Tag Archives: clint-sorenson

Stocks And Gold: A New Balanced Portfolio

High valuations and low rates make it necessary to build balanced portfolios. Gold can be a good diversifier for US stocks. Trend following approaches can add value. Leonardo Da Vinci is credited with stating that “simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” Daniel Khaneman added credence to Da Vinci’s belief in his book, Thinking Fast and Slow . Khaneman pointed out that “complexity may work in the odd case, but more often than not it reduces validity.” In essence, Khaneman made the case that simpler is in fact better. The same is most likely true for investing. Despite the fact that our financial system is filled with complex financial products, and often chaotic feedback mechanisms, simple investment strategies tend to work better over the long run. For example, over the last decade, an investor would have been better served to buy a low cost S&P 500 index fund over investing in active managers. Over 80 percent of the active managers failed to outperform their respective benchmarks over that period. This is despite their large research teams, sophisticated investment strategies, and years of training. The simple process of buying an index fund and holding it over the ten year period would have been superior. Index funds are great, but buy and hold is hardly the optimal investment strategy. The macroeconomic environment, valuations, and the prevailing price trends should be considered. Simple, rules-based approaches can be used to adequately account for dynamic markets. The article, Value and Momentum: A Beautiful Combination , is a great example of using two simple, yet opposed systems, to formulate a sound overall investment methodology. The purpose of this paper is to explore a new twist on a balanced approach to investing through a simple system. Courtesy of Doug Short US stocks are severely overvalued by most measures that demonstrate historical accuracy. Chart 1 gives a pretty good summary of the overvalued state of stocks using several respected measures of market valuation. Thus, long-term investors should diversify their investment in the US equities market with other asset classes. The first thought that normally comes to mind is to diversify in different asset classes of equity. Many value investors would point to the undervalued emerging and international stocks suggesting that they may offer better future returns than the US stock market. The problem with this idea is that global stocks tend to be highly correlated with US markets during periods of stress. During the summer months of 2008, most stock market asset classes fell together. Correlations between different classes of equity moved towards one, signifying a lack of diversification and an increase in portfolio risk. Bonds are also typically referenced as a good diversifier when paired with equity investments. This is normally the case as bonds have a tendency to dampen the volatility of the overall portfolio over time. The problem with diversifying into bonds in a long-term portfolio is the fact that interest rates are historically low and we are thirty years into a bond bull market. At some point, in the next twenty years, one would expect interest rates to be higher than the current rates. That expectation could lead to poor returns for bonds, especially if all the monetary stimulus turns around to haunt us with inflation. Consequently, it made sense to us to scour other asset classes with historically low correlations to stocks but with the ability to protect a portfolio against inflation or rapidly rising interest rates. With the backdrop of accommodative central banks, record debt levels in developed nations, slow growth, and deflationary conditions, gold became the asset class of choice. Partly for the controversy, as investors hate and love the yellow metal. Our view of gold is primarily price related as we are quantitative investment managers. However, from a fundamental perspective, gold makes a lot of sense as a portfolio hedge. It is a currency in its basic form and hedges against the fall of other global currencies. Therefore, we decided to test out a new balanced investment approach where we diversified US stocks with gold. Since we do not believe that volatility is risk, we did not determine our weightings to stocks and gold through volatility targeting or risk budgeting approach. Living up to our heretic ways, we instead equally weighted the two asset classes and ran a comparison versus the S&P 500 from 1972 through 2014. The hypothetical results were as follows: (click to enlarge) Chart 2: Stocks vs. Stocks & Gold Clint Sorenson, CFA, CMT Data Courtesy of NYU Stern School of Business, Global Financial Data, Morningstar1 The two strategies did a good job growing the initial investment over the time period. Although, the drawdown was much less for the portfolio of 50 percent stocks and 50 percent gold. The S&P 500 fell more than 55 percent during the time period referenced above. The 50 percent stock and 50 percent gold portfolio fell a maximum of 31 percent. Growth