 [7 min read, open as pdf] [See CPD webinar on introduction to factor-based investing]
Stellar performance If there’s one word to describe the performance of Terry Fundsmith’s Fundsmith Equity Fund, it would be “stellar”. Beloved by retail investors and advisers alike, it’s a key holding in many of the portfolio we see that are run by financial advisers. The firm’s values are clearly set out “No performance fees, no nonsense, no shorting, no market timing, no index hugging, no hedging etc”. All this combined with great results, and it’s a compelling proposition. But in this article, we set out to answer four questions:
In summary, the answers are: respectively: Possibly, Sector Allocation, Definitely Not, and Yes. What is Momentum investing? MSCI defines momentum factor as referring to “the tendency of winning stocks to continue performing well in the near term. Momentum is categorized as a “persistence” factor i.e., it tends to benefit from continued trends in markets”[1]. Following the lows of the Global Financial Crisis, it’s been a great time to be a Momentum investor. Question 1: Is Fundsmith a Momentum investor? What’s the right comparator? The Fundsmith Equity fund quite rightly uses MSCI World Index as a performance comparison on its factsheet. Comparisons against UK equity funds or indices would not be appropriate. In our research around factor-based investing, we thought it would be interesting to plot how the performance of a popular global equity fund like Fundsmith Equity fared against the various factor-based world equity indices. We were astonished to see that the performance was almost identical to the iShares EDGE MSCI World Momentum Factor UCITS ETF (the “Momentum ETF”). Fig.1. Close call between Fundsmith & Momentum factor for trouncing MSCI World  Source: Elston research, Bloomberg data. Total Return in GBP terms as at 31-Dec-20 Indeed, over the last 5 years from Dec-15 to Dec-20, Fundsmith has delivered a cumulative total return of +137.39%, compared to iShares Edge MSCI World Momentum Factor ETF’s return of +132.77% and +90.23% for iShares MSCI World Equity ETF. In annualised returns this translates to +18.85%, +18.39% and +13.71% respectively[1]. The correlation between the strategies from December 2015 to December 2020 is 84.3%. [1] As at 31st December 2020 How about 2020 performance? In 2020, the semi-annual rebalancing of the Momentum index potentially worked in its favour as it is not wedded to favourite positions: it simply looks at Momentum scores. In 2020, iShares EDGE MSCI World Momentum ETF returned +24.85% in GBP terms, compared to Fundsmith Equity’s +18.23% and iShares MSCI World +11.81%. Fig.2. Fundsmith vs Momentum in 2020  Factor investing: between active and passive? Factor-based index investing has sometimes been described as being somewhere between passive investing (cap-weighted beta) and active investing (non-index). Macro factors and style factors explain some of the difference between market beta and active returns, that were previously attributed to manager alpha. In the chart below, we compare the annualised performance of the world equity ETF (beta), the Momentum ETF (style factor) and the additional Alpha of Fundsmith relative to that Momentum ETF, effectively using the Momentum ETF as another benchmark. Fig.3. Relative Return Comparison: Fundsmith Equity vs iShares EDGE MSCI World Momentum Factor ETF  So for evaluating manager skill, which is the right benchmark: World Equities against which both Fundsmith Equity and a low cost Momentum tracker look great, or – if Fundsmith is indeed a Momentum-style investor – a Momentum benchmark, against which Fundsmith has still outperformed – but only marginally? Fundsmith describes his process as “Quality focused” and yet performance is very different to a Quality factor. Does this meant that Fundsmith is – knowingly or unknowingly – a closet “Momentum” investor? Applying a factor lens to active managers By applying a factor lens to traditional active managers we can see what factors those managers are knowingly or unknowingly allocating to, and hence to what extent their performance relates to a particular style factor. The Fundsmith Equity fund is a “true active” fund using high conviction, and high concentration. The manager’s stated philosophy selects companies based on their quality. We can see that Fundsmith and MSCI World Momentum Factor index both have in common a high concentration to Information Technology, Health Care and Consumer Staples. Fundsmith’s less constrained and more concentrated approach means that this sector concentration is even more extreme as he zero weights most other sectors, which the Momentum index cannot do. Naturally there is significant overlap in the underlying stock within both Fundsmith and the Momentum ETF, but with Fundsmith able to take larger active weights. Given Fundsmith’s focus – whether by accident or design – on companies with persistent share price momentum, a momentum index could be a more relevant comparator than a traditional cap-weighted world equity index for the Fundsmith Equity fund. Question 2. Where and how has Fundsmith added value? Performance Attribution We ran an attribution analysis comparing the Fundsmith Equity fund to the Momentum ETF for the period from June 2016 to December 2019, a period where all look-through data is available. In aggregate Fundsmith returned +75.76% outperforming Momentum ETF which return +69.48%. In terms of Total Returns, Fundsmith’s picks in the Information Technology sector delivered +145.22%, compared to Momentum ETF’s +156.32%, an underperformance of -11.1%. This was offset by Fundsmith’s pciks in the Health Care sector which returned +77.66%, compared to +67.58% for the Momentum ETF. An outperformance of +10.08%. Fundsmith’s picks in the Consumer Staples sector generated +35.62%, compared to +35.12% for the Momentum ETF. After adjusting each sector for average weights, the large relative overweight in Information Technology – an advantage of a more concentrated approach – meant that technology was the largest relative contributor to overall return deliver 35.82ppt of the +75.76% return. Similarly, for Momentum, information technology delivered 26.5ppt of the +69.48% return. In summary for the time period under review Fundsmith has been excellent at sector selection. Good in stock selection within the Health Care sector was offset by poor stock selection in the Information Technology sector. Stock selection in the Consumer Staples sector added almost no value. Fig.4. Sector-level Contributions To Return  The conclusion is that Fundsmith added greatest value by selecting the best performing sectors, where share price momentum was greatest. There was moderate additional value from fund selection, and some detraction from currency effect. Fig.5. Attribution analysis  Holdings analysis We looked at the average largest relative overweights for the Fundsmith Equity fund relative to the Momentum ETF. Fig.6. Security-level Contribution To Return  Fundsmith is “true active” because he is taking large absolute and relative bets relative to securities’ index weights be that in a traditional cap-weighted index or in the Momentum factor-weighted index. During the period under review, Paypal, Idexx and Amadeus were the largest contributors to returns. Fundamentals Interestingly, looking at aggregate valuations, the overall Price Earnings Ratio (PER) for Fundsmith and for Momentum is not dissimilar, whilst Price Book Value (PBV) ratios – a traditional value metric – and debt levels were far higher for Fundsmith than Momentum. Fig.7. Valuation Comparison  Question 3: Is Fundsmith Equity hugging the Momentum index? No. Not at all. As a far more concentrated portfolio there are high levels of active weights relative to the much more diverse MSCI World Momentum Index. Fig.8. Top 5 relative weights  Question 4: Are Fundsmith-like returns replicable by lower cost index strategies?
The most interesting element of our analysis is not finding two strategies that take a similar approach to different outcomes, but two strategies that take a different approach to a similar outcome. This is consistent with the concept of factors being the underlying drivers of returns. Fundsmith is and remains a vindication of the potential value add of active management, and the ability to deliver returns well in excess of the market beta. However, if we start looking at the “market” not just from the context of traditional capitalisation weightings, but using a more granular factor-based approach, we can get more insight as regards value add. Furthermore, we can see that that level and style of stellar returns are available to index investors too, in upward trending markets but at a cost of 0.30%, instead of 0.95%. The holdings or “ingredients” might be different, but the factors or “nutrients” might be the similar. Similarities and Differences So what are the similarities and differences between methodologies? Similarities
Summary Fundsmith’s performance is undeniably excellent, but is consistent with that of a Momentum-style investment strategy. Fundsmith’s “Alpha” can be measured not just against MSCI World, but against this Momentum Index. Using the standard MSCI World as a comparator implies Fundsmith’s Alpha is a phenomenal 5.14ppt pa over the last 5 years. Using the MSCI World as a comparator implies Fundsmith’s Alpha is just 0.46ppt pa. Incorporating factor-based exposures as a hybrid on the spectrum between traditional cap-weighted passive, and true active, creates more options for portfolio managers looking to isolate and capture specific styles and exposures without having to materiallyincrease either the risk budget or the fee budget. [1] MSCI factsheet as at December 2020 for last 12 months
0 Comments
 [5 min read, open as pdf]
Tech performance is skewing cap-weighted indices The run up in technology stocks and the inclusion of Tesla into the S&P500 has increased both sector concentration and security concentration. The Top 10 has typically represented approximately 20% of the index, it now represents 27.4%. The chart below shows the Top 10 holdings weight over time.   Rather than looking just at Risk vs Return, we also look at Beta vs Correlation to see to what extent each strategy has 1) not only reduced Beta relative to the market, but also 2) reduced Correlation (an indication of true diversification). Strategies with lower Correlation have greater diversification effect from a portfolio construction perspective. Ironically, the last time the index was anything close to being this concentrated was back in 1980 when IBM, AT&T and the big oil majors ruled the roost. From a sector perspective, as at end December 2020, Information Technology now makes up 27.6% of the index. Increased concentration reduces diversification This level of concentration is indeed skewing indices that rely on a traditional market capitalisation-weighted (cap-weighted) methodology, and does therefore reduce diversification. But the issue of the best performing stocks getting a larger weighting in the index, is not an accident of traditional index design. It’s its very core. Cap-weighted indices reflect the value placed on securities by investors, not the other way round. We should not therefore conflate the debate around “active vs passive” investment approaches, with the debate around index methodology. If portfolio managers are concerned about over-exposure to particular company or sector within a cap-weighted index, they can either chose an active, non-index fund, that is not a closet-tracker. Or they can access the target asset class through an alternatively weighted index, which uses a security weighting scheme other than market capitalisation. Using cap-weighted indices is an active choice The decision to use a fund that tracks an cap-weighted index is an active choice. And for those seeking differentiated exposure, there is a vast range of options available. We categorise these into 3 sub-groups: Style, Factor-based and Risk-based.
