Archive for October, 2006

Structure for Holding Offshore Investments

Thursday, October 5th, 2006

The word ’structure’ reminds me of my school English teacher. I cannot recall his last name but it was alleged that the initials for his given names ‘J T’ stood for John Thomas and he was therefore saddled with the knickname of Dobber.

Anyway, I digress. Structure, for our purposes right here and now refer to the sometimes complex, often expensive and generally unnecessary habit of placing ones offshore investments in a “wrapper” in the guise of simplifying admin.

There are genuine reasons why one might want to use such an arrangement and I myself use a combination of an offshore company linked to the nominee service  of an FSA regulated stock broker in London through whom I can buy my offshore funds. My reason for doing this is succession planning; making the passing of whatever assets I leave easier to get at for those that I want to leave them to. Others have different reasons such as asset protection, tax mitigation, simplification of one’s affairs etc. Mine is not to reason why but I do think that mine is to reason how and who is most cost effective.

Generally;

1. If you are a short term investor and you are just trying to build some capital short term, then you probably do not need any sort of offshore structure at all.

2. If you invest in joint names with someone you trust you almost certainly do not need any sort of offshore structure at all.

Buying direct, using this web site and owning in your own name is the cheapest way to do it, of that there is no doubt

The one big product that everyone knocks is the offshore insurance company portfolio bond and yes, it is horribly expensive but this is really only because the people that sell it demand it to be so. Realistically most offshore insurance companies actually charge only 1.5% in establishment charges plus GBP95 per quarter in administration charges and then GBP21 per transaction. That is not expensive but that is on a NIL commission basis. Typically, an IFA will add 7% to that in commissions.

I take 1.25% on these so you are still only paying 2.75% in establishment. Furthermore, if you plan to live in the UK at any point, no matter what your nationality there are tax advantages.

Most nominee services charge a transaction fee, custodian fee, annual management, dormant account etc., etc.,etc. The one I use charges only a transaction fee. That make life easier and you can sit in cash for as long as you want. No charge for that.

Many people get away with just a BVI Company set up which costs as little as US$1,035 to set up and then US$600 per year. Downside is the mountain of due diligence you have to provide when buying funds which is why I use the nominee service as then you only do the DD once.

There are a coiple of new variations on the theme that are allegedly cheaper alternatives to the traditional portfolio bond and supposedly a lot cheaper AND, most importantly with online dealing. Hmmmm. I decided to take a look.

Actually, there is no on-line dealing just something made to look remarkably like it but the system still depends on your financial advisor manually placing the deal. There are on-line valuations, for whatever that is worth.

From a charges point of view they are certainly marketed to look cheaper but are they really? What I did was ignore discounts at the fund manager level because we can all get those, and I also compared each product on a NIL initial commission basis to level the playing field. What did I get?

I can’t name names but let’s call them new boy number one and new boy number two, BVI company, nominee account, offshore trust company and PPB for reference. I also assumed that the entire portfolio is reinvested once a year which is excessive but you have to assume something.

On an investment of GBP20,000, Nominee account is cheapest and PPB is most expensive. The range is from GBP150 to GBP932 year one and from GBP150 to GBP632 annually thereafter. Newboys number 1 and 2 come in 4th and 5th close behind the PPB.

Take the investmnent up to only GBP50,000 and PPB jumps up above both the new boys and the cheapest is still Nominee. The range is from GBP375 to GBP1,750 year one and from GBP375 to GBP950 annually thereafter. Interestingly though the annual figures change the order with newboys 1&2 changing places in expensiveness stakes.

I did these numbers again for 100,000, 200,000 and 1 million in Sterling and USD. The upshot is that BVI takes over as cheap charlie from 100k invested but nominee stays at number 2 throughout. On the annual fees PPB is second only to BVI.

It is no coincidence that the combination of BVI and nominee service charging only a transaction fee per deal is what I use to hold offshore funds. It is the cheapest way to do it!

The real killer is not actually the year one establishment costs even though at the top end of my range, newboys 1 and 2 were DOUBLE the next most expensive.

It is the annual fees that are going to kill you. BVI company is going to cost you USD600 per year. In return for internet valuations and simplified admin, newboys 1 and 2 are taking about 35 times the cost of a PPB on 1 million in annual charges.

