Tag Archives: splv

Low Volatility & Momentum: Doubling The Market Return

Summary This series offers an expansive look at the Low Volatility Anomaly, or why lower risk stocks have historically produced stronger risk-adjusted returns than higher risk stocks or the broader market. While low volatility strategies are often an appropriate long-term buy-and-hold strategy, this article offers a strategy that uses a momentum signal to tilt towards higher beta securities selectively. The alpha-generative strategy combines two market anomalies – Low Volatility and Momentum – to produce outsized returns. In recent articles, I have been authoring a fairly extensive examination of the Low Volatility Anomaly, the tendency for low volatility assets to outpeform high beta assets over long-time intervals. A Low Volatility strategy was one of five buy-and-hold factor tilts that I described in a previous series of articles. I believe that these buy-and-hold strategies to capture structural alpha are appropriate for many in the Seeking Alpha audience, but understand that some readers are looking for strategies that can generate even higher absolute returns. This article depicts one such strategy. Long-time readers know that two of favorite topics on which to author have been Low Volatility and Momentum strategies. This article combines these two strategies to produce a return profile that as the title of the article suggests has more than doubled the return of the S&P 500 over the past quarter-century. Before we delve into this strategy, we should first discuss the two components that drive this tremendous performance. Low Volatility Anomaly Regular readers know that I am currently authoring a multi-part series on the Low Volatility Anomaly. These articles include an introduction to the concept, a theoretical underpinning for the anomaly , cognitive and market structure factors that contribute to its long-run performance, and empirical evidence that demonstrates the outperformance of low volatility strategies across markets, geographies and long-time intervals. In past articles, I have depicted the relative outperformance of Low Volatility strategies using the graph below which shows the cumulative total return profile (including reinvested dividends) of the S&P 500 (NYSEARCA: SPY ), the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index (NYSEARCA: SPLV ), and the S&P 500 High Beta Index (NYSEARCA: SPHB ) over the past twenty-five years. The volatility-tilted indices are comprised of the one-hundred lowest (highest) volatility constituents of the S&P 500 based on daily price variability over the trailing one year, rebalanced quarterly, and weighted by inverse (direct) volatility. Source: Standard and Poor’s; Bloomberg The Low Volatility strategy contributes an important base component to this strategy that would have doubled the return of the market over the past twenty-five years, but we also need an element that pushes the strategy into riskier parts of the market when we can get paid for this tilt in the form of higher returns. Momentum Like the low volatility strategy, momentum strategies have been alpha-generative over long-time intervals and across markets. Consistent with Jegadeesh and Titman (1993), which documented momentum in stock prices that have outperformed in the recent past over short forward intervals, the efficacy of momentum strategies have been widely documented. Academic literature has described excess returns generated by momentum strategies in foreign stocks ( Fama and French 2011 ), multiple asset classes ( Schleifer and Summers 1990 ), commodities ( Gorton, Hayashi and Rouwenhorst 2008 ), and my own studies on momentum in fixed income strategies and more recently the oil market . Academic literature offers competing theories on why momentum has generated alpha over long-time intervals across markets and geographies. Proponents of market efficiency suggest that momentum is a unique risk premium, and the long-run profitability of these strategies is compensation for this unique systematic risk factor ( Carhart 1997 ). Behaviorists offer multiple competing explanations. In my previous series, I referenced both Lottery Preferences and Overconfidence as potential justifications. Studies contend that markets under-react to new information ( Hong and Stein 1999 ), which allows for the autocorrelations found in return series. Other behavioral economists contend that the disposition effect, or the tendency for investors to pocket gains and avoid losses, makes investors prone to sell winners early and hold onto losers too long ( Frazzini 2006 ), which could be further amplified by a “bandwagon effect” that leads investors to favor stocks with recent outperformance. Blitz, Falkenstein and Van Vliet (2013) offer an expansive summary of these explanations. The Strategy I am of the opinion that low volatility stocks should be a part of investors’ longer-term strategic asset allocation given that class of stocks’ historical higher average returns and lower variability of returns. In ” Making Buffett’s Alpha Your Own ,” I described academic research ( Frazzini, Kabiller, Pederson 2013 ) that broke down the Oracle of Omaha’s tremendous