How have US equity risk-based strategies fared? Risk-based strategies have been in existence for some time, so we are able now to consider 10 year data (to December 2020, in USD terms). In terms of risk-adjusted performance, Managed Risk index strategies have fared best, whilst Min Variance has delivered higher returns for similar levels of risk of a Max Diversification strategy. Meanwhile Equal Weight has actually exhibited greater risk than traditional cap-weighted approach.  In this respect, Equal Weight (Max Deconcentration), also disappoints delivering higher beta and >95% correlation. Likewise Min Variance, whilst delivering on Beta reduction, does not deliver on decorrelation. Max Diversification delivers somewhat on decorrelating the strategy from the S&P500, but only modestly, whilst Managed Risk achieves similar decorrelation, reduced beta and better returns. Finally Risk Parity 10% Volatility cap has delivered most decorrelation as well as beta reduction.
For more information about the indices and funds used to represent these different strategies, please contact us. Summary There are a broad range of alternatives to cap-weighted index exposures. But consideration of style-, factor- or risk-based objectives will necessarily inform portfolio construction.
Find out more For more insights and information on research, portfolios and indices, visit: www.elstonsolutions.co.uk or NH ETF<Go>  [3 min read, open as pdf]
Growth shock is short and sharp The medium-term outlook for growth points more to a “short sharp shock” rather than a protracted downturn that followed the Global Financial Crisis. However vigilance around economic growth, and ongoing dependency on vaccine rollout, fiscal and monetary policy support remains key. Even lower for even longer interest rates Even lower for even longer interest rates underpins an accommodative strategy to support recovery: but also has created frothiness in some asset classes. Low nominal and negative real yields is forcing investors into refocusing income exposures, but should not lose sight of quality. Inflation in a bottle: for now Inflation caught between growths scare on the downside and supportive policy on the upside. Should inflation outlook increase, nominal bond yields will be under greater pressure and inflation-protective asset class – such as equities, gold infrastructure, and inflation-linked bonds can provide a partial hedge. Trade deal with EU should reduce GBP/USD volatility The 11th hour trade deal concluded in December between the UK and the EU should dampen the polarised behaviour of GBP exchange rate, with scope for moderate appreciation, absent a more severe UK growth shock. Market Indicators: recovery extended Market indicators suggest equities are heading into overbought territory and whilst supported by low rates and bottled inflation, are looking more vulnerable to any deterioration in outlook. Incorporating risk-based diversification that adapts to changing asset class correlations can provide ballast in this respect.  Summary
With respect to 2021 outlook
 [2 min read, open as pdf]
A Factor-based approach to investing Factor-based investing means choosing securities for an inclusion in an index based on what characteristics or factors drive their risk-return behaviour, rather than a particular geography or sector. Just like food can be categorised simply by ingredients, it can also be analysed more scientifically by nutrients. Factors are like the nutrients in an investment portfolio. What are the main factors? There is a realm of academic and empirical study behind the key investment factors, but they can be summarised as follows The different factors can be summarised as follows:
Which has been the strongest performing factor? Momentum has been the best performing factor over the last 5 years. Value has been the worst performing factor. Fig.1. World equity factor performance  Source: Elston research, Bloomberg data A crowded trade? Data points to Momentum being a “crowded trade”, because of the number of people oerweighting stocks with momentum characteristics. This level of crowdedness can be an indicator of potential drawdowns to come. Fig.2. Momentum Factor is looking increasingly crowded  Source: MSCI Factor Crowding Model The best time to buy into a Momentum strategy has been when it is uncrowded – like in 2001 and 2009, which is also true of markets more generally. MSCI’s research suggests that with crowding scores greater than 1 were historically more likely to experience significant drawdowns in performance over subsequent months than factors with lower crowding scores. Fig.3. Factors with higher crowding score can be an indicator of greater potential drawdowns, relative to less crowded factors  Source: MSCI Factor Crowding Model
Rotation to Value The value-based approach to investing has delivered lack lustre performance in recent times, hence strategists’ calls that there may be a potential “rotation” into Value-oriented strategies in coming months as the post-COVID world normalises. But can factors be timed? Marketing timing, factor timing? Market timing is notoriously difficult. Factor timing is no different. To get round this, a lot of fund providers have offered multi-factor strategies, which allocate to factors either statically or dynamically. Whilst convenient as a catch-all solution, unless factor exposures are dynamically and actively managed, the exposure to all factors in aggregate will be similar to overall market exposure. This has led to a loss of confidence and conviction in statically weighted multi-factor funds. Summary Factors help break down and isolate the core drivers of risk and return.
