Tag Archives: seeking

What ‘Smart Beta’ Means To Us

Summary The absence of a generally accepted definition of “smart beta” has given people license to describe a wide range of products as smart beta strategies. In equity investing, we use smart beta to refer to valuation-indifferent strategies that break the link between the price of an asset and its weight in the portfolio while retaining. By sharing our thoughts about the term, we hope to guide the discussion towards the real issue: how best to manage investor assets. As with most new expressions, “smart beta” is in the process of seeking an established meaning. It is fast becoming one of the most overused, ill-defined, and controversial terms in the modern financial lexicon. Unfortunately, the success of so-called smart beta products has attracted a host of new entrants purporting to be smart beta products when, frankly, they aren’t! They stretch the definition of smart beta to encompass their products, a natural business strategy. Without a simple, generally accepted meaning, the term “smart beta” risks becoming meaningless. Is that a bad thing? Probably not to the critics of the term smart beta. These are mainly the definitional purists. Bill Sharpe, who coined and defined “alpha” and “beta” in his seminal work (1964), famously remarked that the term makes him “definitionally sick.” His objection is completely legitimate: Bill defined beta as merely a measure of the non-diversifiable risk of a portfolio, measured against the capitalization-weighted market, and defined alpha as the residual return that’s not attributable to the beta. Some providers of traditional cap-weighted indices similarly object, either because they believed that there is only one “true” beta or because they infer from the smart beta label that its advocates believe that cap weighting is “stupid beta.” C’mon folks, is the beta relative to the S&P 500 Index-an actively selected broad-market core portfolio- really the one true beta?! Also, the practitioner community has increasingly embraced the notion of seeking beta (which has already morphed in meaning to refer to exposure to chosen markets, not the total market portfolio of investable assets, as CAPM originally defined it) for free, and paying for alpha. Viewed in this context, smart beta actually can mean something useful: a smarter way for investors to buy beta with alpha . After all, if one can find a more reliable alpha, and pay less for it, that would be pretty smart. The early critics of our Fundamental Index™ work were quick to point out that it was just a backtest and was merely clever repackaging of value investing. Well, it was a backtest, and it has a value tilt against the cap-weighted market. (Or, just to be provocative, does the cap-weighted market have a growth tilt against the broad macroeconomy, providing investors with outsized exposure to companies that are expected to grow handily, and skinny exposure to troubled companies?) It’s not a backtest anymore, as we approach our 10th anniversary of live results; and it has outperformed the cap-weighted market in most of the world, during a time when value generally underperformed growth . Critics have become more muted, as the efficacy of the Fundamental Index method (and other so-called smart beta strategies) is better understood. Defining Smart Beta for Equity The term smart beta grew out of attempts by people in the industry to explain the Fundamental Index approach vis-à-vis existing passive and active management strategies. When Towers Watson, a leading global investment consulting firm, coined the expression smart beta, it was not their intent to label cap-weight as “dumb beta.” Indeed, they referred to it as “bulk beta,” because it could be purchased for next-to-nothing. There is nothing “dumb” about cap-weighted indexing. If an investor wants to own the broad market, wants to pay next to nothing for market exposure, and doesn’t want to play in the performance-seeking game, cap-weighted indexing is the smartest choice, by far. People are beginning to understand that the dumb beta is the fad-chasing investor who buys whatever is newly beloved and sells whatever is newly loathed, trading like a banshee. Fortunately or unfortunately, these folks are legion, as is well documented in Russ Kinnel’s important “Mind the Gap” white papers (2005, 2014). As the debate over the smart beta label grew, Towers Watson (2013) sought to clarify the meaning of their expression with the following definition: Smart beta is simply about trying to identify good investment ideas that can be structured better… smart beta strategies should be simple, low cost, transparent and systematic. This straightforward definition indicates what investors ought to expect of a smart beta product. Our research suggests, however, that many alternative beta strategies fall short of this definition. Some are overly complex or