Multi-asset risk-based strategies offer an alternative approach to portfolios construction.
Examples of multi-asset risk-based strategies include: Minimum Variance, Risk Parity, Maximum Deconcentration, Maximum Sharpe and Maximum Decorrelation. These strategies target a particular risk objective and that risk objective drives the underlying asset weightings. We see a growing role for multi-asset risk-based strategies as more informed comparator to traditional asset-based multi-asset comparators such as a 60/40 equity/bond portfolio. Potential application for risk-based strategies Potential applications include: Portfolio diversifier: Investors traditionally use hedge funds and/or absolute return strategies as diversifiers within a portfolio context owing to their differentiated risk-return characteristics. Similarly, risk-based strategies offer a systematic approach to delivering differentiated strategies for diversification purposes. More specifically, the objectives of a Max Deconcentration and Max Decorrelation are to deliver a differentiated approach (for a given opportunity set subject to parameter constraints). Return enhancement: Risk-based strategies have the potential to enhance portfolio returns. More specifically, the objective of a Max Sharpe strategy is to deliver maximum risk-adjusted returns (for a given opportunity set subject to parameter constraints). Risk mitigation: Risk-based strategies have the potential to mitigate portfolio risk. More specifically, a Min Variance strategy is optimised to deliver a risk-return characteristic close to the theoretical Minimum Variance Portfolio (for a given opportunity set subject to parameter constraints). Benchmarking purposes: Using risk-based strategies as comparators to Hedge Funds, Diversified Growth Funds and Target Absolute Return Funds provides additional performance insight without the problems that are inherent in peer group type measures. Get the full report Factor-based investing – an alternative approach to cap-weighted indices
Factor-based investing focuses on identifying broad persistent characteristics for securities within a single asset class. Factor-based indices ascribe weights to securities within an index based on those factor characteristics. Factor-based indices are therefore typically single asset in nature, and represent an alternative approach to capitalisation weighted indices. For example, Minimum Volatility equity index is typically constructed with a single asset class, e.g. equities whose constituents exhibit the lowest volatility characteristics. Risk-based strategies – an alternative approach to multi-asset When looking at multi-asset strategies, there are two approaches. For asset-based investing, asset weights determine portfolio risk characteristics. For risk-based investing, portfolio risk characteristics determine asset weights. Risk-based indices are therefore typically multi-asset in nature, and represent an alternative approach to asset-based (e.g. 60/40) multi-asset indices. For exanoke, a Minimum Variance index strategy targets the minimum variance multi-asset portfolio. Risk-based multi-asset strategies therefore reflect a portfolio construction approach, rather than a factor screen. It is the set of rules by which a multi-asset portfolio is optimised. What are the advantages of a risk-based strategy? The advantages of long-only risk-based index strategies are that they: 1. Provide a systematic approach to risk management 2. Can be constructed with liquid underlying ETFs 3. Do not use leverage or shorting Get the full report here http://www.elstonetf.com/store/p3/Multi-Asset_Indices%3A_risk-based_strategies.html Risk-based strategies are an alternative approach to multi-asset investing.
For traditional asset-based strategies, such as a 60/40 equity/bond portfolio, asset weights drive risk characteristics. For risk-based multi-asset strategies, risk characteristics drive asset weights. The objectives of multi-asset risk-based strategies are derived from different branches of portfolio theory can be defined as follows Minimum Variance: Aims to minimise the overall strategy volatility by using pairwise correlations and volatilities of stocks to provide a good proxy for the least risky portfolio in the Modern Portfolio Theory framework. Risk Parity: Aims to achieve equal risk contribution from asset classes under the assumption of identical pair-wise correlations structures. The same as inverse volatility weighting. Maximum Deconcentration: A naïve diversification strategy that aims at maximising the effective number of holdings, equivalent to minimising concentration. Maximum Sharpe: Aims to combine assets to achieve a strategy with the highest risk-adjusted return in excess of the risk-free rate. Maximum Decorrelation: Aims to minimise the volatility of a strategy assuming that individual volatilities are identical, thereby constructing the strategy based on correlation structure alone (solving for the least correlated strategy). Get the full report here http://www.elstonetf.com/store/p3/Multi-Asset_Indices%3A_risk-based_strategies.htm In 2018 Risk Parity and Min Volatility multi-asset strategies offered some downside cushioning and lower volatility relative to a 60/40 Equity/Bond portfolio for GBP investors.
Risk-based strategies: 1. Offer a systematic approach 2. Are designed to be differentiated 3. Have potential to enhance returns, mitigate risk or improve diversification Get the full report
What is risk-based multi-asset? Risk-based strategies are an alternative approach to multi-asset investing. For traditional asset-based strategies, such as a 60/40 equity/bond portfolio, asset weights drive risk characteristics. For risk-based multi-asset strategies, risk characteristics drive asset weights. How does this compare to factor investing? Factor-based index strategies typically look at screening single asset class securities for a particular factor. For example, Minimum Volatility equity index is typically constructed with a single asset class, e.g. equities whose constituents exhibit the lowest volatility characteristics. By contrast, For multi-asset strategies a Minimum Variance strategy targets the minimum variance multi-asset portfolio. Risk-based multi-asset strategies reflect a portfolio construction approach, rather than a factor screen. It is the set of rules by which a multi-asset portfolio is optimised. What risk-based multi-asset strategies are available? We focus on five well researched risk-based multi-asset strategies:
Access the full report here Whilst sound in theory, do risk-based strategies work in practice?
