Tag Archives: investing-strategy

Smart Beta And The Portfolio Construction Puzzle

The portfolio puzzle The Rubik’s cube has become a popular metaphor for the marketing teams of ETF providers. With good reason. For each client there’s a portfolio construction puzzle to be solved with building blocks, representing geographies, sectors, asset classes, factors and styles. There has been rapid expansion from providers of ETFs tracking main-market indices, with the largest institutional providers capturing the lion’s share of flows, owing to their ability to deliver on four key ETF governance criteria — consistency, liquidity, transparency and, of course, price. This means that ETFs for main market cap-weighted indices are increasingly commoditized. After all, there doesn’t seem to be anything overly smart about replicating market beta, other than the smartness of saving on fees relative to ‘closet-tracker’ active funds. Traditional cap-weighted index investing is a preference: either out of philosophy or necessity. Innovation Means Smarter? Hence R&D of institutional investors, index providers and ETF manufacturers alike has focused more on “smart beta.” This has triggered a slew of innovation – both superficial and substantive. At a superficial end, age-old alternative weighting strategies (e.g. value indices that screen stocks for low book values, or dividend-weighted indices) have been re-branded as being “smart.” In these cases, for “smart” read “non-market-cap weighted.” In fairness, this rebranding is part of broadening of alternative weighting strategies that are factor-based. More substantively, research programs such as EDHEC-Risk Institute’s Scientific Beta have been instrumental in promoting fresh thinking in the field of both factor-based and risk-based smart beta strategies. Factor-Based Approach As a result, providers are focusing on making building blocks smarter. Instead of relying on the ‘traditional’ factor of market capitalization for index inclusion, smart beta indices (and related ETFs) look at alternative factors: book value, dividend yield, volatility, for example. In that respect, the FTSE Russell 1000 Value Index launched in 1987 is probably the oldest factor index on the block. More recent factor indices are stylistic: Both iShares (Oct-14) and Vanguard (Dec-15) have launched global equity factor ETFs focusing on liquidity, minimum volatility, momentum and value. The sophistication of factor-based index construction will continue to increase with the increase in data availability and computing power. Risk-Based Approach Portfolio strategists meanwhile can apply quantitative rules-based approaches to portfolio construction, creating static or dynamic asset allocation strategies from a growing universe of both cap-weighted and alternatively weighted index tracking funds. These strategies — such as maximum Sharpe, minimum variance, equal risk contribution and maximum deconcentration — offer an alternative to the standard but troubled single period mean variance optimization (MVO) approach. MVO’s limitations The single-period MVO approach remains the traditional bedrock of very long-run investing in normal market conditions where the sequence of returns does not matter. However it runs into difficulty in the short-run when markets are non-normal and sequence of returns matters a lot. So unless you are a large endowment with an infinite time horizon, or perhaps can afford to invest for yourself and your family without ever needing to withdraw any capital, relying entirely on the MVO approach for asset allocation gives false comfort. For cases where there are constraints that challenge the MVO model – due to multiple or limited time horizons, expected capital withdrawals, risk budgets, and unstable risk/return/correlation profiles of asset classes (collectively known as real life) — portfolio construction requires a smarter, more adaptive approach that observes, isolates and captures the reward from shifting risk premia over time. Risk-based portfolio strategies attempt to achieve this and are designed to offer a liquid alternative approach to investing that is uncorrelated with traditional single-period MVO strategies. What’s the Problem to Solve? Whether assessing factor-based ETFs or risk-based ETF strategies, at best these new developments all seem very smart. At worst it’s just a bit different. However, as ETFs get smarter and the strategies that combine them become more sophisticated, there’s a risk that the key question in all of this gets lost in an incomprehensible barrage of Greek. The key question for portfolio managers nonetheless remains the same. What client outcome am I targeting? What client need am I trying to solve? For portfolio strategy, whether using a discretionary manager that relies on judgment, or a systematic rules-based approach that relies on quantitative inputs, the key client considerations remain return objective, time horizon, capacity for loss and diversification across asset classes and/or risk premia. Broadening the Toolkit A portfolio strategy has little meaning without an objective that focuses on client outcomes. Factor-based ETFs and risk-based ETF portfolio strategies offer an alternative or additional set of tools to help deliver on those outcomes, in a way that is systematic, liquid and efficient. 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. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. Additional disclosure: This article has been prepared for research purposes only.