opaque in the source of value added. Others will incur unnecessary implementation costs. Many so-called alternative beta strategies don’t seem so smart, by Towers Watson’s definition. The problem may be that even this definition is not clear enough. The absence of a rigorous, generally accepted definition gives me-too firms enough latitude to stamp smart beta on anything that’s not cap-weighted indexing. The way the term is bandied about, without much regard for meaning, is a disservice to investors. We don’t presume to define smart beta for the industry, but we would like to see more consistency in how the label is applied. Our definition builds on the Towers Watson definition, adding more specificity as it relates to equity strategies, where the smart beta revolution began almost a decade ago: A category of valuation-indifferent strategies that consciously and deliberately break the link between the price of an asset and its weight in the portfolio, seeking to earn excess returns over the cap-weighted benchmark by no longer weighting assets proportional to their popularity, while retaining most of the positive attributes of passive indexing. Earning Excess Returns The shortcomings of cap-weighted indices are by now well understood and widely acknowledged. Cap-weighted indices are “the market,” and they afford investors the market return. That’s indisputable. Nonetheless, because constituent weights are linked to price, they automatically increase the allocation to companies whose stock prices have risen, and reduce the weight for companies whose stock prices have fallen. If the market is not efficient, and prices some companies too high and some too low, then cap-weighted indices naturally have disproportionately large concentrations in companies that are likely to be overvalued and light allocations in companies that are disproportionately undervalued. This structure creates a return drag that is overcome by breaking the link between price and weight in a portfolio. 1 In fact, our research indicates that any structure that breaks the link between price and weight outperforms cap weighting in the long run. 2 In this sense, our work on the Fundamental Index concept is not special! 3 Equal weight, minimum variance, Shiller’s new CAPE index, and many others, all sever this link, and empirically add roughly the same alpha. This can be done simply, inexpensively, and mechanistically; these ideas show good historical efficacy all over the world; and some have live experience that roughly matches the backtests. Accordingly, this way to pursue a particular beta might rightly be considered “smart.” In periodically rebalancing to target weights that are unrelated to price, smart beta strategies engage in value investing: They buy low and sell high (we have demonstrated this result elsewhere 4 and will return to it in a moment). It will surprise many readers to learn that the value tilt is empirically a far smaller source of return than is the rebalancing process itself. 5 After all, what could be more uncomfortable than systematically trimming our holdings in the most extravagantly newly beloved companies, while topping up our holdings in the most newly feared and loathed companies? These portfolios look perfectly reasonable; their trading does not. That’s where the alpha is sourced: contratrading against the legions of investors who chase fads and shun recent disappointments . Accordingly, breaking the link with price is, in our view, the most important component to any useful definition of smart beta. Strategies that use market capitalization in selecting or weighting securities, such as cap-weighted value indices, are not smart beta using our definition: they leave money on the table due to the same return drag that afflicts any cap-weighted strategy. 6 Best Attributes of Passive Investing Compelling as it might be to define smart beta simply as those equity strategies that break the link with price, 7 we believe that tapping a reliable source of excess return is not sufficient to merit the label smart beta. As our general definition for equity market smart beta indicates, we also think smart beta solutions should retain some of the key benefits of passive investing, including: Smart beta strategies are transparent. The principles of portfolio construction and the intended sources of excess return are clearly stated and easy to understand. Investors know what they are getting. Smart beta strategies are rules-based. Their methodology is systematic and mechanically executed. Investors know that the process is disciplined. These strategies can be independently tested, including in out-of-sample tests covering new time spans or new markets. Smart beta strategies are low cost relative to active management . 