst seven years later, were not bubbles. I know a bubble when I see one, and they were bubbles. For those of my generation, spotting bubbles before they get too big, and thwarting them, seems to be vital for regulators and investors alike.”

“But in a great new compendium on financial history, several writers make the same points. The number of bubbles in history is very small. That makes it hard to draw any valid inferences from them. Further, definition is a real problem, and not just one for linguistic nitpickers. History’s acknowledged bubbles all have one critical factor in common; they burst. But that gives us a one-sided view. We need to look at those bubbles that did not burst and the crises that did not happen.”

We’re at the stage where there’s impassioned pushback against the Bubble Thesis. To most, it’s long been totally discredited. Even those sympathetic to Bubble analysis now question why the current backdrop cannot be sustained. “The number of bubbles in history is very small.” Most booms did not burst. So why then must the current boom end in crisis – when most don’t? It has become fashionable for writers to try to convince us that such an extraordinary backdrop need not end extraordinarily.

There’s great confusion that I wish could be clarified. I define Bubbles generally as “a self-reinforcing but inevitably unsustainable inflation.” There are numerous types of Bubbles. Most definitions and research (as was the case with the analysis cited by the FT’s Authers) focus specifically on asset prices (“an extreme acceleration in share prices. In one version, [Yale’s Will Goetzmann] required them to double in a year — which excluded the dotcom bubble and the Great Crash of 1929. To keep them in, he also tried a softer version where stocks doubled in three years”).

Behind every consequential Bubble is an inflation in underlying Credit. My analysis focuses on the nature of the monetary expansion responsible for the asset inflation. I’m less concerned with P/E ratios and valuation than I am Credit expansions and the nature of risk intermediation. Earnings are important, but more critical to the analysis is the degree to which they (and “fundamentals” more generally) are being inflated by monetary factors – and whether such inflation is sustainable or susceptible.

Credit Dynamics are key. Mr. Authers refers to the “dot.com” and “Credit” Bubbles. Yet the nineties Bubble was fueled by extraordinary expansions in GSE Credit, securitizations and corporate debt. Internet stocks inflated spectacularly, but in the grand scheme of the Bubble were rather inconsequential. The Bubble faltered initially in 2000 with the sharp reversal in technology stocks. Less embedded in memory is the near breakdown in corporate Credit back in 2002. The resulting aggressive Fed-induced reflation then spurred a doubling of mortgage Credit in just over six years. The transformation of risky Credit into perceived safe money-like securities (“Wall Street Alchemy”) was integral to both “tech” and “mortgage finance” Bubble periods. The fact that dot.com price inflation and overvaluation greatly exceeded that of home prices is meaningless.

When I initially titled my weekly writings the “Credit Bubble Bulletin” back in 1999, I anticipated that “Bubble” would remain in the title only on a short-term basis. And indeed, I thought the Bubble had burst in 2000/2001 and then again in 2008. But in both instances Credit Dynamics and resurgent monetary inflation made it clear to me that a more powerful Bubble had reemerged. Whether one prefers to date the beginning of the Great Credit Bubble 1992, 1987 or even 1971, it’s been inflating now for quite a long time. Too be sure, the expansion of government Credit over the past eight years puts mortgage Credit and other excesses to shame. I would argue that price distortions and risk misperceptions similarly overshadow those from the mortgage finance Bubble period.

Of course, the vast majority have become convinced that the boom is sustainable. Indeed, analysis these days is eerily reminiscent of “permanent plateau” jubilation from 1929. The bullish perspective sees an improving global economy and a powerful pro-growth agenda unfolding in the U.S. Worries about debt, China and such matters have turned stale. A contrary argument focuses on Credit Dynamics and the unsustainability of today’s unique monetary and market backdrops.

Over the years, I’ve made the point that a Bubble financed by junk bonds would not create a systemic issue. There are, after all, limits to the demand for high-risk debt. Long before such a boom could go to prolonged and dangerous extremes (imparting deep structural maladjustment), investors would shy away from increasingly unattractive Credit issued in clear excess. The boom would lose its monetary fuel.

I define contemporary “money” as a financial claim perceived as a safe and liquid store of (nominal) value. Money these days is Credit, but a special type of Credit. Unlike junk bonds, “money” enjoys essentially insatiable demand. As such, a boom fueled by “money” is a quite different animal than our above junk bond example. I would posit that a prolonged inflation of perceived safe “money” by its nature ensures far-reaching risk distortions. For one, Bubbles fueled by “money” appear especially sustainable, while a prolonged inflation of “money” virtually ensures a destabilizing crisis of confidence. Governments throughout history have abused money. Contemporary central bankers took it to a whole new level.

Continue reading Bubbles, Money and the VIX

Low QQQ Volume A Sign of a Top

By Tom McClellan

QQQ Volume 10MA
February 10, 2017

When investors get complacent, they do certain things.  They show up as bullish in the various surveys.  They bid tiny premiums on options, driving down the VIX.  They put all of their cash to work, letting money market fund levels get down really low.  And they trade tiny volumes on QQQ.

This week’s chart looks at a 10-day simple moving average in the daily trading volume of QQQ, the largest of the ETFs which tracks the Nasdaq 100 Index.  Low readings like this are associated with investor complacency, and thus with important price tops.

Volume has been trending lower in recent months, so the static thresholds of “high” and “low” employed in the chart may not be ideal.  But there is no question that this is a low reading.

