Robust Portfolios

Disaggregation of Investment Returns

/ Kiwi Investor / 14 Comments

Understanding the disaggregation of investment returns can assist in building a truly diversified and robust investment portfolio.

It can also help determine the appropriateness of fees being paid and if a manager is adding value.

 

Many institutional investors understand that true portfolio diversification does not come from investing in many different asset classes but comes from investing in different risk factors. More Asset Classes Does not Equal More Diversification.

The objective is to implement a portfolio with exposures to a broad set of different return and risk outcomes.  The increasing allocation to alternative investment strategies by institutional investors globally, such as hedge fund strategies, to complement more traditional investments is evidence of this.  Alternative strategies are added so as to reduce overall portfolio volatility, resulting in a more attractive portfolio risk return profile.

The inclusion of alternative strategies can assist in providing greater probability in meeting investment objectives.

 

An understanding of the different return and risk outcomes can be gained by disaggregating investment returns.

Essentially, and from a broad view, investment returns can be disaggregated in to the following three parts:

  1. Market beta. Think equity market exposures to the NZX50 or S&P 500 indices (New Zealand and America equity market exposures respectively).  Market Index funds provide market beta returns i.e. they track the returns of the market e.g. S&P 500 and NZX50
  2. Factor betas and Alternative hedge fund beta exposures.  Of the sources of investment returns these are a little more ambiguous and contentious than the others.  This mainly arises from use of terminology and number of investable factors that are rewarding.  My take is as follows, these betas fit between market betas and alpha.
    1. Factor Beta exposures.  These are the factor exposures for which I think there are a limited number.  The common factors include value, momentum, low volatility, size, quality/profitability, carry.  These were outlined in this blog and are often referred to as Smart beta – see diagram below.
    2. Alternative hedge fund betas.  Many hedge fund returns are sourced from well understood investment strategies.  Therefore, a large proportion of hedge fund returns can be explained by common hedge fund risk exposures, also known as hedge fund beta or alternative risk premia or risk premia.  Systematic, or rule based, investment strategies can be developed to capture a large portion of hedge fund returns that can be attributed to a hedge fund strategy (risk premia) e.g. long/short equity, managed futures, global macro, and arbitrage hedge fund strategies.  The alternative hedge fund betas do not capture the full hedge fund returns as a portion can be attributed to manager skill, which is not beta and more easily accessible, it is alpha.

 

Lastly, and number three, there is Alpha.  Alpha is what is left after beta.  It is manager skill.  Alpha is a risk adjusted measure. In this regard, a manager outperforming an index is not necessarily alpha.  The manager may have taken more risk than the index to generate the excess returns, they may have an exposure to one of the factor betas or hedge fund betas which could have been captured more cheaply to generate the excess return.  In short, what is often claimed as alpha is often explained by the factor and alternative hedge fund betas outlined above.  Albeit, there are some managers than can deliver true alpha.  Nevertheless, it is rare.

 

These broad sources of return are captured in the diagram below, provided in a recent hedge fund industry study produced by the AIMA (Alternative Investment Management Association).

Another key distinction, in the most beta and factor betas are captured by investing long (i.e. buying securities and holding) while alternative hedge fund betas are captured by going both long and short and generally being market neutral i.e. having a limited exposure to market betas e.g. equity market risk.

The framework above is also useful for a couple of other important investment considerations.  We can use this framework to determine:

  1. Appropriateness of the fees paid. Obviously for market beta low fees are paid e.g. index fund fees.  Fees increase for the factor betas and then again for the alternative hedge fund betas.  Lastly, higher fees are paid to obtain alpha, which is the hardest to produce.
  1. If a manager is adding value – this was touched on above. Can a manager’s outperformance, “alpha”, be explained by “beta” exposures, or it truly unique and can be put down to manager skill.

 

Lastly, and most importantly, to obtain a truly diversified portfolio, a robust portfolio should have exposures to the different return and risk sources outlined above.

Accessing the disaggregation of investment returns has come increasingly available due to advancements in technologies and the lowering of transaction costs.  It is also having a fundamental impact on the global funds management industry, including hedge funds.

Furthermore, the determination of institutional investors to pay appropriate fees for return sources has witnessed the development of investment strategies that appropriately match fees for sources of return and risk.

Happy investing.

 

Return aggregation

 

Please see my Disclosure Statement

 

Factor Investing Portfolio Construction

/ Kiwi Investor / 2 Comments

Following on from my last post on Factor Investing this article provides some good insights into the implementation of a factor portfolio.

The article makes a few key points:

  1. The best way to capture the different factors is through diversification i.e. diversify across the different factors: value, momentum, size, minimum volatility and quality. Avoid having a single factor exposure.
  1. Although factors work, their performance vary greatly given different underlying financial and economic environments (macro environment).
  1. It is difficult to pick when the macro environment will change to the benefit or otherwise of an individual factor. Therefore, successfully under or over weighting a factor to expected changes in the macro environment offers little value add.  It is nevertheless likely to be more fruitful than making country and sector allocations shifts based on anticipated changes in the macro environment.
  1. There are a number of approaches to constructing a factor portfolio. Most often implemented are equally weighted approach (i.e. equal allocation to each factor) and risk weighted approach.  Risk weighted, in simple terms, starts with an equally weighted portfolio, then reduces the portfolio allocation to the higher risk factors e.g. more volatile factors, and increases the portfolio allocation to the less risky factors (in practice this is a more sophisticated and technically advanced approach).  Whichever approach is implemented, it needs to be consistent with Investor’s risk appetite and investment objectives.

The implementation of a robust factor portfolio is more complicated than outlined above.  There are a number of nuances that need to be considered e.g. level of portfolio turnover and redundancy of portfolio holdings i.e. a portfolio holding could enhance one factor but dilute another factor exposure.

 

Finally, the article makes a key point, this applies in any portfolio, robust portfolio construction is the key to success in Factor Investing.

True portfolio diversification isn’t easy.  Many portfolios have lots of asset classes, this does not mean they have more diversification.  See More Asset Classes Does not Equal More Diversification, the failings of diversification.

A more robust portfolio is achieved through factor allocation than say sector allocations, so long as there is a broad set of factors to invest in.

 

Please see my Disclosure Statement

Factor Investing

/ Kiwi Investor / 7 Comments

Factoring Investing, along with Alternative Investment Strategies, true portfolio diversification, Goal Based Investing (Liability Driven Investing), building robust investment portfolios, behavioural economics, and Responsible Investing, will be key themes of future blogs.

I thought this was a good article to cover as the first blog on Factor Investing:  The Case For Adding Factors To Your Portfolio.

This is a good article for those new to Factor Investing or at the beginning of considering the addition of factor exposures into a portfolio.  There are many articles like this from other provides.

 

A few of key points from the article:

  1. A factor can be thought as any characteristic relating a group of securities that is important in explaining their return and risk.
  1. Factor Investing is not new. It has been around for sometime within the industry, Value and Growth in the old days.  The drivers of value and momentum have been recognised by academics and professionals for decades.

What has changed, particularly over the last 5 years, is the technology that makes it easier and cheaper to capture market factors.

  1. There are not that many rewarding factors, Value, Quality, Momentum, Size and Minimum volatility are the most robust, Carry is another (I’ll blog separately on what each of these are).

Most of these factors can be found across most “asset classes” e.g. equities, fixed interest, commodities and currencies.

  1. Factors exposures can be used to determine if an active manager is adding true excess returns (alpha – risk adjusted excess returns), or just providing a market factor exposure which can be gained cheaply. It is a tough environment for active investors, they are being squeezed by passive index funds and cheaper factor funds (sometime referred to as smart beta strategies).  Albeit, a high level of sophistication is required in developing an effective factor investment strategy.
  1. Factor investing can deliver more efficient portfolios. This means better reward for risk taken.  Well-constructed factor investment strategies eliminate or reduce the exposure to unwanted and un-reward market risks. The article uses an America’s Cup analogy of reducing frictions to make the boat go faster– note New Zealand is the current holder of the America’s Cup.

Therefore, factor investment strategies can provide a more efficient portfolio outcome than selecting Industry Sectors or active management by way of example.

  1. Not all factors will perform equally well at every moment. Factors can underperform the wider and broader equity market and the other factors for long periods of time e.g. the Value factor has underperformed the broader global equity index for about 10 years currently!

Therefore, diversification across the factors is often recommended.

 

From a more advanced perspective, a portfolio that invests across multiply factors across multiply asset classes, and that can invest both long and short, e.g. go long stocks with favourable rewarding factors and sell short those stocks that do not display the rewarding factors, is likely the most efficient means of factor investing.  Such a strategy could well make up an allocation within a Liquid Alternatives Investment Strategy.

 

As an aside and not to confuse:

The above factors e.g. value, momentum and carry are factors that can be used to explain the drivers of securities within an asset classes e.g. equities fixed interest, and currencies

There are also macro factors, these explain at a higher level what drives a multi-asset portfolio.  Macro factors can explain more than 90% of returns across a multi-asset portfolio.  These macro factors can be used to determine an appropriate allocation to the different asset classes e.g. equities versus fixed interest exposures given preferred risk tolerance and investment objectives.

Macro factors include, economic growth, real interest rates, inflation, credit, emerging markets, and liquidity.  This is a topic for a future blog.

 

Please see my Disclosure Statement

The Buffet Bet

/ Kiwi Investor / 2 Comments

Receiving much attention from the 2017 Berkshire Hathaway shareholder letter has been “The Bet”.

To recap, “The Bet” was with Protégé Partners, who picked five “funds of fund” hedge funds they expected would outperform the S&P 500 over the 10 year period ending December 2017.

The bet was made in December 2007, when the market was reasonably expensive and the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) was just around the corner.

Needless to say, Buffet won.  The S&P 500 easily outperformed the Hedge Fund selection over the 10 year period.

 

I have some sympathy with this well written article.

 

Firstly I’d like to make three points:

  1. I’d never bet against Buffet!
  1. I would also not expect a Funds of Fund hedge Fund to consistently outperform the S&P 500, let alone a combination of five Funds of Fund.

This is not to say Hedged Funds should not form part of a “truly” diversified investment portfolio.  They should.

Nevertheless, I am unconvinced their role is to provide equity plus returns.

  1. Most, if not all, investor’s investment objective(s) is not to beat the S&P 500. Investment Objectives are personal and targeted e.g. Goal Based Investing to meet future retirement income or endowments

 

Albeit, as the article points out (A Rhetorical Oracle?), key investment points are missed by the media’s focus on the drag race over a 10 year period.

Now, I have no barrel to push here, except advocating for the building of robust investment portfolios consistent with meeting your investment objectives. The level of fees also needs to be managed across a portfolio.

 

In this regard and consistent with the points in the article:

  1. Having a well-diversified multi-asset portfolio is paramount.

Being diversified across non-correlated or low correlated investments is important.  Adding low correlated investments to an equities portfolio, combined with a disciplined rebalancing policy, will add value above equities over time.

The investment focus should be on reducing portfolio volatility through true portfolio diversification so that wealth can be accumulate overtime.  If you like, minimising loses results in higher returns over time.  A portfolio that falls 50%, needs to gain 100% to get back to the starting capital.  This means as equity markets take off, as they have over the last 24 months, a well-diversified multi-asset portfolio will not keep up.  Nevertheless, the well diversified portfolio won’t fall as much when the inevitable crash comes along.

It is true that equities are less risky over the longer term.  Nevertheless, not many people can maintain a fully invested equities portfolio, given the wild swings in value (as highlighted by Buffett in his recent Shareholder Letter, Berkshire can fall 50% in value).

100% in equities is often not consistent with meeting ones investment objectives.  Buffet himself has recommended the 60/40 equities/bond allocation, with allocations adjusted around this target based on market valuations.

In fact, I’d never suggest someone to be 100% invested in equities for the very reason of the second point in the article.

 

  1. Investment Behavioural aspects.

How many clients would have held on to a 100% equity position during the high level of volatility experienced over the last 10 years, particularly in the 2008 – 2014 period.  Not many I suspect.

 

A well-diversified portfolio, that lowers portfolio volatility, will assist an investor in staying the course in meeting their investment objectives.

An allocation to alternative strategies, including a well-chosen selection of Hedge Funds, will result in a truly diversified Portfolio, lowering portfolio volatility.  See earlier Post

Staying the course is the biggest battle for most investors.  Therefore, take a longer term view, focus on customised investment objectives, and maintain a truly diversified portfolio.

This will help the psychological battle as much as anything else!

 

I like this analogy of using standard deviation of returns as a measure of risk, average volatility:

“A stream may have an average depth of five feet, but a traveler wading through it will not make it to the other side if its mid-point is 10 feet deep. Similarly, an overly volatile investing strategy may sink an investor before she gets to reap its anticipated rewards.”

 

 

Please see my Disclosure Statement

Are we in a Bubble?

/ Kiwi Investor / 1 Comment

A developing consensus view is that the US sharemarket is overvalued, certainly by measures such as the Shiller PE (Price to earnings ratio).  Future low returns can be expected based on this measure.

Of course there is some debate about whether this is a bubble. Time will tell.

An earlier Post did touch on this. Another Post put the recent level of sharemarket volatility into a historical context.

 

Furthermore, the consensus view is that although overvalued the risk of a US recession is low. Generally a recession is needed to trigger a large drop in the value of sharemarkets.

None of the following forward indicators are flashing the risk of a recession: Leading Economic Indicators, ISM Manufacturing New Orders, Initial Unemployment Insurance claims, Durable Goods Order, shape of the yield curve (e.g. are longer dated interest rates lower than short dated interest rates, which is often a precursor to recession) and level of High Yield Credit Spreads.

The consensus view is that the US economy will continue to expand in 2018, now into its third longest period of economic expansion. Over time capacity constraints within the economy will grow further (e.g. falling unemployment) and the US Central Bank, US Federal Reserve (Fed), will continue to raise interest rates as the threat of or higher inflation emerge.

This will result in a “classical” ending to the economic cycle where higher interest rates will result in a slowing of economic activity, resulting in a pick-up in unemployment, followed closely by recession, say late 2019 early 2020. Unfortunately the recession will be felt more heavily on Wall Street (e.g. large share price declines) than Main Street.

This article outlines a paper written by James Montier of GMO. He outlines 4 different types of bubbles:

  1. Fad or mania e.g. dot-com bubble, Roaring 20s, and US Housing market
  2. Intrinsic Bubble e.g. Financials prior to the GFC had inflated earnings
  3. Near Rational bubble – the greater fool market, cynical, and they can keep going as long as the music is playing.
  4. Information Bubble

 

Montier argues we are in a cynical bubble (3 above), noting many professional investors acknowledge the US market is expensive yet remain fully invested even overweight, based on a BofA Merrill Lynch survey.

He agrees with Jeremy Grantham, many of the psychological hallmarks of a Fad and Mania are absent. Grantham has raised the prospect the US sharemarket may be entering a two year “melt-up” period as the next phase of the current “bubble”.

Time will indeed tell.  Nevertheless, the cynical bubble appears consistent with the consensus view above.

 

Mortimer’s article also has some great quotes from John Maynard Keynes, a great investor in his own right.

 

 Please see my Disclosure Statement

 

History of Sharemarket corrections – An Anatomy of equity market corrections

/ Kiwi Investor / 10 Comments

There has been lots written placing the current US stockmarket correction into a historical context.

The analysis of this blog draws on recent analysis undertaken by Goldman Sachs.

As you know, 2018 started out as the strongest start for global sharemarkets in over 30 years. The S&P 500 was up over 7% at one stage during January 2018.

The US equities bull market has been going since March 2009. This is amongst the longest period in history without the US sharemarket entering a bear market. The US sharemarket is up over 300% since 2009.

A bear market is usually considered to have occurred when sharemarkets fall by more than 20% in value.

A sharemarket correction is a fall in value of between 10% and 20%.

Volatility was at historically low levels over 2017. The US sharemarket, as at the end of January 2015, was up for 15 consecutive months and endured the longest period since 1929 without falling in value of more than 5%.

The fall in early February ended 499 trading days of the market not incurring a fall in value of more than 10%, which is amongst the longest stretch in history.

Records have been set and then broken!

 

With regards to bear markets and corrections, Goldman Sachs had some interesting analysis.

Corrections

There have been 22 corrections since 1945 of over 10%, and many more of less than 10%. The average correction is 13% over 4 months and takes 4 months to recover.

Bear Markets

There have been 14 bear markets, the average fall in value is 30% over 13 months and take 22 months to recover.

 

My own thoughts

Generally a bear market (i.e. 20% or more fall in value) does not occur without a recession (a recession is often defined as two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth).

The key forward looking indicators, such as an inverted yield curve, significant widening of high yield credit spreads, rising unemployment, and falling future manufacturing orders are not signalling a recession is on the horizon in the US.

Therefore, if you are playing the odds, the current correction might have further to run but it is unlikely to turn into a bear market.

 

Please see my Disclosure Statement

 

Equity Market declines in Perspective

/ Kiwi Investor / 3 Comments

Far from Unprecedented: Nine Selloffs Like this, and Nine Rebounds.

The Bloomberg article has much prettier graphs than I can do, but I can provide the view from a wonderful ski field in New Zealand, in the spirit of the Winter Olympics, Treble Cone near Wanaka.

150

 

So, since the beginning of the bull equity market run in 2009 there have been nine significant declines in global equities. On each occasion global equity markets have come back.

The nine episodes are outlined in the Table below. They make for interesting reading and are distant memories.

Now of course we maybe only partway through the decline of the current “correction” and it could be different this time i.e. no bounce

 

Market movements are in relation to the US S&P 500 Index.

Date Level of Decline Trigger
January 2016 -11% of three weeks Concerns over economic slowdown and mounting Chinese debt
August 2015 -11% over six sessions China’s shock devaluation of the Yuan
October 2014 -5.0% over week Spread of Ebola virus, concern over end of US Quantitative Easing and tensions in the Middle East
January 2014 -3.6% over the month Emerging markets equities and currencies sold down
October – November 2012 -7.2% US Election uncertainty between Obama and Romney
March – June 2012 ~-10.0% US Federal Reserve indicating it will likely hold back on further monetary Policy easing e.g. Quantitative Easing
July – August 2011 -17% US Credit downgrade and weaker than expected jobs report, Greece
January 2010 -8% Market correction uncertainty as to global growth outlook, particularly Europe
April – July 2010 -16% Similar reasons and the infamous flash crash
January 2018 -10.1% Rising longer dated interest rates, inflation concerns, Fed tightening, negative feedback loop of short volatility Products

 

Please see my Disclosure Statement

Global Equity Markets Meltdown – Don’t Panic Sell

/ Kiwi Investor / Leave a comment

Worried About Your Retirement Investments? Don’t Panic Sell was published prior to the big drop in the markets on Tuesday.

Nevertheless its messages are still very relevant given further market weakness over the last week.

I like how the article starts with the behaviour economics aspect of market volatility. Unfortunately we feel the pain of losses much more than the pleasure of market gains.  The 24 hour cycle of news headlines does not make the feeling of portfolio loses any better!

As the article highlights, equity markets are back to levels they were at a couple of months ago. Unless you have a portfolio of 100% equities (which is unwise in most circumstances – particularly if you are saving for a house deposit) your portfolio loses are unlikely to be as great as those posted by the equity market indices. The benefits of diversification.

Diversification does work. Having said this, the recent daily market activity has witnessed loses in both fixed interest (bonds) and equities on the same day. This is where allocations outside of equities and fixed interest such as alternative strategies adds another layer of true portfolio diversification.

The article makes the very valid point of having an Investment Policy Statement (IPS). This is a critical and important document. At times like this it is worth referencing this document, accessing appropriateness of goals, objectives, and long term strategic asset (risk) allocations. Of course this exercise should be undertaken formally and frequently (yearly) irrespective of market conditions. The continued focus should be on what needs to be done to reach longer term investment objectives. Outcomes should be measured against these objectives not market indices.

 

Rebalancing Policy

An essential component to adding value over time and increasing the chances of meeting investment objectives is to have a well-articulated and documented Rebalancing Policy. This assists in managing the risks that build up within portfolios over time, such that market movements like the recent one do not have an outsized impact relative to expectations and risk tolerance levels.

 

There are lots of other points to consider in the article, namely don’t try and time markets.

 

Please see my Disclosure Statement

 

Equity Markets Keep Falling

/ Kiwi Investor / 3 Comments

The equity market volatility from last week continued into this week.

The Dow Jones has experienced its worst week in two years. US equity markets reached “correction” territory (a decline of 10% from the peaks in January).