To find out, we took at the performance of a multi-asset Risk Parity Index and a multi-asset Minimum Volatility index. Risk Parity aims to achieve equal risk contribution from each asset class Min Volatility aims to combine each asset class to achieve a minimum variance portfolio On a rolling five year basis, both multi-asset Min Volatility and Risk Parity offered superior risk-adjusted returns relative to a 60/40 Portfolio for GBP investors. Both Min Volatility and Risk Parity offered a lower level of overall risk relative to a 60/40 portfolio. Get the full report here http://www.elstonetf.com/store/p3/Multi-Asset_Indices%3A_risk-based_strategies.html The phenomenal rise in ETF adoption looks extraordinary. But viewed in the context of any technology upgrade – from tape to CD, from CD to MP3 – there’s nothing outstanding about it. It’s just common sense.
ETFs are just a more flexible and lower cost way of getting exposure to an asset class relative to traditional mutual funds. Whilst some vested interests in the active world murmur about “How might ETFs cope in market distress?” The answer is, repeatedly (including in recent market turmoil), “Just fine, thank you”. Born out of crisis Indeed, the massive switch from Mutual Funds to ETFs is in part a direct result of the Global Financial Crisis. In the GFC, some investors were caught out by 1) not knowing exactly what was in their fund and 2) not being able to sell funds they no longer wanted to manage their risk exposure because they were “gated”. We’ve seen similar gatings of property funds after the Brexit vote, and of bond funds in face of interest rate rises. The two greatest benefits of ETFs are, in my view, their transparency (knowing exactly what’s inside the fund on a daily basis, and how it’s likely to behave) and their liquidity (there’s a secondary market in ETFs via the exchange, which means you can buy or sell an ETF without necessarily triggering a creation/redemption process within the fund). Transparency enables a more precise way of accessing specific asset class exposures. Liquidity is not just about intra-day trading, it’s more about the simple fact that if you don’t want to hold a fund anymore, rather than relying on the goodwill of the manager to accept your redemption order, you can simply sell it on via the exchange. This simple difference is a key advantage of ETFs. Secondary market Take the high yield bond market. So in a rising rate environment, if investors wish to sell high yield bonds, with mutual funds the manager has to sell the underlying investments (putting further pressure on price and liquidity), with ETFs, the manager can simply sell the ETF to another participant willing to come in at a level that is a bargain for both. The underlying investments need not necessarily be sold. Liquidity is only ultimately as good as the underlying asset class. But in every bond market jitter (including last week’s) bond ETFs have continued to function, and enabled liquidity. I prefer to turn the question on its head: what product do you know of (aside from a mutual fund) that you can only sell back to its vendor? I’m struggling for examples: just a quick look on eBay is enough to show that there’s a secondary market in pretty much everything, be it vintage newspapers, matchbox cars or antique furniture. A quick look on the London Stock Exchange, shows there’s a market for pretty much every type of fund: global equity, UK value, UK gilts of different maturity buckets, corporate bonds of different investment grades, gold, commodities, property: you name it, you’ll find it. It’s asset allocation that counts Furthermore, I’ve never bought the argument that “ETFs only work in a bull market”. Sure equity ETFs do well in a bull market, but there are ETFs for each asset class that could be in favour at different stages of the cycle. ETFs are a portfolio construction tool to reflect a desired asset allocation. If you only want high quality, dividend paying equities, there are dual-screened income/quality ETFs. If you don’t want equity exposure, there are bond ETFs. If you don’t want long-duration bonds, there are short-duration bond ETFs. If you want a cash proxy with a bit more yield, there are Ultrashort Duration Bond ETFs. So ETFs don’t perform better or worse at different times in the cycle. Managers can perform better or worse by getting their asset allocation right. ETFs are just a straightforward way of managing a multi-asset portfolio. From closet index to true index ETFs are by definition the commoditisation of mutual fund industry (standardised formats that can be bought and sold at a published price). The plethora of index rules are the systemisation of investment process: whether you’re philosophy is traditional (cap-weighted), momentum, value, small cap, income, or quality there are now indices for most investment styles for most asset classes in most regions. The investor’s toolkit has got smarter, cheaper and more flexible. What’s not to like? Given the large number of closet index funds out there, we can expect a continued switch from closet index to true index to drive ETF adoption yet higher. In the meantime, if anyone knows of an eBay for old mutual fund holdings – please let me know.
