Etikett: asset allocation

A tactical play to political uncertainties

A tactical play to political uncertainties ETF SecuritiesA tactical play to political uncertainties

ETF Securities Asset Allocation Research – A tactical play to political uncertainties

Highlights

  • For February, the tactical portfolio is reducing its allocation in US and French equities while overweighting Canada, India, Brazil, Russia and Turkey.
  • After two months underweighting most bonds except US investment grade, the tactical portfolio is taking a neutral position on rising interest rates and inflation expectations.
  • Within commodities, the portfolio tactically underweights nickel and tin, increasing allocation in corn and sugar while remaining neutral on energy and precious metals.

For February, the tactical portfolio is reducing its allocation in US and French equities while overweighting Canada, India, Brazil, Russia and Turkey.

After two months underweighting most bonds except US investment grade, the tactical portfolio is taking a neutral position on rising interest rates and inflation expectations.

Within commodities, the portfolio tactically underweights nickel and tin, increasing allocation in corn and sugar while remaining neutral on energy and precious metals.

Political uncertainties around the world are growing and may last longer than the market expects. While the divorce between the UK and the EU remains full of uncertainties, the German, French and Dutch elections are likely to add further uncertainty. Although we feel many elections pledges are unlikely to become a reality, the US may not be the trade partner the UK is seeking for as, since his inauguration, President Trump has been loosely delivering on what he has promised during his campaign. While market volatility has not picked-up yet, inflation is rising in the US, EU and UK, increasing the risk of central bank policy errors.

February 2017 positioning

Although very close to its lower band, the market volatility index (VIX) still stands between its historical average and its lower band, suggesting a more balanced tactical split between equities and bonds. The portfolio therefore has 45% in equities, 45% in bonds and 10% in commodities while its strategic benchmark holds 55% in equities, 35% in bonds and 10% in commodities.

Within the equity space, the CAPE (Cyclically Adjusted Price to Earning) valuation model suggests reducing allocation in the US and four European countries while overweighting Canada, Brazil, Russia, India and Turkey. European countries to underweight include France but also Italy, Denmark and, due to rising valuations, Sweden replacing the Netherlands this month. The US CAPE ratio is at its highest since December 2014, standing 47% above its 10-years median. For January positioning, the France CAPE ratio was also at its highest since 2007 before declining slightly this month. Among the countries at the other end of the spectrum, Brazil and Russia continue to show the largest differentials between their CAPE ratios and their respective 10-year medians, suggesting that these countries remain largely undervalued and justifying a tactical increase in their weights.

The below table highlights how our tactical positions have changed for the past three months compared to the strategic benchmark and our new positions for February.


(click to enlarge)

For November and December 2016, the bond model suggested to underweight most bond categories with the exception of US investment grade, as inflation expectations and interest rate expectations in the US and the EU were at a turning point. Last month, the model suggested returning to the strategic portfolio weights as both rates were rising in tandem. With the CDS (Credit Default Swap) of each bond hovering around its historical average, the tactical portfolio keeps a neutral position for February as well.

For commodities, the contrarian model is taking a complete shift for grains and softs from underweighting wheat, soybeans, cotton and coffee for January positioning to overweighting corn and sugar for February. While the model suggested underweighting copper, lead and overweighting zinc for January, it now suggests underweighting nickel and tin. The model has been tactically neutral on precious metals for the second consecutive month and shifts from overweight to neutral on energy.

Portfolio performance

The tactical portfolio still has the lowest level of volatility compared to a traditional balanced 60/40 portfolio, and the strategic benchmark, improving the Sharpe ratio by 35% on average to 0.44 compared to 0.37 for the 60/40 and 0.30 for the strategic portfolio.


(click to enlarge)

Whilst underperforming the 60/40 benchmark by 0.2%, the tactical portfolio outperforms its strategic benchmark by 0.6% per year since January 2005.


(click to enlarge)

With the exception of equities, each asset class in the tactical portfolio outperforms its counterpart in the 60/40 and strategic benchmarks. The bond component outperforms by 0.6% on average while the commodity component outperforms by 0.2%, illustrating the efficiency of our fundamental-based models in improving the risk/return profile of their respective asset class as well as the tactical portfolio.