 

 

Offshore Investing - Commodity Funds

Sunday, October 1st, 2006

Another good piece on the merits of allocating to Commodities – and why an actively managed approach to Commodities investments makes sense.
 Mark
 
 

 

So commodities are worth their weight in gold

By John Authers

Published: September 23 2006 03:00 | Last updated: September 23 2006 03:00

This decade’s surge in commodity prices - from precious and base metals to energy - has helped to revolutionise the way we can invest in them. Hedge funds discovered them as a new hunting ground just as their traditional livelihoods were threatened by the bear market in stocks and the decline in volatility.

Institutions have found their way into commodities over the past year. The exchanges that trade them have suddenly turned into the hottest stocks out there.

A welter of academic work has come to the conclusion that commodities belong as a core asset class for fund managers, with stocks, bonds, and cash.

And if you, the retail investor, want to try it yourself, that too is possible. The last year has seen a plethora of launches of exchange-traded funds and notes in the US, enabling you to buy and sell futures based on a commodity index, or even the commodity itself, over an exchange. Next week will see the concept come to the UK, in style. ETF Securities will launch 29 securities it calls Exchange-Traded Commodities (ETCs) on the London Stock Exchange. These will track indexes drawn up by Dow Jones and AIG Financial Products, and will allow very narrow bets.

It will be possible to buy ETCs in virtually any commodity from aluminium to zinc. If you want to run your own managed futures hedge fund on your laptop, it looks as though now you can at least try.

The question is: should you want to? And is the concerted attempt to turn copper and wheat and the rest into an investable asset class anything more than a reaction to their bull run of recent years? It is hard not to believe that the investment management industry has been guilty of chasing performance, and launched into commodities because they seem to be the flavour of the month (perhaps literally, in the case of coffee or cocoa).

Cynics get extra ammunition from the timing: all this interest has come just as the long bull market in commodities seems to be breaking. This week brought the first signature commodities “bust”, as the Amaranth hedge fund announced that it had lost two-thirds of its $9bn in capital in barely more than a week, thanks to disastrously misplaced bets on the natural gas market.

Crude oil, which earlier this year was supposed to be heading north of $100 a barrel, slipped below $60 in London, 24 per cent below its high of July, as worries about the Middle East and US hurricanes subsided.

Gold and other precious metals are also way off their highs. The Goldman Sachs Commodities Index, the most commonly followed benchmark of the sector, has fallen 15 per cent over the past 12 months, while the DJ-AIG Commodities index is up only 0.1 per cent. In May, they boasted 12-month returns of 22 and 27 per cent respectively.

So has the bubble burst? Or is there reason to stay interested in commodities? The balance of the academic research, taking the long view, suggest that there is.

Finance professors Gary Gorton of the Wharton School and Geert Rouwenhorst of the Yale School of Management, in what is already a seminal paper, found that in the long run commodities have similar characteristics to stock, with about the same returns and volatility. From 1959 to 2004, buying and holding a basket of commodity futures delivered average annual returns of 11.5 per cent - identical to stocks. The standard deviation - the basic unit of volatility, where all but 5 per cent of the time returns will be within two standard deviations of the average - was lower for commodities at 12.1 per cent, compared with 14.8 per cent for stocks.

Even more appealingly for risk managers, their returns are not correlated to equities, so they should pick up the performance baton when equities are lagging.

A subsequent study by Ibbotson Associates for Pimco found that for any given level of risk, adding commodity futures to a portfolio of stocks, bonds and cash would increase expected returns: golden words for an asset manager.

What about timing? Many commodities obey cycles, gaining when demand outstrips supply, then slipping once supply has been over-expanded. Was the bull market secular, or merely cyclical?

The one word answer from commodity bulls is: China. Its voracious demand has raised prices for many commodities, particularly base metals. If you feel confident that Chinese growth will continue unabated (a big if), the bulls may have longer to run.

However, the research has already spawned academic dissent. Harry Kat, finance professor at the City University’s Cass business school in London, attacks the arguments about China, and adds that energy contracts are much riskier than other commodities.

He concedes that the investment case for commodities as a diversifier is “remarkably robust”, but that their expected return is critical to a decision on whether to buy them now.

“As long as the global economy does not suddenly dip,” he says, supply will take time to catch up with the demand from manufacturers. Thus the most uncertain factor is the demand from investors themselves.

“If the current commodity investment boom persists,” he concludes, “it is not unlikely that prices will remain high or rise even further, thereby leaving the case for commodities intact.”

The proof of the world economy will unwind over the next few months. And given this week’s shocks, the proof of investors’ demand will become clear very soon. Longer term, all investors should pay more attention to commodities than they once did.

This is a significant outperformance over the GSCI -7.26% (August) -0.43% (YTD) and DJAIG -4.02% (August) -0.16% (YTD).