CAPM 1Q18 SNAPSHOT (GBP)
The Capital Allocation Line is the line that links the risk-free asset with the market portfolio. For GBP-based investors, we use UK Government Bonds as a proxy for the risk-free asset, and UK Equities as a proxy for the market portfolio. For 5 year, and Long-term, expected risk/return of these asset classes we use estimates from BlackRock Investment Institute. As expected, the CAL is upwards sloping: the higher the expected risk, the higher the expected return. For comparison, we superimpose on to those estimates, a snapshot of the historic 1 year and 3 year actual risk/return of these asset classes based on the performance of their respective ETFs. This gives an informative snapshot over capital market performance and outlook for GBP-based investors. CAPM Snapshot 1q18
The Capital Allocation Line is the line that links the risk-free asset with the market portfolio. For EUR-based investors, we use Eurozone Government Bonds as a proxy for the risk-free asset, and Eurozone Large Cap Equities as a proxy for the market portfolio. For 5 year, and Long-term, expected risk/return of these asset classes we use estimates from BlackRock Investment Institute. As expected, the CAL is upwards sloping: the higher the expected risk, the higher the expected return. For comparison, we superimpose on to those estimates, a snapshot of the historic 1 year and 3 year actual risk/return of these asset classes based on the performance of their respective ETFs. This gives an informative snapshot over capital market performance and outlook for Euro-based investors.
Risk-based indices are different to factor-based indices, as they focus on the interaction between securities, not the characteristics within securities. Put simply, it's an alternative, systematic approach to asset allocation and risk management.
The Elston Multi-Asset Min Volatility Index (ESBGMV) launched in 2014 represents the minimum variance multi-asset portfolio for GBP investors. As it takes a systematic approach, it's always interesting to see the asset-class switches that this methodology triggers via its monthly readjustments. Comparing the index composition from 4q17 to 1q18, the biggest switches have been cutting back European High Yield Bonds and UK Equity, whilst adding to European Aggregate Bonds and Gold. View Factsheet Learn about Elston Indices Visit ESBGMV Index <Go> on the Bloomberg Terminal Interview with Henry Cobbe, Head of Research, at the TrackInsight ETF Investor Summit Watch the video
For historic and expected asset class risk-return perspectives, see below. Fig. 1: 1-year historic asset class risk-return for GBP investors Fig. 2: 3-year historic asset class risk-return for GBP investors Fig. 3: 5-year expected asset class risk-return for GBP investors Source: Blackrock Investment Institute, total returns basis (arithmetic) for GBP investors
NOTICES: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. This article has been written for a US and UK audience. Tickers are shown for corresponding and/or similar ETFs prefixed by the relevant exchange code, e.g. “NYSEARCA:” (NYSE Arca Exchange) for US readers; “LON:” (London Stock Exchange) for UK readers. For research purposes/market commentary only, does not constitute an investment recommendation or advice, and should not be used or construed as an offer to sell, a solicitation of an offer to buy, or a recommendation for any product. This blog reflects the views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of Elston Consulting, its clients or affiliates. For information and disclaimers, please see www.elstonconsulting.co.uk Photo credit: N/A; Chart credit: Elston Consulting (Fig 1&2), BlackRock (Fig 3); Table credit: N/A All product names, logos, and brands are property of their respective owners. All company, product and service names used in this website are for identification purposes only. Use of these names, logos, and brands does not imply endorsement. Chart data is as at 30-Dec-17
Smart beta strategies are “smart” because they take a scientific, quantitative and objective approach to investing by combining a range of index-tracking ETFs with different market risk or “beta” exposures. In contrast to the opacity of hedge funds, dynamic allocation “smart beta” investment strategies should do what they say on the tin. Elston runs a number of diversified multi-asset investment strategies, two of which have been offered as indices for asset owners and investment managers to benchmark against or track. Chart 1: Risk and Return 2016 Source: Elston, Bloomberg, all in GBP Looking at outcomes Our multi-asset Global Max Sharpe index (Bloomberg: ESBGMS) did what it said on the tin delivering a Sharpe ratio (our primary measure of success for this strategy) of 2.06 for 2016, compared to 1.94 for Equities, 1.90 for Bonds and 1.45 for Commodities. On a returns basis (our secondary measure of success) the strategy returned 23.58% for the year, compared to 28.35% for equities, but with volatility of 10.35% compared to 15.45% for equities. Put differently, the strategy captured 83% of equity returns with just 67% of equity risk. Chart 2: Elston Multi-Asset Max Sharpe (ESBGMS) 2016 Outcome Source: Elston, Bloomberg, all in GBP Our multi-asset Global Min Volatility index (Bloomberg: ESBGMV) also did what it said on the tin whilst maintaining exposure to a broad set of return-seeking asset classes. The realised volatility (our primary measure of success for this strategy) for 2016 was 7.08%, compared to 15.45% for equities, 13.64% for bonds and 25.28% for commodities. Our dynamic asset allocation approach minimised portfolio variance whilst harvesting returns. On a returns basis (our secondary measure of success), the strategy returned 18.62% for the year, compared to 28.35% for equities, but with volatility of 7.08% compared to 15.45% for equities. Put differently, the strategy captured 66% of equity returns with just 46% of equity risk. Chart 3: Elston Multi-Asset Min Volatility (ESBGMV) 2016 Outcome Source: Elston, Bloomberg, all in GBP Theory and practice Our strategies