Tag Archives: history

Measuring Performance Vs. A Benchmark: The Case Of The Low Volatility Factor

When is tracking error not really an error? By Nick Kalivas, Senior Equity Product Strategist, Invesco PowerShares Traditional indexes were never intended to define what makes a sound investment opportunity, which has fueled the popularity of factor-based investing. But they do serve as useful benchmarks for investment performance. How closely a portfolio or index tracks a particular benchmark index is referred to as “tracking error.” Tracking error is often considered in the context of a portfolio relative to an underlying index. But tracking error can also exist between two indexes, which raises questions. Take, for example, the case of low volatility investing – one of the most popular investment factors in use today. Could the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index – a commonly used barometer of low volatility stock performance – result in too much tracking error relative to its parent index, the S&P 500 Index? Because the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index selects 100 stocks from its parent index with the lowest realized volatility over the previous year, the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index can have sector exposure that is materially underweight or overweight relative to the S&P 500 Index. Should this be a concern? That depends on your perspective. The relationships between tracking error and low volatility exposure The table below shows the impact of blending the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index with the S&P 500 Index over a five-year period. It reveals a number of informational nuggets. Relationship between low volatility exposure, tracking error and performance April 30, 2011, through March 31, 2016 Source: Bloomberg L.P., March 31, 2016. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. First off, note the correlation between factor tilt and performance. During this time period, investors who had more low volatility exposure realized higher absolute and risk-adjusted returns. By itself, an allocation to the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index outperformed the S&P 500 Index by 22.5% (13.60% to 11.10%), with 24.4% less volatility (9.30% to 12.30%) over the five-year period. The results are consistent with the low volatility anomaly, which states that low volatility stocks may outperform higher volatility stocks and the broader market on an absolute and risk-adjusted basis.1 Note that the return per unit of risk increases as the low volatility factor tilt increases (0.90 for a 100% S&P 500 Index allocation, for example, to 1.22 with a 50-50 blend). Also note the proportional correlation between allocation to the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index and tracking error. The chart below plots this relationship alongside risk-adjusted return. Source: Bloomberg L.P., March 31, 2016. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. As you can see, the relationship between low volatility factor exposure and tracking error is linear. Tracking error is relatively small when small amounts of low volatility are blended into the S&P 500 Index. A portfolio with a 30% weighting in low volatility stocks, for example, had less than a 2.50% tracking error to the S&P 500 Index; 50-50 blend produced 4% tracking error. Keep in mind, though, that risk-adjusted returns also improved with increased tracking error. What all of this implies is that investors and their advisors can mix and match according to their comfort level. Blending material amounts of the low volatility factor into a portfolio will likely lead to increased tracking error relative to the S&P 500 Index, but can also enhance the performance of a portfolio on both an absolute and risk adjusted basis. What’s your choice? Learn more about the PowerShares S&P 500 Low Volatility Portfolio (NYSEARCA: SPLV ). Read more blogs by Nick Kalivas . Important information Correlation is the degree to which two investments have historically moved in relation to each other. Tracking error measures the divergence between price behavior of a portfolio and the price behavior of a benchmark. Volatility measures the standard deviation from a mean of historical prices of a security or portfolio over time. The S&P 500® Low Volatility Index consists of the 100 stocks from the S&P 500® Index with the lowest realized volatility over the past 12 months. An investment cannot be made into an index. Typically, security classifications used in calculating allocation tables are as of the last trading day of the previous month. There are risks involved with investing in ETFs, including possible loss of money. Shares are not actively managed and are subject to risks similar to those of stocks, including those regarding short selling and margin maintenance requirements. Ordinary brokerage commissions apply. The Fund’s return may not match the return of the Underlying Index. The Fund is subject to certain other risks. Please see the current prospectus for more information regarding the risk associated with an investment in the Fund. Investments focused in a particular industry or sector, such as the industrials sector are subject to greater risk, and are more greatly impacted by market volatility, than more diversified investments. The Fund is non-diversified and may experience greater volatility than a more diversified investment. There