Concerns over higher longer term interest rates and a more aggressive Federal Reserve Fed Funds Rate tightening path than expected are the backdrop to the recent downturn in markets.

It also appears that the short VIX (volatility) products significantly added to market volatility. A good explanation of how these inverse volatility products impacted on market volatility can be found at $XIV Volpocalypse – A Sea of Disinformation and Misunderstanding

The US inflation number on February 14th has taken on heightened importance and will be the focus of markets this week i.e. a likely source of volatility

What has changed? Not much.

As expected prior to the “market melt-down” volatility was expected to pick up from historical lows and that interest rates would rise over coming months. Albeit the volatility has occurred more abruptly and violently than anticipated (as it often does).

US longer dated interest rates have reached 4 year highs but remain near historically low levels.

The global economy is characterised by synchronised economic growth. It is expected that all 45 of the larger economies monitored by the OECD will experience growth in 2017 and 2018. It has been a while since this has occurred. In the US unemployment remains at near historical lows and financial conditions remain supportive of ongoing economic activity. US equity markets are still up over 10% for the last 12 months.

It is a good idea to go back to what was being said prior to a large market event.

The comments by Mohamed El-Erain, the chief economic advisor at Allianz, at the Inside ETFs conference 23 January 2018 are a good reference point for the current market situation.

El-Erain told the conference we are not in an asset bubble but that we should expect a higher level of market volatility in 2018. Mohamed El-Erain: We’re Not in a Bubble

His comments focussed on the fact that the US Federal Reserve (Fed) would continue to normalise monetary Policy in 2018 e.g. lift interest rates over the year to more normal levels while also reducing the size of the Fed’s Balance Sheet.

El-Erain noted 3 key risks for 2018:

  1. Geopolitics e.g. Korea and the Middle East
  2. What happens if the four major Central Banks try to normalise monetary at the same time i.e. Fed, China, Japan, and Europe
  3. A market accident e.g. a liquidity event in say an ETF given an over promise to deliver

The last risk is very insightful given the events of the inverse volatility products over the last 10 days. I am quite sure El-Erain did not expect that risk to materialise so quickly!

 

So if things change, you change your mind, to badly paraphrase Keynes. Not sure that things have changed that much but maybe a realisation interest rates are actually heading higher and the very low level of market volatility experienced cannot last for ever. The US equity market is still trading on high valuations.

Whatever you do don’t panic. The Topic of my next post.

 

Please see my Disclosure Statement

 

Global sharemarkets fall sharply – what to do?

/ Kiwi Investor / Leave a comment

The run of sharemarket records has been broken.

After reaching all-time highs and experiencing the longest period in history without a decline in value of more than 5%, US equity markets have fallen the most since 2011, the most in 6 ½ years.

The sell-off comes after: a record start to the year, +5.6% (the market has retraced all of January’s gains), a strong US employment report on Friday, including a larger than expected pick-up in wage growth, and rising US Treasury yields over the previous days.

Combined the fear of greater than expected increases in interest rates by the US Federal Reserve (Fed)), high market valuations, and an over brought market (technicals) sentiment has turned quickly, leading to the sharp fall in the market over recent days. More may be likely – who really knows?

Nevertheless, a pull-back in the market has been long overdue and the underlying fundamentals remain good e.g. global synchronised growth

What to do in times like this? Listen to your investment advisor, ensure you have a truly diversified portfolio, and take a longer term approach.

This article is timely given the recent market volatility.

It highlights Goal-Based Investing and 4 other trends to look out for in 2018.

I hope the people that are advising you are across these topics, in particular:

  • Goal Based investing – this is key focus on this Blog site. This is fundamental.  The focus on how much growth assets one should have, a return and benchmark focus, and target date type funds may not deliver desired outcomes to meet retirement needs;
  • Responsible Investing. A responsible investing and ESG framework / policy is important for sustainable investment outcomes;
  • Uncertainty – well that has certainly risen over the last couple of days! Nevertheless, it was in the background given the very low level of interest rates and the high valuation of equities, the US in particular. The article points to the increasing allocations to alternatives as a means to truly diversify portfolios and make them more robust in the face of market uncertainty and volatility.
  • It is likely that ETFs could play an important role in meeting investment objectives

 

Bitcoin has lost its shine!

 

 

Please see my Disclosure Statement