constituent parts are ETFs representing a broad range of asset classes and geographies. The Sharpe of our Global Max Sharpe strategy’s whole is greater than the sum of its constituent parts. The Volatility of our Global Min Volatility strategy’s whole is less than the sum of its constituent parts. And that’s the intention. A low cost more consistent alternative to hedge funds? Hedge funds were popular because they provided differentiated returns and mitigated risk. In 2016, Hedge Funds returned 1.35% with volatility of 3.56%. Put differently, on average they captured just 5% equity returns, despite taking on 23% of equity risk. We plot out equity return capture (return relative to global equity return) and risk outlay (volatility relative to global equity volatility) for the main asset classes, our strategies and HFRX (all in GBP) in the summary matrix below. Chart 4: 2016 Return Capture vs Risk Outlay Source: Elston, Bloomberg
The problem with many hedge funds is that they are not doing what they say on the tin. They aim to provide diversified differentiated returns – but their process, statistically, amounts to trial and error, fraught with subjective bias. We seek to achieve similar outcomes, but using a clinically quantitative approach. To paraphrase a famous composer: “At the end of the day, it’s just maths.” What next? The Elston Strategic Beta multi-asset indexes were launched in December 2014. They are priced daily with index values available for free, factsheets are published daily. Our research strategies and indices are available for licensing. Private clients and families wanting wealth advice, typically want holistic wealth advice.
That's why it's worth remembering that investment capital is only one form of capital. Client fact finding should go well beyond understanding an investment portfolio, to account for other forms of capital - what it is and how it's structured. What are the other key forms of client capital to consider: Land: the oldest capital of all, since "they just don't make it anymore" - how is it held, how is it managed. In the UK agricultural yields nose-dived when the US prairies got going and crisis-related spikes aside, have never fully recovered. But "green gold" remains a resilient, and tax-efficient, store of value, and a source of collateral where productive. Property: principal, residential, and commercial property all require attention and management. Providing a store of value, an income yield and a source of collateral, it's no wonder that bricks and mortar continues to play such an important role in overall wealth. It's all the easiest "immovable" thing to tax. In the UK, taxation for properties has tightened for offshore owners, and now residential buy-to-let properties. Staying on top of the changing tax position is key for any type of property - whether owned for lifestyle or investment. Business: operating businesses can continue to provide an engine for family wealth. Again how it's owned and managed is key, as well as a picture of its capital intensity and capital requirements. How and whether returns are paid out or re-invested all form part of the broader financial landscape. Chattels: chattels are subject to their own esoteric tax treatment, and are a source of pleasure as well as a store of value. Inventorying, maintaining and insuring them are the larger headaches, with different experts needed in different fields. Trust capital: is the client a settlor or beneficiary of discretionary, life interest trust: if so, what are the terms of the trust, who are the trustees, how is it managed, and what is the tax position. Like personal capital, trust capital could simply be an investment portfolio, or itself made up of a mixture of the different types of capital outlined here. Charitable capital: whether supporting a historic, or creating a new charitable fund or trust, ensuring charitable capital is efficiently managed requires a keen eye on economies of scale. Ensuring it is properly and transparently deployed requires commensurate due diligence. Human capital: most of all, there's not much point to well-managed wealth if it can't be modeled to suit client objectives and needs - be these material or emotional. After all, you can't take it with you. Balancing this with an intergenerational view and succession plan is probably the hardest part for an adviser. So whilst there is no shortage of investment portfolio managers to choose from (and selecting, monitoring and reviewing one is another whole challenge), a holistic approach requires much greater scope and a flexible coalition of expertise. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. Additional disclosure: This article has been written for a UK audience. For research purposes/market commentary only, does not constitute an investment recommendation or advice, and should not be used or construed as an offer to sell, a solicitation of an offer to buy, or a recommendation for any product. This blog reflects the views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of Elston Consulting, its clients or affiliates. For information on Elston’s research, products and services, please see www.elstonconsulting.co.uk Photo credit: Google Images; Chart credit: N/A; Table credit: N/A