was similar between the two strategies. $1 million invested in 1972 would have become over $72 million in the S&P 500 through 2014. The same amount put into the balanced portfolio would have turned into almost $59 million. Obviously, the S&P 500 would have been the overall winner in a competition of growth over this period of time. We decided to apply a simple trend following method to the balanced portfolio for further comparison. The rules are as follows: Measure each asset class (US Stocks and Gold) against their 8 month simple moving averages If the closing monthly price is above the moving average, the portion of the portfolio would be invested in the asset class (Buy Signal) If the closing monthly price is below the moving average then the portion of the portfolio would be invested in the 10 year US Treasury (Sell Signal) The following table embodies all possible portfolio allocations: Allocation Range Stocks (NYSEARCA: SPY ) 0-50% Gold (NYSEARCA: GLD ) 0-50% US Ten Year Treasury (NYSEARCA: IEF ) 0-100% Applying the simple buy and sell discipline to the balanced portfolio makes all the difference historically. Since 1972 $1 million invested in the trend following approach grows to over $286 million. This is significantly more than the S&P 500 or the static 50/50 (Stock/Gold) portfolio. Furthermore, the growth comes on the back of reduced drawdown. The maximum drawdown of the trend following portfolio is only slightly more than 18 percent. Applying the simple trend filter allows for enhanced return and reduced risk. Historically, it has made sense to rent bonds during periods where stocks and gold have entered negative trends. (click to enlarge) Chart 3: Trend approach to Gold and Stock portfolio Clint Sorenson, CFA, CMT Data Courtesy of NYU Stern School of Business, Global Financial Data, Morningstar2 It is our opinion that we are in the third equity market bubble in the past fifteen years. Historically high valuations, large amounts of public and private debt, unprecedented monetary support, and negative real interest rates have challenged the common approaches to portfolio construction. We hope we have demonstrated a way to simplify diversification using a portfolio of stocks and gold. A sound investment approach does not have to be complicated to generate attractive results. 1. For the 50/50 strategy of Stocks and Gold, we used index data through 2005 and then ETF data from 2006 through 2014. We used SPY to replicate the S&P 500 and GLD to replicate gold. 2. For the trend following strategy of Stocks and Gold, we used index data through 2005 and then ETF data from 2006 through 2014. We used SPY to replicate the S&P 500, GLD to replicate gold, and IEF to replicate the 10 year Treasury bond.

Value And Momentum: A Beautiful Combination

Asset allocation should be a dynamic process. Value-based asset allocation can serve as a long-term investment guide. Momentum can potentially add value by allowing tactical shifts. In our most recent articles, Diversification Is Not Sufficient and Value Based Asset Allocation , we documented two simple strategies for asset allocation. The strategies are based on two seemingly opposed factors, value and momentum. We illustrated in each article the historical results of following each strategy. Empirically, each demonstrated superior results to a static allocation approach. This article illustrates the benefits of combining the two strategies. The value-based asset allocation system (Value Allocator) is a robust enough system on its own to help you navigate the uncertain markets and avoid getting caught in the next crash. The problem is that the system is most likely behaviorally impossible to apply. Using momentum to complement the strategy is an important enhancement that provides participation in further growth and protection in the down markets. The momentum strategy appears to deliver the best results historically. However, we did not examine the impact of transaction costs (most likely negligible) and taxes (significant). We have no way to estimate the tax ramifications of any system as it is obviously only successfully analyzed at the individual level. The momentum-based strategy, because of the short-term gains, is most likely the least tax efficient. Momentum strategies are also difficult to follow year in and year out. Momentum trading does not always resemble the overall stock market. In fact, these types of strategies often look much different from the traditional stock indices like the Dow Jones Industrial or the S&P 500. Since the bottom in 2009, the Barclays CTA Index (a common benchmark for trend following) has been down in every year except for 2010 and 2014. The stock market has not had a negative year since 2008. Again, momentum strategies in isolation are extremely difficult to follow over a long period. In efforts to remain pragmatic, we have combined the value based strategy and a simple momentum strategy to provide a comprehensive asset-allocation system. From this point forward, we will reference the Value Allocator as the strategic component of our asset allocation, and