8 In addition to lower fees, they have lower due diligence and monitoring costs. As a result, they offer investors affordable access to potential excess returns. Smart beta strategies have large capacity and the liquidity to accommodate easy entrance and exit. Smart beta strategies are well-diversified and/or span the macro economy. Because stock weights are uncoupled from prices, smart beta strategies do not expose investors to sector and industry concentrations arising from misvaluations. We think of these traits as family traits. Few will have every one of these traits; we’d be inclined to apply the smart beta label to a strategy that displays most or all of them. To us, the trait in our primary definition is sacrosanct: Any strategy that is not valuation-indifferent, that does not break the link between the weight in the portfolio and price (or market cap), is not smart beta. Performance Record We’ve described what smart beta means to us, and, in the process, indicated what we think investors should expect of products that are marketed as smart beta strategies. Is it also reasonable to expect long-term outperformance relative to cap-weighted indices? We cannot know the future. Perhaps, in the years ahead, investors will be rewarded by owning more of whatever is most expensive and less of whatever is least expensive. Personally, I doubt it. We can know the past. So-called smart beta strategies have produced value-added returns in long-term historical testing, all over the world, and on many 9 live-asset portfolios. And this outperformance has been driven, in large part, by the inherently value-based trading that takes place when smart beta portfolios are rebalanced to non-price-related weights. In long-term simulations, smart beta strategies have generated excess returns relative to cap-weighted indices. For instance, Figure 1 traces the hypothetical cumulative returns of a fundamentally weighted U.S. index and the comparable returns of two cap-weighted indices-a broad market index and a traditional value style index-over the 35-year period from 1979 through 2013. The fundamentally weighted index outperformed both of the indices whose weighting methods incorporate market prices. 10 A cautionary note is in order. As with any strategies, smart beta investing is a long-term strategy. Only a charlatan would encourage customers to expect 100% probability of future outperformance. There have been prolonged periods of underperformance, especially in secular bull markets. Smart beta strategies are contrarian, and they make sense only for investors with long-term planning horizons and a willingness to tolerate uncomfortable (even profoundly uncomfortable) portfolio rebalancing trades. In Closing Smart beta has been roundly dismissed as a marketing buzzword, rather than a significant development in finance theory and investment practice. We like the name, partly because it is jarring and controversial, but we don’t for a moment deny that it has been misused to flog me-too products. We hope that, by sharing our thoughts about the nomenclature, we can nudge the discussion in the direction of the real issue: how to best manage investor assets. Endnotes 1 To be sure, the cap-weighted index of the market cannot have a performance drag relative to itself. Here, we refer to a performance drag relative to the opportunity set. 2 Brightman (2013); Arnott, Hsu, Kalesnik, and Tindall (2013). 3 How many investment managers will say this about their own best products?! 4 Arnott, Hsu, Kalesnik, and Tindall (2013). 5 Chaves and Arnott (2012). 6 Hsu (2014). Note also that cap-weighted value strategies have a powerful, statistically significant negative Fama-French alpha. They derive value-added from their value tilt and then lose much of it due to cap weighting. 7 For bonds and other asset classes, our core definition can still apply. But, it’s a bit more nuanced. Do we want to weight a bond portfolio by the debt appetite of a borrower, and then be forced to buy more of the issuer’s debt as they seek to borrow more? That’s what cap weighting will do in bonds. Alternatively, do we want to weight a bond portfolio by the debt service capacity of the borrower, which is loosely related to the aggregate economic scale of the borrower? That’s one of many ways to construct a smart beta strategy in bonds. Historically, it works. 8 It should go without saying, but these strategies cannot price-compete with conventional cap weighting, nor should they. Did Vanguard charge 7 bps for their first S&P 500 fund? No, they did not. Should product innovation be rewarded? Of course. Reciprocally, these strategies must charge much less than the active strategies that purport to offer similar incremental returns, in order to justify their relevance. 9 We can’t say “most” because we don’t have access to the track record of all practitioners in this space. But, I personally am confident that the word “most” would be accurate… even though value has underperformed growth in most of the past decade! 