Post-Brexit fears around commercial property values has led to managers of three UK property funds locking investors in. They fear a potential rush of investors to sell units following the Brexit result in the EU Referendum. Decisions to suspend will typically reviewed every 28 days. The funds affected are those managed by Standard Life, Aviva and M&G, totalling some £9bn of assets (see table). While the justification given – to “protect the interests of all investors in the fund” – is fair and reasonable, some investors may not be too happy to be locked in for potentially quite a scary ride. The paternalistic reading is that investors are being protected from themselves, as they are denied the temptation to panic sell. Funds that locked in investors in 2008 eventually “came good”. But while investors may agree that “buy and hold” is right for the long run, that’s not the same deal as “buy and be held prisoner at the manager’s will”. This episode shines a much needed spotlight on the opacity around the underlying liquidity within funds that trade in less liquid assets. As always, investment funds are only as liquid as their underlying holdings. One of the main reasons advisers give for using funds over ETFs is that daily liquidity is not necessarily important as their investors take a long-term view. This does however deny the opportunity to make tactical adjustments to changing economic circumstances, particularly event-driven ones such as the UK referendum. What this episode illustrates that by contrast to funds, ETFs benefit from better internal liquidity (they typically invest only in liquid securities), from better daily external liquidity (as they are both OTC and exchange-traded), and from active liquidity management (the creation and redemption of units through capital markets activity by the issuer). For UK investors whose property exposure was through ETFs which such as iShares UK Property UCITS ETF (LSE:IUKP) which tracks the FTSE EPRA/NAREIT UK Property Index, the flexibility remains whether to adjust exposure or to the ride this out. And for portfolio management, flexibility counts. In terms of underlying exposure, Property ETFs and Property Funds are similar but different. Whereas property funds may have direct exposure to commercial or residential property, property ETFs typically own shares in listed real estate companies. As Property ETFs are by nature “equity only”, they can be expected to have higher volatility than property funds that which have exposure to bond-like steady streams of net rental income from less liquid direct holdings. So if risk is defined by standard deviation, it is clearly higher for a property ETF. If risk is defined by liquidity, it is clearly higher for a fund. Aside from volatility, the level of yield from property ETFs relative to funds is comparable, while the overall fee level is of course much lower. Table: Fee Comparison For investors seeking exposure to UK property as an asset class, then exchange-traded liquid ETFs that provide that from a portfolio construction perspective. But importantly, property ETFs won’t share the underlying liquidity risk that is (now) all too apparent.
NOTE Funds compared are iShares UK Property UCITS ETF (GBP), Standard Life Investments UK Real Estate Fund Retail Acc, Aviva Investors Property Trust 1 GBP Acc, M&G Feeder of Property Portfolio Sterling A Acc. Returns data as of 5th July 2016 (except M&G as of 4th July 2016). Standard deviationfigures as of 30th June 2016 for all funds. NOTICES: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. This article has been written for a US and UK audience. Tickers are shown for corresponding and/or similar ETFs prefixed by the relevant exchange code, e.g. “NYSEARCA:” (NYSE Arca Exchange) for US readers; “LON:” (London Stock Exchange) for UK readers. For research purposes/market commentary only, does not constitute an investment recommendation or advice, and should not be used or construed as an offer to sell, a solicitation of an offer to buy, or a recommendation for any product. For more information see www.elstonconsulting.co.uk Photo credit: pictogram-free.com. Table credit: Elston Consulting
A panel session at the Inside ETFs Europe 2016 Conference examined the renewed interest in Liquid Alternatives. This article draws out and expands on some of the key findings from the panel discussion of the same title. The role of alternatives in portfolio construction The role of “alternative” asset classes in portfolio construction has traditionally been to provide differentiated asset returns that reduce overall portfolio volatility through diversification. Alternative asset classes can be broadly defined as non-equity and non-bonds, so typically includes hedge funds, property, commodities, infrastructure and private equity, and subsets of those groups. Lessons from the global financial crisis This classic Markowitz-style portfolio construction approach, based on single period mean variance optimised models was severely challenged in the global financial crisis, when diversification failed to protect assets in the short run (correlations trended to one), and risk-return opportunities became more binary (risk-on/risk-off). Assumptions challenged More specifically, some key assumptions on correlation, liquidity and time horizons that underpin portfolio construction theory required closer scrutiny. Firstly, correlations are unstable, particularly over shorter time horizons. This means that while a static approach to a diversified asset allocation may be adequate in the long run for the long run, in the short run diversification can fail to provide any protection to a portfolio. Hence the need for a tactical asset allocation approach that is dynamic. Dynamic means adapting to the fact that correlations between asset classes are different in the short run to how they are in the long run, and remain in constant flux. It’s therefore important to understand the role and correlation of alternatives to other asset classes across a time horizon that is relevant to an investor, as not all (in fact very few) investors are endowments with infinite time horizons. Secondly, liquidity matters, and matters more when needed most. While portfolio theory assumes perfect liquidity to move between asset classes, the relevance of liquidity became all too apparent in the financial crisis both from a timing perspective and a counterparty perspective. From a timing perspective, the gating of investors in certain hedge funds, and the relevance of redemption notice periods – whether daily, monthly, quarterly or annually – became all too relevant. From a counterparty perspective, solvency, capital structure and legal title became a primary concern. Finally, time horizon matters. For investors with a long-run time horizon who had no need to access capital and could weather extreme market volatility, there was sufficient risk budget not to worry about