the momentum strategy as our tactical overlay. The combination of the two strategies keeps an investor from moving the entire policy portfolio tactically and keeps a portion in a passive, strategic posture. The strategic component is based on the assumption that markets revert to the average. The problem is that mean reversion occurs over a period of seven to ten years. Valuations tell us very little about what is going to happen over the subsequent one to three years. Our strategic asset allocation process is based on long-term value and contrarian positioning. Tactical asset allocation is the process of taking positions in various investments based on short to intermediate term opportunities. Our tactical overlay is therefore based on reacting to the trend. This is an interesting relationship as the two strategies can offer up diametrically opposed recommendations. For instance, when the US stock market is overvalued, the Value Allocator would recommend rotating to a more conservative portfolio. At the same time, if the trend was positive but the market still overvalued, the tactical overlay would recommend overweighting. You can see the conflicts that can arise, and we assure you they have surfaced in the past. The Value Allocator-as illustrated in Value Based Asset Allocation -can rotate between 30 percent stocks and 70 percent bonds and 70 percent stocks and 30 percent bonds. The tactical portfolio is either 100 percent in stocks or 100 percent in the US 10-year Treasury bonds. The following matrix embodies all possible allocations when the two strategies are combined in equal proportions: Undervalued Market Overvalued Market Positive Trend 85% stocks /15% bonds 65% stocks/35% bonds Negative Trend 35% stocks /65% bonds 15% stocks /85% bonds The investor can have as little as 15 percent in stocks and as much as 85 percent. The wide range allows the investor to adapt to all market conditions, protecting when the odds are poor and growing when the odds favor return enhancement. Instead of fixing the allocation on a static portfolio, investors are allowed the flexibility to adapt their risk tolerance to the current environment. For instance, if the current market environment is undervalued, and the trend is positive, the environment is favorable for stocks. Thus, the investor would be positioned heavily in that asset class. (click to enlarge) The combination of the Value Allocator and momentum strategy outpaced the S&P 500 and fifty-fifty (stocks-bonds) benchmarks by a large degree. The advantage of the combination of these two strategies is quite clear. The worst loss the combination strategy experienced from 1972 to 2014 was 9 percent in 1974 when the market was down almost 26 percent. The Value Allocator, when analyzed in isolation, was down almost 18 percent during that same year. The momentum system added an extra layer of protection when the Value Allocator arrived early to the party. In addition to providing an extra layer of protection, the combination strategy provided growth that would have otherwise been missed during the late 1990s and from 2003 to 2007. The market stayed overvalued from 1990 until the beginning of 2009. If you had followed the Value Allocator during this period, you would have been disappointed. The combination strategy would have minimized the underperformance to the benchmark by keeping you at a higher equity position throughout the 1990s. In the chart depicted below, you can see the market outperform the combination strategy over this period. (click to enlarge) The market outperformance was only temporary, however, as the 50 percent decline from the peak in 2000 was largely avoided. In addition, instead of keeping the allocation conservative from 2003 to 2007, tactical positioning kept investors engaged in the markets. Following the Value Allocator alone from 2003 to 2007 would have had the investors conservatively positioned in 30 percent stocks and 70 percent bonds-largely missing the rebound from the tech wreck. The tactical component of the portfolio would have allowed investors to maintain 65 percent in stocks when the trend was positive, despite the overvalued conditions of the market. Astute investors would most likely diversify their strategic asset allocation with tactical positions. Value and momentum are two of the strongest factors of market returns, and their significance remains rather stable over time. Combining both value and momentum strategies in a disciplined fashion can create desirable investment results. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. Additional disclosure: HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS HAVE MANY INHERENT LIMITATIONS. NO REPRESENTATION IS BEING MADE THAT ANY ACCOUNT WILL OR IS LIKELY TO ACHIEVE PROFITS OR LOSSES SIMILAR TO THOSE SHOWN. IN FACT, THERE ARE FREQUENTLY SHARP DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS AND THE ACTUAL RESULTS SUBSEQUENTLY ACHIEVED BY ANY PARTICULAR TRADING PROGRAM. PAST RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE FUTURE RETURNS. HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY.