Emerging markets (EM) have always been defined by change: political, economic, and structural. But today’s environment demands a new and different playbook. Investors who approach EM the same way they always have may find themselves surprised not only by where returns are coming from, but also by why markets aren’t behaving as expected. Beneath the surface, a complex mix of geopolitics, structural shifts and narrow market leadership is shaping outcomes across countries and asset classes.

Why markets are not behaving as expected

For decades, EM equities have broadly underperformed developed markets. That long period of disappointment has shaped investor expectations, often leading to skepticism even when conditions begin to improve. However, recent performance has challenged that narrative. Over the past 12 to 18 months, EM equities have delivered strong returns, with a marked acceleration year-to-date.

At first glance, this rebound might suggest a broad-based recovery. However, the drivers have been highly concentrated and somewhat unusual. Much of the recent performance has been driven by earnings growth rather than valuation expansion. In fact, some EM markets are trading at lower valuation multiples than at the start of the year, despite strong returns. This runs against the typical expectation that markets should rally through multiple expansion.

The explanation lies in the nature of the rally itself. It has been extremely narrow, dominated by a small group of companies – particularly in North Asia – that have benefited from the global build-out of artificial intelligence (AI). Countries like South Korea and Taiwan, home to leading semiconductor manufacturers, have seen earnings surge dramatically. These companies are key players in enabling the AI boom.

When those markets are excluded from the data, the broader EM performance looks far more subdued. This difference highlights an important point: headline index returns can mask significant dispersion beneath the surface.

A persistent geopolitical cycle

Geopolitics has always been a defining feature of EM investing, but the current cycle is particularly active and complex. Unlike developed markets, where political cycles can be predictable and episodic, emerging markets present a continuous stream of events.

Recent developments illustrate this dynamic. Colombia’s first-round elections are part of an ongoing wave of political transitions across Latin America. In Venezuela, political change and potential normalization with international markets are creating new investment scenarios. At the same time, global conflicts – between Ukraine and Russia and the tensions involving Iran and the Strait of Hormuz – are influencing both sentiment and fundamentals.

Geopolitical events rarely impact markets in isolation. Instead, they create cascading effects. Investors benefit from increasing focus on second-order consequences; how conflicts influence commodity flows, supply chains and corporate earnings across regions.

Second derivative impacts and hidden transmission channels

A key takeaway from current EM dynamics is that the most significant opportunities often arise from second derivative effects and not the immediate headline impact of an event.

An example is the Iran conflict. The first-order effect is higher oil prices. But the more interesting implications lie in how those price changes ripple through economies. Oil-importing countries face rising energy costs, which can drive inflation to higher levels and compress corporate margins. Companies already under competitive pressure may see their earnings deteriorate further.

At the same time, structural shifts can overturn historical assumptions. Argentina, traditionally vulnerable to rising energy prices, has transitioned from an energy importer to an energy exporter. As a result, higher oil prices can now improve its trade balance, which is a meaningful departure from past cycles and a clear example of how country dynamics can surprise investors.

These second-order effects extend beyond energy. Tourism-dependent economies, for instance, may face indirect pressure from rising jet fuel costs or supply disruptions. Even the possibility of flight cancellations due to fuel shortages can undermine demand, highlighting how interconnected the system has become.

Commodities, inventories and the supply chain

The commodity complex is another area where expectations are shifting. The global AI build-out, while often discussed in terms of software and data, has very real physical requirements. Data centres require vast amounts of energy and infrastructure, and the manufacturing of semiconductors depends heavily on materials such as copper.

Emerging markets play a critical role in supplying these inputs. Countries such as Brazil, South Africa and Zambia are key sources of the commodities needed to support this capital expenditure cycle. As a result, demand for these materials is rising.

At the same time, global inventories have been depleted, in part due to geopolitical disruptions. As supply chains normalize, there is likely to be increased demand for inventory rebuilding. The combination of structural demand growth and low inventories creates favourable conditions for commodity producers.

Importantly, this is not just a cyclical story. The scale of investment associated with AI and infrastructure suggests a sustained demand environment, which could support stronger earnings and balance sheets for commodity-focused companies.

Risks beneath the surface

Despite the positive momentum, risks remain significant. Some of these are directly linked to the very themes driving the rally.

In the AI ecosystem, bottlenecks are emerging. Constraints in memory production, as well as limitations in specialized equipment, are central to current profitability levels. Power shortages pose another risk, particularly as energy demand rises sharply with data centre expansion.

Costs are also rising, and there is evidence that these are being passed on to end users. This raises questions about the sustainability of demand and whether there could be periods of “indigestion” as the market adjusts.

Perhaps the most important risk, however, is political. The rapid concentration of economic gains within a narrow set of companies and sectors may lead to backlash. As with previous industrial revolutions, the benefits are not evenly distributed. This could drive policy responses that alter the competitive landscape over time.

A market defined by dispersion – and surprises

The defining feature of today’s EM landscape is dispersion. Returns are not uniform across countries, sectors or even within asset classes. Instead, a relatively small number of winners are driving index-level outcomes, while many markets lag.

At the same time, structural changes are creating unexpected opportunities. Argentina’s transformation into an energy exporter, Malaysia’s progress in developing its trade zone with Singapore, and evolving dynamics in Venezuela all highlight how quickly country narratives can shift.

These developments reinforce the need for a more nuanced approach. Investors can no longer rely on broad regional allocations or historical relationships. Instead, success increasingly depends on identifying specific opportunities – and understanding the complex interactions that drive them.

Conclusion

Emerging markets today require a new playbook – one that reflects a world of narrow market leadership, active geopolitics, and powerful structural shifts. Markets are not behaving as expected because the drivers of returns have fundamentally changed.

Investors who adapt to this environment by focusing on dispersion, second-order effects, and evolving country dynamics may find significant opportunities. Those who rely on past assumptions, however, risk being left behind in a market that is anything but static.

The post You need a new playbook for emerging markets appeared first on Groupe financier Connor, Clark & Lunn ltée.

What is the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation?

The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) was introduced by the EU Commission as a core component of its 2018 Sustainable Finance Action Plan. As a key pillar of the EU Sustainable Finance agenda, SFDR aims to improve transparency, prevent greenwashing and help investors make informed sustainable investment decisions. To do so, the SFDR introduced mandatory disclosure requirements around environmental, social and governance (ESG) metrics at both the entity and the product levels.