For more on Factor investing, see https://www.elstonsolutions.co.uk/insights/category/factor-investing https://www.msci.com/factor-investing  [7 min read, open as pdf] Whether or not investors enjoy creating and managing their own ETF portfolios, ready-made portfolios and funds of ETFs and index funds offer a convenient alternative In this series of articles, I look at some of the key topics explored in my book “How to Invest With Exchange Traded Funds” that also underpin the portfolio design work Elston does for discretionary managers and financial advisers. Who needs or wants a ready-made portfolio? Individual investors of all wealth levels may find the prospect of engaging with their investment daunting, time-consuming, or both. This is heightened by the high number of investment products and services available. In the UK, there are over 70 discretionary management firms, and over 3,000 investment funds and ETFs. For this reason, DIY investors may want ready-made portfolios that are an easy-to-buy and easy-to-own investment. Not only do these solutions look like a simple alternative but they can also address and can potentially mitigate behavioural mistakes. We look at three alternative ways of delivering ready-made portfolios for DIY investors in more detail: multi-asset funds, ETF portfolios and multi-asset ETFs. Multi-Asset Funds Multi-Asset Funds (also known as Asset Allocation Funds or Multi-Manager Funds) are the most established type of ready-made portfolios. By owning a single fund (or in some cases an investment trust), investors get exposure to a diversified portfolio of underlying funds to reflect a specific asset allocation. This means that having selected a strategy, the investor does not need to worry about asset allocation, or about the portfolio construction to achieve that asset allocation, or about security selection within each asset class exposure. We categorise Multi-Asset Funds into different categories by investment strategy:
 Despite the cost of wrapping underlying funds within a fund structure, economies of scale mean that Multi-Asset Funds can be delivered to investors at highly competitive price points with very low minimums. However, the disadvantage is that Multi Asset Funds have a one-size-fits-all approach that means there is little scope for customisation to the individual needs and characteristics of the investor’s objectives and constraints. ETF Portfolios ETF Portfolios are basket of individual ETFs providing an asset allocation. Rather than wrapping an investment strategy within a fund, a model portfolio is made available as a basket of ETFs that can be bought individually to create the strategy. Model portfolios may be “strategic” (rebalanced to fixed weights of the same securities) or “tactical” (rebalanced to changing weights of the same or different ETFs). Model portfolios are research portfolios meaning that the model portfolio provider has no control of client assets so it is up to a portfolio manager, adviser or DIY investor to implement any changes should they wish to follow a given model portfolio strategy. The advantages of ETF Portfolios include: firstly, potentially lower fees owing to removal of a fund wrapper to hold the strategy; secondly greater flexibility and specificity with regards to asset allocation design; and lastly agility as strategies can be launched or closed with ease. An example of an ETF Portfolio could be as simple as a classic global 60/40 Equity/Bond strategy constructed with ETFs.  Whilst ostensibly very simple – a two security portfolio – the underlying holdings of each ETF means that investors get exposure to 3,133 equities in global and developed markets (approximately 47 countries) and 1,660 investment grade bonds in over 24 countries. Put simply, the investor is able to buy the bulk of the global equity and bond markets with two simple trades. When manager, advisers or research firms create model portfolios, the weighting scheme can be one of three types as summarised in the table below.  The ability to design and create ETF Portfolios with an increasing number of ETF building blocks means that both traditional (asset managers, stock brokers) and non-traditional providers (e.g. trade publications, investment clubs, industry experts) can create investment strategies that can be “followed” by investors. However, the usual due diligence rules for any investment provider should be applied as regards their investment process. Whilst the rise of more bespoke ETF strategies is welcome, the convenience of having a single strategy delivered as a single security from a portfolio construction perspective is attractive. This is where Multi-Asset ETFs could have a role to play. Multi-Asset ETFs Multi-Asset ETFs are an emerging way of delivering the returns of a managed ETF Portfolio using a single instrument. Whereas multi-asset funds are often funds of index-tracking funds, Multi-Asset ETFs can be viewed as an “ETF of ETFs”. In the US, there are a number of multi-asset ETFs available providing a ready-made allocation within a single trade. In the UK, there are currently only two ranges of multi-asset ETFs available. Multi-Asset Infrastructure (launched April 2015) SPDR® Morningstar Multi-Asset Global Infrastructure UCITS ETF ESG Multi-Asset ETFs (launched September 2020) BlackRock ESG Multi-Asset Conservative Portfolio UCITS ETF (MACG) BlackRock ESG Multi-Asset Moderate Portfolio UCITS ETF (MAMG) BlackRock ESG Multi-Asset Growth Portfolio UCITS ETF (MAGG) We expect multi-asset funds, constructed with ETFs and index funds, to gain more traction than multi-asset ETFs because as a “buy and hold” ready-made portfolio multi-asset funds do not need the intraday dealing availability that ETFs provide. Multi-asset funds (constructed with index funds/ETFs), ETF Portfolios, and Multi-asset ETFs provide a ready-made one stop for delivering a multi-asset investment strategy for all or part of an investment portfolio, whether defined by a multi-asset index or not. The advantages of a multi-asset fund of ETFs as a ready-made portfolio The advantages of a “one and done” approach include collectivisation, convenience and consistency. Firstly, is collectivisation of investor’s by objective which creates cost efficiency from the economies of scale. Adopting a collectivised approach, can be done where each group of clients shares the same goal (as defined by, for example, a target risk level or income objective, or volatility objective or target date). This can help achieve economies of scale and lower the cost of offering professionally managed asset allocations in at least three different ways. Firstly, each cohort becomes a multi-million pound ‘client’ of an asset manager who can deploy institutional-type bargaining power on the pricing of the underlying funds within their asset allocation. Secondly, the collective scale reduces frictional trading costs of implementing the asset allocation decisions: one managed investment journey is more efficient to manage and deliver than thousands of individual ones. Finally, by focusing on actively managing the asset allocation as the main determinant of the level and variability of returns[1] the asset allocation can be implemented with index-tracking ETFs to keep costs down. Secondly is convenience. Rather than focusing solely on building optimal multi-asset class portfolios that need monitoring, the proposition of investment offerings can be engineered to eliminate poor behavioural tendencies that prevent effective management. Engineering funds so that they offer a single investment journey which investors do not necessarily need to monitor regularly in order to reach their goals can help reduce the perceived hassle of investing. This can motivate individuals to invest. Such professionally managed funds prevent investors from either not rebalancing the portfolio or doing it in an improper fashion due to behavioural tendencies such as status quo bias[2] and disposition effect[3]. Furthermore, a professionally managed strategy can respond to other risks aside from market risk such as shortfall, concentration or longevity risks which lay investors can overlook. An additional advantage of offering managed diversified funds is that it automatically curtails the number of products offered, thereby reducing cognitive load of making an investment decision and can prevent decision deferral.[4] Finally is consistency. Investors in each strategy experience the same time-weighted investment returns thereby reducing the likely dispersion of returns that a group of investors would experience through an entirely self-directed approach. This consistency is why multi-asset funds have also been adopted by some financial advisers as a core or complete holding within a centralised investment proposition. The disadvantage of a ready-made portfolio are not secret. They are designed as a “one-size-fits-all” product with no scope for customisation. The respective features of the various types of ready-made portfolio are set out below. Whereas multi-asset funds of ETFs, and multi-asset ETFs can be accessed via a single trade, their scope for customisation is low. ETF Portfolios have the highest degree of flexibility for creating custom strategies, but are not accessible via a single trade.  Summary Ready-made portfolios are easy to buy and easy to own. They enable a “set and forget” approach to investment management which can help design out key behavioural risks, or provide a useful core holding to a broader strategy. Obviously the primary choice is which strategy an investor must choose, or their adviser should recommend depending on their risk-return objectives and suitability considerations. [1] Ibbotson, “The Importance of Asset Allocation.” [2] Samuelson and Zeckhauser, “Status Quo Bias in Decision Making.” [3] Shefrin and Statman, “The Disposition to Sell Winners Too Early and Ride Losers Too Long”; Weber and Camerer, “The Disposition Effect in Securities Trading.” [4] Iyengar and Jiang, “How More Choices Are Demotivating”; Iyengar, Huberman, and Jiang, “How Much Choice Is Too Much?”  [7 min read, open as pdf] Fee pressure is here to stay. In the “race to the client” being run by platforms, DFMs and fund houses, it’s up to advisers to rethink their business model, and make sure they stay in the lead. In this series of articles, I look at some of the key topics explored in my book “How to Invest With Exchange Traded Funds” that also underpin the portfolio design work Elston does for financial advisers. Fee pressure is here to stay Between competition, regulation and ultra-low interest rates, there is understandable and justified pressure on costs. Looking at the overall “value chain” – the cost of advice, platform, discretionary manager, and underlying funds – means that without careful scrutiny, investing a pension or an ISA ends up meaning its client money risked for the financial service industry’s reward. With these “all-in” costs sometimes as high as 2.50%-3.00%, the situation is untenable, particularly when contrasted with non-advised workplace pensions and non-advised d2c solutions that can deliver a manager multi-asset investment solution at an all-in (excluding advice) cost of 0.50-0.75%. Put simply, if we imagine a price anchor/price cap of 0.75% for workplace and pathway-style non-advised investments, there is effectively a soft-price cap of 1.75% for advised investments, in our view, from a Value for Money perspective. MiFID II has been a tremendous driver of total cost transparency, and has sharpened the minds, and the pencils, of clients and advisers alike. The cost of delivering investment solutions (excluding advice) differs vastly depending on whether accessed via advised, workplace and non-advised channels (see Fig.1.). This is not sustainable.  Changing landscape
Given the inevitability of fee pressure and a steadily shrinking pie, there are three key trends emerging:
The Race to the Client Sustained fee compression across the value chain, means that there is a growing awareness amongst providers within the industry that their position in the value chain can be commoditised. That’s why there is so much corporate activity and proposition change from all the different parties within the value chain. Fund houses are investing in platforms, platforms are setting up advice firms, and advice firms are setting up DFMs. All of these parties are afraid of watching their products or services being commoditised, and hence many want to move to a vertically integrated model. I call this the “Race to the Client”. And yet at the end of the day, there is only relationship that matters and that cannot be commoditised. And that’s one of trust and personality which makes up the relationship between the adviser and their client. Control of the value chain: who has the power? Whilst some fund houes see advisers as “Distributors”, the truth is now the opposite. Instead of being price takers, advisers are becoming price setters. In the race to the client, advisers are and should aim to stay in the lead. But only if they take control of the value chain and align it to their clients’ best interests. Next generation advisers are no longer fund pickers, or model pickers, or manager pickers: they are fiduciaries who owe a duty of care to their clients and help them navigate the maze of financial services to ensure good customer outcomes, and excellent value for money. The institutionalisation of retail As workplace schemes become more individualised, and individual schemes become more mass-market, the retail and institutional worlds are beginning to collide, and this “institutionalisation of retail” means a focus on greater governance, increased professionalism, at substantially lower end-client costs. Strategic options for advisers Advisers have a number of options to compress all-in costs, whilst enhancing their business model.