In addition, the tactical portfolio provides higher protection from the downside risk with a maximum drawdown of -27.2% compared to -38.5% for the 60/40 and -39% for the strategic benchmark.

Finally, the portfolio recovers faster to its previous peak (2.42 years versus 3.25 years for both benchmarks).

Portfolio methodologies

Our strategic benchmark follows a long-only strategy with 60 investments across three asset classes: commodities (25), equities (28) and bonds (7). As illustrated below, the initial weights are based on the weighting methodology of:

The Bloomberg Commodity Index for commodities

The MSCI AC World Index for equities

The Barclays bond indices for bonds

(click to enlarge)

The strategic portfolio represents a balanced portfolio with 55%, 35% and 10% allocated in equities, bonds and commodities respectively. Every month, the strategic portfolio rebalances into the weights set by the above benchmarks.

Our tactical portfolio aims to outperform its strategic benchmark by applying fundamental-based models to reflect our expertise in each asset class and our views of the global economy. The tactical portfolio rebalances every month to a new set of weights determined by the models below:

The equity-bond relative trade model sets the weights at the asset class level between equities and bonds while commodities will remain at 10% all the time

The CAPE model sets the weight for equities

The bond model sets the weight for bonds1

The contrarian model sets the weight for commodities

Important Information

General

This communication has been issued and approved for the purpose of section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 by ETF Securities (UK) Limited (“ETFS UK”) which is authorised and regulated by the United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority (the “FCA”).

The information contained in this communication is for your general information only and is neither an offer for sale nor a solicitation of an offer to buy securities. This communication should not be used as the basis for any investment decision. Historical performance is not an indication of future performance and any investments may go down in value.

This document is not, and under no circumstances is to be construed as, an advertisement or any other step in furtherance of a public offering of shares or securities in the United States or any province or territory thereof. Neither this document nor any copy hereof should be taken, transmitted or distributed (directly or indirectly) into the United States.

This communication may contain independent market commentary prepared by ETFS UK based on publicly available information. Although ETFS UK endeavours to ensure the accuracy of the content in this communication, ETFS UK does not warrant or guarantee its accuracy or correctness. Any third party data providers used to source the information in this communication make no warranties or representation of any kind relating to such data. Where ETFS UK has expressed its own opinions related to product or market activity, these views may change. Neither ETFS UK, nor any affiliate, nor any of their respective officers, directors, partners, or employees accepts any liability whatsoever for any direct or consequential loss arising from any use of this publication or its contents.

ETFS UK is required by the FCA to clarify that it is not acting for you in any way in relation to the investment or investment activity to which this communication relates. In particular, ETFS UK will not provide any investment services to you and or advise you on the merits of, or make any recommendation to you in relation to, the terms of any transaction. No representative of ETFS UK is authorised to behave in any way which would lead you to believe otherwise. ETFS UK is not, therefore, responsible for providing you with the protections afforded to its clients and you should seek your own independent legal, investment and tax or other advice as you see fit.

An alternative proposal to the Yale endowment model

An alternative proposal to the Yale endowment model

ETF Securities Asset Allocation Research An alternative proposal to the Yale endowment model

Summary

Over the past 60 years, portfolio management has significantly gained in complexity and sophistication with active funds such as the Yale endowment fund not always outperforming a passive index tracking strategy.

Nowadays, it is possible to construct an equivalent strategy to the Yale model that is more transparent, more liquid, passively managed and cheaper to implement.

Adding precious metals to this alternative model improves return by 19% and enhances the Sharpe ratio by 46%.

Download the complete report

Early stage of portfolio construction

Since 1950, portfolio construction has been through 3 distinct phases1 and is in what looks like its fourth phase since the global financial crisis in 2008.

1 Increasing Institutional Portfolio Complexity and the Resulting Shift from a Product to a Solutions Mindset – Citi Business Advisory Services

The first phase ran from the early 1950’s to mid-1990. Rather than holding 100% in equities or bonds, investors searched for an optimal mix to diversify their portfolio risk. Based on the Modern Portfolio Theory, the generally accepted rule of thumb for optimal weights were 60% equities and 40% bonds.
(Click to enlarge)

Over the past 10 years, the 60/40 model has provided a Sharpe ratio of 0.435, more than twice higher than the Sharpe ratio of a global equity index thanks to the lower volatility of the 60/40 benchmark of 9.7% compared to 16.9% for the MSCI World.