track record at Berkshire Hathaway ( BRK.A , BRK.B ) into two components – capturing the Low Volatility Anomaly and the application of leverage. If an allocation to low volatility stocks should be part of your long-term strategic asset allocation, then an allocation to high beta stocks must be done tactically with a short-term focus given that class of stocks’ lower long run average returns and higher variability of returns. This view is borne out of the data underpinning the chart above. However, a temporary allocation to the High Beta Index in sharply rising markets can further boost performance. The High Beta stock index has typically outperformed in post-recession recoveries. How do we combine Low Volatility and Momentum? A quarterly switching strategy between the Low Volatility Index and the High Beta Index, which buys the leg that has outperformed over the trailing quarter and holds that leg forward for the subsequent quarter, would have produced the return profile seen below since 1990, easily besting the S&P 500 with lower return volatility. For a pictorial demonstration of the leg that would be chosen by the Momentum strategy, please see the exhibit at the end of the article. It is a very simple heuristic. The Momentum strategy buys either Low Vol or High Beta stocks based on the index that outperformed in the trailing quarter and holds that index for the subsequent quarter before re-examining the allocation once again. The results are striking. (click to enlarge) From the cumulative return graph above, one can see that $1 invested in the S&P 500 would have produced $9.04 at the end of the period (including reinvested dividends) whereas $1 invested in the Momentum portfolio would have produced $19.90. These are gross index returns and do not consider taxes. Readers envisioning employing momentum strategies should utilize tax-deferred accounts. Summary statistics of the trade are captured below: (click to enlarge) The simple quarterly switching momentum strategy would have produced a 13% return per annum over the long sample period. This 3.6% outperformance relative to the S&P 500 led to the cumulative doubling of the market returns over time. Note that while the Momentum strategy is riskier than the broad market as measured by the variability of quarterly returns, practitioners of this strategy would have been rewarded with correspondingly higher returns for this incremental risk. While I contend that a long-run, buy-and-hold tilt towards lower volatility equity is probably appropriate for many Seeking Alpha readers, this article demonstrates a momentum-based switching strategy that can help inform investors when to pivot towards higher beta stocks when they offer returns commensurate with their higher risk. Disclaimer My articles may contain statements and projections that are forward-looking in nature, and therefore inherently subject to numerous risks, uncertainties and assumptions. While my articles focus on generating long-term risk-adjusted returns, investment decisions necessarily involve the risk of loss of principal. Individual investor circumstances vary significantly, and information gleaned from my articles should be applied to your own unique investment situation, objectives, risk tolerance, and investment horizon. Exhibit: Returns of Low Vol, High Beta, Momentum, & Market (click to enlarge) Disclosure: I am/we are long SPLV, SPHB. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

The Low Volatility Anomaly: Risk Parity

Summary This series offers an expansive look at the Low Volatility Anomaly, or why lower risk securities have historically produced stronger risk-adjusted returns than higher risk securities or the broader market. After examining the historical evidence of the outperformance of lower volatility stocks and bonds relative to their higher risk comps, this article examines a cross-market strategy. The long-run success of risk parity investing is closely linked to our previously discussed Leverage Aversion Hypothesis. In previous articles in this series, I have demonstrated the presence of the Low Volatility Anomaly in both the equity and fixed income markets. In the introductory article to this series , I demonstrated that a low volatility bent (NYSEARCA: SPLV ) to the broader equity market has outperformed both the broader market (NYSEARCA: SPY ) and high beta stocks (NYSEARCA: SPHB ) on both an absolute and risk-adjusted basis over the last quarter century. In the last article in this series , I demonstrated that lower levered BB rated bonds have produced higher absolute returns than higher levered single-B and CCC-rated bonds historically, as the higher yields on the lower rated securities failed to make up for their higher realized default rate. Our empirical evidence thus far has examined the Low Volatility Anomaly within distinct asset classes. This article examines a potential application across asset classes. Risk Parity A 2012 research paper by Clifford Asness, Andrea Frazzini, and Lasse H. Pedersen, ” Leverage Aversion and Risk Parity ” demonstrates that in an investment landscape characterized by, at a minimum, declining incremental returns for higher risk assets, then an approach to asset allocation, risk parity investing, that seeks to diversify in terms of risk and not dollars is preferable. To diversify by risk, more money is invested in low-risk/low volatility assets than in high risk/high beta assets, and leverage is applied to low risk assets to increase both expected returns and risk to its desired level. (If this sounds familiar to the aforementioned ” Betting Against Beta ” analysis, note the overlap in two of the authors.) In their study with data dating to 1926 (see below), the authors demonstrated that a portfolio that targets an equal risk allocation between bonds and stocks meaningfully outperforms 1) U.S. stocks and bonds weighted by total market capitalization, and 2) a portfolio rebalanced monthly to maintain a fixed 60%/40% stock/bond weighting. A preference for risk parity investing necessarily implies expected stock returns continue to produce an insufficiently high equity risk premium as was witnessed by the underperformance of the equity market relative to levered fixed income in the historical sample depicted above. The ballyhooed equity risk premium ( Mehra and Prescott 1985 ), like the risk premium attributable to high beta stocks, is negative in this data over this time horizon featuring multiple business cycles. This phenomenon has given rise to this notion of risk parity investing, a method of diversifying by risk rather than dollars in equities and bonds. This of course runs counter to the traditional notion of holding the market portfolio levered according to the investor’s risk profile instilled by the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), the model we have been exposing throughout this series. Our first hypothesis for the presence of the Low Volatility Anomaly detailed in this series was the Leverage Aversion Hypothesis . If higher risk-adjusted returns can be made through leveraged fixed income than holding un-levered equities, then risk parity can be viewed as another form of exploitation of the Low Volatility Anomaly. Disclaimer My articles may contain statements and projections that are forward-looking in nature, and therefore, inherently subject to numerous risks, uncertainties and assumptions. While my articles focus on generating long-term risk-adjusted returns, investment decisions necessarily involve the risk of loss of principal. Individual investor circumstances vary significantly, and information gleaned from my articles should be applied to your own unique investment situation, objectives, risk tolerance, and investment horizon. Disclosure: I am/we are long SPLV, SPY. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

5 Ways To Beat The Market: Part 4 Revisited

Summary •In a series of articles in December 2014, I highlighted five buy-and-hold strategies that have historically outperformed the S&P 500 (SPY). •Stock ownership by U.S. households is low and falling even as the barriers to entering the market have been greatly reduced. •Investors should understand simple and easy to implement strategies that have been shown to outperform the market over long time intervals. •The fourth of five strategies I will revisit in this series of articles is consistent dividend growth investing which has seen these stocks produce higher risk-adjusted returns over time. In a series of articles in December 2014, I demonstrated five buy-and-hold strategies – size, value, low volatility, dividend growth, and equal weighting, that have historically outperformed the S&P 500 (NYSEARCA: SPY ). I covered an update to the size factor published on Wednesday, posted an update to the value factor on Thursday, and published an update on the low volatility anomlay on Friday. In that series, I demonstrated that while technological barriers and costs to market access have been falling, the number of households that own stocks in non-retirement accounts has been falling as well. Less that 14% of U.S. households directly own stocks, which is less than half of the amount of households that own dogs or cats , and less than half of the proportion of households that own guns . The percentage of households that directly own stocks is even less than the percentage of households that have Netflix or Hulu . The strategies I discussed in this series are low cost ways of getting broadly diversified domestic equity exposure with factor tilts that have generated long-run structural alpha. I want to keep these investor topics in front of the Seeking Alpha readership, so I will re-visit these principles with a discussion of the first half 2015 returns of these strategies in a series of five articles over five business days. Reprisals of these articles will allow me to continually update the long-run returns of these strategies for the readership. Dividend Aristocrats While people can complicate investing in a myriad of ways, only two characteristics ultimately matter – risk and return. My personal and professional investing revolves around the simple maxim of trying to earn incremental returns for the same or less risk. The strategy highlighted below has accomplished this feat over long time horizons, and is easily replicable in financial markets. In addition to the bellwether S&P 500, Standard and