Stop feeding the hand that will bite you The race to the client is hotting up, and is all too visible from the M&A activity in the sector, and the rush of private equity capital into the UK advice market. And yet many adviser firms seem determined to feed the hand that’s going to bite them. Why use a DFM whose stated aim is to cut you out of the value chain, and who spends more on Facebook ads, than your entire turnover? Why use a fund house whose billboards at every station reach out to your clients to go direct? Why use a platform that prefers to offer accounts to customers directly? Looking after clients is the most valuable part of an adviser business. Don’t give them away to your larger, bigger branded competitors. Summary As the race to the client hots up, the good news for advisers is that you are already in the lead. So stop feeding your competitors – the DFMs, the fund houses, the platforms, and take back control of the value chain to ensure you can protect clients’ best interests. © Elston Consulting Limited All Rights Reserved  [3 minute read, open as pdf]
Dividend Concentration Risk Dividend Concentration Risk is the over-dependence of a portfolio on a handful of holdings to generate the overall portfolio income. Dividend Concentration Risk became even more apparent in 2020 when large cap companies suspended or cut their dividends. Too often, Dividend Concentration Risk has been looked at in hindsight rather than as part of ongoing due diligence and challenge to portfolio constructors. We look at potential evaluation metrics and conclude that a quantitative and qualitative approach makes most sense. Understanding dividend dependency We look at Contribution to Yield to understand the asset-weighted income generated by each underlying holding as a proportion of the overall yield of a portfolio. Thus a 5% weighting to a 4% yielding stock A (an asset weighted yield of 0.20%) will have a greater contribution to yield than a 3% weighting to a 6% yielding stock B (an asset weighted yield of 0.12%). For a portfolio with an overall yield of 3.0%, stock A has a 6.67% Contribution to Yield (0.20% / 3.0%) and Stock B has a 4.0% Contribution to Yield. For income investors, looking at a portfolio from the perspective of income-weighted Contribution to Yield is as important as looking at its asset-weighted allocation. Portfolios where there are a greater number of stocks with a higher Contribution to Yield are more dependent on those dividends than a portfolio where there are a greater number of stocks with a lower Contribution to Yield. Contribution to Yield is therefore a way of looking at the vulnerability of a portfolio to the idiosyncratic risks of specific stocks cutting or suspending their dividend. Fig.1. Contribution to Yield of the iShares FTSE 100 UCITS ETF  Source: Elston research, Bloomberg data. As at 30th June 2020 Screening & Weighting Screening methodologies and weighting schemes can substantially alter the components and concentrations of an income portfolio. For example, a fund using an index which ranks securities by their yield alone, such as the iShares UK Dividend UCITS ETF, will have a different composition to a fund that uses an index which ranks securities by their dividend consistency, such as the SPDR S&P UK Dividend Aristocrats UCITS ETF (UKDV). Fig.2. Contribution to Yield of the iShares UK Dividend UCITS ETF  Source: Elston research, Bloomberg data. As at 30th June 2020 Fig.3. Contribution to Yield of the SPDR S&P UK Dividend Aristocrats UCITS ETF  Source: Elston research, Bloomberg data. As at 30th June 2020 What about Concentration? We can look at what number of holdings contribute to a threshold level of income. For example, of the funds above it takes 11, 14 and 9 underlying holdings for ISF, IUKD and UKDV respectively to generate an ad hoc threshold, e.g. 60% of overall income. Another concentration metric would be to look at a Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) measure. This measure of concentration (the sum of the squares of each weighting) is typically used to assess market competitiveness for an industry, but could also be used as a measure of concentration of Contribution to Yield. For example, a portfolio with equally weighted Contributions to Yield of 5% would have a HHI score of 500 (less concentrated). A portfolio with equally weighted Contributions to Yield of 10% would have a HHI score of 1,000 (more concentrated). On this basis, the HHI score of Contributions to Yield for ISF, IUKD and UKDV are 484, 406 and 525 respectively, suggesting that UKDV is more concentrated, than ISF which is more concentrated than IUKD in relative terms. Nonetheless, in absolute terms, each of them are relatively unconcentrated (a score of >1,000 would imply high concentration). Fig.4. Dividend Contribution Concentrations (HHI Scores)  Source: Elston research, Bloomberg data. As at 30th June 2020
A quantitative and qualitative approach Whilst Contribution to Yield and concentration measures can provide a quantitative approach, it is the qualitative dimensions of dividend risk that are the key drivers to understanding and mitigating Dividend Concentration Risk. The qualitative dimensions include a company’s dividend history, its outlook based on its willingness (dividend policy) and ability (dividend cover) to pay and the underlying industry-specific exposures that are driving corporate earnings and dividend potential. It therefore makes sense to combine a quantitative and qualitative approach to portfolio constructing when considering dividend concentration risk. Mitigating dividend concentration risk Ways of mitigating Dividend Concentration Risk include:
View the structured CPD webinar on this topic  [7min read, open as pdf]
After deciding on an asset allocation and which funds or ETFs to populate it, how best to put the plan into action? All at once or in stages? If in stages, how many and for how long? Looking out for portfolio “drift” and the options for rebalancing. These implementation decisions can have far greater impact on the value of investments than picking the “right” fund or portfolio. In this series of articles, I look at some of the key topics explored in my book “How to Invest With Exchange Traded Funds” that also underpin the portfolio design work Elston does for discretionary managers and financial advisers. Implementation is the process of putting an investment strategy plan into action. Implementation is key to investment outcomes whether transitioning an existing portfolio from one strategy to another, or whether investing fresh capital. Implementing a new portfolio Having decided on an amount to invest, the next hardest decision is when and how to start investing. Your entry level will be directly impacted by the immediate direction (sequence of returns) from the day you invest. You could think the market is too high and wait but it could climb higher. You could think you’ve bought the dip only to be catching a falling knife that marks the start of a steady and protracted decline. Deciding the “right time” to move assets from cash into risk assets can be tricky but staying out of the market is much more costly in the long run. So how best to invest: with a lump sum, or gradually phased over time? Lump sum investing: in the very long run research suggests that investing with a lump sum delivers better returns in the long run (as capital is in the market for longer, despite near-term fluctuations). However in the short-run it can be a scary and stressful experience, particularly for new investors, if they see immediate paper losses. If the sight of those paper losses is likely to cause an investor to withdraw their capital from the market then real damage is done. So whilst from an academic perspective lump sum investing makes sense, for practitioners considering investor experience and behavioural risks, a phased approach may be less stressful. Phased investing: Phased investing is a less stressful approach. By investing in regular intervals, short-term fluctuations smoothen out, and the investor achieves an entry price to risk assets that is the average over that implementation period. The pace of phased investing consideration should be given to client needs, portfolio size and market conditions. If markets are upward trending, implementation should be rapid. If markets are uncertain or downward trending, implementation should be gradual. Timing the markets is impossible, hence the best approach is to make a plan and stick to it. This enables better acceptance of the outcome. Implementing an existing portfolio where the asset allocation changes Implementing an existing portfolio where there is a change in the asset allocation may also benefit from a phased approach to help smooth returns (ignoring any tax considerations). A rolling benchmark can be used to calibrate performance evaluation. An implementation window should be agreed and any evaluation metric adjusted accordingly. Changes in tactical asset allocation should continue to be reflected immediately. By using a phased approach this can reduce portfolio sensitivity to short term market directional movements as it transitions to