Tag Archives: radio

Why Does Indexing Shrink Alpha?

Jesse, over at Philosophical Economics, has written a couple of really fantastic posts (see here and here ) on indexing and market efficiency. His basic conclusions: The trend in passive investing is sustainable. The rise of passive indexing improves market efficiency. I’ve made the same points in a series of posts in recent months, including: Although I’ve written a good deal on this, I didn’t explain why indexing has made life so much harder for traditional active managers (aside from the obvious one, which is huge hedge fund fees). And although I totally agree with Jesse’s conclusions, I think we disagree slightly on the why. So, Jesse basically says that indexing removes unskilled players from the overall pool by relegating them to the game of owning specific index funds as opposed to engaging in the pursuit of real security analysis. The result is fewer and fewer highly skilled investors pursuing alpha via security analysis. I am going to disagree there. I think indexing is raising the aggregate skill level by giving everyone access to sophisticated strategies that better reflect “the market” portfolio. You likely know from reading this site that true passive indexing doesn’t exist. We’re all active because we all deviate from global cap-weighting. In addition, we know that an “index” is an extremely vague thing in the modern financial world. Dr. Andrew Lo even wrote an entire paper on this topic, because the concept has become so opaque in a world where there’s an “index” for everything from volatility, to futures contracts, to hedge funds and even Millennials. So, we’re knee deep in word games before we can even finish the term “passive indexing”… That doesn’t matter, though. What I want to emphasize is that the rise of indexing (regardless of how “active” that index is) has created products that give even the most novice investor access to more sophisticated strategies. Indexing doesn’t remove unskilled players from the game. It actually brings them into the game in a more even playing field. In today’s world, everyone can own Risk Parity, Global Macro, Long/Short, Private Equity, etc. As a result of this product development, the overall pool of secondary market investors has become a better reflection of the aggregate financial markets. The result of this is that the swimmers in this pool are all starting to look increasingly similar. For instance, let’s say we had just two investors in the world. Person A buys all 500 S&P 500 stocks individually, while Person B just finished reading some Gene Fama paper and decides to buy just 200 momentum stocks in a product wrapper like an index fund. When the momentum buyer enters the market, she will likely change the composition of the S&P 500, because her entrance to the market changes the allocation that Person A owns. As a result of this, Person A’s portfolio actually starts to look more like Person B’s portfolio, because now her momentum stocks look more momentumy (I just made that word up). Person A’s portfolio won’t be a perfect reflection of Person B’s for obvious reasons, but layer on 10,000 various index funds all trying to capture some form of alpha that doesn’t exist in the aggregate, and you get a bunch of portfolios that increasingly look similar. 1 A better (or worse, depending on your view) visual here might be Person B peeing in Person A’s pool. Person A’s pool will absorb the change in color, but it won’t be exactly the same color as before, and in the aggregate, the pool will morph into some other color reflecting all of the liquids that comprise that pool. This shift in the financial markets can best be seen in the hedge fund space, where the growth in the industry has coincided with rising correlations to the S&P 500 and shrinking alpha: So, the reason that indexing makes alpha more unachievable is to the fact that indexing makes the participants in the aggregate financial pool appear increasingly similar because they’re all utilizing a more sophisticated approach to asset allocation, leading to a more homogeneous reflection of “the market” portfolio. As a result, the margin for outperformance inside of the pool becomes increasingly thin, leading to alpha shrinkage. 2 1 – See ” Understanding Modern Portfolio Construction ” . 2 – I have significant knowledge in the area of shrinkage in pools, so trust my opinion here. NB – Notice I don’t argue that indexing makes the market more “efficient” as in, it reflects all available information. I don’t know what that term even means in a world where the idea of market efficiency must necessarily be a gray area. I personally don’t find the concept of an efficient market to be all that useful, since it is impossible to prove or disprove the idea that “the market” always reflects “the market” accurately.

