Tag Archives: market

Protect Your Portfolio Against Risks

Uncertainty in the market is increasing, which means that investors want to insure themselves against risks. Hedging is one way to protect a portfolio against losses. Hedging with options is a popular method that has a lot of shortcomings. A market-neutral portfolio is a hedging method in which the distinguishing feature is the lack of correlation with the market. A market-neutral portfolio enables investors to make a profit when the market takes a nosedive, but this method has to be used carefully. It’s not uncommon to hear that there is a bubble forming in the market. The more a market grows, the more participants start to voice such concerns and the more convincing their arguments sound. However, aside from bubbles such as the dotcom crash in 2000 or the crisis of 2008, there are other situations that impact investors negatively. The slowdown of the Chinese economy, the crisis in Greece and the expectation of increases in interest rates are all factors of uncertainty that put pressure on the market this year. The increase in uncertainty on the market means that a lot of investors want to insure themselves against risks and retain profits made during years of rapid growth. The simplest way to protect yourself against risks is to have a cash position. This position is the least affected by risks and allows investors to take advantage of the opportunities that may present themselves if the market crashes. For example, the recent Flash Crash allowed market participants to purchase stocks of great companies at low prices. Nonetheless, cash positions have one major disadvantage – during periods of market growth, they significantly limit potential returns. Hedging is another way to insure a portfolio against risks. A hedge is a position in an instrument that serves to decrease potential losses on a position in another instrument. Hedging with options is one of the most popular ways to hedge. Options can be used to create all sorts of different hedging strategies. Let’s look at a few basic examples. Protective puts . One of the simplest hedging strategies – the purchase of put options with a strike price at the level of tolerable losses. Let’s look at a scenario in which an investor purchases a stock for $100 and in which the amount he/she is willing to lose is 15%. After purchasing a put option with a strike price of $85, the investor will ensure that the most he or she will lose is 15%. The investor is paying a premium when he/she buys put options – essentially paying for insurance against risk. Collar . The premium an investor must pay to purchase a put option can be quite large. The system of hedging a portfolio with a collar allows to decrease these risk insurance costs. In this strategy, the investor simultaneously purchases a protective put and sells an out-of-the-money call option. By selling the call option, the investor receives a premium that can cover part of the expenses for purchasing the put option. In some cases, the premium received from the sale of a call option can be higher than the premium spent for the purchase of the put option. Thus, the investor essentially gets paid for hedging their position. However, in selling the call option, the investor limits potential income from the long position. This is why the collar strategy only makes sense if the investor expects the price of stocks they purchase to not exceed the strike price of call options they sell. In spite of the popularity of these strategies, hedging with options has a number of serious disadvantages. First, the options market is too difficult to navigate for many individual investors, which is why they prefer to not trade instruments they don’t understand. Second, liquid options don’t exist for all securities, or premiums on the options can be very high. Options strategies described above help to limit losses of the portfolio. But smarter way of hedging is reducing the exposures of the portfolio to different kinds of risk. A better hedge is one that would not only cut down on potential losses, but would eliminate a portfolio’s correlation with the market and other risk factors such as sector specifics (this is relevant, for example, for the Energy sector, which dropped significantly when oil prices fell). A market-neutral portfolio is one such hedging strategy. The idea behind a market-neutral portfolio is that the investor takes a long position on a number of instruments in the portfolio, and shorts the rest. In this way, if the portfolio is put together correctly, there is an opportunity to make profits regardless of how the market behaves. The most popular example of a market-neutral portfolio strategy is pair trading, which is when an investor takes long position in one stock and shorts another (with different weights) in