
Outlook 2024
What’s in store for investors in 2024? Despite lingering uncertainty and volatility, find out why it’s not all doom and gloom.
Private markets
13 November 2023
While central banks are still combating the post-pandemic inflation wave, investors are wondering how to position their portfolios amid elevated economic and geopolitical uncertainty. Can private markets offer a ray of hope, and help investors navigate the turbulent tides by making their portfolios more robust?
By Nikola Vasiljevic, Ph.D., Head of Quantitative Strategy, Zurich, Switzerland; Lukas Gehrig, Quantitative Strategist, Zurich, Switzerland
Please note: This article is more technical in nature than our typical articles, and may require some background knowledge and experience in investing to understand the themes that we explore below. All data referenced in this article is sourced from Bloomberg unless otherwise stated, and is accurate at the time of publishing.
Persistent macroeconomic volatility remains one of the main worries, and one of the key performance drivers for all asset classes. As a result, investors are increasingly concerned about the implications of a more fragmented, precarious world.
Knowing this and acknowledging investors’ aversion to risk and ambiguity, we turn our attention to two burning questions that we aim to address in this article:
We consider six traditional, liquid asset classes: cash, developed government bonds, developed investment grade bonds, global high yield bonds, developed equities and commodities. These asset classes are the essential building blocks of any multi-asset class portfolio. They cover a broad range of investment opportunities and allow investors to tap into different sources of return in the form of income and/or capital gain.
In addition to these “core” asset classes, we consider illiquid alternatives such as private markets (i.e., private debt, private equity and private real estate) and hedge funds. We note that – due to the lack of liquidity – these “satellite” asset classes are less transparent than public market investments. Therefore, any estimation procedure is subject to uncertainty and should not be taken at face value.
We calculated the annualised nominal quarterly performance for liquid and illiquid investments in different monetary policy regimes between Q3 2004 and Q2 2023. This sample period is determined by balancing data availability and the macroeconomic cycle dynamics. We considered three US monetary policy regimes:
In the chart, the performance of each asset class in different regimes is represented by vertical bars.
Annualised average quarterly performance of selected liquid and illiquid asset classes over the whole period and in different US monetary policy regimes from Q3 2004 to Q2 2023
Sources: Bloomberg, Preqin, Barclays Private Bank. Data accessed in October 2023, last observation point June 2023
Our first finding is that – over the last two decades – only cash and liquid high-quality bonds have posted positive average returns during monetary easing episodes (which typically coincide with recessions). Historically, developed government bonds have significantly outperformed other asset classes in the “falling rates” regime, validating their “risk-off” or “safe-haven” status.
As one might expect, the riskier assets such as equities and credit performed the worst during “risk off” episodes. Commodities and illiquid assets have also lagged, albeit to a lesser extent on average. Among the latter, the least negatively affected asset classes were private equity and private debt.
A very different outcome is observed during periods of monetary tightening. In this scenario, liquid risk-on assets, hedge funds, and private markets in particular, have exhibited relatively strong performance.
Real assets such as commodities and private real estate have posted their highest average returns in this monetary regime. As interest rates tend to rise in sync with inflation, real assets are often included in a well-diversified portfolio as inflation hedges.
On the other hand, liquid high-quality bonds lagged significantly in this monetary policy regime.
When monetary policy is accommodative most asset classes tend to do well. This regime is typically characterised by stable growth and inflation that is either in line with, or slightly below, the central bank’s target. Equities, credit, hedge funds and private markets particularly shine in such an environment.
Additionally, we calculated the annualised average return over the full sample (represented by black circles in the chart).
Only cash and developed government bonds exhibited positive average performance in all three monetary policy regimes. However, safety and below-market risk come as the cost of below-market returns. Over the full sample, cash is actually the worst performing asset class. Moreover, the average real cash rate (i.e., adjusted for inflation) was -0.8%. This means that staying on the sideline would have significantly eroded wealth over the past two decades.
The best performing asset classes were public and private equities. Private debt (private equity) delivered an illiquidity premium over global high yield bonds (developed equities) of 2.4% (3.0%) per annum.
However, it is important to highlight that private market investments tend to be longer-term. Therefore, market and funding liquidity risk management is an additional element that needs to be considered when investing in private assets. Indeed, investors who were willing and able to accept longer lock-up periods benefited the most from 2004 to 2023.
Our analysis above indicates that each asset class has a specific role in a portfolio, depending on its sensitivity to inflation and growth.
In particular, the past two decades show that there are pockets of value within private markets irrespective of the monetary policy regime. As such, private markets appear to be a particularly valuable building block in a multi-asset class portfolio.
Although the evidence of strong private markets performance in the accommodative and contractionary regime is convincing, one could question the role of private markets during expansionary monetary policy episodes.
In reality, as private markets are genuine long-term investments, economic cycles cannot be avoided. This seems to be the price that investors must accept to harvest the illiquidity premium.
To gain further insights into the investment dynamics in private markets, it is necessary to consider the performance of different private markets over time and across a sufficiently large set of private market funds.
To this end, we explored the performance of different funds within four important private market segments: buyouts, venture capital, private debt and private real estate (see the chart). We calculated the median net internal rate of return (IRR) and the performance dispersion across funds (as the interquartile range) for vintages 2004-20211.
The median net IRR varied substantially over time; however, it was positive for almost all vintage years across the four asset classes. Averaged over the considered vintage years, the median net IRR is 8-15%, depending on the private market segment.