10 Kalesnik (2014). References Arnott, Robert D., Jason Hsu, Vitali Kalesnik, and Phil Tindall. 2013. ” The Surprising Alpha from Malkiel’s Monkey and Upside Down Strategies .” Journal of Portfolio Management , vol. 39, no. 4 (Summer):91-105. Brightman, Chris. 2013. ” What Makes Alternative Beta Smart? ” Research Affiliates (September). Chaves, Denis B., and Robert D. Arnott. 2012. ” Rebalancing and the Value Effect. ” Journal of Portfolio Management , vol. 38, no. 4 (Summer):59-74. Hsu, Jason. 2014. ” Value Investing: Smart Beta vs. Style Indexes. ” Journal of Index Investing , vol. 5, no. 1 (Summer):121-126. Kalesnik, Vitali. 2014. “Smart Beta: The Second Generation of Index Investing.” IMCA Investments & Wealth Monitor (July/August): 25-29, 47. Kinnel, Russ. 2005. “Mind the Gap: How Good Funds Can Yield Bad Results.” Morningstar FundInvestor (July). —. 2014. “Mind the Gap 2014.” Morningstar Fund Spy (February 27). Sharpe, William F. 1964. “Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium Under Conditions of Risk.” Journal of Finance , vol. 19, no. 3 (September):425-442. Towers Watson. 2013. “Understanding Smart Beta.” Insights (July 23). This article was originally published on researchaffiliates.com by Rob Arnott and Engin Kose . Disclaimer: The statements, views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author and not necessarily those of Research Affiliates, LLC. Any such statements, views or opinions are subject to change without notice. Nothing contained herein is an offer or sale of securities or derivatives and is not investment advice. Any specific reference or link to securities or derivatives on this website are not those of the author.

How Many Stocks Should You Own? Remember Warren Buffett’s Advice

Summary Diversification is trumpeted as a key point of proper portfolio design. Warren Buffett disagrees with diversification, with a single caveat. The return spread among stocks suggest that every new holding you add is more likely to be a loser than a winner. If you asked SeekingAlpha readers why investors should own more than one stock, the overwhelming response would easily be diversification. The idea is simple: the more holdings you have, the less exposure you have to unsystematic risk (risk associated with a particular company or industry). Now, if you asked a follow-up question, “How many stock holdings you should have?”, you would end up with a hotly debated topic. On page 129 of my copy of The Intelligent Investor , legendary money manager Benjamin Graham advocates holding 10 to 30 positions. Modern portfolio theory supported this advice, and many continue to follow its preachings religiously. According to this theory, if you own 20 well-diversified companies, each held in equal amounts, you’ve eliminated 70% of risk (as measured by standard deviation) and reduced volatility. Can’t argue with the math (or can you?), and diversification has been harped on by many as the foundation of any properly constructed portfolio. It is likely that anyone that has had a financial advisor or even discussed finances with a family friend has heard this advice before. Always spread your capital across multiple sectors and markets is in that person’s best interest. Makes sense right? Who doesn’t want less volatility and risk? Warren Buffett apparently. “Diversification is protection against ignorance. It makes very little sense for those who know what they’re doing.” – The Oracle of Omaha Himself So, Do You Know What You’re Doing? Of course, modern portfolio theory and its offshoots were theorized between the ’50s and ’70s. Volatility is up since then, and stocks have become increasingly uncorrelated with the underlying market. To more clearly illustrate this point, stocks increasingly don’t follow a normal distribution pattern: * Source: Investopedia The results of the above image have been repeated over and over in recent market studies. The key takeaway for an individual investor is that the odds of a stock you own outperforming the stock market is actually worse than 50/50 , contrary to what many investors might think off hand. The reason for this is because overall market returns have been boosted by just a handful of “superstar” stocks, like Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL ) or Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT ). If you don’t own something like the next Apple or Microsoft in your portfolio (roughly 1 in 16 odds), then well, you’re likely doomed to underperform. So if you have a portfolio of 16 stocks, what are the odds you have that one in sixteen superstar company included based on random chance? Just 38%. Let us say you get lucky and manage to stumble upon a superstar. Now the question is whether you will continue to hold it as it multiplies. Enter the disposition effect . Retail investors have a tendency to sell winners (realizing gains too early) and hold onto losers, following the thought