Take The Long-Term View To Manage Volatility

By Tom Lee, Managing Director, Investment Strategy and Research, Parametric Volatility today is not materially above the long-term average. If we use the CBOE Volatility Index as a reference, volatility since the end of 2015 averaged a little over 21 ½. Long-term VIX averages in the high 19s. The reality is people think we are in a higher-volatility environment because we came from, historically, a relatively low-volatility environment. Volatility tends to cluster into regimes. The volatility environment we’re in now is more normal. What caused volatility to elevate? There are a lot of contributors to volatility. There are the experimental and divergent monetary policies that are being pursued across the globe, including negative interest rates. And there’s also an intuitive understanding that the longer we are in this experimental monetary policy phase, the higher the risk is of some unintended consequence. We’re going to have this uncertainty for a while. Asset allocation Having said that, I don’t think that volatility should drive changes in asset allocation. Volatility tends to cluster in regimes and it would be very hard for an investor to time an upward or downward move. I think investors should structure their portfolios for the long term. I would say that now is a very prudent time for investors to closely observe their portfolio and make sure they have transparency into all the risks they’re taking and address unintended risks. As an example, recently investors have become very interested in hedging their currency exposure – after the strong rally in the dollar. They’re hedging only after they’ve experienced the risk. We are advocates of investors trying to get ahead of the curve with respect to risk. Investors need to show fortitude as volatility picks up and not overreact to events in the market. Staying the course What can investment managers do? First and foremost, investment managers can come up with ways that help the client to stick to their policy portfolio. So, as an example, they can offer seamless rebalancing methodologies. Investment managers can be more transparent about their strategies. By this I mean every strategy has periods when the wind is at its back and periods where you’re running into the wind. Overall it’s helpful to be more transparent about what environments will be challenging for a strategy. And if managers are forthright with the client about this, it’s less likely the client is going to terminate them during a challenging period. Frequently, in hindsight, we see that these challenging periods were absolutely the wrong time to terminate a strategy. Low-volatility strategies Low-volatility strategies are always worthy of consideration but investors need to be conscious of what they’re getting into. Most strategies are constructed around two general themes, a risk metric construction process and a min-variance process. Risk metric just involves sorting the index by various volatility metrics. Minimum variance looks beyond risk metrics and incorporates correlations among securities. All low-volatility factor construction uses some type of concentration limits. You need to understand that these strategies don’t outperform in every situation, namely a down market. For example, the S&P 500 Low [Volatility] Index has underperformed the S&P approximately 15% of the time when the market was negative. So investors have to understand that they can have these downward surprises. If investors want to avoid these types of surprises, either asset allocation or diversification through the introduction of other risk premiums will provide them with greater certainty of low volatility when they most want it, and that’s in a negative market environment. Holding cash In regard to holding cash, I think it’s challenging for an investor in the long term. They are holding risk assets to fund future liabilities, which are growing faster than cash. Investors holding cash also struggle to realize when the market is bottoming so they can time their move out of cash into risk assets. If you are really thinking about holding cash as a modest form of protection, there are other strategies available. A very simple one is a disciplined covered-call selling program that will generate cash in a stressful environment and dampen some of the downside volatility. That, to us, would be more prudent than parking money in cash. Derivatives Derivatives can and have been used to control portfolio volatility. Historically investors have used long puts or put spreads to control downside risk in portfolios. I am generally not an advocate of this approach. It needs to be highly customized to the particular investor and it can lead to a lot of challenging decisions. How do you pay for the downside protection? Do you sell away upside? Experience shows that most investors become fatigued with the expense and tend to terminate programs, often right before a market experiences challenges. Options An alternative approach is to sell fully collateralized options. This approach seeks to capture the volatility risk premium, which is embedded in options. It often makes more sense to de-risk the portfolio and consider being a seller, rather than a buyer of the hedge. The first adopters of this type of strategy were endowments and foundations. More recently there is increased interest from Taft-Hartley funds that are dealing with particular pension funds and mark-to-market issues, as well as public fund investors. There are benefits of selling volatility in a transparent, liquid and fully collateralized manner. One preferred way of doing that is through index options and trying to capture what academic and market research has identified as the volatility risk premium. The result is that this premium can be captured in a transparent, liquid manner and it shows diversification benefits versus traditional assets. It can have a material and positive impact on a portfolio over time. Focus on the long term Many investors look at volatility and are fearful. They intuitively understand that rising volatility generally means more stressful market environments. Investors need to take a step back and focus on the long term, and not become reactionary or fall into short-term pitfalls and try to shuffle their portfolio to follow some latest fad. As markets evolve there may be better approaches available to them that allow them to achieve their ultimate objectives. So be open to new ideas. There’s a lot of really creative thought going on right now in different areas that maybe in a couple years will become more mainstream. 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. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

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.