An imperfect system

Since taking effect in March 2021, the SFDR has faced implementation challenges and criticism from market participants. In a 2023 consultation, the EU Commission found that 83% of respondents believed the regulation was being used as a product label and marketing tool, rather than solely as a disclosure framework. Respondents highlighted several concerns, including greenwashing risks linked to inconsistent product classifications, unclear definitions, limited ESG data availability and higher compliance costs. Together, these challenges have made implementation more difficult and limited SFDR’s ability to provide transparent, comparable information on sustainable investments.

This has prompted the EU Commission to consider revisions to the framework, culminating in the draft SFDR 2.0 proposal.

Is it the end of Article 8 and 9?

Not quite. Rather than eliminating these categories altogether, the proposal replaces the existing Article 6/8/9 disclosure framework with a revised product classification system that introduces clearer definitions, eligibility criteria and sustainability thresholds.

What might change?

Contribution requirement

• One of the most significant proposed changes is that at least 70% of a fund’s assets would need to satisfy the sustainability criteria of its chosen category, whereas the current SFDR provides managers with greater flexibility to determine the applicable threshold.

Transition (Article 7)

• This entirely new proposed category, Transition, is intended for funds investing in companies that are on a credible pathway towards improved sustainability performance.

ESG Basics (Article 8)

• To qualify under the category of ESG Basics, investments would generally need to satisfy at least one of several sustainability tests such as: outperforming the benchmark on ESG ratings or key sustainability indicators, demonstrating improved sustainability characteristics or meeting minimum sustainability standards. This marks a significant shift from the current framework, replacing the broad flexibility currently afforded to managers with more standardized qualification criteria.

Sustainable (Article 9)

• The Sustainable category remains the highest sustainability classification and is expected to be subject to the most stringent eligibility criteria. Although there is broad support for maintaining this as the highest sustainability category, negotiations continue around how sustainable investments should be defined in practice.

Mandatory exclusion criteria

• Under the current regulation, investing in an ESG or sustainable fund does not necessarily prevent exposure to controversial sectors, such as fossil fuels, tobacco or defence. Under the proposed SFDR 2.0 framework, mandatory exclusion criteria would apply across all sustainability categories, with the scope and stringency of exclusions increasing for higher-ambition categories.

These proposed changes would work to ensure that a fund could substantiate its sustainability claim with clearly measurable criteria, assuaging greenwashing risks.

Where do negotiations stand?

The legislative process is progressing rapidly. The EU Council published its negotiating position in June, while the European Parliament is expected to adopt its position shortly. Once both institutions have finalized their positions, trilogue negotiations with the European Commission will begin alignment on the final SFDR 2.0 framework.

Implementation timeline

The trilogue negotiations are expected to begin this autumn. While the timing remains uncertain, the legislative process is likely to extend through 2027, followed by a transition period before the new rules apply. Based on the current timetable, SFDR 2.0 is unlikely to become applicable before 2029, although the exact implementation date will depend on the pace of negotiations and the final transition period.

What does this mean for investors?

While the final rules are still being negotiated, the overall direction is becoming increasingly clear: sustainability claims will need to be supported by more objective and measurable criteria. An analysis by Clarity AI estimates that around 40% of current Article 9 funds would not meet the proposed exclusion rules of the highest sustainability category. 80% of Article 8 funds would experience the same challenge.

For asset managers and investors, these reforms could materially affect how sustainable funds are designed, marketed and compared, making the final outcome particularly relevant for investment strategies with ESG objectives. Funds currently designated as sustainable under Article 8 or 9 may need to be strategically revisited with portfolio or policy adjustments if the intent is to maintain the same designation levels.

At Global Alpha, we are following these developments closely. While SFDR 2.0 remains subject to negotiation, the direction is clear: sustainability claims will increasingly need to be supported by objective, measurable criteria. We will continue to monitor the legislative process and its implications for the sustainable investment landscape as the final framework takes shape.

The post Beyond the label: How SFDR 2.0 could redefine sustainable funds appeared first on Groupe financier Connor, Clark & Lunn ltée.

What is the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation?

The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) was introduced by the EU Commission as a core component of its 2018 Sustainable Finance Action Plan. As a key pillar of the EU Sustainable Finance agenda, SFDR aims to improve transparency, prevent greenwashing and help investors make informed sustainable investment decisions. To do so, the SFDR introduced mandatory disclosure requirements around environmental, social and governance (ESG) metrics at both the entity and the product levels.

An imperfect system

Since taking effect in March 2021, the SFDR has faced implementation challenges and criticism from market participants. In a 2023 consultation, the EU Commission found that 83% of respondents believed the regulation was being used as a product label and marketing tool, rather than solely as a disclosure framework. Respondents highlighted several concerns, including greenwashing risks linked to inconsistent product classifications, unclear definitions, limited ESG data availability and higher compliance costs. Together, these challenges have made implementation more difficult and limited SFDR’s ability to provide transparent, comparable information on sustainable investments.

This has prompted the EU Commission to consider revisions to the framework, culminating in the draft SFDR 2.0 proposal.

Is it the end of Article 8 and 9?

Not quite. Rather than eliminating these categories altogether, the proposal replaces the existing Article 6/8/9 disclosure framework with a revised product classification system that introduces clearer definitions, eligibility criteria and sustainability thresholds.

What might change?

Contribution requirement

• One of the most significant proposed changes is that at least 70% of a fund’s assets would need to satisfy the sustainability criteria of its chosen category, whereas the current SFDR provides managers with greater flexibility to determine the applicable threshold.

Transition (Article 7)

• This entirely new proposed category, Transition, is intended for funds investing in companies that are on a credible pathway towards improved sustainability performance.

ESG Basics (Article 8)

• To qualify under the category of ESG Basics, investments would generally need to satisfy at least one of several sustainability tests such as: outperforming the benchmark on ESG ratings or key sustainability indicators, demonstrating improved sustainability characteristics or meeting minimum sustainability standards. This marks a significant shift from the current framework, replacing the broad flexibility currently afforded to managers with more standardized qualification criteria.

Sustainable (Article 9)

• The Sustainable category remains the highest sustainability classification and is expected to be subject to the most stringent eligibility criteria. Although there is broad support for maintaining this as the highest sustainability category, negotiations continue around how sustainable investments should be defined in practice.