case of widening of spread between their prices. The expectation is that the spread will eventually be become narrower. Pair trading is quite simple in theory, but difficult to carry out in practice. In order to be implemented successfully, investors have to find the right pairs to pair trade. It is best to have more than one pair so that a potential loss on one would be covered by profits from the others. Moreover, it is necessary to determine the weights on long and short positions in each pair, since the securities can have different beta coefficients against the market. Pair trading opportunities do not come up systemically, which is why an investor has to constantly monitor pairs – not a good strategy for those who prefer to only trade occasionally. There has to be a stop-loss for each pair, since the difference between each pair may never diminish, but rather continue to increase in the future. Finally, broker commissions for short positions may make opening a short position on a security in a potential pair impossible. A much simpler implementation of the market-neutral portfolio strategy is as follows. The investor longs stocks and shorts index futures (with adjustment for the beta of the long part of the portfolio against the index). This portfolio would have a correlation with market that is close to zero because of the short part. Profits will depend on how much better than the market the long stocks perform on a risk-adjusted basis. In other words, this portfolio will allow the investor to extract the alpha of securities in the long position. With the development of ETFs, constructing such portfolios has become a lot easier. Instead of shorting futures (the price of E-mini futures does not allow investors to use them to hedge small portfolios), inverse ETFs can be used – ProShares Short S&P 500 ETF (NYSEARCA: SH ), for example. Moreover, sector risks can be hedged by using sector ETFs as hedges. An investor could profit on recent biotech plunge by hedging portfolio of best biotech stocks with iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF (NASDAQ: IBB ). An important advantage of this portfolio is the fact that it does not require a large number of trades. All the investor has to do is occasionally correct the size of the position in the hedge to make sure that it doesn’t differ too much from the long position (with respect to the beta). Here is an example of a backtesting of implementation market-neutral portfolio strategy. We conduct backtesting, starting on 01/01/2008. The backtesting period’s start date was set to 01/01/2008 to include periods of both market decline and market growth. We apply simple screening to choose stocks for the portfolio. On the first step of the screening we limit the universe of 500 US companies with the largest market cap to 100 with the lowest 1-year volatility. On the second step we pick top 20 stocks by dividend yield from 100 stocks that have been chosen on previous step. This portfolio presumably should generate excess return against the market on a risk-adjusted basis. In order to make portfolio “market neutral” we should add hedge to the portfolio. As a hedge we would use short position in SPY. The proportion of assets allocated in hedge should be equal to beta of the portfolio against hedge. Then beta of the hedged portfolio would be equal to zero. In other words, hedged portfolio would be market-neutral portfolio. We would rebalance this portfolio quarterly. Rebalancing is necessary because: It insures that stocks in the portfolio match our screening criteria; It helps to adjust allocation of assets in long and short parts of the portfolio, so that the beta of hedged portfolio would be zero. Beta of the portfolio is recalculated on each rebalancing date. (click to enlarge) At the selected interval, the portfolio has an Annualized Return that is comparable to S&P 500 (NYSEARCA: SPY ). The Maximum Drawdown is much lower, while the Sharpe Ratio is higher. Of course, hedging a portfolio like this is not free. In this case, the price is that a neutral portfolio will show moderate returns during market boom periods. Investing always involves risk: the market is volatile, and this volatility is influenced by both fundamental factors and by noise. Forecasting a market drop is almost impossible, which is why it makes sense to hedge portfolios during periods of uncertainty in order to avoid significant losses. A market-neutral portfolio is a type of hedging that allows investors to limit losses and make profits in any market conditions, since the profitability of such portfolios does not depend on market shifts. But during market booms, such portfolios will be less profitable than regular ones. This is why investors with moderate risk tolerance can employ this hedging strategy periodically, when uncertainty is high.