One problem with this analysis technique is that holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas naturally produce low trading volume, which is not a function of how investors are feeling.  So one needs to employ at least a mental filter when examining QQQ volume around those days.

Holiday effects are not an issue at the moment.  Instead, low VIX, low worry, and high complacency are producing low QQQ volume.  The one-day reading on Feb. 6 was the lowest in the past year, if we except holidays.  Traders are clearly not very worried about volatility risk, correction risk, and strangely enough, political risk.  And if they cannot get any less worried, they can only get more worried.  When they do, they’ll likely react in a bad way, meaning prices going lower.

Moments of excitement in the stock market tend to produce high volume in QQQ, and also in other big ETFs like SPY.  So big high spikes in the QQQ Volume 10-day MA are good markers of important price bottoms for the stock market.  Someday in the future, we’ll get the chance to make such an interpretation as prices drop into an important bottom.  But the interpretation task for the moment is to observe that volume numbers are low, and thus top-worthy.  This confirms the expectations of an early February top, as explained in our Daily Edition and our twice-monthly McClellan Market Report.

Subscribe to Tom McClellan’s free weekly Chart In Focus email.

Related Charts

Jul 02, 2015

QQQ Volume Spikes on Selloff
May 22, 2014

ETF Volume is Different
Oct 20, 2016

The Post-Election Stock Market

Chart In Focus Archive

Elliott Wave Analysis: Where the Rubber Meets the Road

By Elliott Wave International

See why rubber prices bounced from an 11-year low to a 4-year high

There are nearly 50 commodity markets traded all over the world at any given time. That’s one for every state in the United States.

So, how is an investor or trader supposed to know which of these markets to follow and which ones to dismiss?

Well, for our long-time Commodity Junctures editor Jeffrey Kennedy, the answer is simple: Don’t wait for an Elliott wave pattern to develop on a market’s price chart. But rather, choose price charts that already present discernible Elliott wave patterns.

Jeffery will be the first to admit — sometimes, they show up in the most unlikely of places.

Back in November of 2016, Jeffrey (at a Commodity Junctures subscriber’s behest) found an opportunity on the price charts of a market he never included before in his 20-plus years as EWI’s senior commodity analyst –rubber.

That opportunity took the shape of one of the most exciting Elliott wave patterns: the ending diagonal. It’s a five-wave pattern labeled 1-5 that can only form in the final position of a wave sequence — i.e., wave 5 of an impulse, or wave C of a correction.

Most importantly, when this pattern ends, it’s followed by a swift and powerful reversal that retraces the entire length of the diagonal. Here’s its idealized diagram, in bull and bear markets:

In his November 2016 Monthly Commodity Junctures video episode on rubber, Jeffrey made the case for a post-diagonal thrust UP for the long-suffering rubber market:

“We’ll be discussing a market that I’ve actually never spoken about before. I was surprised to find very high quality wave patterns on the charts. This is how we can label the weekly price chart of rubber.

“An ending diagonal in the wave c position. Subsequent price action has been quite impulsive to the upside. Now, as you know, whenever an ending diagonal terminates, it tends to resolve quite swiftly and quite sharply back to beyond the origin of the pattern, and that comes into play about 285.5.

Continue reading Elliott Wave Analysis: Where the Rubber Meets the Road

Pension Fund Perils…

By Michael Ashton

Pension Fund Perils: Why Conventional Pairing of LDI with De-risking Glide Paths Produces Inferior Outcomes

Milla Krasnopolsky, CFA and Michael Ashton, CFA[1]

Combined use of traditional Liability Driven Investment (LDI) and funded status responsive de-risking strategies should be decoupled or rebuilt. Embedded inconsistencies in the treatment of risks in these two elements of what has become a popular pension strategy cause irreconcilable conflicts in their execution and imperils the positive pension fund outcome.

This article provides a critique of the combined LDI / De-risking Glide Path strategy as currently implemented by many pension plan managers and also provides an example of an alternative solution that better improves pension plan outcomes.

deriskingboxApproaches to pension risk management have passed though many phases over the past 40+ years.  Higher rate environments of the 1980s made liability immunization programs with treasuries very attractive, but traditional 60/40 or balanced fund strategies persisted as the dominant strategy for pensions.  As rates began their secular decline, funding levels continued to deteriorate and while liability-driven investing became popular again in the beginning of the new millennium, significant levels of underfunding prevented most pensions from fully matching their assets and liabilities.  A variety of partial risk mitigation solutions began to emerge as the lower rate environment of the past 20 years forced institutional investors to be exposed to higher levels of market risk.  New asset classes were introduced into pension plan portfolios in order to achieve higher returns and higher levels of diversification.  Adverse market volatility was further reduced through creative solutions that incorporated smart beta and risk allocation strategies that delivered lower-volatility at similar levels of long term return.  Other strategies sold liquidity back to the market in order to generate additional return in a low yielding environment.  Some risk-based approaches also introduced interest rate derivative overlay programs to extend interest rate duration of total assets along with equity risk reduction programs to reduce equity market risk.  Finally, de-risking glide paths – and ultimately liability risk transfer to insurance companies – became in vogue as companies continued to struggle with their asset-liability risk and found it expedient to pay insurance companies to assume the problem for them.

Continue reading Pension Fund Perils…