process that today’s losers are tomorrow’s winners. How many investors held on to Apple from $7.00/share in the early 2000’s all the way up to more than $700.00/share (split-adjusted) today? The answer is likely very few. Retail investors took the profit from the double or triple (if they even held that long) and likely didn’t reinvest back in because they had sold in the past. None of this changes the fact that the more companies you own, the more you will inevitably track the index of the positions you hold. In order to generate alpha (abnormal return adjusted for risk), it is a fact that the more stocks you own, the less likely you will be able to generate that alpha. The more holdings you have, the more likely you will have just tracked the index that your holdings are a part of, but in an inefficient way. For all your trouble, you are out both your free time and likely higher trading costs. The question then is why bother with all the headaches of investing in numerous individual companies you buy individually, if you could simply just buy the index and take it easy? If you take a look at major hedge fund and money manager holdings, it is clear that concentrated holdings are used to drive alpha. Visiting the Oracle of Omaha’s portfolio, the man clearly practices what he says. The top five holdings of Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.A ) (NYSE: BRK.B )[Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC ), Kraft Heinz (NASDAQ: KHC ), Coca Cola (NYSE: KO ), IBM (NYSE: IBM ), and American Express (NYSE: AXP )] constituted 67% of his portfolio as of September 30, 2015. 43 scattered holdings constituted the remaining 33%. As for diversifying across sectors versus buying what you know and understand, 37% of Buffett’s holdings fall in the Consumer Staples sector and 35% in Financials. The man clearly doesn’t buy utilities just because portfolio theory tells him he should in order to reduce his risk. Conclusion Thousands of people will read this article. Are you smarter than two thirds of them? If you don’t believe that, buy ETFs, sit back, and be content with market returns. If you think you’re smarter than two thirds of readers of this article (I suspect 95% of you believe that), then the takeaway is slightly different. Diversification, for the sake of diversification, is stupid. Buy what you know, can understand, and believe in the long-term potential of. Don’t understand bank stocks? Reading their SEC filings even gives me headaches, and I work at one. If you don’t understand the company, chances are you aren’t going to pick a winner other than by dumb luck. You shouldn’t lose sleep at night for not having exposure to an industry you can’t adequately review, and it is likely your portfolio returns will thank you for it. As far as how many positions to have, hold as few positions as you are comfortable with when it comes to risk and volatility in order to increase alpha on your high conviction positions. For most investors, that sweet spot still likely falls within modern portfolio theory guidance, around 15 to 25.

Proposed Allocation

Two weeks ago I wrote an article on Seeking Alpha discussing the ETFs that will comprise the core of our future portfolio . My goal, in all aspects of my life, is to always be learning and growing. Part of that process is to challenge myself and my ideas. My wife and I have run a bifurcated portfolio , comprised almost exclusively of individual stocks, for the past several years. While I thoroughly enjoy researching and valuing companies currently, I can see that the day is coming when I’ll want to be a much more passive investor. I anticipate achieving semi-retirement a couple years out, and at that time I’d like to transition to a portfolio which is maybe 30% individual stocks… with the rest being index ETFs and cash. Recently, I have begun to think it’s arrogant to think that our portfolio of (mostly) individual stocks can provide the diversification we require… while ‘not’ also requiring a great deal of time to manage. I also received a few comments and emails last week asking me why I wasn’t just proposing a portfolio of strictly ETF and index funds. I want to retain 20% to 30% of the portfolio in individual funds, because there are some truly amazing companies available to the investing public. I expect these companies to compound our capital for decades to come! So why not just invest in these amazing individual companies?! Two reasons: 1) I may be wrong, and it’s pure arrogance to think otherwise; and 2) I don’t believe there are enough of these truly amazing companies, that I could build a diversified portfolio out of them… even if I had the time to manage it. Simply put, I am looking to strike the right risk/reward balance. With that background expressed, below is my desired portfolio allocation. Please note that this includes my wife’s and my capital, as well as the trust fund we set up for our children. 