Building A Bulletproof Portfolio Of Lower Beta Stocks

Summary An investor can “bulletproof” his portfolio while maximizing his expected return using the hedged portfolio method. When creating a hedged portfolio, you can start from scratch or start by narrowing down your universe of stocks. We explore the second method here. The stock we start with are ones with lower betas. Although CAPM predicts lower beta stocks will have lower returns, evidence suggests the opposite is the case. Since lower beta stocks are not without risk, owning them within a hedged portfolio can make sense. We recap the hedged portfolio method, show how you can build a hedged portfolio of lower beta stocks yourself, and provide a sample portfolio. Seeking Beta The traditional view of lower beta stocks, encapsulated in the Capital Asset Pricing Model ( CAPM ), is that they offer lower risk than higher beta stocks, but also lower returns. Seeking Alpha contributor and hedge fund manager Dr. Eric Falkenstein is one of the researchers who has challenged that, presenting evidence that lower beta stocks actually generate higher returns than higher beta stocks. In a 2012 Seeking Alpha article (“Is Low Vol A Beta Phenomenon”), Falkestein included the chart below, showing that, among the top 1500 stocks by market cap (excluding financials), stocks with lower beta (average beta of 0.85 versus 1 for the market) had outperformed both the market and high beta stocks since 1990. The Risks of Investing in Lower Beta Stocks As with any style of stock investing, when investing in lower beta stocks, you face two kinds of risks: idiosyncratic risk , the risk of something bad happening to one of the companies you own, and market risk , the risk of your investments suffering due to a decline of the market as a whole. By definition, the market risk of lower beta stocks should be less than that of the market (assuming the lower beta stocks you buy remain lower beta, which isn’t always the case, as Seeking Alpha contributor Matti Suominen has noted ), but the idiosyncratic, or stock-specific risk of lower beta stocks may come as a surprise to some investors. Six months ago, for example, how many investors in Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT ) (beta: 0.82) would have thought they would be down nearly 25% on the stock by mid-October, as the chart below shows? (click to enlarge) Two Ways of Limiting Stock-Specific Risk One way to limit stock-specific risk is via hedging; another way is via diversification. In a previous article (“How to Limit Your Market Risk”), we discussed ways to limit market risk for a diversified portfolio. In this post, we’ll look at how to “bulletproof” a concentrated portfolio of lower beta stocks using the hedged portfolio method . In that method, you limit both stock-specific and market risk via hedging. Below, we’ll show how to use that method to construct a “bulletproof”, or hedged portfolio for an investor who is unwilling to risk a drawdown of more than 16%, and has $250,000 that he wants to invest. First, though, let’s address the issue of risk tolerance, and how it affects potential return. Risk Tolerance and Potential Return All else equal, with a hedged portfolio, the greater an investor’s risk tolerance — the greater the maximum drawdown he is willing to risk (his “threshold”, in our terminology) – the higher his potential return will be. So, we should expect that an investor who is willing to risk a 26% decline will have a chance at higher potential returns than one who is only willing to risk a 6% drawdown. In our example, we’ll be splitting the difference and using a 16% threshold. Constructing A Hedged Portfolio We’ll outline the process here briefly, and then explain how you can implement it yourself. Finally, we’ll present an example of a hedged portfolio that was constructed this way with an automated tool. The process, in broad strokes, is this: Find securities with promising potential returns (we define potential return as a high-end, bullish estimate of how the security will perform). Find securities that are relatively inexpensive to hedge. Buy a handful of securities that score well on the first two criteria; in other words, buy a handful of securities with high potential returns net of their hedging costs (or, ones with high net potential returns). Hedge them. The potential benefits of this approach are twofold: If you are successful at the first step (finding securities with high potential returns), and you hold a concentrated portfolio of them, your portfolios should generate decent returns over time. If you are hedged, and your return estimates are completely wrong, on occasion — or the market moves against you — your downside will be strictly limited. How to Implement This Approach Finding promising lower beta stocks Most brokerage websites offer screeners that let you screen for lower beta stocks. Since you’re going to hedge your stocks, you’ll want to limit your screen to stocks that are optionable. Next, you’ll need to calculate potential returns for your lower-beta, optionable stocks. One way to do that is to look up the consensus price targets for each stock, and derive potential returns in percentage terms from them. We offered an example of doing that for Novo Nordisk (NYSE: NVO ) in a recent article (“Building A Hedged Portfolio Around A Position In Novo Nordisk”). In general, though, you’ll need to use the same time