The net IRR dispersion also exhibited some variation over time, typically being higher during crisis periods. In other words, performance in any monetary policy regime can look significantly different from the numbers presented above in this article, depending on the fund selection. Choosing the right private markets segment and selecting the above-average funds (e.g., in the first or second quartile) is essential for investment success (albeit nothing is ever guaranteed).
The median net IRR shows the overall trend, whereas the interquartile range provides a robust statistical measure of the cross-sectional performance dispersion for selected private markets from 2004 until 2021. The interquartile range is a robust statistic that captures the middle part of the return distribution (i.e., the range between the 25th and 75th percentile), measured over more than 100 funds.
Sources: Bloomberg, Barclays Private Bank. Data accessed in October 2023, last reported vintage year 2021
The final element in our analysis is to break down private debt, private equity and private real assets into sub-asset classes. The private markets universe offers a very wide set of opportunities, and putting each asset class under the microscope can bring valuable insights.
We calculated the average annualised return, autocorrelation-adjusted annualised volatility2 and worst historical loss for 18 sub-asset classes split between the three aforementioned categories. In contrast to the previous section – where we worked with funds data – here we consider Preqin’s quarterly benchmark indices and measure performance as total return.
Our analysis indicates that private debt strategies have had the most stable return and lowest volatility (see the left panel in the chart). However, they also suffered the largest drawdowns in 2008 (albeit they were quick to recover thereafter). This example also illustrates that investors should think carefully about the risk measure they use when analysing investment opportunities.
Private equity strategies span a wide range of risks and returns, and therefore offer most selection opportunities. A similar conclusion holds true for private real assets. This is not surprising since these two broad asset classes have by far the most assets under management of any private markets.
The average annualised total return versus autocorrelation-adjusted annualised volatility (worst historical loss) for selected private market strategies from Q3 2004 until Q2 2023 are presented in the left (right) panel. The span of risk-return trade-offs for various private equity, private debt and private real assets strategies is captured by the shaded cyan, purple and teal areas, respectively.
Sources: Bloomberg, Preqin, Barclays Private Bank. Data accessed in October 2023, last observation point June 2023
Uncertainty is unsettling and can keep investors away from markets for too long. However, considering potential macro scenarios and taking measured risk often benefits investors in the form of higher long-term returns.
Private markets represent the ultimate frontier (depending on an investor’s personal circumstances) when it comes to long-term investing. To achieve a desired stable level of strategic asset allocation in private markets, investors need to commit capital every year. In other words, they need to diversify not only across different (sub-) asset classes, but also across vintages.
Moreover, our historical analysis of the performance dispersion among funds indicates that tactical views can be addressed by a diligent and skilful fund selection.
By combining all these elements, investors could harvest the illiquidity premium over the long term, and open the door to additional returns, without necessarily having to worry too much about the macroeconomic environment.
What’s in store for investors in 2024? Despite lingering uncertainty and volatility, find out why it’s not all doom and gloom.
This communication is general in nature and provided for information/educational purposes only. It does not take into account any specific investment objectives, the financial situation or particular needs of any particular person. It not intended for distribution, publication, or use in any jurisdiction where such distribution, publication, or use would be unlawful, nor is it aimed at any person or entity to whom it would be unlawful for them to access.
This communication has been prepared by Barclays Private Bank (Barclays) and references to Barclays includes any entity within the Barclays group of companies.
This communication:
(i) is not research nor a product of the Barclays Research department. Any views expressed in these materials may differ from those of the Barclays Research department. All opinions and estimates are given as of the date of the materials and are subject to change. Barclays is not obliged to inform recipients of these materials of any change to such opinions or estimates;
(ii) is not an offer, an invitation or a recommendation to enter into any product or service and does not constitute a solicitation to buy or sell securities, investment advice or a personal recommendation;
(iii) is confidential and no part may be reproduced, distributed or transmitted without the prior written permission of Barclays; and
(iv) has not been reviewed or approved by any regulatory authority.
Any past or simulated past performance including back-testing, modelling or scenario analysis, or future projections contained in this communication is no indication as to future performance. No representation is made as to the accuracy of the assumptions made in this communication, or completeness of, any modelling, scenario analysis or back-testing. The value of any investment may also fluctuate as a result of market changes.
Where information in this communication has been obtained from third party sources, we believe those sources to be reliable but we do not guarantee the information’s accuracy and you should note that it may be incomplete or condensed.
Neither Barclays nor any of its directors, officers, employees, representatives or agents, accepts any liability whatsoever for any direct, indirect or consequential losses (in contract, tort or otherwise) arising from the use of this communication or its contents or reliance on the information contained herein, except to the extent this would be prohibited by law or regulation.
More recent vintages are not available due to the lack of data since the vast majority of funds launched this year, and the previous year, have not yet started to return capital. Additionally, private equity and private real estate funds typically require capital deployment over the period of 4-5 years before distributions become significant. These private market mechanics are reflected in the decreasing net IRR from 2018 to 2021 vintage. We note that this effect is not observed for private debt due to shorter deployment phase on average.Return to reference
The autocorrelation-adjusted volatility accounts for the fact that private assets data is not mark-to-market, but rather based on appraisals and therefore exhibits a high degree of autocorrelation. We correct for the often-overlooked issue of underestimation of volatility. If returns are not independently distributed – which is indeed the case with private markets – then temporal aggregation of volatility does not follow the well-known “square-root-of-time” scaling. In the presence of positive autocorrelation, annualised volatility calculated using this simple scaling is a downward biased estimator.Return to reference