is no assurance that the Fund will provide low volatility. The Global Industry Classification Standard was developed by and is the exclusive property and a service mark of MSCI, Inc. and Standard & Poor’s. S&P® is a registered trademark of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC (S&P) and Dow Jones® is a registered trademark of Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC (Dow Jones). These trademarks have been licensed for use by S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC. S&P® and Standard & Poor’s® are trademarks of S&P and Dow Jones® is a trademark of Dow Jones. These trademarks have been sublicensed for certain purposes by Invesco PowerShares Capital Management LLC (Invesco PowerShares). The Index is a product of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC and/or its affiliates and has been licensed for use by Invesco PowerShares. The Fund is not sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted by S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC, Dow Jones, S&P or their respective affiliates and neither S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC, Dow Jones, S&P or their respective affiliates make any representation regarding the advisability of investing in such product(s). Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. Business relationship disclosure: This article was posted on the Invesco PowerShares’ blog by an Invesco PowerShares’ employee on April 21, 2016: http://www.blog.invesco.us.com/measuring-performance-vs-benchmark-low-volatility-factor

How To Play The Demise Of The U.S. Dollar

The US dollar currently is the world’s reserve currency. What that means, other currencies are ‘backed’ by the dollar. Foreign central banks hold US dollars as a reserve, making their own currencies more valuable. It has replaced the previous standard, the gold standard because the USD was ‘good as gold.’ There seems to be an underlying fear that the US dollar will be ‘replaced’ by an alternative such as the Chinese yuan, Russian ruble, Arabic dinar, amero, or some other ‘One World Currency.’ We’ll display here facts proving that this is impractical for the next 20 years at least. The latest threat comes from Saudi Arabia. A new law would allow families of victims of the tragic events of 9/11 to sue a sovereign government, Saudi Arabia, for involvement in the attacks of some kind. WSJ has written an explanation of what it means and how it can impact markets: President Barack Obama ‘s trip to Saudi Arabia this week and pending legislation that would enable families of people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks to sue the Gulf kingdom have prompted fresh calls to declassify 28 pages of a congressional report said to describe links between Saudi Arabia and the terrorists. “If all of the information comes out and [the legislation] is passed we can move forward against the Saudis,” said Jim Kreindler, one of the lawyers representing the families of Sept. 11 victims. But is it really feasible, that the Kingdom sells huge amounts of US assets? Marc Chandler proposed the most recent analysis in a recent article on the topic : There is something else Saudi Arabia could do. It could take a page from the playbook of the former Soviet Union. When it saw how the US treated its special ally Great Britain in the Suez Crisis, the Soviet Union was wary of the US using its financial power for political ends; it feared that its assets in the US could be frozen. It took the dollars it had in the US and deposited them with a UK merchant bank. That merchant bank was able to lend out those dollars without the interest rate cap that prevailing in the US at the time. This is to say that the offshore dollar market was launched not by good capitalists and the internationalization of savings, but the Communists seeking to move out of reach of US officials. Saudi Arabia could do the same thing. It could takes its US Treasury holdings and bring them to a foreign custodian, who is not subject to US laws. This may be more difficult to do with some of the other assets it may own in the United States. Overall this course would prove to be less disruptive for it than selling Treasuries. That means, there are a number of practicalities not considered by those who promote this idea that somehow a foreign power such as Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, or others; could trigger a US markets event that could lead to a run on the US dollar. Could it happen? Of course. But if it did happen, even in the worst case scenario, there are number of protections in place (similar to ‘circuit breakers’) that would prevent something extreme. Electronic markets mean that on the one hand, information ripples around the world at light speed, and institutions can make decisions in seconds and with 1 click sell or buy trillions in assets. But on the other hand, they have allowed the consolidation of control into one power. In the case of the stock markets, that’s the exchange. The NYSE reserves the right to halt trading or implement other measures, should a situation such as 9/11 occur. This has never happened in currency markets, but if it did, the Fed could literally halt US dollar markets around the world. Because the Fed controls all US dollar payments. It could be impossible to ‘sell’ the dollar, at a rate that would create severe decline. Also remember that the Fed works in conjunction with other central banks, to