frame for each of your potential return calculations to facilitate comparisons of potential returns, hedging costs, and net potential returns. Our method starts with calculations of six-month potential returns. Finding inexpensive ways to hedge these securities Whatever hedging method you use, for this example, you’d want to make sure that each security is hedged against a greater-than-16% decline over the time frame covered by your potential return calculations (our method attempts to find optimal static hedges using collars as well as protective puts going out approximately six months). And you’ll need to calculate your cost of hedging as a percentage of position value. Select the securities with highest net potential returns When starting from a large universe of securities, you’d want to select the ones with the highest potential returns, net of hedging costs, but, in any case, you’ll at least want to exclude any of them that has a negative potential return net of hedging costs. It doesn’t make sense to pay X to hedge a stock if you estimate the stock will return 7% declines, they all had positive net potential returns when hedged against > 16% declines. Nevertheless, the site rejected GOOGL. Why? Because of its share price ($695.32) relative to the size of the portfolio ($250k). For a portfolio of this size, the site attempts to allocate equal dollar amounts to 4 primary securities. Since a quarter of the portfolio would be $62,500, and a round lot of GOOGL would have cost more than that ($69,532), the site eliminated GOOGL from consideration for this portfolio. As it allocated cash to each of the stocks we entered, it rounded down the dollar amounts to get round lots of each stock. In its fine-tuning step, Portfolio Armor added Tesla Motors (NASDAQ: TSLA ) as a cash substitute, to replace most of the cash leftover from the rounding down process. TSLA happens to be a higher beta stock, but the site doesn’t take beta into account when adding cash substitutes; instead, it looks at which securities (whether stocks or exchange traded products) have the highest net potential returns when hedged as a cash substitute. Let’s turn our attention now to the portfolio level summary. Worst-Case Scenario The “Max Drawdown” column in the portfolio level summary shows the worst-case scenario for this hedged portfolio. If every underlying security in it went to zero before their hedges expired, the portfolio would decline 14.33%. Negative Hedging Cost Note that, in this case, the total hedging cost for the portfolio was negative, -0.19%, meaning the investor would receive more income in total from selling the call legs of the collars on his positions than he spent buying the puts. Best-Case Scenario At the portfolio level, the net potential return is 13.77% over the next six months. This represents the best-case scenario, if each underlying security in the portfolio meets its potential return (since three of these positions are uncapped, it’s theoretically possible that the portfolio could return more than 13.77% if each of the uncapped stocks exceeds its potential return). A More Likely Scenario The portfolio level expected return of 5.52% represents a more conservative estimate, based on the historical relationship between our calculated potential returns and actual returns. By way of comparison, the average 6 month return for the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (NYSEARCA: SPY ) over the last 10 years was 3.84%. Each Security Is Hedged Note that each of the above securities is hedged. TSLA, the cash substitute, is hedged with an optimal collar with its cap set at 1%, HRL is hedged with an optimal collar, with its cap set at its potential return, and the other 3 primary securities are hedged with optimal puts, which are uncapped. In our series of 25,412 backtests conducted over an 11-year period, the average actual return of a security hedged with an optimal put was 1.93x that of one hedged with an optimal collar, so the site aims to hedge primary securities with optimal puts unless their net potential returns, when hedged with collars, are > 1.93x higher. That was the case with HRL, which is why it’s hedged with an optimal collar. That wasn’t the case for the other three primary securities, which is why they’re hedged with optimal puts. Here’s a closer look at the optimal put hedge on MO: The cap field above is blank, as this is an optimal put, which is uncapped. As you can at the bottom of the image above, the cost of the put protection on MO was $840, or 2.04% as a percentage of position value.[i] Note that, although the cost of this hedge was positive, the overall cost of hedging the portfolio was negative . Possibly More Protection Than Promised In some cases, hedges such as the ones in the portfolio above can provide more protection than promised. For an example of that, see this instablog post on hedging Tesla. [i] To be conservative, Portfolio Armor calculated the hedging cost using the ask price of the puts; in practice an investor can often buy puts for less (for some price between the bid and the ask). The other hedges in the portfolio were calculated in a similarly conservative manner, with the puts priced at the ask, and the calls priced at the bids, so the actual cost of hedging this portfolio would likely have been lower than shown (i.e., an investor would have collected more than $465, on net, after opening the hedges).