Poor’s produces the S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats Index . (Please see linked microsite for more information.) This index, which is replicated by the ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF (NYSEARCA: NOBL ), measures the performance of equal weighted holdings of S&P 500 constituents that have followed a policy of increasing dividends every year for at least 25 consecutive years. To put this into perspective, the average S&P 500 constituent now stays in the index for an average of only eighteen years , so the list of companies who have had the discipline and financial wherewithal to pay increasing dividends for an even longer period is necessarily short at 52 companies (10.4% of the index). Detailed below is a twenty-year return history for this index relative to the S&P 500. The Dividend Aristocrats have produced higher average annual returns, outperforming the S&P 500 by 2.4% per year. This approach has also produced returns with roughly three-quarters of the risk of the market, as measured by the standard deviation of annual returns as demonstrated in the cumulative return profile graph and annual return series detailed below: (click to enlarge) (click to enlarge) Source: Standard and Poor’s’ Bloomberg Notably, the Dividend Aristocrats outperformed the S&P 500 in every down year for the latter index (see shading above), gleaning part of its outperformance through lower drawdowns in weak market environments. Another notable factor of the dividend strategy is that when it underperformed the S&P 500 by the largest differential (1998, 1999, and 2007) the market was headed towards large overall losses. Maybe then it is a negative sign that the underperformance of the Dividend Aristocrats in the first half of 2015 was its largest since the 2007 top. The Dividend Aristocrats posted their first negative return for a half-year since 2010. Perhaps, this correlation between Dividend Aristocrat underperformance and market tops is spurious and not a leading indicator, but it makes sense that prior to the tech bubble burst in the early 2000s that the Dividend Aristocrats naturally featured less recent start-ups because of the long performance requirements for inclusion. It also makes sense that when markets were heading to new all-time highs in 2007, the market correction in 2008 would be less severe for the high quality constituents in the Dividend Aristocrats index, which have demonstrated the ability to manage through multiple business cycles. I have now dedicated several paragraphs to dividend growth investing in companies with a policy to offer consistent and growing dividends without addressing the elephant in the room. Do dividends matter?! Certainly academics have long contested that dividends should not matter to the value of the firm, and can even be inefficient given shareholder taxation. Absent taxes, investors should be indifferent between a share buyback and a dividend, which are different forms of the same transaction – returning cash to shareholders. Paying dividends when the firm has projects that can earn a return above their cost of capital would lower the value of the firm over time. Merton Miller, Nobel Prize winner and one of the fathers of capital structure theorem, tackled the debate in a 1982 paper entitled ” Do Dividends Really Matter .” My takeaway from his qualitative analysis is that paying consistently rising dividends is a discipline that ensures that the company is appropriately levered and making well planned investment decisions. In Friday’s update article on exploiting the Low Volatility Anomaly , I demonstrated that lower risk stocks have outperformed the broader market and higher risk stocks over the last twenty plus years in markets around the world. The business model of Dividend Aristocrats must be inherently stable and produce continual free cash flow through the business cycle or these companies would not be able to maintain their record of paying increasing dividends for over a quarter century. The return profile of the Dividend Aristocrats is much more correlated to the S&P Low Volatility Index ( SPLV , r= 0.92) than the S&P 500 (r = 0.84 ), which lends credence to the strategy’s low volatility nature and stability through differing market environments. I have chosen to detail the Dividend Aristocrats and Low Volatility stocks separately because I believe part of the strong performance of the Dividend Aristocrats is also attributable to the fifth factor tilt highlighted in my concluding article in this series update to be published tomorrow. Disclaimer: My articles may contain statements and projections that are forward-looking in nature, and therefore inherently subject to numerous risks, uncertainties and assumptions. While my articles focus on generating long-term risk-adjusted returns, investment decisions necessarily involve the risk of loss of principal. Individual investor circumstances vary significantly, and information gleaned from my articles should be applied to your own unique investment situation, objectives, risk tolerance, and investment horizon. Disclosure: I am/we are long NOBL, SPLV, SPY. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.