its new strategic posture. Implementing an existing portfolio where there are only changes to underlying holdings Implementing an existing portfolio where there is no change in asset allocation, but a material change in the underlying holdings (for example switching from active funds to ETFs) we recommend an immediate approach (assuming no tax considerations). This is because with no change in asset allocation, there is no change in the risk profile of the portfolio. Changes in tactical asset allocation should continue to be reflected immediately. Drift and rebalancing A key implementation decision is around portfolio rebalancing. Once a strategic allocation is set, investors need to decide what is an acceptable amount of drift, how frequently or infrequently to rebalance and on what basis to do so[1]. Allocation ranges As the asset returns of each asset class in the allocation vary, the weight of each asset class will “drift” from its start weight. Left unchecked, or if rebalancing is too infrequent, the risk profile (expected risk-return) of the allocation may vary significantly from target weights. Investors should specify to what extent they will allow such “drift” by specifying the minimum and maximum asset allocation ranges for each asset class. This can be expressed arithmetically (e.g. a 50% strategic allocation to equities can drift between +/-2.5ppts from the target weight), or geometrically (e.g. a 50% strategic allocation to equities can drift between 0.95x and 1.05x of the target weight). Rebalancing policy After deciding on allowable ranges of drift, investors must consider the frequency of rebalancing. The advantages of frequent rebalancing are:
The disadvantages of frequent rebalancing are:
In conclusion, for contrarian investors, regular rebalancing makes sense, but investors need to achieve a balance between frequency and trading and other frictional costs. Hence the more long-term your portfolio, the less frequently you need to rebalance. The more short-term your portfolio the more frequently you need to rebalance. A useful rule of thumb would be to consider quarterly rebalancing for medium-term portfolios (3-10 years), semi-annual rebalancing for long-term portfolios (10-20 years) and annual rebalancing for longer term portfolios (>20 years). It follows that the less frequent the rebalancing, the greater the range of allowable drift should be. Bringing this together, the investment time horizon, rebalancing frequency, and allowable drift ranges will differ from mandate to mandate. Rebalancing triggers When selecting a rebalancing trigger, investors can select one of the following:
After deciding on frequency of review, drift ranges, and type of trigger investors need to decide on what weighting scheme to implement. Types of rebalancing When selecting a weighting scheme, investors can select one of the following:
Rebalancing and cash flow Finally there investors can use cashflows where available to mitigate trading costs. Where there is no new capital introduced, the rebalancing process will necessarily consists of sales and purchases of each asset class to realign to target weights. Where there is sufficient capital being introduced, that opportunity can be used to make purchases only, to realign the portfolio to target weights. This reduces trading costs. Rebalancing enforces investment discipline, but there is a balance to be struck between accuracy of target weights and trading costs. The degree to which a portfolio is traded (with associated transaction costs) is called portfolio turnover, and this is one of the technical considerations for portfolio implementation. Technical considerations Portfolio turnover Decisions around rebalancing will directly impact portfolio turnover. Turnover is the measure of the extent to which a portfolio is changed. Annual turnover is calculated by taking the lesser of the value of securities purchased or sold during one year and dividing that by the average monthly value of the portfolio for that period. Lower portfolio turnover (e.g. 0-20%) is closer to a “buy-and-hold” strategy which has lower transaction costs. Higher portfolio turnover (e.g. 80% or more) is closer to a frequent trading strategy, which has higher transaction costs. The type of strategy and related turnover should be consistent with the investment objectives. Taking the inverse of the annual turnover figure gives the average holding period. For example, for a portfolio with annual turnover of 20%, the average holding period for a security is 5 years, For 200% it is 0.5 years. Whilst evidence suggests that lower turnover strategies tend to outperform higher turnover strategies[4], the main value of the turnover ratio is to ensure that the portfolio is being managed in alignment with the agreed mandate. Regular investing with Pound Cost Averaging For DIY investors who don’t have large lump sums to invest one of the most effective ways to resolve implementation risk is to adopt a permanent phased investment approach known as a regular investment plan. The benefit of this approach is known as pound cost averaging. Pound-cost averaging is a popular investment strategy where the same dollar amount is invested sequentially over a number of time-periods. Pound cost averaging[5] smooths the entry point for investments over each year. It means investors are topping up when markets are down and are buying less when markets are up. In this respect the approach is contrarian. The primary benefit of pound cost averaging is not necessarily that it improves returns, but it reduces the stress and anxiety associated with worrying about market levels. By breaking one large investment decision into a sequence of investments, the investor essentially diversifies their risk to obtain an entry price of an investment closer to the average price of an investment for the given time frame that was used to purchase it. While the majority of academic research notes the inferior performance of pound-cost averaging relative to lump sum investing over the long run[6], there is evidence that pound-cost averaging can lead to higher returns in the case of lower volatility funds or when there is a substantial chance of an investment losing value[7]. There is also the practical considerations ignored by academics that many DIY investors find it easier to allocate a certain portion of monthly income to their investments rather than a lump sum. For example, for most DIY investors it’s easier from a cashflow perspective to invest £500 per month into an ISA than to make a lump-sum investment of £6,000. Finally, evidence suggest that DIY investors tend to be their own worst enemy when attempting to time the market. Analysis of equity allocations for the period 1992-2002 for over a million accounts reveals that individuals frequently end up buying high and selling low[8] and there is also evidence that an average investor performs worse than the corresponding benchmark[9]. A disciplined investment approach of pound-cost averaging mitigates investors’ temptation to time the market[10] and therefore protects against the cognitive errors that lead to suboptimal investment outcomes[11]. Furthermore, it nudges right decisions in a bear market, “buy low”, precisely when investors’ confidence in the stock market is weakened[12]. Studies in the UK market suggest that retail net fund flows are broadly influenced by the direction of the market with inflows chasing up-markets, and out-flows chasing down-markets. This contrary to the principles of value investing. Pound cost averaging is therefore an antidote to many of the behavioural pitfalls that can catch investors out. Summary These are the main implementation considerations when setting up a new or transitioning an existing portfolio.
[1] Dayanandan and Lam, “Portfolio Rebalancing–Hype or Hope?” [2] O’Neill, “Overcoming Inertia”; Benartzi and Thaler, “Heuristics and Biases in Retirement Savings Behavior.” [3] Sharpe, “Adaptive Asset Allocation Policies.” [4] Cremers and Pareek, “Patient Capital Outperformance.” [5] Agarwal, “Exploring the Benefits of Pound Cost Averaging”; Morningstar Equity Analysts, “The Benefits of Pound Cost Averaging.” [6] for example see http://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/news/96177/is-pound-cost-averaging-overrated.aspx/ [7] Leggio and Lien, “An Empirical Examination of the Effectiveness of Dollar-Cost Averaging Using Downside Risk Performance Measures.” [8] Benartzi and Thaler, “Heuristics and Biases in Retirement Savings Behavior.” [9] Dalbar, Inc. & Lipper, “Quantitative Analysis of Investor Behavior.” [10] Kahneman and Tversky, “Prospect Theory.” [11] Statman, “A Behavioral Framework for Dollar-Cost Averaging”; Benartzi and Thaler, “Heuristics and Biases in Retirement Savings Behavior.” [12] Cohen, Zinbarg, and Zeikel, Investment Analysis and Portfolio Management, Homewood, Illinois.  [3 min read, open as pdf]