A Case For Active Investment Management

Summary Investing in fundamentally strong companies. Active Management vs. Benchmarking. Potential for reduced exposure to declining markets. “The most successful investment managers generally possess three qualities: independent thought, discipline, and consistency of application” – John Train in his book The Money Masters. “It is impossible to produce superior performance unless you do something different from the majority.” – Sir John Templeton. Screening for Fundamentally Strong Companies For over 15 years I have been a multi-asset class investor, advisor and analyst. My teams over the years have managed a variety of active strategies. While different in focus, every equity based strategy incorporates fundamental investment principles. Regardless of the fad of the day or the hot company everyone is talking about, consistent performance and risk management depends on these principles. I have recently collaborated with a group of CFA charterholders to form an all-cap equity strategy from our most successful strategies with the sole purpose of generating exceptional risk adjusted returns. Below is a summary of the parameters we use. All Alpha Strategy Parameters Price to Book < 1.5 7 years of positive operating margin 3 years roe > 15% Lowest 20% of growth adjusted free cash flow multiple Companies with above average operating and net margin within their respective industry Below average debt to equity Positive cash flow ROA growing D/E declining Current ratio, gross margin, asset turnover growing Cash flow > net income Consistent earnings growth Momentum parameters Thanks to Henry Crutcher and Equities Lab for creating a great quantitative tool that enables us to generate and successfully back test the performance of our fundamental and technical based strategies for the periods we don’t have actual trading history. See the output since 1997 from the program below. Here is a list of every trade for the past 15 years. Recently passing companies: (click to enlarge) The results from the model were strong. Upon verifying the data, 13.12% annualized is accurate. I then combined it with a proprietary risk management model that helps us anticipate significant market declines and the results were even more encouraging. I nvesting in fundamentally strong companies Investing “is pursued most successfully in a simple, straightforward way.” – Brad Perry, Winning the Investment Marathon. Buy stocks of high-quality companies at good prices and continue holding them as long as the companies’ performance merits doing so. Do this consistently and the probability an investor will enjoy above average returns substantially increases. Below are brief descriptions of the investment parameters. 1. Price to Book < 1.5 As a primary measure of value, the price to book ratio is an initial screen that seeks to pass securities that have moved away from their true value due to neglect and are typically out of favor. These securities over time have proven to be successful investments. 2. 7 years of positive operating margin Consistent operating margins are a positive sign a company's underlying business is successful and seemingly sustainable. 3. 3 years roe > 15% Strong and consistent return on equity is essential. 4. Lowest 20% of growth adjusted free cash flow multiple Using price/free cash flow multiplied by 5 year growth of free cash flow is a valuation measure. 5. Companies with above average operating and net margin within their respective industry This measure helps us choose the leaders in each investment’s respective industry. 6. Below average debt to equity Because overleveraged companies are not attractive. 7. ROA growing We prefer the companies we invest in to get better at what they do over time. Additionally, we look for companies that invest internally and that return produces consistently growing ROA. Otherwise, our money is better invested elsewhere. This is a year over year measure. 8. D/E declining Efficient use of debt is important, as well as consistent retirement of debt. 9. Current ratio, gross margin, asset turnover growing Measures of liquidity, profitability and business activity. 10. Cash flow from Operations > net income This is a simple accrual accounting check to avoid companies that may be attempting to manage earnings. 11. Consistent earnings growth Earnings growth attracts attention. We again use year over year measures that help us identify companies that are poised to move. 12. Momentum parameters in the form of relative strength play an important role in our growth oriented screen. It helps identify companies with attractive price movement but remain appropriately valued. In addition, we tend to focus our attention to price movers that are within 15% of recent highs. Active Management vs. Benchmarking So I guess you now have me pegged as an active investor. I personally don’t consider myself active or passive, I consider myself a fundamentally based technical investor, meaning I buy when it makes sense and sell when things start looking uncertain. My current domestic exposure, managed with a beta weighted futures overlay on a long portfolio, is 100% hedged due to current volatile economic conditions. The exposure metric was derived by analyzing market valuations and economic