Upbeat Industrial Q1 Results Fail To Lift ETFs

Most of the industrial bellwethers have beaten on earnings in the first quarter of 2016. However, it’s not surprising given the low estimates, which had fallen ahead of this reporting cycle. Among other factors, a recent pullback in the greenback and encouraging manufacturing trends could have played a role in the beat. A strong dollar impacts most industrial bigwigs adversely as most of these companies have significant international exposure. However, the earnings beat came largely on the back of lowered expectations (read: ETFs to Watch on U.S. Manufacturing Revival ). Meanwhile, revenue weakness in the sector remains thanks to reduced spending, volatility in oil prices and lackluster global growth. Below we have highlighted in greater detail earnings of some of the major industrial companies which really drive this sector’s outlook. Industrial Earnings in Focus General Electric Company (NYSE: GE ) Diversified industrial conglomerate General Electric posted mixed first quarter results as it reported in line earnings but missed on revenues. The company’s earnings came in at 21 cents per share, in line with the Zacks Consensus Estimate but up 5% from the year-ago quarter. Shares of the company fell slightly after the earnings release. Revenues were up 6% to $27.8 billion, missing the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $29 billion. The revenue miss was due to a weak global economy and an oil price slide that hurt the renewable and oil and gas segments. For 2016, the company reaffirmed its earnings per share guidance of $1.45-$1.55 (read: Industrial ETFs in Focus on Mixed GE Q1 Performance ). 3M Company (NYSE: MMM ) Another major conglomerate, 3M Company reported earnings of $2.05 per share in first-quarter 2016, beating the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.92. Net sales during the quarter were $7.4 billion, down 2.2% year over year but ahead of the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $7.3 billion. The year-over-year decrease in sales was largely due to a significantly negative foreign currency translation impact. 3M shares fell on the day of its earnings release. Honeywell International Inc. (NYSE: HON ) Honeywell International’s earnings per share of $1.53 in the reported quarter beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.50. Revenues in first-quarter 2016 were up 3% year over year to $9.5 billion, ahead the Zacks Consensus Estimate $9.4 billion. Based on favorable business conditions, Honeywell narrowed its 2016 guidance. The company anticipates earnings in the range of $6.55 to $6.70 per share on revenues of $40.3 billion and $40.9 billion. Shares of the company rose slightly on the day of its earnings release. Union Pacific Corporation (NYSE: UNP ) The rail transportation operator, Union Pacific reported first-quarter 2016 earnings of $1.16 per share, which beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.09. Earnings declined 11% on a year-over-year basis. Revenues decreased 14% year over year to $4.8 billion in the first quarter, falling short of the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $4.9 billion. A 14% decline in freight revenues hurt the top line. Declining coal shipments weighed on the railroad operator’s results yet again. The stock gained after reporting results. ETF Impact Despite reporting encouraging earnings, most of the industrial stocks failed to hold up gains over the past 10 days, sending the related ETFs into rocky territory. This has put the spotlight on industrial ETFs. Below we discuss four of these ETFs having a sizeable exposure to the above stocks. Industrial Select Sector SPDR Fund (NYSEARCA: XLI ) This product tracks the Industrial Select Sector Index. General Electric occupies the top spot with 11.2% allocation, while 3M, Honeywell and Union Pacific have a combined exposure of roughly 14.7% in the fund. XLI has garnered $7.2 billion in assets and trades in a heavy volume of 13.2 million shares per day. It has a low expense ratio of 0.14%. The fund has the highest exposure to Aerospace & Defense (26%), followed by Industrial Conglomerates (21%). The product gained 0.3% in the past 10 days and currently has a Zacks ETF Rank #4 or ‘Sell’ rating with a Medium risk outlook. Vanguard Industrials ETF (NYSEARCA: VIS ) This fund follows the MSCI US IMI Industrials 25/50 index and holds about 342 securities in its basket. Of these firms, GE occupies the top position with 12.7% share, while 3M, Honeywell and Union Pacific together comprise almost 10.7% of the fund’s assets. The fund manages nearly $2.1 billion in its asset base and charges only 10 bps in annual fees. From an industry perspective, the fund has the highest exposure to Aerospace & Defense (21.7%), followed by Industrial Conglomerates (20.6%). Volume is moderate as it exchanges roughly 112,000 shares a day on average. The product lost 0.1% in the past 10 days and currently has a Zacks ETF Rank #3 or ‘Hold’ rating with a Medium risk outlook. iShares U.S. Industrials ETF (NYSEARCA: IYJ ) IYJ tracks the Dow Jones U.S. Industrials Index to provide exposure to 214 U.S. companies that produce goods used in construction and manufacturing. General Electric occupies the top spot in the fund with almost 11% share while 3M, Honeywell and Union Pacific have a combined exposure of more than 10%. The ETF manages an asset base of $737.6 million and trades in an average volume of 75,000 shares. The fund has top exposure to Capital Goods (58.9%) and Software & Services (12.7%) and Transportation (11.7%) have double-digit exposure each. The fund is slightly expensive with 45 basis points as fees. It rose almost 0.4% in the last 10 days and currently has a Zacks ETF Rank #3 with a Medium risk outlook. Fidelity MSCI Industrials Index ETF (NYSEARCA: FIDU ) This fund tracks the MSCI USA IMI Industrials Index, holding 342 stocks in its basket. General Electric takes the top spot at 12.7% share while 3M, Honeywell and Union Pacific have a combined exposure of almost 11.5%. The product has amassed $161.2 million in its asset base while it trades in moderate volume of nearly 115,000 shares a day on average. The fund has top exposure to Aerospace & Defense (23.4%) and Industrial Conglomerates (20.9%). It is one of the low cost choices in the space charging 12 bps in annual fees from investors. The fund gained 0.5 % in the last 10 days and currently has a Zacks ETF Rank #3 with a Medium risk outlook. Link to the original post on Zacks.com

Shiller Was Warned Not To Tell The Truth About The Stock Market – And We All Heard The Message

