Tag Archives: investing

The Appropriate Portfolio Vs. The Optimal Portfolio

Perfect is the enemy of the good” – Adapted Italian Proverb We all want the perfect portfolio, the portfolio that achieves the highest amount of return for the lowest degree of risk. But one of the inconveniences of a system as dynamic as a financial market is that it’s impossible to consistently maintain the perfect portfolio. This pursuit, unfortunately, causes more damage than good since it leads to increased activity, higher fees, higher taxes and usually lower returns. I have argued in my new paper, Understanding Modern Portfolio Construction , that this pursuit of alpha is misguided and that we should seek the appropriate portfolio as opposed to the optimal portfolio. Here’s my basic thinking: There is an abundance of data supporting the fact that more active investors do not consistently generate alpha or excess return.¹ Alpha is elusive because it doesn’t exist in the aggregate and because we all generate the after tax and fee return of the aggregate financial markets. So, the diversified low fee indexer must ask themselves – if I want to be properly diversified and alpha is impossible to achieve in the aggregate, then is this a pursuit I should bother engaging in? For most people, the answer should be no. For most people, the generation of “alpha” is not a necessary financial goal. Asset allocators should be concerned with generating the appropriate return as opposed to the optimal return. This means building a portfolio that is consistent with your risk profile and managing it across time so that you maintain that profile while maintaining an appropriately low fee, tax efficient and diversified approach. The pursuit of alpha generation not only reduces returns by increasing taxes and fees, but also misaligns the way the portfolio manager perceives risk with the way the client sees risk. Since the portfolio manager is benchmarked to a passive portfolio they likely cannot outperform they will often exacerbate many of the frictions that degrade portfolio returns all the while increasing the risk that the client will not achieve their financial goals. Of course, the “optimal” portfolio might not seem so different from the “appropriate” portfolio, but I would argue that there’s a substantive difference. For instance, let’s look at an example of a 40-year-old man with $500,000 to allocate. Let’s assume he uses the simple “age in bonds” approach and comes to a 60/40 stock/bond portfolio. Every year this asset allocator should rebalance his portfolio so that he owns approximately 1% more in bonds. In all likelihood, the stock piece of the portfolio will outperform the bonds over long periods of time so he will consistently be tilting further away from stocks and into bonds. But why does he rebalance? He rebalances to maintain an appropriate risk profile, not to optimize returns and generate alpha. He is accepting the high probability of a good return and foregoing the risks associated with pursuing the perfect return. This should be the approach taken by most asset allocators seeking to build a proper savings portfolio. Countercyclical Indexing takes this process of risk profile based rebalancing a step further.¹ Since a 60/40 portfolio derives 85%+ of its risk from the equity market piece (and even more late in a market cycle) it is prudent to try to achieve some degree of risk parity across the market cycle. But we should be clear about the process of this rebalancing – we are not rebalancing to achieve alpha. We are rebalancing to better balance our exposure to asset risk across time. Said differently, we don’t implement this rebalancing to capture the best portfolio, but to capture an appropriate portfolio. In doing so, we are accepting that our portfolio might merely be “good,” but by pursuing the appropriate portfolio we are avoiding many of the pitfalls involved in pursuing the perfect portfolio. If more asset allocators abandoned the false pursuit of the optimal portfolio, I suspect they would perform better. Instead, they’ve let perfect become the enemy of the good. ¹ – See the annual SPIVA reports. ² See, What is Countercyclical Indexing ?

Stocks Aren’t Bad, They’re Just Not Good

When we’re doing our due diligence on an Alternative Investment, one of the first questions we ask managers is what are the market environments in which the program struggles to find returns. And once we get into when they’re likely to do poorly, we then analyze just what that poor performance looks like. In essence – how bad is it when it’s bad? Does everyone/anyone who tracks the stock market with low cost index tracking ETFs do the same? With stocks all but flat since mid-way through 2014, some investors are starting to question where the returns are, rightly so. But the stock indices aren’t human. We can’t tell them to try a little harder. Or go for a moonshot. Or shake off the rust and get back into the game. No, the stock indices are a rule-based investment model. So while pundits and economists are grasping at straws to identify the problem, we’re more apt to ask the manager of the investment model “Why is the current market making it difficult for your trading model to find returns?” We’ve said this before, but it bears repeating, stock indices like the S&P 500 are a trading system; or if you prefer a set of investment rules or stock picking model. Look no further than Winton Capital’s CEO on the matter. We really couldn’t have said it better. Harding: “The S&P 500 is a trading system. The S&P 500 is a set of rules for buying and selling stocks. And by the way… not a very good one! Think about this for a second. If you took the S&P 500’s monthly returns and put them under some sophisticated sounding hedge fund name, everyone would tell you the drawdowns are too large and last too long, while the annualized volatility is too high for the performance it generates. There would be a Bloomberg article demonizing the system for large drawdowns and for tricking investors. And what’s worse, this model is a one trick pony. It’s solely focused on one asset class, and only makes money when that asset class goes up. Of course, it does have the Fed doing everything in its power to avoid a 20% drawdown in the markets at the cost of creating a future bubble. Not to mention buybacks are preventing real growth while 3 companies make up 10% of the market’s capitalization . Put that all together and the S&P 500 is nothing more than an investment model that is high reward-high risk. We dare say, it’s a very basic equity focused hedge fund, choosing which stocks to “own” and which to avoid. To paraphrase Captain Barbossa, “You better start believing in hedge funds Ms. Turner – you’re in one !” There’re bouts of volatility, drawdowns, and low risk-adjusted returns. But that doesn’t make the most beloved system in the world a bad investment. By all means, take a look at it. There’s a lot to like. Chief among them is probably choosing to align yourself with the majority of investors out there; the government and a huge industry hell-bent on seeing it go up year after year. The S&P 500 isn’t a bad investment, it’s just not a good one. It will test your nerve, and then test it some more. As a recent post by Reformed Broker noted: Just because it’s cheap and easy to get exposure to stocks these days, that doesn’t mean it’ll be mentally cheap and easy to stick with them.