indicators. It is updated monthly, which may also be considered an actively managed strategy. Regardless of my bias, active management has taken a beating over the past few years and rightfully so, in many instances, such as the “active” managers that are more concerned about underperforming than actually providing value to their clients. In other cases, active management can provide an investor peace of mind and tremendous value if the strategy is fundamentally sound and is implemented consistently. William Sharpe stated in the Arithmetic of Active Management (The Financial Analysts’ Journal Vol. 47, No. 1, January/February 1991. pp. 7-9): If “active” and “passive” management styles are defined in sensible ways, i t must be the case that 1. before costs, the return on the average actively managed dollar will equal the return on the average passively managed dollar and 2. after costs, the return on the average actively managed dollar will be less than the return on the average passively managed dollar The problem with this statement from William Sharpe is that it assumes the active manager seeks to benchmark a specific market such as large cap, small cap, etc. As a business, active managers live and die on performance against their respective benchmarks. Knowing this, many use enhanced benchmarking. Enhanced benchmarking involves an active manager investing in an essentially passive portfolio of securities that mimic a benchmark. However in addition to this passive allocation, these active managers will use derivatives or some other portable alpha to “enhance” portfolio performance in an attempt to reduce the risk of underperforming the benchmark and providing the possibility of outperforming at any random time. Additionally, active managers may also stray from their benchmark allocations by adding smaller cap and potentially higher returning securities. This is known as style drift and measured by tracking error. Oftentimes, these additional measures do not add sufficient alpha to offset higher risk and fees. These are reasons a high percentage of active managers perform poorly after fees compared to passive index investing. Potential for reduced exposure to declining markets As seen in the Business Cycle Overlay data, the potential for reduced exposure to declining markets can be substantial if executed properly. The model effectively reduces equity risk when valuations become rich and economic conditions warrant more caution. Returns from effectively managing downturns is termed the buy-and-hold equalizer. The buy-and-hold equalizer (Why Market Timing Works, Journal of Portfolio Management, Summer 1997), represents the increased leverage an active investment strategy gains by preserving capital during a market drop. The more money an investor has to invest when the market turns up, the greater the performance leverage. The following passage is from NAAIM . When properly implemented, active management strategies should lessen an investor’s exposure to declining markets, blunting the impact of bear markets and preserving capital and the majority of prior gains. Moving out of the market prior to the majority of a decline means you have more money to invest when the market heads upward. Active investment management is most effective over a full market cycle (3 to 5 years). The reality of down markets provides the rational for active management. Down markets hurt investors in a number of ways. First, the more investors lose money in a down market, the more they lose valuable time and opportunity. Over the past 70 years, the major indices spent nearly 60% of the time sitting out bear markets and then returning to earlier highs. Only about 40% of the time were real gains being made. Through the use of active management strategies, money managers seek investment approaches that moderate the volatility of the market, helping investors stay the course and benefit from the long-term gains of the market and improve risk adjusted returns. Additionally, active management offers potential benefits beyond performance. Unlike with passive approaches, active managers are not required to invest cash inflows at the time of receipt when market conditions or prices may not be conducive. They can screen for quality and use buy/ sell triggers as a means of reducing risk. While a passive manager must own everything in an index, an active managers have the freedom to look for attractive stocks across the targeted universe. Summary Active management is an effective tool if used properly. It can not only lead to larger gains, but also reduce risk. However, it is very important for investors to understand the underlying investment strategy of a particular investment regardless of whether it is active or passive. Moreover, an investor should compare the statistics of an active strategy (Total Return, Standard Deviation, Calmar Ratio, Sharpe Ratio, Information Ratio, and Tracking Error) to that of a similar passive to determine if the higher fees are producing sufficient additional gains to warrant an investment. I will follow up this article with regular investment and economic analysis specific to these strategies, highlighting passing companies and providing economic rationale for managing an investment portfolio. Follow me to stay informed.