What do we mean by “Relative Risk” strategies We refer to asset-weighted multi-asset strategies with clearly defined equity allocations “relative risk” strategies. Why? Because as their asset weightings are relatively stable, their risk will fluctuate relative to equity risk, which is itself dynamic. The alternative to this approach is “target risk” strategies, where the asset weightings fluctuate to target a stable portfolio risk. The vast majority of risk profiled multi-asset portfolio and multi-asset funds are relative risk strategies, where risk can be defined as % equity exposure. Nowhere to hide The sudden severity of the COVID-related market downturn mean that the impact on “relative risk” strategies was similar. Broadly speaking, they took ~60% of the drawdown in global equities. A traditional asset-weighted approach can reduce beta to global equity, but not necessarily reduce correlation. In this respect, there was nowhere to hide for traditional relative risk multi-asset funds whose asset allocation is relatively stable. Fig.1. YTD Performance of “balanced” multi-asset passive funds  Source: Elston research, Bloomberg data. Total returns from end December 2019 to 28th October 2020 What is visible, however, is the differing shape of recoveries. And this was predominantly a function of:
We look at summary YTD performance of selected multi-asset passive funds, relative to our Elston 60/40 GBP Index, Global Equities and UK Equities. At +2.42%, HSBC Global Strategy Balanced has delivered strongest return YTD, outperforming the Elston 60/40 GBP Index by 1.40ppt. At -2.46%, BlackRock Consensus 60 has delivered weakest return YTD, underperforming the Elston 60/40 GBP Index by -3.48ppt. Fig.2. 2020 YTD Performance  Source: Elston research, Bloomberg data. Year to date as at 28/10/20. Total Returns in GBP terms. Global Equities represented by SSAC. UK Equities represented by ISF. Risk-adjusted returns For risk-adjusted returns, we compare YTD performance to the 260 day rolling volatility. On this basis, HSBC Global Strategy Balanced has delivered best risk-adjusted returns. On a risk-adjusted basis, HSBC Global Strategy Balanced delivered positive YTD returns and +1.40ppt outperformance relative to the Elston 60/40 GBP Index with approximately 84% of the volatility of the Elston 60/40 GBP Index. By contrast Vanguard LifeStrategy 60% Equity delivered positive YTD returns nd +0.58%ppt outperformance relative to the Elston 60/40 GBP Index with 102% of the volatility of the Elston 60/40 GBP Index. Fig.3. Risk-adjusted returns  Source: Elston research, Bloomberg data, as at 28/10/20 Total Returns in GBP terms
Summary Based on this analysis
 [2 min read, open as pdf]
Targeted Absolute Return funds Targeted Absolute Return funds (“TAR”) were billed as “all weather” portfolios to provide positive returns in good years, and downside protection when the going gets rough. How have they fared in the COVID rollercoaster of 2020? Using our Risk Parity Index as a more relevant comparator We benchmark TAR funds to our Elston Dynamic Risk Parity Index: this is a risk-based diversification index whose construction (each asset class contributes equally to the risk of the overall strategy) and purpose (return capture, downside protection, moderate decorrelation) is closer in approach to TAR funds than, say, a Global Equity index or 60/40 equity/bond index. Absolute Return In terms of Absolute Return, ASI Global Absolute Return Strategies has performed best YTD +4.70%, followed by BNY Mellon Real Return +2.43%, both outperforming the Elston Dynamic Risk Parity Index return of +2.37%. Fig.1. YTD Performance Targeted Absolute Return funds  Source: Elston research, Bloomberg data. Total returns from end December 2018 to end September 2020 for selected real asset funds. Downside risk If downside protection is the desired characteristic, then it makes sense to look at drawdowns both by Worst Month and Maximum (peak-to-trough) Drawdown, rather than volatility. In this respect, Invesco Global Targeted Return provided greatest downside protection with a March drop of -1.11% and Max Drawdown of -1.99%; followed by ASI Global Absolute Return Strategies with a March drop of -2.74% and Max Drawdown of -3.81%. This compares to -5.14% and -10.23% respectively for the Risk Parity Index. Fig.2. YTD Total Return, Worst month, Max Drawdown  Source: Elston research, Bloomberg data. Year to date as at 27/10/20. Maximum drawdown: peak-to-trough drawdown in 2020. Total Return in GBP terms. Risk-adjusted returns: Total Return vs Max Drawdown Bringing it together, we can adapt the classic “risk-return” chart, but replacing volatility with Max Drawdown. On this basis, ASI Global Absolute Return Strategies has provided the best Total Return relative to Max Drawdown, followed by the Elston Dynamic Risk Parity Index. Whilst Invesco Global Targeted Return provided least drawdown, it also provided worst returns. Fig.3. Risk (Max Drawdown) vs Total Return (YTD, 2020)  Source: Elston research, Bloomberg data, as at 27/10/20 in GBP terms Rolling Correlations We look at the change in Correlation (sometimes referred to as “ceta”) as a dynamic measure of diversification effect. By plotting the rolling 1 year daily correlation of each TAR Fund and our Risk Parity Index relative to a traditional 60/40 portfolio (we use the Elston 60/40 GBP Index as a proxy), we can see whether correlation increased or decreased during market stress. Elston Risk Parity Index correlation to the 60/40 GBP Index was relatively stable. Janus Henderson MA Absolute Return fund and BNY Mellon Real Return fund showed an increase in correlation into the crisis; ASI Global Absolute Return Strategies showed greatest correlation reduction into the crisis, delivering the diversification effect. Fig.4. Rolling -1year daily correlation to Elston 60/40 GBP Index  Source: Elston research, Bloomberg data, as at 27/10/20 in GBP terms
Summary Based on this analysis:
 High risk, complex Exchange Traded Products that amplify (with “leverage”) index’ moves in the same (“long”) or opposite (“short”) direction are designed for sophisticated investors who want to trade and speculate over the short-term, rather than make a strategic or tactical investment decisions. Whilst they can have a short-term role to play, they should be handled with care. If you think you understand them, then you’ve only just begun. In this series of articles, I look at some of the key topics explored in my book “How to Invest With Exchange Traded Funds” that also underpin the portfolio design work Elston does for discretionary managers and financial advisers. For more speculators and or more sophisticated risk managers there are a range of inverse (short) and leveraged (geared) ETPs that can rapidly add or remove upside or downside risk exposure in short-term (daily) market movements. The difference between speculating and investing should be clearly defined.
Owing to the higher degree of risk management and understanding required to use these products, they may not be suitable for DIY or long-term investors. However a degree of knowledge is helpful to identify them within a managed portfolio or amongst research sites. Defining terms Unlike their more straightforward unleveraged ETF cousins, leveraged and inverse or “short” ETNs should be for sophisticated investor or professional use only. So hold onto your seat. Shorting and leverage are important tools in a professional manager’s arsenal. But first we need to define terms. Going long: means buying a security now, to sell it at a later date at a higher value. The buyer has profited from the difference in the initial buying price and final selling price. Going short: means borrowing a security from a lender and selling it now, with an intent to buy it back at a later date at a lower value. Once bought, the security can be returned to the lender and the borrower (short-seller) has profited from the difference in initial selling and final buying price. Leverage: means increasing the magnitude of directional returns using borrowed funds. Leverage can be achieved by:
Underlying index: is the underlying index exposure against which a multiplier is applied. The underlying index could be on a particular market, commodity or currency. Potential applications Managers typically have a decision only whether to buy, sell or hold a security. By introducing products that provide short and/or leveraged exposure gives managers more tools at their disposal to manage risk or to speculate. Going short, and using leverage can be done for short-term risk management purposes, or for speculative purposes. Leverage in either direction (long-short) can be used either to amplify returns, profit from very short market declines, or change the risk profile of a portfolio without disposing of the underlying holdings. Short/Leveraged ETPs available to DIY investors The following types of short/leveraged ETPs are available to implement these strategies. Fig.1. Potential application of inverse/leveraged ETPs  The ability to take short and/or leveraged positions was previously confined to professional managers and ultra-high net worth clients. The availability of more complex Exchange Traded Products gives investors and their advisers the opportunity to manage currency risk, create short positions (profit from a decline in prices) and create leveraged positions (profit more than the increase or decrease in prices).