25% Individual Stocks 20% Cash (or cash equivalents)* 15% Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (NYSEARCA: VTI ) 15% Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF (NYSEARCA: VWO ) 15% Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-U.S. ETF (NYSEARCA: VEU ) 10% Vanguard REIT ETF (NYSEARCA: VNQ ) *Reduced by 10% when bonds re-enter our portfolio Individual Stocks First, let’s talk about what these categories mean. Within Individual Stocks, I mean both the amazing companies I want to hold for the long term (like Union Pacific (NYSE: UNP ), Visa (NYSE: V ), Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO ), etc.) and the “Deep Value” opportunities that present themselves from time to time. While these “Deep Value” opportunities usually manifest themselves as small and under-reported companies, they can also take the form of commodities or alternatives. Agricultural commodities are looking interesting to me today and gold will likely be appealing in a few months. My intention with this group is that the vast majority of this group be long term holdings… and the remainder be allocated toward alternatives and deep-value trades. Bonds You may have noticed, correctly may I add, that our portfolio will not have a bond allocation for the foreseeable future. Given our young age, mid-thirties, and the ultra-low interest rates… we have chosen to shift any bond allocation to other areas of our portfolio. If rates were to suddenly jump a tremendous amount, it’s possible bonds could join our portfolio… but it’s not likely for the foreseeable future. U.S. Stocks The next question I am likely to receive surrounds how we could only allocate 15% to U.S. Stocks (in the form of Vanguard’s Total Stock Market ETF ( VTI )). I will be quick to point out that the ‘vast’ majority of the individual stocks we invest in, are in fact US stocks. Therefore, it’s reasonable to assume that nearly 40% (25% individual stocks and 15% VTI) will be invested in U.S. stocks. Given that I am paid in U.S. dollars and the property we own is in the U.S., I don’t feel like we are short-changing our homeland. Around 40% of the world’s global equity capitalization is sold on U.S.-based markets. Therefore, I feel my U.S. stock allocation is right where I want it to be, especially when you back cash out of the equation. Emerging Markets I frequently receive email questions concerning why I think Emerging Markets are so well-represented in our portfolio. The simple fact is that the majority of global growth will come from countries which are now called “emerging”. Around most of the developed world, populations are barely growing… if they are growing at all. However, the populations of “emerging” markets are growing much more rapidly. There is some elevated risk that those local governments won’t enforce the rule of law, or more likely that those governments will nationalize your investment, but I think that is a risk in developed countries as well… just a little bit smaller risk. Foreign Stocks There are a ton of companies in this world, with plenty of market capitalization to go with them. To gain exposure to these markets, we will utilize Vanguard’s FTSE All World ex-U.S. ETF ( VEU ). It is important to note that nearly one-fifth (18%) of this ETF is comprised of companies from emerging market economies, so there is this overlap. The rest of the ETF is comprised of companies from developed counties (like Germany, the U.K., Japan, etc.). Real Estate Cash-flowing real estate can be a great investment. Unfortunately, our investable capital is not enough to purchase a diversified real estate portfolio in our part of Florida. We can, however, invest in real estate through Vanguard’s REIT ETF ( VNQ ), with the added benefit of instant diversification and much-improved liquidity. If I had the time and inclination to be a full-time landlord, I would prefer to go that route… but it seems unlikely on any large scale. So, with the funds listed above, we intend to transition to a simpler… and less time consuming… investment approach. Last week, I sent an email out to our subscribers discussing which current investments I was looking to rotate out of in the coming months. I also identified a few of the investments I shouldn’t have made, as I think it’s important to learn from our mistakes. If you would like to receive emails like these in the future, sign up for our email list by completing the box on the right side of our homepage. I hope this holy week is fully of good times and great memories for you all. Take care. What do you think of our allocations, and how do they compare to your own? Disclosure: Long VWO, KO, UNP, V. This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered a recommendation for anyone to buy, sell, or hold any equities. I am not a financial professional. The information above can be found at Vanguard.com.