In 2000, the Yale University Investments Office promoted the idea that investors should diversify in asset classes other than equities and bonds. Alternative assets such as private equity or hedge funds have higher return potential and diversification power as they are less liquid, therefore less volatile and less subject to strong correction. The outperformance of the Yale fund made the model popular among institutional investors.

Active versus passive portfolio management

The Yale endowment fund was created to provide support to the operating budget of the university scholars. Actively managed, the fund has progressively increased its exposure to alternative assets from 15% in 1950 to more than 75% today. As of June 2014, the fund was holding 15.4% in equities, 8.4% in bonds and cash and 76.2% in alternative assets: private equity (33%), hedge funds (17.4%) and real assets (25.8%).

(Click to enlarge)

Over the past 10 years to June 2015, the fund returned 10% per year compared to 7% for the 60/40 benchmark. It is worth noting that the fund did worse than the benchmark during the financial crisis in the year to June 2009. The fund target weights for 2016 are more or less the same as in 2014: 18.5% in equities, 8.5% in bonds and cash and 73% in alternative assets.

Low risk investors such as pension funds may however see the Yale model as too aggressive, refrained by the cost to replicate such an illiquid portfolio. Compared to endowment funds, pension funds have a larger investment pool and a shorter investment horizon to generate income for their clients.

Alternatives to the Yale endowment model

Because the Yale endowment fund is actively managed and invested in funds that are not listed on exchanges, the model is not replicable. Based on the same concept, we constructed an alternative portfolio with 20% equities, 5% bonds and 75% in alternative liquid assets. The 75% is equally allocated to private equity, hedge funds and real estate.
(Click to enlarge)

Since March 2005, the alternative portfolio returned 8% per year on average, 39% above the 60/40 benchmark over the same period. It is interesting to note that adding a basket of precious metals into the alternative portfolio increases the portfolio return by 19% to 9.5%. The addition of the precious metals basket also enhances the alternative portfolio risk/return profile as the Sharpe ratio of the portfolio increases to 0.524 from 0.359 without precious metals.

(Click to enlarge)

Low risk investors may find a core/satellite portfolio more appealing. We illustrate that a core/satellite strategy which holds 70% in core assets such as the 60/40 benchmark and 30% in alternative assets as a satellite provides an annual return of 7.4% comparable to the alternative portfolio which provides a return of 8%. The volatility of the core/satellite strategy is however much lower than the volatility of both alternative portfolios, enhancing the portfolio Sharpe ratio to 0.525. The 30% in the satellite are equally allocated to private equity, hedge funds, real estate and a basket of precious metals.

The new generation of portfolio models

The global financial crisis in 2008 drastically changed investor behaviour and portfolio management. Prior to the crisis, while investors were increasing their portfolio diversification toward alternative assets, they also concentrated their risk exposure toward equity risk essentially and saw their returns plummet as the financial market collapsed. The Yale endowment fund fell 24.6% in the year to June 2009 while the alternative portfolio fell 19.8% (with precious metals) and the 60/40 benchmark was down 12%. The real added-value of active diversification across asset classes is therefore questioned.

New types of portfolio management have emerged since and among them is the concept of diversification across risk factors, known as smart beta. Instead of using a classification by asset class, securities are classified by risk exposure. Two securities can then provide diversification despite being part of the same asset class as long as they are not exposed to the same risk.

Our proprietary contrarian model2 discussed in our previous note is a long only portfolio of commodities that takes a smart approach to traditional allocation strategies with commodities. The smart beta commodity portfolio has returned twice the annual return of the Yale fund over the past ten years to June 2015 while the alternative portfolio with precious metals has outperformed the fund by 11% over the same period.