Mandatory exclusion criteria

• Under the current regulation, investing in an ESG or sustainable fund does not necessarily prevent exposure to controversial sectors, such as fossil fuels, tobacco or defence. Under the proposed SFDR 2.0 framework, mandatory exclusion criteria would apply across all sustainability categories, with the scope and stringency of exclusions increasing for higher-ambition categories.

These proposed changes would work to ensure that a fund could substantiate its sustainability claim with clearly measurable criteria, assuaging greenwashing risks.

Where do negotiations stand?

The legislative process is progressing rapidly. The EU Council published its negotiating position in June, while the European Parliament is expected to adopt its position shortly. Once both institutions have finalized their positions, trilogue negotiations with the European Commission will begin alignment on the final SFDR 2.0 framework.

Implementation timeline

The trilogue negotiations are expected to begin this autumn. While the timing remains uncertain, the legislative process is likely to extend through 2027, followed by a transition period before the new rules apply. Based on the current timetable, SFDR 2.0 is unlikely to become applicable before 2029, although the exact implementation date will depend on the pace of negotiations and the final transition period.

What does this mean for investors?

While the final rules are still being negotiated, the overall direction is becoming increasingly clear: sustainability claims will need to be supported by more objective and measurable criteria. An analysis by Clarity AI estimates that around 40% of current Article 9 funds would not meet the proposed exclusion rules of the highest sustainability category. 80% of Article 8 funds would experience the same challenge.

For asset managers and investors, these reforms could materially affect how sustainable funds are designed, marketed and compared, making the final outcome particularly relevant for investment strategies with ESG objectives. Funds currently designated as sustainable under Article 8 or 9 may need to be strategically revisited with portfolio or policy adjustments if the intent is to maintain the same designation levels.

At Global Alpha, we are following these developments closely. While SFDR 2.0 remains subject to negotiation, the direction is clear: sustainability claims will increasingly need to be supported by objective, measurable criteria. We will continue to monitor the legislative process and its implications for the sustainable investment landscape as the final framework takes shape.

The post Beyond the label: How SFDR 2.0 could redefine sustainable funds appeared first on Groupe financier Connor, Clark & Lunn ltée.

Banyan Capital Partners (“Banyan”) is pleased to announce the promotion of Simon Gélinas to the role of Managing Director and Head of Investments. In this capacity, Simon will assume day-to-day leadership of Banyan’s investment function, including pipeline management, investment selection and execution and asset management across the firm’s portfolio.

Jeff Wigle will continue to lead Banyan as Managing Partner with overall leadership accountability for the business including its investment philosophy, partner development, origination strategy and fund-level oversight. This promotion reflects Banyan’s ongoing commitment to building leadership depth and ensuring continued execution excellence as the firm grows.

“Simon has been an integral part of Banyan’s evolution and has earned the confidence of our team, our partners, and our portfolio companies. This promotion formalizes the leadership role he has already been playing, and positions Banyan well for our next chapter of growth.”
— Jeff Wigle, Managing Partner, Banyan Capital Partners

Simon joined Banyan in 2015 and has been involved in every facet of the firm’s investment activities. He brings more than two decades of experience across private equity, operational management and corporate finance. Prior to Banyan, Simon held senior roles at TRU Simulation & Training (a Textron Company) and its predecessor Mechtronix Inc. and was previously a Vice-President at Richardson Capital Limited. Simon holds a Bachelor of Commerce from McGill University, an MBA in Finance from the University of British Columbia, and is a CFA charterholder.

The post Banyan Capital Partners promotes Simon Gélinas to Managing Director and Head of Investments appeared first on Groupe financier Connor, Clark & Lunn ltée.

The conventional explanation is that monetary policy remains too loose. Inflation is back and the Bank of Japan is “behind the curve”. Investors are reluctant to buy bonds until a rate peak is in sight.

The “monetarist” view is opposite. Bonds are selling off because monetary conditions are restrictive. M3 and M1 grew at annualised rates of just 1.3% and 0.1% respectively in the six months to June – see chart 1.

Chart 1

Money growth is being crushed by massive and still-rising QT. The BoJ’s net disposal of JGBs amounted to 7.0% of GDP in the year to June. Plans to reduce monthly purchases further imply an increase to c.8.5% by mid-2027 – charts 2 and 3.

Chart 2

Chart 3

Consistent with the monetarist view, annual core CPI inflation is below 2% and falling even adjusting for government subsidies, despite upward pressure on import prices from the weak yen – chart 4.

Chart 4

Real yields may be reaching an attractive level but potential buyers are understandably reluctant to fight the BoJ “whale”. With JGBs off-limits, available money is being directed towards equities and foreign markets, contributing to the yen’s slide.

Stopping QT would probably trigger a surge in demand for JGBs, including by foreigners. Lower yields would ease concerns about fiscal sustainability. Capital inflows would strengthen the yen and add to the lift to money growth from ending the QT drag. Stronger money growth would support medium-term achievement of the inflation target without reliance on currency depreciation.

Continued QT on the planned scale, by contrast, promises sustained monetary weakness and an eventual return to deflation.

The post Japan’s QT disaster appeared first on Groupe financier Connor, Clark & Lunn ltée.

The conventional explanation is that monetary policy remains too loose. Inflation is back and the Bank of Japan is “behind the curve”. Investors are reluctant to buy bonds until a rate peak is in sight.

The “monetarist” view is opposite. Bonds are selling off because monetary conditions are restrictive. M3 and M1 grew at annualised rates of just 1.3% and 0.1% respectively in the six months to June – see chart 1.

Chart 1

Money growth is being crushed by massive and still-rising QT. The BoJ’s net disposal of JGBs amounted to 7.0% of GDP in the year to June. Plans to reduce monthly purchases further imply an increase to c.8.5% by mid-2027 – charts 2 and 3.

Chart 2

Chart 3

Consistent with the monetarist view, annual core CPI inflation is below 2% and falling even adjusting for government subsidies, despite upward pressure on import prices from the weak yen – chart 4.

Chart 4

Real yields may be reaching an attractive level but potential buyers are understandably reluctant to fight the BoJ “whale”. With JGBs off-limits, available money is being directed towards equities and foreign markets, contributing to the yen’s slide.

Stopping QT would probably trigger a surge in demand for JGBs, including by foreigners. Lower yields would ease concerns about fiscal sustainability. Capital inflows would strengthen the yen and add to the lift to money growth from ending the QT drag. Stronger money growth would support medium-term achievement of the inflation target without reliance on currency depreciation.

