
Chief Investment Officer's
analysis continued
Meanwhile, the rapid downward spiral in US-
China political and trade relations continued.
President Biden put another nail in the coffin
with a ban on investment in a blacklist of
Chinese companies with ties to China’s military;
US investors were given one year to divest any
holdings. The legislation was a continuation
of an initiative started by President Trump,
but Biden took it a step further, adding more
companies to the list and strengthening it
against legal challenges. International investors
and global corporates were faced with a
dilemma: Chinese markets are attractive because
the economic growth expectations are huge.
But to participate you have to bow-down to the
powers in Beijing, while running the gauntlet of
western public opinion.
Adding to these issues, the pandemic continued
to cause serious problems for China’s economy
due to the government’s zero-tolerance
approach to managing Covid risk. Although the
onset of the Omicron variant initially panicked
markets all over the world, causing the worst
daily decline in more than a year, it took only
a month for developed world stock markets to
shrug it off. This largely reflected the response
of western consumers, whose behaviour
(influenced by vaccination programmes)
has been progressively less affected by each
wave of the virus. China’s zero-Covid policy,
on the other hand, which was so effective at
containing the first wave of the pandemic, has
led to a lack of acquired immunity. Moreover,
Sinovac, the Chinese Covid vaccine, was found
to be relatively ineffective against Omicron – a
result that increases the risk of any given variant
causing a healthcare crisis. This makes it very
unlikely that China will be able to alter its zero-
tolerance approach to Covid even if it wanted
to, and increases the likelihood of Chinese
factory closures, further global supply chain
blockages and persistent inflation.
The Chinese off-shore stock market, and its
technology sector in particular, reflected this
sequence of disasters. The Hang Seng China
Enterprises Index, which measures the prices of
Chinese companies listed in Hong Kong, fell by
32% during our financial year, and subsequently
fell another 10% on top of that. The Nasdaq
Golden Dragon Index, an index of Chinese
companies listed in the US, fell 70% from peak-
to-trough. Even the on-shore domestic equity
markets, which were reported to have benefited
from government support, traded below the
levels reached in 2015.
Following our year-end, the pendulum swung
back in favour of investors, with a series of
supportive statements from the authorities,
including from President Xi himself. First among
them, the top Chinese financial regulator
committed to stability in capital markets,
supporting overseas stock listings, resolving risks
in the property market and to completing the
crackdown on the technology sector “as soon as
possible.” The Nasdaq Golden Dragon Index of
Chinese companies listed in America promptly
rallied by a third. At one point, the Hang Seng
China Enterprises Index, comprising Chinese
companies listed in Hong Kong, rallied by 20%
in two days. Next, the central bank intervened
to weaken the Chinese yuan, and the Chinese
government distanced itself from the conflict in
Ukraine. Finally, President Xi offered the prospect
of a change in the country’s longstanding zero-
Covid policy by committing to reduce Covid’s
economic impact. Optimists described this as
akin to Draghi’s “we will do whatever it takes”
moment during the eurozone crisis. While the
pace of good news-flow has slowed somewhat
since then, such public statements are usually
perceived by Chinese investors as a state-
sanctioned buy-signal.
How did we do?
The year started with our clients’ portfolios
enjoying some of the best returns in years,
with UK shares having been caught up in the
all-encompassing global stock market rally.
The further down the size-scale you went, the
better it got: the FTSE 100 index had rallied but
was outshone by small and mid-sized British
companies, where our portfolios are typically
overweight compared with relevant benchmarks.
The FTSE 250, which tracks the performance
of small and mid-sized British companies,
reached new all-time highs early in our financial
year and the FTSE AIM, which tracks the smallest
UK listed companies, rose to 35% above its
pre-pandemic level.
The pound sterling was the missing piece,
however, as acrimonious post-Brexit dealings
with the EU damaged confidence in the
prospects for what is still the UK’s single
biggest trading relationship. Threats by the
British government to walk away from its treaty
obligations with the EU set a worrying precedent
and, at the very least, are hardly likely to
encourage investment from the EU. Meanwhile
the EU was aggressively encouraging providers
of financial services – one of the UK’s biggest
exports – to relocate within the single market.
As the year went on, and the speculative fervour
supporting small-cap stocks wore off, the FTSE
100’s bias towards energy, mining and banking
stocks meant it actually benefited from the surge
in inflation, while most other global stock market
indices slipped. Our portfolios benefited from an
inherent overweight to UK large-cap exposure and
to old-economy dividend-payers. The decision
by European countries, notably Germany, to
increase military expenditure predictably sent
defence-related stocks soaring. This was a boon
to a host of British companies. For the first time
in nearly two decades, investors seeking income
outperformed those seeking growth. It’s tempting
to say that the long-running pre-eminence of
growth stocks over value stocks has finally come
to an end, but there have been many false dawns
of this kind in the past.
Clients seeking growth have been impacted by the
crash in the valuations of growth stocks. However,
the reversal in the market’s attitude to growth
stocks has been indiscriminate, punishing some
companies whose prospects for revenues and
profits remain undimmed by inflationary trends.
The ability of a company to prosper despite
inflation, or even during a recession, depends
on the strength of its brand, products and
business model. It’s extremely unlikely that good
companies become bad companies overnight,
but that is what the market is pricing. Good
companies are now available on very attractive
valuations, and we are inclined to see this as an
opportunity. Time will tell whether we are correct,
but, for now, we do not believe that the current
market swing towards value will endure long
enough to justify wholesale changes to portfolios.
We remain long term investors and believe the
quality of the underlying investments will outlast
this uncertainty.
Where now for ESG?
Progress towards a parallel, Environmental,
Social and Governance (“ESG”) conscious world
for investors is accelerating. Even central banks
are getting in on the act. During our financial
year, the European Central Bank set out plans
to involve climate change considerations in its
analysis of the economy and financial markets,
the Bank of Japan published a climate change
strategy, in which it will purchase foreign
currency-denominated green bonds issued by
governments and other foreign institutions.
Meanwhile, the UK became the first country
to introduce a green savings product from a
sovereign issuer.
Should investors be weighting portfolios towards
ESG-friendly investments? With extreme
weather events affecting the harvests of coffee,
corn, wheat and sugar this year, sending their
commodity-market prices soaring, and with
wildfires and other extreme weather-events
becoming seemingly commonplace, it’s natural
to want to respond.
Strategic report
Walker Crips Group plc - Annual Report and Accounts 202214