2 How to make the best of commodities: the contrarian model – ETF Securities (02 February 2016)

(Click to enlarge)

In this note, we have shown that it is possible to construct an alternative portfolio that outperforms the Yale endowment fund when adding a basket of precious metals. As opposed to the Yale endowment fund, the alternative portfolio with precious metals is passively managed, more liquid and more transparent. Adding precious metals to the alternative portfolio improves the portfolio return and enhances its Sharpe ratio. Over the past sixty years, portfolio management has significantly gained in complexity and sophistication. Managers need to find innovative and cost efficient solutions that truly diversify investors’ portfolio risk. Portfolio allocation shifts from being asset class based to risk factor based and from active to passive management. The real added-value of active funds over passive funds continues to be debated.

Portfolio performance

This table shows how the different portfolios studied in the current and previous asset allocation notes have recently performed. In each section, the assets or portfolios are benchmarked against the portfolio in bold.

(Click to enlarge)

Important Information

General

This communication has been issued and approved for the purpose of section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 by ETF Securities (UK) Limited (“ETFS UK”) which is authorised and regulated by the United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority (the “FCA”).

The information contained in this communication is for your general information only and is neither an offer for sale nor a solicitation of an offer to buy securities. This communication should not be used as the basis for any investment decision. Historical performance is not an indication of future performance and any investments may go down in value.

This document is not, and under no circumstances is to be construed as, an advertisement or any other step in furtherance of a public offering of shares or securities in the United States or any province or territory thereof. Neither this document nor any copy hereof should be taken, transmitted or distributed (directly or indirectly) into the United States.

This communication may contain independent market commentary prepared by ETFS UK based on publicly available information. Although ETFS UK endeavours to ensure the accuracy of the content in this communication, ETFS UK does not warrant or guarantee its accuracy or correctness. Any third party data providers used to source the information in this communication make no warranties or representation of any kind relating to such data. Where ETFS UK has expressed its own opinions related to product or market activity, these views may change. Neither ETFS UK, nor any affiliate, nor any of their respective officers, directors, partners, or employees accepts any liability whatsoever for any direct or consequential loss arising from any use of this publication or its contents.

ETFS UK is required by the FCA to clarify that it is not acting for you in any way in relation to the investment or investment activity to which this communication relates. In particular, ETFS UK will not provide any investment services to you and or advise you on the merits of, or make any recommendation to you in relation to, the terms of any transaction. No representative of ETFS UK is authorised to behave in any way which would lead you to believe otherwise. ETFS UK is not, therefore, responsible for providing you with the protections afforded to its clients and you should seek your own independent legal, investment and tax or other advice as you see fit.

A Stock Pickers Guide to ETFs

A Stock Pickers Guide to ETFs

A Stock Pickers Guide to ETFs Written for Stock Pickers, useful for every investor.

Learn about the Asset Allocation revolution, the impact from asset allocators, how passive ownership affects your alpha opportunity, what ETFs can add value to your investment process, and how to read ETF volume and flow data in the right way. A Stock Pickers Guide to ETFs

The Asset Allocation revolution is redefining the investment landscape… ETFs are just (a big) part of that

The growth in ETFs is not just the result of a passive management phenomenon. They are rather the result of growing investor demand for multi asset investment solutions implemented via efficient building blocks. Traditional managers should reassess their ability to offer multi asset solutions and/or efficient building blocks in order to remain competitive.

Passive ownership (p/o) has redefined stock market dynamics and alpha opportunity

The Asset Allocation revolution has brought about the rise of the Asset Allocator and its respective market impact as average passive ownership for US stocks grew four times to about 16% in the past 15 years. As a consequence of high p/o some sectors such as Real Estate and Utilities have become more of a beta play due to a reduced alpha opportunity. Among size segments, the impact from p/o is not as relevant, although Small Caps exhibit some impact which could reduce alpha opportunity on names with high p/o. On the other hand, we found that stocks with lower passive ownership can provide a more abundant source of alpha.

ETFs have become an institutional vehicle also used by retail investors

Institutional investors continue to increase their usage of ETFs reaching an ownership level of 58% at the end of 2014. In addition, the number of institutional investors using ETFs rose above 3,000 at the end of last year including most of the major asset managers among investment advisers, brokers, private banks, hedge funds, mutual funds, and pension funds. Moreover, our research shows that ETF volume and cash flow activity is clearly dominated by institutional investors. Therefore the common belief that ETFs are a retail instrument is a misconception.