Continued QT on the planned scale, by contrast, promises sustained monetary weakness and an eventual return to deflation.

The post Japan’s QT disaster appeared first on Groupe financier Connor, Clark & Lunn ltée.

Les répartitions en titres à revenu fixe sont généralement construites en silos selon des catégories de produits, comme les obligations universelles, les obligations à long terme, les obligations à rendement élevé et le crédit privé. Cette approche fragmentée de la prise de décision mène souvent à des résultats sous-optimaux.

Le présent document remet en question ce modèle. Il explique comment une approche plus intégrée, fondée sur les objectifs des investisseurs, leurs passifs et leur tolérance au risque plutôt que sur les catégories de produits, peut produire de meilleurs résultats ajustés au risque.

L’approche en silos

Les portefeuilles à revenu fixe sont souvent présentés comme étant diversifiés; pourtant, dans les faits, ils sont généralement construits en silos. Les répartitions sont effectuées entre différentes stratégies, comme les obligations à long terme, les obligations à rendement élevé ou le crédit privé, chacune étant justifiée selon ses propres mérites. Ce qui semble être une diversification du portefeuille à première vue peut masquer des concentrations involontaires de risques, notamment un risque de duration découlant d’une exposition aux obligations à long terme, des baisses de valeur comparables à celles des actions attribuables aux placements en obligations à rendement élevé, ainsi que des enjeux de liquidité liés au crédit privé. Ces risques ne sont pas toujours évidents lorsqu’ils sont examinés individuellement, mais ils peuvent se manifester simultanément précisément au moment où ils sont le moins souhaitables.

Cette situation découle souvent du processus décisionnel, dans lequel le portefeuille est constitué progressivement plutôt que conçu de façon globale. De nouvelles répartitions sont généralement ajoutées graduellement afin d’améliorer le rendement ou de combler des lacunes perçues dans les portefeuilles existants, sans tenir pleinement compte de la structure d’ensemble ni des risques involontaires qui peuvent en résulter. Avec le temps, les portefeuilles peuvent ainsi demeurer ancrés dans les occasions d’hier, alors même que les conditions de marché, les dynamiques de liquidité et les valorisations relatives évoluent.

Une approche plus efficace consiste d’abord à prendre du recul et à considérer le revenu fixe comme un système intégré. Cela signifie qu’il faut évaluer le portefeuille dans son ensemble, comprendre comment chaque composante contribue à la génération de revenu, à la liquidité, à la préservation du capital et à la diversification, tout en veillant à ce que ces rôles soient délibérément choisis plutôt qu’hérités de manière involontaire.

Approche intégrée

Une approche plus intégrée commence par redéfinir le revenu fixe, non pas comme un ensemble de répartitions individuelles, mais comme un système coordonné visant l’atteinte d’un objectif précis. Dans ce système, le risque, le rendement et la liquidité sont équilibrés de façon intentionnelle à l’échelle de l’ensemble des occasions de placement, et chaque répartition doit justifier sa place en fonction du rôle qu’elle joue, et non simplement de l’étiquette qui lui est attribuée.

Une façon de conceptualiser cette approche est de prendre l’exemple d’une voiture de course haute performance, où chaque composante remplit une fonction distincte et essentielle, et où la performance globale dépend de la façon dont ces composantes travaillent ensemble.

Dans cette analogie, les obligations traditionnelles représentent le châssis. Elles constituent l’assise de la préservation du capital et soutiennent l’appariement avec les passifs. Toutefois, leurs limites dans certains contextes de marché ont amené les investisseurs à aller au-delà des expositions traditionnelles, en intégrant des sources complémentaires comme les prêts hypothécaires commerciaux, le crédit privé et la dette des marchés émergents afin d’élargir leur boîte à outils et d’améliorer la résilience du portefeuille.

Les obligations à long terme jouent le rôle du système de suspension, absorbant les chocs et stabilisant la conduite. Elles sont particulièrement utiles pour les régimes de retraite à prestations déterminées (PD), puisque leur sensibilité aux taux d’intérêt favorise un meilleur arrimage aux fluctuations des passifs. Lorsque les taux diminuent et que les passifs augmentent, les obligations à long terme peuvent offrir un contrepoids essentiel, contribuant ainsi à préserver le degré de capitalisation du régime.

Les obligations à rendement élevé, quant à elles, représentent le moteur, soit la source de puissance et d’élan. Leur rendement est davantage influencé par les écarts de crédit que par les fluctuations des taux d’intérêt, ce qui en fait une source attrayante de revenu grâce au portage lorsque les données fondamentales demeurent solides.

Le crédit des marchés émergents agit comme le groupe motopropulseur, en élargissant l’univers des occasions de placement. En offrant une exposition à des économies et à des dynamiques de marché différentes de celles des marchés développés, le crédit des marchés émergents peut accroître le rendement tout en réduisant la corrélation globale du portefeuille. La diversification entre les pays, les secteurs et les émetteurs contribue à atténuer les risques localisés et ajoute un niveau supplémentaire de résilience, particulièrement lorsque les cycles des marchés développés sont soumis à des pressions.

Les prêts hypothécaires commerciaux et le crédit privé procurent l’adhérence dans les virages, en offrant un flux de revenu stable et un gain de performance supplémentaire. Ces actifs sont généralement adossés à des flux de trésorerie garantis, et la prime d’illiquidité peut se traduire par un revenu plus stable et plus prévisible, tout en offrant une certaine protection contre les baisses.

Enfin, les stratégies de revenu fixe à rendement absolu jouent le rôle du système de contrôle adaptatif, conçu non pas pour suivre le marché, mais pour s’y adapter. Plutôt que d’être ancrées à des indices de référence, ces stratégies visent à générer des rendements positifs dans un large éventail de contextes de marché. En intégrant davantage de souplesse, notamment grâce à des positions non contraintes ou à la possibilité de vendre à découvert, elles réduisent la dépendance aux sources traditionnelles de rendement, comme le revenu courant et la duration. Elles peuvent ainsi améliorer la diversification et accroître l’efficacité globale du portefeuille.