near-term correlations and liquidity constraints. But for those that needed to access capital in the near to medium term, or wished to dial-down their exposure to all risk assets in the face of potential market dislocation, these factors could not matter more. Industry response Once the dust settled, the industry response to client concerns was to consider how to offer alternative strategies (for the same diversification reasons as before), but with some hard lessons learned. Strategies had to be sufficiently flexible to be adaptive to changing market circumstances, and sufficiently liquid to be bought and sold on a daily basis. “Liquid alternatives” therefore became a buzzword for strategies that can 1) from a portfolio construction perspective, provide uncorrelated returns to traditional asset classes; and 2) from a portfolio implementation perspective, provide daily liquidity. Put differently, liquid alternatives are products that enable investors to trade “anything other than conventional beta”, according to Jean-René Giraud, CEO of Trackinsight, a European ETF research provider that is part of Koris International. Liquid Alts – delivered as mutual funds The growth in “liquid alt” was focused initially in the US mutual fund space (and were sometimes known as 40 Act funds as they were governed by the US Investment Company Act of 1940). The nature of investment strategies offered was therefore governed by what was permissible under the 1940 legislation – for example the requirement to offer daily liquidity, and to calculate a daily NAV. However, this also meant constraints around concentration, excessive leverage and short-selling. While these constraints were more restrictive than private/non-registered hedge funds, this sub-optimality was considered outweighed by investor demand for daily liquidity. Following the financial crisis, there was explosive growth in liquid alt funds, as illustrated in Fig. 1, below: Figure 1: Growth in Liquid Alt Mutual Funds (US) Note: The chart combines the Morningstar Alternative Mutual Funds and Morningstar Non-Traditional Bond Funds sectors to represent a Liquid Alt mutual fund sector.
Source: Spouting Rock, Morningstar Direct, as at 31st October 2015. Morningstar subdivides liquid alt funds into the following sub-sectors: Managed Futures, Long-Short Equity, Multi-Alternative, Market Neutral, Nontraditional Bond, Multicurrency, Bear Market. Managers of liquid alt funds ranged from specialist boutiques to retail versions of established hedge fund managers. Growth in AUM in liquid alt mutual funds has since tapered off possibly because the liquid alt exposure is becoming more readily available – to institutional and retail investors alike – through Exchange Traded Products (ETPs). Liquid Alts – delivered as ETPs The growth in Liquid Alts continues in the ETP space which has enabled rapid innovation in the breadth and depth of the range of strategies available. With TERs of 0.20% to 0.60% for ETPs, compared to TERs of approximately 2.00% for 40 Act funds, there is a compelling cost efficiency too. This is a key reason that institutional investors are looking at liquid alt ETPs as a lower cost alternative to hedge funds with a similar portfolio function, according to Jay Pelosky of J2ZAdvisory a New York-based global investment advisory firm. The number of liquid alt (including Smart Beta) index strategies available to fulfil the role of of providing differentiated returns to traditional asset classes is expanding rapidly on both sides of the pond:
While the range of products available is far greater in the US than in Europe at this stage there is potential for Europe to “leapfrog” and catch up in terms of innovation and development given the high level of research in alternative strategies from institutional investors, index providers and academia, according to Mr Giraud. Liquid Alts – delivered as Model Portfolios Retail investors are not limited to alternative mutual funds, or alternative ETPs. Liquid Alt strategies can be made available via managed accounts which are unconstrained by the parameters of the 1940 Act or individual ETP construction. One of the key enablers for this was the investment into platform technology by North American brokerages that made Model Portfolios readily manageable, according to Suzanne Alexander of Cougar Global Investments, a tactical ETF global investment strategist focusing on portfolio construction with downside risk management. So whether as an investment strategy in itself, or an alternative part of traditional strategy, liquid alternatives are helping to redefine portfolio construction. In this respect, Europe is lagging with platform providers slow to offer ETFs, let alone ETF Model Portfolios (“EMPs"), according to Giraud. UK Platforms – ETF Ready? In the UK, platform providers remain focused on mutual funds as a way of delivering investment allocation to clients, and the bulk of investment research is skewed to fund manager research, rather than ETF research. Novia Financial is one of the few platforms to offer not only traditional fund services, but is actively seeking to improve adviser access to ETFs, through technology upgrades. Platforms that are “ETF enabled” can provide advisers the tools, products, and cost structure they need to compete on like for like terms with robo-advisers which typically use ETF Portfolios, aggregated trading, and fractional dealing to deliver low-cost scalable investment solutions. With this technological parity, advisers can then differentiate themselves on the core services that robos can’t offer: financial planning/wealth structuring (typically more material than investment allocation), face to face support and a relationship based on trust. Broadening the portfolio construction toolkit Retail investors continue to seek ways to diversify their portfolios. Institutional investors are losing patience with Hedge Funds’ lack of “value for quality” evidenced by the material redemptions from hedge funds (some $14.3bn net outflows in 1q16 alone, according to Preqin). This means there is growing demand for