Risks Leveraged and short ETPs have significantly greater risks than conventional ETFs. Some of the key risks are outlined below:
If concerned regarding risk of deploying short/leveraged ETPs, set a capped allocation i (eg no more than 3% to be held in leveraged/inverse ETPs, and a holding period for leveraged/inverse ETPs not to exceed 1-5 days). US Case Study: Inverse Volatility Blow Up VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Short-Term ETN (IVX) and ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF were products created in the US for professional investors who wanted to profit from declining volatility on the US equity market by tracking the inverse (-1x) returns of the S&P VIX Short-Term Futures Index. The VIX is itself an reflecting the implied volatility of options on the S&P 500. As US equity market volatility steadily declined the stellar performance of the strategy in prior years not only made it popular with hedge funds[2], but also lured retail investors who are unlikely to have understood the complexity of the product. By complexity, we would argue that a note inversely tracking a future on the implied volatility of the stock market is hardly simple. On 5th February, the Dow Jones Industrial Average suffered its largest ever one day decline. This resulted in the VIX Index spiking +116% (from implied ~12% volatility to implied ~33% volatility). The inverse VIX ETNs lost approximately 80% of their value in one day which resulted in an accelerated closure of the product, and crystallising the one day loss for investors[3]. The SEC (US regulator) focus was not on the product itself but whether and why it had been mis-sold to retail investors who would not understand its complexity[4]. Summary In conclusion, on the one hand, Leveraged/Inverse ETP are convenient ways of rapidly altering risk-return exposures and provide tools with which speculators can play short-term trends in the market. Used by professionals, they also have a role in supporting active risk management. However, the risks are higher than for conventional ETFs and more complex to understand and quantify. RISK WARNING! Short and/or Leveraged ETPs are highly complex financial instruments that carry significant risks and can amplify overall portfolio risk. They are intended for financially sophisticated investors who understand these products, and their potential pay offs. They can be used to take a very short term view on an underlying index, for example, for day-trading purposes. They are not intended as a buy and hold investment. [1] https://seekingalpha.com/article/1457061-how-to-beat-leveraged-etf-decay [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/06/the-obscure-volatility-security-thats-become-the-focus-of-this-sell-off-is-halted-after-an-80-percent-plunge.html [3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-06/credit-suisse-is-said-to-consider-redemption-of-volatility-note [4] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-23/vix-fund-blowups-spur-u-s-to-probe-if-misconduct-played-a-role  [5 min read, open as pdf]
What is Zero Carbon investing The Zero Carbon Society at Cambridge University is one of many campaign groups calling for university endowment funds to divest from all fossil fuels. This has been termed “Zero Carbon” investing. The divestment trend started in the US in 2012 when the city of Seattle divested from fossil fuels. In 2014, Stanford University followed suit. Campaigns across the US and UK led to other universities following suit. Some of the reasons universities found it hard to ensure that their investments were “fossil free” is because:
The challenge When set this challenge by a university college, we proposed to do two things. Firstly to create a Zero Carbon SRI benchmark to show how Zero Carbon investing could be done whilst also focusing on other ESG considerations. Secondly, to create a Zero Carbon portfolio to deliver on the primary aim of full divestment. Creating a Zero Carbon SRI benchmark We wanted to create a benchmark for the endowment’s managers that not only screened out fossil fuels, but went further to screen out one of the main consumer of fossil fuels, the Utilities sector, as well as other extractive industries – namely the Materials sector. We also wanted to screen in companies with high ESG scores and low controversy risk and cover the global equity opportunity set. We worked with MSCI to create a custom index, the catchily-named (for taxonomy reasons) the MSCI ACWI ex Energy ex Materials ex Utilities SRI Index (the “Custom Index”, please refer to Notice below). Creating a Zero Carbon portfolio The second part of the project was to create an implementable investment strategy that maintained a similar risk-return profile to World Equities, but fully excluded the Energy, Materials and Utilities sectors. Rather than creating a fund which introduces additional layer of costs, this was achievable using sector-based ETF portfolio. This portfolio meets the primary objective of creating a Zero Carbon, fully divested, world equity mandate. In the absence of ESG/SRI sector-based ETFs, it is not yet possible to create a sector-adjusted ESG/SRI ETF portfolio. But we expact that to change in the future. Custom Index Performance The back-test of both the custom index could deliver similar risk-return characteristics to global equities. The concern was would those back-test results continue once the index and portfolio went live. The answer is yes. Whilst the custom index has shown outperformance, that was not the objective. The objective was to access the same opportunity set, but with the fossil-free, ESG and socially responsible screens in place. Fig.1. Custom Index performance simulation from June 2012 & live performance from June 2018  Zero Carbon Portfolio performance Similarly, the Zero Carbon portfolio has delivered comparable performance to MSCI World – hence no “missing out” on the opportunity set whilst being fully divested from fossil fuels. Although not intentional, the exclusion of Energy, Materials & Utilities has benefitted performance and meant that the performance, net of trading and ongoing ETF costs, is ahead of the MSCI World Index. Fig.2. Zero Carbon ETF portfolio performance from June 2018  Summary
Whatever your views on the pros and cons of divestment, Zero Carbon investing is not an insurmountable challenge, and the combination of index solutions and ETF portfolios solutions creates a range of implementable options for asset owners and asset managers alike. IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THE CUSTOM INDEX With reference to the MSCI ACWI ex Energy ex Materials ex Utilities SRI Index (“Custom Index”). Where Source: MSCI is noted, the following notice applies. Source: MSCI. The MSCI data is comprised of a custom index calculated by MSCI, and as requested by, Queens’ College Cambridge. The MSCI data is for internal use only and may not be redistributed or used in connection with creating or offering any securities, financial products or indices. Neither MSCI nor any third party involved in or relating to compiling, computing or creating the MSCI data (the “MSCI Parties”) makes any express or implied warranties or representations with respect to such data (or the results to be obtained by the use thereof), and the MSCI Parties hereby expressly disclaim all warranties of originality, accuracy, completeness, merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose with respect to such data. Without limiting any of the foregoing, in no event shall any of the MSCI Parties have any liability for any direct, indirect, special, punitive, consequential or any other damages (including lost profits) even if notified of the possibility of such damages.  Which asset classes are not indexable; what proxies do they have that can be indexed; and why it can make sense to blend ETFs and Investment Trusts for creating an allocation to alternative asset classes In this series of articles, I look at some of the key topics explored in my book “How to Invest With Exchange Traded Funds” that also underpin the portfolio design work Elston does for discretionary managers and financial advisers. Non-indexable asset classes Whilst Equities, Bonds and Cash are readily indexable, there are also exposures that will remain non-indexable because they are:
It is however possible to represent some of these alternative class exposures using liquid index proxies. Index providers and ETF issuers have worked on creating a growing number of indices for specific exposures in the Liquid Alternative Asset space. Some examples are set out below:
 Alternative asset index proxies Whilst these liquid proxies for those asset classes are helpful from a diversification perspective, it is important to note that they necessarily do not share all the same investment features, and therefore do not carry the same risks and rewards as the less liquid version of the asset classes they represent.  While ETFs for alternatives assets will not replicate holding the risk-return characteristics of that exposure directly, they provide a convenient form of accessing equities and/or bonds of companies that do have direct exposure to those characteristics. Using investment trusts for non-index allocations Ironically, the investment vehicle most suited for non-indexable investments is the oldest “Exchange Traded” collective investment there is: the Investment Company (also known as a “closed-end fund” or “investment trust”). The first UK exchange traded investment company was the Foreign & Colonial Investment Trust, established in 1868. Like ETFs, investment companies were originally established to bring the advantages of a pooled approach to the investor of “moderate means”.  For traditional fund exposures, e.g. UK Equities, Global Equities, our preference is for ETFs over actively managed Investment Trusts owing to the performance persistency issue that is prevalent for active (non-index) funds. Furthermore, investment trusts have the added complexity of internal leverage and the external performance leverage created by the share price’s premium/discount to NAV – a problem that can become more intense during periods of market stress.
However, for accessing hard-to-reach asset classes, Investment Trusts are superior to open-ended funds, as they are less vulnerable to ad hoc subscriptions and withdrawals. The Association of Investment Company’s sector categorisations gives an idea of the non-indexable asset classes available using investment trusts: these include Hedge Funds, Venture Capital Trusts, Forestry & Timber, Renewable Energy, Insurance & Reinsurance Strategies, Private Equity, Direct Property, Infrastructure, and Leasing. A blended approach Investors wanting to construct portfolios accessing both indexable investments and non-indexable investments could consider constructing a portfolio with a core of lower cost ETFs for indexable investments and a satellite of higher cost specialist investment trusts providing access to their preferred non-indexable investments. For investors, who like non-index investment strategies, this hybrid approach may offer the best of both world. Summary The areas of the investment opportunity set that will remain non-indexable, are (in our view) those that are hard to replicate as illiquid in nature (hard to access markets or parts of markets); and those that require or reward subjective management and skill. Owing to the more illiquid nature of underlying non-indexable assets, these can be best accessed via a closed-ended investment trust that does not have the pressure of being an open-ended fund. ETFs provide a convenient, diversified and cost-efficient way of accessing liquid alternative asset classes that are indexable and provide a proxy or exposure for that particular asset class. Examples include property securities, infrastructure equities & bonds, listed private equity, commodities and gold. [2 min read. Buy the full report] We compare the performance of risk-weighted multi-asset strategies relative to a Global Equity index and our Elston 60/40 GBP Index, which reflects a traditional asset-weighted approach. Of the risk-weighted strategies, Elston Dynamic Risk Parity Index delivered best -1Y total return at +3.03%, compared to +5.01% for global equities and +0.95% for the Elston 60/40 GBP Index.  Source: Bloomberg data, as at 30/09/20 On a risk-adjusted basis, Risk Parity delivered a -1Y Sharpe Ratio of 0.27, compared to 0.18 for Global Equities, meaning Risk Parity delivered the best risk-adjsuted returns for that period.  Risk Parity also delivered greatest differentiation impact of the risk-weighted strategies with a -45.8% reduction in correlation and -77.3% reduction in beta relative to Global Equities. This enables "true diversification" whilst maintaing potential for returns. By contrast the Elston 60/40 Index, whilst successfully reducing beta by -40.9%, delivered a correlation reduction of only -2.9%. Put differently, a traditional 60/40 portfolio offers negligbile diversification effect in terms of risk-based diversification through reduced correlation.  The periodic table shows lack of direction amongst risk-weighted strategies in the quarter.  All data as at 30th September 2020
© Elston Consulting 2020, all rights reserved  [5 minute read, open as pdf] Sign up for our upcoming CPD webinar on Real Assets for diversification
What are “Real Assets”? Real Assets can be defined as “physical assets that have an intrinsic worth due to their substance and property”[1]. Real assets can be taken to include precious metals, commodities, real estate, infrastructure, land, equipment and natural resources. Because of the “inflation-protection” objective of investing in real assets (the rent increases in property, the tariff increases in infrastructure), real asset funds also include exposure to inflation-linked government bonds as a financial proxy for a real asset. Why own Real Assets? There are a number of rationales for investing in Real Assets. The primary ones are to:
Accessing Real Assets Institutional investors can access Real Assets directly and indirectly. They can acquired direct property and participate in the equity or debt financing of infrastructure projects. Directly. For example, the Pensions Infrastructure Platform, established in 2021 has enabled direct investment by pension schemes into UK ferry operators, motorways and hospital construction projects. This provides funding for government-backed project and real asset income and returns for institutional investors. Institutional investors can also access Real Assets indirectly using specialist funds as well as mainstream listed funds such as property securities funds and commodities funds. Retail investors can access Real Assets mostly indirectly through funds. There is a wide range of property funds, infrastructure funds, commodity funds and natural resources funds to choose from. But investors have to decide on an appropriate fund structure.