Ces caractéristiques ne font toutefois pas l’unanimité. Par exemple, le compromis associé aux obligations à long terme est que leur exposition à la duration peut devenir un frein lorsque les rendements réels augmentent, entraînant des coûts d’opportunité et, à l’occasion, des surprises liées à leur convexité. Comme tout moteur haute performance, elles peuvent surchauffer dans des périodes de tension. Lors des épisodes de turbulences sur les marchés, les obligations à rendement élevé peuvent se comporter beaucoup plus comme des actions, en affichant des replis qui remettent en question leur rôle de stabilisateur. De même, l’adhérence procurée par les actifs moins liquides peut être trompeuse, puisque les compromis liés à la liquidité ne deviennent souvent apparents qu’en période de tensions sur les marchés.

En définitive, l’efficacité d’un portefeuille de titres à revenu fixe ne repose pas uniquement sur chacune de ses composantes, mais sur la façon dont elles sont délibérément combinées. Lorsque chaque répartition est évaluée en fonction de sa contribution à l’ensemble — qu’il s’agisse de générer un revenu, d’assurer la liquidité, de protéger le capital ou de diversifier le portefeuille — celui-ci devient plus que la somme de ses parties; il devient un système conçu pour offrir un rendement durable.

Construction de portefeuille

Une approche plus efficace en matière de revenu fixe commence par remettre en question une hypothèse profondément ancrée : la façon dont les portefeuilles sont généralement construits. Plutôt que de partir des catégories de produits pour ensuite chercher à atteindre un résultat, cette approche inverse le processus en commençant par le résultat recherché.

Le point de départ devient les objectifs fondamentaux du portefeuille, qu’il s’agisse de générer un revenu, de couvrir les passifs ou d’améliorer l’efficacité du capital, puis de concevoir délibérément les expositions nécessaires pour atteindre ces objectifs. Bien que ce changement puisse sembler subtil, il transforme fondamentalement la réflexion. L’attention ne porte plus sur la répartition du capital entre différentes catégories, mais plutôt sur les risques qui sont assumés de façon délibérée.

Dans ce cadre, la duration, le crédit, la liquidité et la convexité ne sont plus les sous-produits des décisions de répartition; ils deviennent les éléments constitutifs du portefeuille. Chacun est sélectionné, dimensionné et combiné de manière intentionnelle afin de créer un système cohérent où chaque exposition est choisie pour le rôle qu’elle joue dans l’atteinte des résultats recherchés, et non simplement parce qu’elle correspond à une catégorie prédéfinie.

Cette approche permet également de concevoir des portefeuilles plus adaptables. Au lieu d’être implicitement liés à des indices de référence statiques, les portefeuilles peuvent être construits de façon à s’ajuster de manière dynamique à l’évolution des marchés. À mesure que les taux d’intérêt fluctuent, que les conditions de crédit changent et que la liquidité varie, le portefeuille est en mesure de s’adapter.

Elle ouvre également la voie à une intégration plus réfléchie du crédit public et privé, permettant de tirer parti des primes d’illiquidité lorsque cela est approprié, tout en faisant une place à des stratégies moins traditionnelles, comme les stratégies de revenu fixe à rendement absolu, qui visent non pas à reproduire un indice de référence, mais à générer des résultats constants dans différents contextes de marché.

En intégrant les caractéristiques propres aux différentes stratégies de revenu fixe, les portefeuilles peuvent devenir plus adaptables, plus efficients sur le plan du capital et mieux outillés pour gérer les risques, particulièrement en période de tensions. Le changement réside dans le passage d’une approche consistant à construire des portefeuilles reflétant des catégories d’actifs à une approche visant à concevoir des portefeuilles axés sur les résultats.

Adapter les stratégies selon le type d’investisseur

La conception d’un portefeuille de titres à revenu fixe dépend ultimement du type d’investisseur ainsi que de ses objectifs, de ses passifs, de sa gouvernance et de sa tolérance au risque.

Régimes de retraite à prestations déterminées

Pour les régimes de retraite à prestations déterminées, la construction de portefeuille est plus efficace lorsque la prise en compte des passifs et la génération de rendement sont traitées comme les deux volets d’une même décision, plutôt que comme des priorités concurrentes. Les obligations à long terme jouent un rôle essentiel en servant d’assise au ratio de couverture et en stabilisant le degré de capitalisation, tandis que le crédit peut constituer une source fiable de liquidité et de portage.

À cela peuvent s’ajouter des stratégies à rendement absolu, qui contribuent à atténuer la volatilité de l’excédent actuariel en procurant une plus grande souplesse lorsque les marchés sont incertains. Des répartitions ciblées en crédit privé peuvent également améliorer les rendements en permettant de capter une prime d’illiquidité.

Le principal avantage réside dans l’intégration de ces composantes au sein d’un cadre cohérent de placement axé sur le passif (LDI) bonifié par des stratégies de rendement. Plutôt que de gérer séparément les actifs de couverture et les actifs axés sur le rendement, cette approche harmonise l’efficience du capital, les besoins de liquidité et la gestion des risques avec les obligations à long terme du régime. Il en résulte un portefeuille conçu non seulement pour répondre aux passifs, mais aussi pour traverser les cycles de marché avec davantage de confiance et de maîtrise.

Comptes généraux des compagnies d’assurance

Pour les comptes généraux des compagnies d’assurance, la construction de portefeuille consiste à maximiser le rendement généré par chaque unité de capital réglementaire tout en maintenant la prévisibilité des flux financiers et le respect des exigences réglementaires. Le crédit de base de grande qualité constitue le fondement du portefeuille, procurant un revenu stable et favorisant l’efficience du capital dans le cadre des exigences réglementaires. Les prêts hypothécaires commerciaux peuvent compléter cette base en offrant un rendement supérieur et des flux de trésorerie durables qui s’harmonisent avec les passifs. Des répartitions ciblées dans le crédit opportuniste peuvent également améliorer les résultats, pourvu qu’elles demeurent compatibles avec les contraintes de capital.

Exemple – Comptes généraux des compagnies d’assurance
Accent : Rendement par unité de capital et appariement actif-passif
Objectifs	Efficience du capital, respect des contraintes réglementaires, prévisibilité des flux de trésorerie
Répartition illustrative	Crédit de base de grande qualité Prêts hypothécaires commerciaux Crédit opportuniste dans les limites du capital

Fondations et fonds de dotation

Pour les fondations et les fonds de dotation, la construction de portefeuille vise à générer des rendements réels, à préserver le capital et à soutenir les besoins de décaissement dans différents contextes de marché. Cet objectif est atteint au moyen d’une combinaison de stratégies complémentaires. Les obligations de plus courte duration peuvent jouer un rôle stabilisateur en contribuant à gérer le risque de taux d’intérêt tout en préservant la liquidité. En complément, des stratégies diversifiées à rendement absolu peuvent procurer un revenu et une protection contre les baisses lorsque les marchés traditionnels deviennent plus volatils.

Une répartition importante en prêts hypothécaires commerciaux ou en crédit privé renforce davantage le portefeuille en offrant un potentiel de rendements attrayants ajustés au risque ainsi que des flux de trésorerie contractuels. Ensemble, ces composantes peuvent contribuer à limiter l’ampleur des baisses de valeur et à soutenir la capacité des organisations à financer leur mission avec confiance, peu importe où elles se situent dans le cycle des marchés.

Considérations relatives à la gouvernance

Passer d’une approche fondée sur des catégories d’actifs cloisonnées à une approche plus intégrée consiste à redéfinir la façon d’envisager l’investissement, ce qui exige un changement de mentalité et, possiblement, des pratiques de gouvernance. Plutôt que de sélectionner des catégories d’actifs individuellement, les investisseurs mettent l’accent sur les résultats qui correspondent le mieux à leurs objectifs.

Cette approche exige des gestionnaires de placement capables de répartir le risque de façon dynamique, de demeurer agiles à mesure que les marchés évoluent et d’offrir une transparence quant à la manière dont la valeur est créée. Elle invite également les conseils d’administration à être à l’aise avec des indices de référence personnalisés plutôt qu’avec des indices publics à des fins de comparaison, en accordant moins d’importance au fait de surpasser un indice et davantage à la protection contre les risques de baisse et au renforcement de la résilience globale du portefeuille.

Des silos aux solutions

Pour les investisseurs institutionnels, il s’agit d’une occasion de prendre du recul et de repenser le revenu fixe, non pas comme un ensemble de répartitions par catégories de produits, mais comme un outil permettant d’améliorer les résultats du portefeuille global. En partant des objectifs — qu’il s’agisse de générer un revenu, de couvrir les passifs ou d’améliorer l’efficience du capital — les investisseurs peuvent concevoir leurs expositions de manière plus délibérée. Il en résulte un portefeuille plus cohérent, dans lequel chaque composante contribue plus efficacement à l’ensemble, les risques sont mieux gérés et les résultats sont davantage alignés sur les objectifs globaux.

The post Repenser les portefeuilles à revenu fixe grâce à une approche intégrée appeared first on Groupe financier Connor, Clark & Lunn ltée.

Fixed income allocations are typically constructed in silos based on product labels, such as universe bonds, long bonds, high yield and private credit. This fragmented decision-making approach often leads to suboptimal outcomes.

This paper challenges that model. It explores how a more integrated approach, grounded in investor objectives, liabilities and risk tolerances, not product labels, can lead to better risk-adjusted results.

The siloed approach

Fixed income portfolios are often presented as diversified, yet in practice they are typically constructed in silos. Allocations are made to individual strategies, like long bonds, high yield, private credit, justified on their own merits. What looks like portfolio diversification on the surface can mask unintended concentrations, such as duration risk through long bond exposure, equity‑like drawdown emerging from high yield allocations, and liquidity challenges in private credit. These risks are not always obvious, when viewed individually, but they can reveal themselves simultaneously at precisely the moment they are least welcome.

This is often a by-product of the decision-making process where the portfolio is gradually assembled, rather than holistically designed. New allocations are typically introduced incrementally to enhance returns or address perceived gaps in legacy portfolios, without fully appreciating the overall structure and revealing unintended risks. Over time, this can anchor portfolios to yesterday’s opportunity set, even as market conditions, liquidity dynamics and relative value evolve.

A more effective approach begins by stepping back and treating fixed income as an integrated system. This means evaluating the portfolio holistically, understanding how each component contributes to income, liquidity, capital preservation and diversification, as well as ensuring that these roles are consciously chosen rather than unintentionally inherited.

Integrated approach

A more integrated approach begins by reframing fixed income, not as a collection of individual allocations, but as a coordinated system with an aim to achieve a specific goal. In this system, risk, return and liquidity are intentionally balanced across the full opportunity set, and every allocation must earn its place based on the role it plays, not simply the label it carries.

One way to think about this is through the lens of a high-performance racing car, where each component has a distinct and essential function, and overall performance depends on how those parts work together.

Traditional bonds, in this analogy, serve as the chassis. They anchor capital preservation and support liability matching. However, their limitations in certain market regimes have prompted investors to look beyond traditional exposures, incorporating complementary sources such as commercial mortgages, private credit and emerging markets debt to broaden the toolkit and enhance resilience.

Long bonds function as the suspension system, absorbing shocks and stabilizing the ride. They are especially valuable for defined benefit (DB) plans, where their sensitivity to interest rates help align with liability movements. When rates fall and liabilities rise, long bonds can provide a critical counterbalance, helping preserve funded status.

High yield bonds, by contrast, serve as the engine, the source of power and forward momentum. Their returns are driven more by credit spreads than by interest rate movements, making them an attractive source of income through carry when fundamentals are stable.

Emerging markets (EM) credit acts as a powertrain that expands the opportunity set. By providing exposure to economies and market dynamics that differ from developed markets, EM credit can enhance yield while reducing overall portfolio correlation. Diversification across countries, sectors, and issuers helps mitigate localized risks and adds an additional layer of resilience, particularly when developed market cycles are under pressure.

Commercial mortgages and private credit can provide grip in corners providing a steady income stream and a performance turbo boost. These assets are typically backed by secured cash flows, and the illiquidity premium can translate into smoother, more stable income with some downside protection.

Finally, absolute return fixed income strategies function as the adaptive control system, designed not to follow the market, but to navigate it. Rather than being anchored to benchmarks, these strategies aim to generate positive returns across a wide range of environments. By incorporating flexibility, whether through unconstrained positioning or the ability to short, they reduce reliance on traditional sources of return such as yield and duration. In doing so, they can enhance diversification and improve the overall efficiency of the portfolio.

These characteristics are not without their detractors. For example, the trade-off for long-bonds is that the duration exposure can feel like a drag when real yields rise, creating opportunity costs and, at times, convexity-related surprises. Like any high-performance engine, they can overheat under stress. In periods of market turbulence, high yield can behave much more like equities, with drawdowns that challenge its role as a stabilizer. The grip in corners of less liquid assets can be misleading since the liquidity trade-offs often only become apparent in stressed market conditions.

Taken together, the effectiveness of a fixed income portfolio does not come from the individual components alone, but from how they are deliberately combined. When each allocation is viewed through the lens of its contribution to the whole, its role in providing income, liquidity, protection or diversification, the portfolio becomes more than the sum of its parts, it becomes a system designed to perform.

Portfolio construction

A more effective fixed income framework begins by challenging a deeply ingrained assumption: how portfolios are typically built. Rather than starting with product labels and working backward to an outcome, this approach flips the process, by beginning with the outcome itself.

The starting point becomes the portfolio’s core objectives, whether income generation, liability hedging or capital efficiency, and then deliberately engineering exposures to deliver on those goals. While this may seem like a subtle shift, it fundamentally changes the conversation. The focus moves away from how capital is allocated across categories, and toward the risks that are consciously being taken.

In this framework, duration, credit, liquidity and convexity are no longer by-products of allocation decisions, they become building blocks. Each is selected, sized and combined with intention to achieve a coordinated system, where every exposure is chosen for its role in delivering outcomes, not simply because it fits within a predefined label.

This perspective also enables portfolios to be designed with greater adaptability. Instead of being implicitly tied to static benchmarks, portfolios can be constructed to respond dynamically to changing market environments. As interest rates shift, credit conditions evolve and liquidity ebbs and flows, the portfolio is positioned to adjust.

It also opens the door to a more thoughtful integration of public and private credit, capturing illiquidity premiums where appropriate, and creating space for less traditional strategies, such as absolute return fixed income, which are designed not to track a benchmark, but to deliver consistent outcomes across varying market conditions.

By incorporating the different fixed income strategy characteristics, portfolios can become more adaptive, more capital-efficient and better equipped to manage risk, particularly in periods of stress. The shift in implementation is from building portfolios that reflect categories, to designing portfolios that deliver outcomes.

Tailoring strategies by investor type

The actual design of a fixed income portfolio depends on investor type and associated objectives, liabilities, governance and risk tolerance.

DB pension plans

For DB pension plans, portfolio construction works best when liability awareness and return generation are treated as two sides of the same decision, not competing priorities. Longer-dated bonds play a vital role by anchoring the hedge ratio and stabilizing funded status, while credit can add a reliable source of liquidity and carry.

Layered on top, absolute return strategies can help dampen surplus volatility, providing flexibility when markets are uncertain. Selective allocations to private credit can further enhance returns, capturing illiquidity premium.

The real advantage comes from integrating these elements into a cohesive liability-driven investing (LDI) enhanced return framework. Rather than managing hedging assets and return-seeking assets in isolation, this approach aligns capital efficiency, liquidity needs and risk management with a plan’s long-term obligations. The result is a portfolio designed not just to meet liabilities, but to navigate market cycles with greater confidence and control.

Insurance company general accounts

For insurance company general accounts, portfolio construction is about getting the most yield out of every unit of balance sheet capital while maintaining predictability and regulatory discipline. High‑quality core credit forms the foundation, delivering steady income and supporting capital efficiency under regulatory frameworks. Commercial mortgages can build on this base, offering enhanced yields and durable cash flows to align with liabilities. Selective allocations to opportunistic credit can further improve outcomes, provided they are sized within capital constraints.

Insurance company general accounts illustration
Focus on yield per unit of capital and asset-liability matching.
Objectives	Capital efficiency, regulatory constraints, predictable cash flows.
Illustrative blend	High-quality core credit Commercial mortgages Opportunistic credit within capital limits

Endowments and foundations

For endowments and foundations, portfolio construction is about generating real returns, preserving capital and supporting spending needs through different market environments. This is best achieved through a blend of complementary strategies. Shorter‑duration bonds can play a stabilizing role, helping to manage interest‑rate risk while preserving liquidity. Layered alongside, diversifying absolute‑return strategies can provide income and downside protection when traditional markets become unsettled.

A meaningful allocation to commercial mortgages and/or private credit further strengthens the portfolio, offering the potential for attractive risk‑adjusted returns and contractual cash flows. Together, these components can help manage the level of drawdowns, supporting the ability to fund missions with confidence, regardless of where we are in the market cycle.

Governance considerations

Breaking away from asset class silos to a more integrated approach, is about redefining how to think about investing that requires a change in mindset, and potentially governance practices. Instead of selecting individual asset classes, investors focus on outcomes that better align with their objectives.

It demands investment managers who can dynamically allocate risk, stay agile as markets evolve and provide transparency into how value is created. It challenges boards to be comfortable with customized benchmarks, rather than public benchmarks for comparison purposes, placing less weight on beating a benchmark, and more on protecting against downside risks and strengthening overall portfolio resilience.

From silos to solutions

For institutional investors, this is an opportunity to step back and rethink fixed income, not as a set of product allocations, but as a tool to deliver superior total portfolio outcomes. By starting with objectives, focused on income, liability hedging and capital efficiency, investors can design exposures more deliberately. The result is a more cohesive portfolio, where each component works more efficiently, risk is managed more effectively and outcomes are better aligned with overall goals.

The post Rethinking fixed income portfolios through integrated strategies appeared first on Groupe financier Connor, Clark & Lunn ltée.

Before we discuss the silver economy, let’s talk about the markets as we are at the mid-year mark.

Rumbling grows louder and louder that we are in stock market euphoria. By many metrics, including trading volume, margin debt and multiples, in our view, this is shaping up to be one of the biggest stock market bubbles in history.

If we go back to 2000, we had a different market composition.

• Passive investing was less than 20% – today, it is over 50%.
• Retail share of trading was less than 10% – today, it is above 20%.
• There were no leveraged ETFs, zero-day options, etc.
• Hedge funds managed around $600 billion – that number is now above $6 trillion.
• Active managers were mainly fundamental bottom-up, split about equally between value, growth and core.
• Systematic investing (quantitative funds) accounted for the management of $200 billion – today, around $2 trillion.

So, what happens when this bubble deflates? In our view, today’s market structure differs materially from prior cycles, making historical comparisons more challenging.

What is risk in this situation? Is it underperforming the market or is it losing money? Pension funds have an estimated rate of return of 6 or 7%. Should they look to reduce risk? Diversify their portfolio?

Diversification, quality and long-term opportunity

At Global Alpha, we believe in building true small cap portfolios, diversified by country, currency, sector and industries. At the same time, we remain exposed to different long-term secular industries. We buy quality companies, defined by stronger growth and margin profiles; with strong balance sheets and low debt.