liquid alts both from the top down and the bottom up, according to Pelosky. Funds formerly allocated to hedge funds will have to find a home, and a reinvigorated lower cost liquid alt ETP sector could be in the running to capture part of it. Notes: Participants in the panel discussion on this topic included: Henry Cobbe, Elston Consulting (moderator) Susanne Alexander, Cougar Global Investments Jean-René Giraud, Trackinsight Jay Pelosky, J2Z Advisory NOTICES: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. This article has been written for a US and UK audience. Tickers are shown for corresponding and/or similar ETFs prefixed by the relevant exchange code, e.g. “NYSEARCA:” (NYSE Arca Exchange) for US readers; “LON:” (London Stock Exchange) for UK readers. For research purposes/market commentary only, does not constitute an investment recommendation or advice. For more information see www.elstonconsulting.co.uk Image credit: Elston Consulting. Chart credit: Spouting Rock
A survey published this week of 250 institutional asset owners with AUM in excess of USD2 trillion suggests that there is continued growth of interest in reviewing Smart Beta strategies. The survey is published by FTSE Russell and is available here. It suggests that 36% of institutional asset owners are currently evaluating smart beta, up from 15% in 2014. This implies the potential for large inflows into smart beta strategies over the coming 12-24 months. What is smart beta? From an index construction perspective, if beta is defined as index-based investment strategy constructed using a cap-weighted approach (size factor), smart beta can be defined as an index-based investment strategy using an alternatively weighted approach (any factor other than size). From a portfolio construction perspective, smart beta can be defined as an asset allocation strategy constructed using different optimisation techniques to combine a range of index-based investment strategies. What the factor? Risk and return can be broken down into many contributing factors. Analysing factors requires the ability to statistically distil, isolate, and observe a factor for significance. There are therefore potentially thousands of factors, depending on your ability to analyse them, which could include aside from the obvious (size and volatility), quality, momentum, value, liquidity, profits, dividend yield, leverage, etc which make up the components of earnings and/or the cost of capital which classically define a company’s value. The broadening and deepening of data availability and accelerating computing power is facilitating the growth in this quantitative approach. How do factors help? Buying the (cap-weighted) index for an asset-class (e.g. S&P 500 NYSEARCA:SPY, NYSEARCA:IVV (US); LON:CSPX (UK)) could be seen as a straightforward “passive” approach. Through a factor lense, however, it looks like a blind overweight of a size factor. Size factor may outperform in some market conditions and underperform in others. So while asset owners traditionally thought of asset allocation in terms of geographies and asset classes, they are starting to consider portfolio analysis and construction from a factor perspective. It’s no secret that sovereign wealth funds have been early adopters of smart beta investing: the transparency of a rules-based approach is additionally attractive. Is “smartie” the new “hedgie”? Like the original attraction of hedge fund, return enhancement and risk reduction are the primary motivations for reviewing Smart Beta strategies, according to the FTSE Russell report. Unlike hedge funds, cost savings are an attraction too. Sounds familiar? One of the original motivations for including hedge funds in a portfolio was for return enhancement and portfolio risk reduction through the inclusion of an uncorrelated asset. This ostensibly required exceptional skill, and hence exceptionally high fees. But the mantra supported the exponential growth in hedge funds from niche to mainstream from the early 2000s. Arguably, smart beta strategies can serve the same purpose from a portfolio construction perspective, but using a systematic rules-based approach that replaces manager risk (unpredictable, rarely consistent), with model risk (predictable, consistent). Combined with ego-free fees, it’s no wonder that there is so much interest in this investment approach. Flexible delivery? Furthermore, unlike hedge funds, smart beta strategies can be delivered to in-house managers, segregated accounts,– the equivalent of being able to “enjoy in your own home” – as well as ETPs and CITs (Collective Investment Trusts). Relative to hedge funds, this creates greater transparency about the counterparty risk you are taking. Has the switch started already? As if on cue, two stories on the same day this week illustrate the point. In the UK, some listed hedge funds are reported as losing two-thirds of their assets as performance disappoints and expensive alpha proves elusive. Separately, in the US there are reports of further M&A activity in the smart beta space with Hartford Funds, a $74bn asset manager acquiring Lattice Strategies, a San Francisco-based smart boutique with $215m AUM. This is the latest in a series of acquisitions by large asset managers of quantitative boutiques. What kind of smart beta equity strategies are available? Smart beta equity strategies for USA (NY-listed) and world markets (London-listed) include factor based strategies from BlackRock’s iShares® such as Quality (eg NYSEARCA:QUAL (US) & LON:IWQU (UK)), Value (eg NYSEARCA:VLUE (US) & LON:IWVL (UK)), Momentum (eg NYSEARCA:MTUM (US); LON:IWMO (UK)), and Size (eg NYSEARCA:SIZE (US); LON:IWSZ (UK)). What about multi-asset? Our approach has been to focus on risk-based portfolio construction which is why we launched our multi asset Global Max Sharpe Index (ticker ESBGMS) and multi-asset Global Min Volatility Index (ticker ESBGMV) back in December 2014. Our view is that smart beta is a new and powerful part of the portfolio construction toolkit. Conclusion We see smart beta as a diversifier for classically constructed portfolios and as a flexible tool for analysing and managing factor exposures at different stages of the market cycle. If the large institutional asset owners follow through their interest in smart beta with mandates, it will be an investment style that is impossible to ignore. NOTICES: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. This article has been written for a US and UK audience. Tickers are shown for corresponding and/or similar ETFs prefixed by the relevant exchange code, e.g. “NYSEARCA:” (NYSE Arca Exchange) for US readers; “LON:” (London Stock Exchange) for UK readers. For research purposes/market commentary only, does not constitute an investment recommendation or advice. For more information see www.elstonconsulting.co.uk Image credit: FTSE Russell