provide US dollar funding (among other functions): In response to mounting pressures in bank funding markets, the FOMC announced in December 2007 that it had authorized dollar liquidity swap lines with the European Central Bank and the Swiss National Bank to provide liquidity in U.S. dollars to overseas markets, and subsequently authorized dollar liquidity swap lines with each of the following central banks: the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Banco Central do Brasil, the Bank of Canada, Danmarks Nationalbank, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, the Bank of Korea, the Banco de Mexico, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, Norges Bank, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, Sveriges Riksbank, and the Swiss National Bank. Those arrangements terminated on February 1, 2010. In May 2010, the FOMC announced that in response to the re-emergence of strains in short-term U.S. dollar funding markets it had authorized dollar liquidity swap lines with the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, and the Swiss National Bank. In October 2013, the Federal Reserve and these central banks announced that their existing temporary liquidity swap arrangements–including the dollar liquidity swap lines–would be converted to standing arrangements that will remain in place until further notice. And remember – currencies are traded in pairs – so if the US dollar is ‘sold’ – something must be ‘bought’ – it’s not like a stock. It’s not possible to sell the US dollar without ‘buying’ something else, such as the Euro, Pound, Swiss Franc, or Gold. Looking at it from one perspective, although forex markets are completely unregulated, they are also completely manipulated. That’s because the central bank controls its own currency completely. Central banks cannot control other currencies, only their own – which is why they usually work together, through institutions such as the BIS. In any event, during a currency crisis of any kind, like minded nations would turn to each other and the BIS. But investors must understand that modern Forex is a closed system, as explained in detail in the “Splitting Pennies” book. If any currency poses a threat to the US dollar – it’s bitcoin, not the yuan. That’s because bitcoin is not manipulated, and not inside the forex system – it’s an externally manufactured currency, not created by a central bank. The problem with our modern forex system is that there are 10 myths for every 1 fact, and they don’t teach it in school. Finally, these fears about China somehow smashing US markets by a fire sale are completely unfounded. First, China is incapable of managing its own economy . They say the western fiat economic monetary system is a ‘Ponzi’ – if it is, then China is a super- Ponzi . Don’t forget the history – China’s economy is just about as old as the Forex market itself. It needs time to evolve and grow. There are still many elements in the Chinese economy which are missing, but are necessary for a financial world leader capable of managing a world reserve currency. Yes, they are taking steps, such as the recent gold price fixing . But these are baby steps, it will take decades before China can crawl, walk, and finally run. At the moment it relies on US support, financially, politically, and economically. The US is currently China’s biggest customer. It’s a cozy relationship – the US prints US dollars and sends to China, China sends manufactured junk to the US. This is one leg that supports the US dollar, created by Richard Nixon. The other leg being the petro dollar system. By recycling US dollars in US markets, it ties China to the US as well, provides natural demand for USD. For China to completely abandon this system, would crash their economy. America is capable of producing cheap junk, should the need arise. It would even be politically popular, and regenerate the US manufacturing sector. But China is incapable of creating by itself, a world class banking system. They need western involvement, even if it’s a simple copy and paste operation. China is not Japan – it can take China 100 years to adopt western systems, or longer. They have long term thinking, which is a good thing generally, compared to the quick timeline of Western thinking. But insofar as there is any threat to the US dollar, from China, Saudi Arabia, or elsewhere, it’s preposterous. So although we have debunked these myths about the fallacy of real paradigm shift in regards to the US dollar, all these new players may provide pressure on the US dollar, as some choose to sell their US assets in favor of new systems, especially regional players who until now, didn’t have a choice other than the USD. Currently the US dollar has a monopoly on the global Forex market which isn’t a good thing. Competition is healthy, it will ultimately make global markets more stable. At the end of the day, the US dollar is supposed to create an environment for markets to exist, not be a market itself, which it has become. Ways to trade the fear of US dollar Demise 1. Short USD ETFs (NYSEARCA: UUP ) and (NYSEARCA: USDU ). ETFs offer great alternatives to Forex because of their availability in stock markets, and their wide variety of options. UUP has options going out 2 years, to 2018, with decent liquidity. By trading options on an ETF, you have the security of US regulations and the security of US protections against fraud. Broker-dealers don’t go bust often like Forex brokers do, and are regulated by FINRA. Also, for some it may be convenient to hold these contracts in the same account for which you do your other investing. 