Tag Archives: asset-allocation

The Upside And Downside Of Market Capture With Alternatives

By Richard Brink Over the long run, alternative investments have outpaced traditional 60/40 stock/bond portfolios with lower volatility. What’s the secret? Gaining more in up markets than they lose in down markets. The Upside/Downside Capture Ratio Successful alternative strategies are managed to capture some part of the equity market’s upside and an even smaller part of the market’s downside. The concept is to win by not losing, and it’s reflected in the up/down capture ratio. Let’s take a strategy with an up/down capture ratio of 50/20. When markets are doing well, it delivers 50% of the upside; when markets are down, it delivers 20% of the downside. Capturing only half of the equity market’s gains in an up market with an alternative strategy may not sound too appealing on the surface. But what’s the flip side? In bear markets, investors experience only 20% of the downside. Alternatives vs. Equity: The Tortoise and the Hare Let’s compare a hypothetical $10,000 investment made in 1995 – for 20 years – in the S&P 500 equity index with an equal investment in a hypothetical alternative strategy with a 50/20 up/down capture ratio (Display). It ends up looking a lot like the fable of the tortoise and the hare. The S&P 500 – the “hare” in this scenario – got off to a fast start. During the tech bubble buildup in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the equity market dominated – and the gap between the two investment approaches widened. But then the tech bubble burst, and the S&P 500 lost major ground. The 50/20 alternative strategy – the “tortoise” – which had been steadily, if modestly, plugging along at “half-speed” until the sell-off, pulled ahead. As we know, markets eventually stabilized and US equities resumed their upward march. But just as the S&P 500 started to catch back up, the 2008 financial crisis sent stocks reeling again. The S&P 500 lost 51% of its value by early 2009, while the 50/20 declined by only 10%. The importance of that is found in the time needed to recover the losses. In the recovery that followed, the 50/20 was back to its previous peak in nine months. The S&P 500 took more than three years. Indeed, despite very strong US equity market performance over the past several years, the S&P 500 has still not caught up. Over a 20-year span of this tortoise and hare battle, the alternative strategy would have ended up delivering dramatically higher returns than the S&P 500 – but with less than half of the stock market’s volatility. Pretty crafty turtle. Click to enlarge The Insurance Perspective Why doesn’t everyone find an alternative strategy with 50/20 up/down capture? After all, this isn’t just hypothetical – the average up/down capture ratio of the entire HFRI Equity Hedge category, for example, is 65/32. In large part, it likely has to do with the investment experience. In other words, some investors would rather simply fire a manager who delivered just 50% of the market’s upside in a rally. When that frustration sets in, it’s easier to dismiss a strategy’s effectiveness in bear markets. This was magnified in the past few years by a central bank-supported “beta trade,” with strong performance and generally short-lived downturns. That appears to be changing, but investors need to be diligent in searching for a strategy that fits their long-term needs. It helps to think of a strategy’s up/down capture ratio as an insurance policy. For the strategy with 50/20 up/down capture, the difference between the market’s gain and the strategy’s up capture – in this case, 50% of the full market gain – is the insurance premium you pay in terms of sacrificed upside potential during up markets. The “down” capture of 20% can be viewed as a deductible – you experience a loss of 20% on the alternative strategy before its “policy” kicks in and protects the downside. Finding the Right Fit Alternative strategies come with many different combinations of upside and downside market capture. We think the best way to approach the choice is by following three steps: 1) Find a strategy with a level of upside capture you’re comfortable with 2) Make sure there’s a complementary downside capture 3) Gain confidence that the manager can continue to deliver that experience consistently It all comes back to a point we’ve emphasized before: Investors should know what they want when they’re looking for an alternative strategy. And they should identify the right manager who can consistently deliver the return experience they’re looking for. The views expressed herein do not constitute research, investment advice or trade recommendations and do not necessarily represent the views of all AB portfolio-management team s Richard Brink, CFA – Managing Director-Alternatives and Multi-Asset

3 Things You Should Know About Factor Investing

Factors are broad, persistent drivers of returns that have been proven to add value to portfolios over decades, according to research data from Dartmouth College . Factor strategies like smart beta capitalize on today’s advancements in data and technology to give all investors access to time-tested investment ideas, once only accessible to large institutions. As factor strategies continue to gather attention, some misconceptions have arisen. I am highlighting – and clearing up – a few here today. 1. Factor strategies are stocks-only. False. Equity smart beta strategies like momentum, value, quality and minimum volatility are by far the most adopted factor strategies and often serve as the gateway to this type of investing. But it’s important to note that the concept extends beyond equities to other asset classes, such as bonds, commodities and currencies. As an example, fixed-income factors are less well known, but similarly aim to capitalize on market inefficiencies. Bond markets are largely driven by exposures to two macroeconomic risk factors: interest rate risk and credit risk. One way that bond factor strategies try to improve returns is by balancing those risks. As investors look for more precise and sophisticated ways to meet their investment goals, we believe we will see more factor strategies in other asset classes, as well as in long/short and multi-asset formats. 2. Factor investing is unnecessary, because my portfolio of stocks, bonds, commodities, hedge funds and real estate is well diversified. Maybe, maybe not. Oftentimes, a portfolio is not as diversified as you might think. You may hold many different types of securities, sure, but those securities can be affected by the same risks. For example, growth risk figures prominently in public and private equities, high yield debt, some hedge funds and real estate. So, as economic growth slows, a portfolio overly exposed to that particular factor will see its overall portfolio return lowering as a result, regardless of how diverse its holdings are across assets or regions. Factor analysis can help investors look through asset class labels and understand underlying risk drivers. That way, you can truly diversify in seeking to improve the consistency of returns over time. 3. Factor investing is a passive investment strategy. Not really. At least we don’t look at it that way. Factor investing combines characteristics of both passive and active investing, and allows investors to retain many benefits of passive strategies, while seeking improved returns or reduced risk. So to us, factor investing is both passive and active. While we think traditional passive, traditional active and factor strategies all have a place in a portfolio, it is not news that some of what active managers have delivered in the past can be found through lower-cost smart beta strategies. This post originally appeared on the BlackRock Blog.

Difference Between Value Stocks And Growth Stocks

Analysts like to separate stocks into two categories: value and growth. What is the difference between value stocks and growth stocks, and which style provides better returns? There is no exact definition explaining the difference between value stocks and growth stocks, but each has its own distinct characteristics. In general, value stocks have low price ratios and growth stocks have high price ratios. Value stocks as a whole have been shown to outperform growth stocks over time. Future Expectations The low price ratios of value stocks are a result of investors being cautious about the future of the underlying companies. Similarly, the high price ratios of growth stocks are a result of investors being excited about the future of the underlying companies. While discussing mutual fund investing using either growth or value stocks, Fidelity says the following : Growth funds focus on companies that managers believe will experience faster than average growth as measured by revenues, earnings, or cash flow. The goal of value funds is to find proverbial diamonds in the rough; that is, companies whose stock prices don’t necessarily reflect their fundamental worth. In the stock market, companies are valued based on future expectations. Wonderful vs. Weak If a company’s growth begins to slow down or its profits start to decrease, the result will be a lower share price. Value stocks are typically companies with recently poor operating results and negative outlooks. The weak performance could be due to macroeconomic events or company specific challenges. It could be a temporary setback or a major loss of market share. If a company is growing and its profits are increasing rapidly, the result will be a higher share price. Growth stocks are typically companies with recently phenomenal operating results and bright futures. The wonderful performance could be due to a rising tide in a particular industry or great management of a specific company. If growth stocks are “wonderful” and value stocks are “weak”, how can value stocks be better investments than growth stocks? Value Premium It turns out that human nature causes value stocks to provide better long-term returns than growth stocks. People get too excited about growth stocks and too afraid of value stocks. While discussing the recent trend of investors moving away from value opportunities, Morningstar’s Ben Johnson said : What we’ve seen historically is that it’s exactly this sort of capitulation, this sort of behavioral function that may actually lead to the existence, the creation, the persistence of the value premium. Value exists because there are suckers on the other side of the poker table willing to take the flipside of the value bet. They are betting on growth or something else. Real, true, strong hands at that poker table, in all likelihood will continue for many years to come, to reap the benefits of that value bet, assuming that they are strong hands. The optimism towards growth stocks makes them overvalued. The pessimism toward value stocks makes them undervalued. Investors become overly confident about a growth stock’s future and overly scared about a value stock’s future. Herd Behavior Through a phenomenon called herd behavior, human nature causes a gap to occur between the value of a stock and its price. Herd behavior says that “individuals in a group will act collectively without centralized direction.” In Thomas Howard’s book, Behavioral Portfolio Management , he talks about how following the crowd is an evolutionary trait. It was beneficial at one point but now does more harm than good, especially in investing. Howard says: Doing the same thing as everybody else, the definition of social validation, also made sense thousands of years ago when life was full of danger. Since we lived in small groups then, we depended on others to sense danger and react instinctively. You didn’t want to be the slowest member of the group when fleeing the tiger. In contrast, today we frequently want to take positions different from the emotional crowd as a way to harness the price distortions resulting from collective behavior. Because the stock market is nothing more than a group of individual investors, herd behavior is a common occurrence. No investor wants to be left behind. As prices start climbing, everyone wants to jump on board. This results in the high valuations of most growth stocks. Once prices start falling, investors dump the underperforming stocks in mass. This results in the low valuations of value stocks. It’s important to refrain from following the crowd and to avoid investing in overvalued stocks rather than undervalued stocks. The Difference Between Value Stocks and Growth Stocks A summary of the difference between value stocks and growth stocks is: Value stocks are undervalued, out-of-favor companies with recently poor operating performance and slowing growth. Investors overreact to these stocks and value them lower than they should be. Growth stocks are overvalued, “hot” companies with recently great operating performance and rapid growth. Investors overreact to these stocks and value them higher than they should be. Understanding the difference between value stocks and growth stocks will allow investors to profit greatly over time.