The portfolio puzzle The Rubik’s cube has become a popular metaphor for the marketing teams of ETF providers. With good reason. For each client there’s a portfolio construction puzzle to be solved with building blocks, representing geographies, sectors, asset classes, factors and styles. There has been rapid expansion from providers of ETFs tracking main-market indices, with the largest institutional providers capturing the lion’s share of flows, owing to their ability to deliver on four key ETF governance criteria – consistency, liquidity, transparency and, of course, price. This means that ETFs for main market cap-weighted indices are increasingly commoditised. After all, there doesn’t seem to be anything overly smart about replicating market beta, other than the smartness of saving on fees relative to 'closet-tracker' active funds. Traditional cap-weighted index investing is a preference: either out of philosophy or necessity. Innovation means smarter? Hence R&D of institutional investors, index providers and ETF manufacturers alike has focused more on “smart beta”. This has triggered a slew of innovation – both superficial and substantive. At a superficial end, age-old alternative weighting strategies (eg value indices that screen stocks for low book values, or dividend-weighted indices) have been rebranded as being “smart”. In these cases, for “smart” read “non-market-cap weighted”. In fairness, this rebranding is part of broadening of alternative weighting strategies that are factor-based. More substantively, research programmes such as EDHEC-Risk Institute’s Scientific Beta have been instrumental in promoting fresh thinking the field of both factor-based and risk-based smart beta strategies. Factor-based approach As a result, providers are focusing on making building blocks smarter. Instead of relying on the ‘traditional’ factor of market capitalisation for index inclusion, smart beta indices (and related ETFs) look at alternative factors: book value, dividend yield, volatility, for example. In that respect, the FTSE Russell 1000 Value Index launched in 1987 is probably the oldest factor index on the block. More recent factor indices are stylistic: Both iShares (Oct-14) and Vanguard (Dec-15) havelaunched global equity factor ETFs focusing on Liquidity, Min Volatility, Momentum and Value. The sophistication of factor-based index construction will continue to increase with the increase in data availability and computing power. Risk-based approach Portfolio strategists meanwhile can apply quantitative rules-based approaches to portfolio construction, creating static or dynamic asset allocation strategies from a growing universe of both cap-weighted and alternatively-weighted index tracking funds. These strategies – such as Maximum Sharpe, Minimum Variance, Equal Risk Contribution and Maximum Deconcentration – offer an alternative to the standard but troubled single period mean variance optimisation (“MVO”) approach. MVO’s limitations Single period MVO approach remains the traditional bedrock of very long-run investing in normal market conditions where the sequence of returns does not matter. However it runs into difficulty in the short-run when markets are non-normal and sequence of returns matters a lot. So unless you are a large endowment with an infinite time horizons, or perhaps can afford to invest for yourself and your family without ever needing to withdraw any capital, relying entirely on the MVO approach for asset allocation gives false comfort. For cases where there are constraints that challenge the MVO model - due to multiple or limited time horizons, expected capital withdrawals, risk budgets, and unstable risk/return/correlation profiles of asset classes (collectively known as real life) - portfolio construction requires a smarter, more adaptive approach that observes, isolates and captures the reward from shifting risk premia over time. Risk-based portfolio strategies attempt to achieve this and are designed to offer a liquid alternative approach to investing that is uncorrelated with traditional Single-Period MVO strategies. What’s the problem to solve? Whether assessing factor-based ETFs, or risk-based ETF strategies, at best these new developments seem all very smart. At worst it’s just a bit different. However, as ETFs get smarter and the strategies that combine them become more sophisticated, there’s a risk that the key question in all of this gets lost in an incomprehensible barrage of Greek. The key question for portfolio managers nonetheless remains the same. What client outcome am I targeting? What client need am I trying to solve? For portfolio strategy, whether using a discretionary manager that relies on judgement, or a systematic rules-based approach that relies on quantitative inputs, the key client considerations remain return objective, time horizon, capacity for loss, and diversification across asset classes and/or risk premia. Broadening the toolkit A portfolio strategy has little meaning without an objective that focuses on client outcomes. Factor-based ETFs and Risk-based ETF portfolio strategies offer an alternative or additional set of tools to help deliver on those outcomes, in a way that is systematic, liquid and efficient. |
ELSTON RESEARCHinsights inform solutions Categories
All
Archives
June 2024
|