2. Long Gold & Silver. There are many ways to play gold and silver. The most popular gold ETF is (NYSEARCA: GLD ) and the most popular silver ETF is (NYSE: SRV ). Similar to other ETFs, deep out the money options provide a great way to play this strategy, and will provide the best bang for the buck. One futures strategy employed by some traders, to buy the Gold contract and not roll it over, thus receiving delivery of the underlying. Futures trading offers a great alternative to stock ETFs , as you would be trading the actual commodity itself, in this case Gold & Silver. 3. Long Forex banks Any bank that utilizes multiple currencies, such as Everbank (NYSE: EVER ), will profit from their strategic positioning. Banks who do business in emerging markets, who will capture this new Forex business, will profit too. The point here is that when China comes online completely, it will be a good thing – it’s a new customer. Don’t worry though, markets will be organized by western banks for as long as all of us are alive. We just have too much of a head start. In conclusion, be wary of claims made by those who do not fully understand how the global Forex system works. The US dollar will have less and less role to play in the world – US dollar hegemony was an accident. Forex was an accident, created by a US President, Richard Nixon. At the same time, Nixon opened China, and we are now seeing the result of those protocols – China is close to having a real free market system (just remember to bring your stomach medicine if you visit, or bring your own food and water). Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

The Future Of Beta – Slip Sliding Away…

Value, momentum, size, quality, volatility, etc., as factors in investing are quite popular. They’ve produced significant outsized returns relative to benchmarks. Now, we even have Smart Beta funds and ETFs popping up all over to make taking advantage of factors super easy. That brings up the critical question every investor interested in taking advantage of factors in their portfolio should ask – will the outperformance of factor investing continue in the future? Here I’ll take a look at a recent post from Alpha Architect that addresses this question. In short, investors should expect past outperformance to decrease in the future. Basically, there are two reasons why outperformance could go away; data mining (the factor is not real and just an artifact of the data) and arbitrage (basically investors becoming aware of the anomaly, investing in it in a big way, and thus it disappears). The Alpha Architect post references a study that looked at out of sample performance of factors. Below are the results. Basically, out of sample returns are lower than what the historical results had shown. The returns were about 40-70% of what they were in the past. Sobering. But as I’ve discussed on the blog in the past, some factors are better than others. In another post , a bunch of factors are analyzed and the only two sustainable ones are value and momentum. This is the reason all the strategies I use are primarily focused around these two factors. But one of the reasons that value and momentum work is that they come with periods of awful performance, absolute and relative, and drawdowns. All of which make them very difficult to stick with over the long term. And if history is a guide, investors should expect their relative outperformance to decrease going forward as more investors become aware of them. In a way, these factor strategies are even harder to stick with than just simple buying and holding of traditional index products. When you’re indexing at least you’re doing no worse than the index! There is no FOMO (Fear of Missing Out). If you’re not willing or able to tolerate underperformance, potentially for long periods of time, then you won’t be successful with factors. But I think the are a several things investors can do to increase their chances of success going forward. Reduce expectations: I always reduce potential outperformance by at least half when I look at implementing a strategy. Diversify: Use multiple strategies – buy and hold indexing, TAA, smart beta, individual stocks. There’s a very strong chance at least one of the strategies will be outperforming, thus increasing your chances of sticking with your program. It doesn’t and shouldn’t be all or nothing. Stick with what works – Value and momentum strategies have stood the test of time… at least so far. Dampen portfolio volatility with bonds. Reduce noise – There is a lot of noise in markets today. Investors need to work hard to tune it out. Try and go 1 month without looking at the market. Most investors I know can’t go a week. Have an investing process – Investing your money shouldn’t be haphazard and random. As with many things in life, having a system and process will help you achieve success. What are your goals? How does your portfolio match those goals? When do you rebalance? What strategies are you implementing and why? Do the same things at the same times on a regular schedule, etc… In summary, factor outperformance could very possibly decrease in the future. But they are still likely to be very powerful wealth building strategies if investors can stick with them and not expect the future to be exactly like the past.