By Rob Bennett Robert Shiller says in his book Irrational Exuberance that: “On several occasions I have discovered firsthand the pressure on public prognosticators to deliver positive statements about the market. Once, just before going on national television, the anchor looked me squarely in the eye and told me that what I said could conceivably have an impact on the market, and that people can get upset if they perceive prognosticators as disrupting the market.” I’d like to know what Buy-and-Holders think of that statement. Buy-and-Hold is rooted in the belief that it is economic developments, not investor emotion, that determine stock prices. If that were so, nothing that Shiller said could affect the market. Do Buy-and-Holders think that the television anchor’s worries were foolish ones? I don’t think they were foolish so much as dangerous. What Shiller or anyone else says certainly can affect market prices. Buy-and-Holders agree even though they follow a strategy rooted in a belief that only economic developments matter. I know because it is Buy-and-Holders who have insisted that I be banned at the 20 investing sites at which I have gotten the boot. If what I said didn’t matter, why would the Buy-and-Holders want to see me banned? The Buy-and-Holders haven’t convinced even themselves that only economic developments matter. We all filter out information that disturbs us because it threatens our confidence in our world view. Conservatives filter out information advanced by liberals and liberals filter out information advanced by conservatives and it has ever been so. It’s a universal phenomenon. What possible reason could there be for believing that it doesn’t work that way with stocks? A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. I filter out information casting doubt on the merit of the Valuation-Informed Indexing strategy. I am not aware of doing so, and I understand that it’s a bad idea to do so. I need to know the drawbacks more than anyone else does. It is foolish for me to tune out the words of my critics. But it’s hard to imagine that I do not often do so. Humans always tune out stuff they don’t want to hear. Is that not so? And it always hurts us. That’s also so. That’s why I see such a huge opportunity in Shiller’s research. If we were to begin taking Shiller’s research seriously, we could overcome the force that has made stock investing risky since the beginning of time. That force is self-deception. Do away with self-deception and you change the game in a fundamental way. Many people think it can’t be done. Since we always have engaged in self-deception re stocks, they think we always will. I am more hopeful because Shiller’s P/E10 metric quantifies the effect of self-deception. Now that we can tell people the dollar-and-cents price of following Buy-and-Hold strategies, we can persuade them to ditch the self-deception. People like to make money. We now have the tool we need to motivate investors to demand that Shiller and lots of others tell them the straight story. Even Shiller does not tell the straight story today. It is not my intent to be critical with that statement but to point out how deep the problem goes. Shiller’s next words in the passage that I quoted above are: “He was right, of course, to give me such advice, and I shudder to think that I (or anyone else) could ever help cause a market event that would cost some people their fortunes.” Huh? The television anchor invited an expert onto his television show and then discouraged that expert from sharing his true beliefs with his listeners. How could that possibly be the right thing to do? The television anchor should be ashamed of himself. Shiller should be proud of himself for sharing this revealing anecdote and also a little ashamed as well for soft-peddling the danger of the practice (which is widespread) described. Everyone does what the television anchor did. The newspapers celebrate price jumps even though all they do is raise the price of stocks, a good that all of us who hope to be able to retire someday must buy. Investment advisors brag about the good advice they gave when prices rise even though all price increases greater than those justified by the economic realities (that is, all price increases greater than the 6.5 percent real price increase that has been the price increase that has applied in the U.S. market for as far back as we have records) are temporary cotton-candy gains fated to be blown away in the wind as time passes. Retirement calculators assume 6.5 percent gains on a going-forward basis even when prices are insanely inflated and it is obviously unrealistic to expect such gains. Everyone lies in the stock investing field. Because everyone demands lies. Those who don’t lie are silenced. Those who don’t lie make the ones who do lie look bad. A bull market cannot survive truth-telling. And we all like those pretend cotton-candy gains. For obvious reasons. Two paragraphs down from the passage cited above, Shiller tells a different anecdote: “One investment manager for a pension plan spoke to me about how difficult it was for him to suggest in his public statements that people should perhaps be concerned about overpricing of the stock market. Despite his considerable reputation and apparent sympathy with the views expressed in my book, he seemed to be saying that it was not within his authority to make bold and unprovable statements contrary to conventional wisdom. He seemed to view his charge as interpreting received doctrine and that it would be considered a dereliction of duty to voice contrary opinions that came only from his own judgment.” We expect doctors to express their own judgment. That’s why they get paid the big bucks. It’s the same with baseball umpires. And with accountants. And with lawyers. And with engineers. And with every other kind of professional. The person giving investing advice is the only exception to the otherwise universal rule. Because of what the television anchor said to Shiller. Question Pretend Gains and they might disappear. No one wants that. And so the Pretend Gains grow bigger and bigger and bigger until the cost associated with their disappearance (which is ultimately inevitable) becomes so large that it causes an economic crisis. It’s a problem. Disclosure : None