Every Stock Picker should know about the “Cash Management” and “Pseudo Futures” ETFs

It is difficult to keep up with the almost 1,500 ETFs listed in the US; however every Stock Picker should be acquainted with at least the relevant ETFs within the group of 105 ETFs which we call the Cash Management and Pseudo Futures ETFs. These ETFs can add value to investors’ portfolios in several ways that do not conflict with an active manager’s investment philosophy. In addition, understanding the different characteristics of these ETFs such as VIX elasticity of volume or flow patterns can help investors understand market trends in a more accurate way.

Download the complete report

Don’t try to buy on the dips

Don’t try to buy on the dips

Timing the market can be especially difficult regardless of whether you’re talking about stocks or bonds. Catherine Gordon of Vanguard Investment Strategy Group suggests taking the emotion out of your financial plan by setting your asset allocation based on your goals, time horizon, and risk tolerance. Don’t try to buy on the dips

 

All investing is subject to risk, including the possible loss of the money you invest

 

Investment objectives, risks, charges, expenses, and other important information about a fund are contained in the prospectus; read and consider it carefully before investing.
This webcast is for educational purposes only. We recommend that you consult a tax or financial advisor about your individual situation.

Vanguard is one of the world’s largest investment companies, offering a large selection of low-cost mutual funds, ETFs, advice, and related services. Whether you are an individual investor or a financial professional, or you represent a corporate or institutional investor, you can benefit from the size, stability, and experience we offer.

Founder John C. Bogle structured Vanguard for just one purpose—to build wealth for its clients…and only for its clients. The crucial difference from other fund companies: Vanguard would redirect net profits from economies of scale to fund shareholders in the form of lower costs. The arrangement was similar to that of a credit union or a traditional mutual insurance company. Sales commissions were eliminated, and operating expenses were kept low. And, soon after its founding, Vanguard opened the first index mutual fund, launching the era of low-cost index investing.

Vanguard’s innovations were revolutionary, but they were not an overnight success. Indeed, this new approach was often ignored or even scoffed at.

 

Steady growth

 

But as the 1970s turned into the 1980s, the news about Vanguard started to get around. It spread largely by word of mouth, as early clients told their families and friends about their experience—the prudently-managed funds, the conscientious service, the low costs. As assets rose, Vanguard reduced costs further and launched more funds, both indexed and actively managed. The company extended services to retirement plans, institutions, and financial advisors. Its loyal client base continued to grow, and Vanguard’s steady incoming cash flow and low redemption rate began to move it toward the ranks of the nation’s major fund firms. And as Vanguard grew, it was able to steadily lower its average fund expense ratio from 0.89% in 1975 to 0.38% by 1990 (and eventually to 0.19% by 2013).

Other investment companies started to take notice. By the 1990s, as low-cost investing and index funds demonstrated their merits, competitors began to emulate Vanguard by offering their own index funds.

And as more investors and organizations realized the importance of cost efficiency, various fund companies selectively cut costs—sometimes just temporarily—in hopes of attracting new assets.

Meanwhile, under the leadership of Mr. Bogle’s successor, Chairman and CEO John J. Brennan, the company continued to expand, first venturing outside the United States in 1996 when it established offices in Melbourne, Australia. Vanguard later opened offices in a number of other international locations, including its European headquarters in London.

Today, Vanguard is one of the world’s largest and most trusted investment management companies, with operations around the globe. Our consistent, time-tested investment philosophy has proved itself in academic research and—most importantly—in helping millions of investors reach their goals. Vanguard has become widely recognized as a leading advocate of principled, common-sense investing.

 

Still standing alone

 

In a fiercely competitive investment arena, Vanguard remains alone in placing clients’ interests in the driver’s seat. Our corporate structure is still unique among mutual fund providers, with shareholders as the ultimate owners, receiving net profits in the form of lower costs.

As it continues to expand further into international markets, Vanguard offers an ever-wider range of investment products and services for individuals, institutions, and financial advisors, all at costs that are consistently among the lowest in the industry.

Vanguard’s dedicated crew is led by an experienced, stable management team. We’ve had just three CEOs in nearly four decades, with Chairman and CEO F. William McNabb leading the firm since 2008. Because Vanguard can’t be acquired by an outside entity, our clients can be confident that we will remain the same unique company, focused solely on their interests, in the years ahead.