Unfortunately, this approach has not been rewarded over the last few years. Not even for famed investors like Warren Buffet who underperformed the S&P 500 by 20% and the Nasdaq-100 by 30% year over year.

As he famously said, “Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful.” Perhaps he viewed the overconcentration as others being greedy, which recalls another Buffet quote:

“Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked.”

As investors clamoured to the top ten, the rest of the small cap universe was left a little stark.

On that note, there’s still opportunity in the markets, represented by the silver economy.

A trend that never gets old

From Japan to Italy to the United States and Canada, the world is facing the largest demographic shift in its existence. According to data from World Bank Group, about 16% of the current population (ex-Africa) is over 65. And 18% is less than 14. By 2050, it is expected that less than 15% of the population will be less than 14 and over 26% will be over 65.

World Bank Group also indicates that Japan is the globe’s fastest aging society. 35% of its population is over 65 years of age, with 6% of that older than 85. By 2050, more than 50% of the population will be above 65 years old.

Countries like Korea and Italy are not far behind. What does an aging, “silver” population mean for investments?

A population that is only getting older means that there are growth prospects for companies that offer or adapt their products to cater to that demographic.

In our portfolio, we have several names that are in that category:

• Extendicare Inc. (EXE CN): a Canadian operator of long-term care as well as one of the largest providers of home health care in Canada.
• Service Corporation International (SCI US): one of North America’s largest providers of death care services.
• Challenger Limited (CGF AU): one of the largest providers of annuities in Australia.
• Globus Medical Inc. (GMED US): a medical device company focused exclusively on spine disorders.

We also have many other companies in the portfolio who have a growing part of their revenues addressing this market. One such company is Shanghai Conant Optical Co. Ltd. (2276 HK), which is the second largest global manufacturer of optical lenses and a leading manufacturer of lenses for smart glasses.

We also own WeRide Inc. (800 HK, WRD US) a diversified, Robotaxis, Robobuses, Robovans, autonomous driving stack and software licensing, deployed globally in China, the Middle East and Europe.

Back to the top

Overall, while current markets may be expensive and structurally different from past bubbles, investors should focus on diversified, quality small-cap companies exposed to durable secular trends. Our team is constantly looking at thematics to identify long-term trends like this one of the silver economy.

The securities identified and described do not represent all securities purchased, sold or recommended for client accounts. It should not be assumed that investments in these securities were or will be profitable.

The post The silver economy: A secular opportunity appeared first on Groupe financier Connor, Clark & Lunn ltée.

Before we discuss the silver economy, let’s talk about the markets as we are at the mid-year mark.

Rumbling grows louder and louder that we are in stock market euphoria. By many metrics, including trading volume, margin debt and multiples, in our view, this is shaping up to be one of the biggest stock market bubbles in history.

If we go back to 2000, we had a different market composition.

• Passive investing was less than 20% – today, it is over 50%.
• Retail share of trading was less than 10% – today, it is above 20%.
• There were no leveraged ETFs, zero-day options, etc.
• Hedge funds managed around $600 billion – that number is now above $6 trillion.
• Active managers were mainly fundamental bottom-up, split about equally between value, growth and core.
• Systematic investing (quantitative funds) accounted for the management of $200 billion – today, around $2 trillion.

So, what happens when this bubble deflates? In our view, today’s market structure differs materially from prior cycles, making historical comparisons more challenging.

What is risk in this situation? Is it underperforming the market or is it losing money? Pension funds have an estimated rate of return of 6 or 7%. Should they look to reduce risk? Diversify their portfolio?

Diversification, quality and long-term opportunity

At Global Alpha, we believe in building true small cap portfolios, diversified by country, currency, sector and industries. At the same time, we remain exposed to different long-term secular industries. We buy quality companies, defined by stronger growth and margin profiles; with strong balance sheets and low debt.

Unfortunately, this approach has not been rewarded over the last few years. Not even for famed investors like Warren Buffet who underperformed the S&P 500 by 20% and the Nasdaq-100 by 30% year over year.

As he famously said, “Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful.” Perhaps he viewed the overconcentration as others being greedy, which recalls another Buffet quote:

“Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked.”

As investors clamoured to the top ten, the rest of the small cap universe was left a little stark.

On that note, there’s still opportunity in the markets, represented by the silver economy.

A trend that never gets old

From Japan to Italy to the United States and Canada, the world is facing the largest demographic shift in its existence. According to data from World Bank Group, about 16% of the current population (ex-Africa) is over 65. And 18% is less than 14. By 2050, it is expected that less than 15% of the population will be less than 14 and over 26% will be over 65.

World Bank Group also indicates that Japan is the globe’s fastest aging society. 35% of its population is over 65 years of age, with 6% of that older than 85. By 2050, more than 50% of the population will be above 65 years old.

Countries like Korea and Italy are not far behind. What does an aging, “silver” population mean for investments?

A population that is only getting older means that there are growth prospects for companies that offer or adapt their products to cater to that demographic.

In our portfolio, we have several names that are in that category:

• Extendicare Inc. (EXE CN): a Canadian operator of long-term care as well as one of the largest providers of home health care in Canada.
• Service Corporation International (SCI US): one of North America’s largest providers of death care services.
• Challenger Limited (CGF AU): one of the largest providers of annuities in Australia.
• Globus Medical Inc. (GMED US): a medical device company focused exclusively on spine disorders.

We also have many other companies in the portfolio who have a growing part of their revenues addressing this market. One such company is Shanghai Conant Optical Co. Ltd. (2276 HK), which is the second largest global manufacturer of optical lenses and a leading manufacturer of lenses for smart glasses.

We also own WeRide Inc. (800 HK, WRD US) a diversified, Robotaxis, Robobuses, Robovans, autonomous driving stack and software licensing, deployed globally in China, the Middle East and Europe.

Back to the top

Overall, while current markets may be expensive and structurally different from past bubbles, investors should focus on diversified, quality small-cap companies exposed to durable secular trends. Our team is constantly looking at thematics to identify long-term trends like this one of the silver economy.

The securities identified and described do not represent all securities purchased, sold or recommended for client accounts. It should not be assumed that investments in these securities were or will be profitable.

The post The silver economy: A secular opportunity appeared first on Groupe financier Connor, Clark & Lunn ltée.