The rise of real asset funds The first UK diversified real asset fund was launched in 2014, with competitor launches in 2018. There is now approximately £750m invested across the three largest real asset funds available to financial advisers and their clients, with fund OCFs ranging from 0.97% to 1.46%. Following the gating of an Equity fund (Woodford), a bond fund (GAM) and several property funds for liquidity reasons, there has – rightly – been increased focus by the regulator and fund providers (Authorised Corporate Directors or “ACDs”) on the liquidity profile of underlying assets. As a result, given their increased scale, real asset fund managers are increasingly turning to mainstream funds and indeed liquid ETFs to gain access to specific asset classes. Indeed, on our analysis, one real assets funds has the bulk of its assets invested in mainstream funds and ETFs that are available to advisers directly. Now there’s no shame in that – part of the rationale for using a Real Assets fund is to select and combine funds and manage the overall risk of the fund. But what it does mean is that discretionary managers and advisers have the option of creating diversified real asset exposure, using the same or similar underlying holdings, for a fraction of the cost to clients. Creating a liquid real asset index portfolio We have created the Elston Liquid Real Asset index portfolio of ETFs in order to:
We have built the index portfolio using the following building blocks
As regards asset allocation, we are targeting a look-through ~50/50 balance between equity-like securities and bond-like securities to ensure that the strategy provides beta reduction as well as diversification when included in a portfolio. For the index portfolio simulation, we have used an equal weighted approach. Fig.1. Performance of the Liquid Real Asset Index Portfolio (.ELRA)  Source: Elston research, Bloomberg data. Total returns from end December 2018 to end September 2020 for selected real asset funds. Since December 2018, the Sanlam Real Assets fund has returned 19.99%, the Elston Real Asset Index Portfolio has returned +19.76%. This compares to +5.86% for the Architas Diversified Real Asset fund and +0.16% for the Waverton Real Assets Fund. What about Beta Our Real Asset Index Portfolio has a Beta of 0.75 to the Elston 60/40 GBP index so represents a greater risk reduction than Waverton (0.86) and Sanlam (0.84), which are all higher beta than Architas (0.53). Fig.2. Real Asset strategies’ beta to a 60/40 GBP Index  Source: Elston research, Bloomberg data. Weekly data relative to Elston 60/40 GBP Index, GBP terms Dec-18 to Sep-20. Finally, by accessing the real asset ETFs directly, there is no cost for the overall fund structure, hence the implementation cost for an index portfolio of ETFs is substantially lower. Fig.3. Cost comparison of Real Asset funds vs index portfolio of ETFs  Source: Elston research, Bloomberg data
Fund or ETF Portfolio? The advantage of a funds-based approach is convenience (single-line holding), as well as having a a manager allocate dynamically between the different real asset exposures within the fund. The advantage of an index portfolio is simplicity, transparency and cost. Creating a managed ETF portfolio strategy that dynamically allocates to the different real asset classes over the market cycle is achievable and can be implemented on demand. Summary The purpose of this analysis was to note that:
[1] Source: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/realasset.asp  There’s no such thing as passive. Index investors make active decisions around asset allocation, index selection and index methodology. In this series of articles, I look at some of the key topics explored in my book “How to Invest With Exchange Traded Funds” that also underpin the portfolio design work Elston does for discretionary managers and financial advisers. If indices represent exposures, what is index investing and what are the ETFs that track them? Does using an index approach to investing mean you are a ‘passive investor’? I am not comfortable with the terms “active” and “passive”. A dynamically managed approach to asset allocation using index-tracking ETFs is not “passive”. The selection of an equal weighted index exposure over a cap weighted index is also an active decision. The design of an index methodology, requires active parameter choices. Hence our preference for the terms “index funds” and “non-index funds”. Indices represent asset classes. ETFs track indices. Index investing is the use of ETFs to construct and manage an investment portfolio. The evolution of indices The earliest equity index in the US is the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) which was created by Wall street Journal editor Charles Dow. The index launched on 26 May 1896, and is named after Dow and statistician Edward Jones and consists of 30 large publicly owned U.S. companies. It is a price-weighted index (meaning the prices of each security are totalled and divided by the number of each security to derive the index level). The earliest equity index in the UK is the FT30 Index (previously the FN Ordinary Index) was created by the Financial Times (previously the Financial News). The index launched on 1st July 1935 and consists of 30 large publicly owned UK companies. It is an equal-weighted index (meaning each of the 30 companies has an equal weight in the index). The most common equity indices now are the S&P500 (launched in 1957) for the US equity market and the FTSE100 (launched in 1984) for the UK Equity market. These are both market capitalisation-weighted indices (meaning the weight of each company within the index is proportionate to its market capitalisation (the share price multiplied by the number of shares outstanding)). According to the Index Industry Association, there are now approximately 3.28m indices, compared to only 43,192 public companies . This is primarily because of demand for highly customised versions of various indices used for benchmarking equities, bonds, commodities and derivatives. By comparison there are some 7,178 index-tracking ETPs globally. The reason why the number of indices is high is not because they are all trying to do something new, but because they are all doing something slightly different. For example, the S&P500 Index, the S&P500 (hedged to GBP) Index and the S&P 500 excluding Technology Index are all variants around the same core index. So the demand for indices is driven not only by investor demand for more specific and nuanced analysis of particular market exposures, but also for innovation from index providers. What makes a good index benchmark? For an index to be a robust benchmark, it has to meet certain criteria. Indices provided a combined price level (and return level) for a basket of securities for use as a reference, benchmark or investment strategy. Whilst a reference point is helpful, the use of indices as benchmarks enables informed comparison of fund or portfolio strategies. An index can be used as a benchmark so long as it has the following qualities (known as the “SAMURAI” test based on the mnemonic based on key benchmark characteristics in the CFA curriculum). It must be:
Alternative weighting schemes Whereas traditional equity indices took a price-weighted, equal-weighted or market capitalisation weighted approach, there are a growing number of indices that have alternative weighting schemes: given the underlying securities are the same, these variation of weighting scheme also contributes to the high number of indices relative to underlying securities. The advent of growing data and computing power means that indices have become more granular to reflect investors desire for more nuanced exposures and alternative weighting methodologies .  Whether indices are driven by investor needs for isolated asset class exposures or by other preferences, there is a growing choice of building blocks for portfolio constructors.
Index investing Whilst indices have traditionally been used for performance measurement, if the Efficient Markets Hypothesis holds true, it makes sense to use an index as an investment strategy. A fund that matches the weightings of the securities within an index is an index-tracking fund. The use of single or multiple funds that track indices to construct and manage a portfolio is called “index investing”. We define index investing as 1) using indices (whether traditional cap-weighted or alternatively weighted) to represent the various exposures used within a strategic or tactical asset allocation framework, and 2) using index-tracking ETFs to achieve access to that exposure and/or asset allocation. The advantages of index investing with ETFs are:
As index investors we have a choice of tools at our disposal. The primary choice is to whether to use Index Funds or ETPs to get access to a specific index exposure. Index funds and ETPs Exchange Traded Products (ETPs) is the overarching term for investment products that are traded on an exchange and index-tracking. There are three main sub-sets:
Individual investors are most likely to come across physical Exchange Traded Funds and some Exchange Traded Commodities such as gold. Professional investors are most likely to use any or all types of ETPs. Both individual and professional investors alike are using ETPs for the same fundamental purposes: as a precise quantifiable building block with which to construct and manage a portfolio. Index investors have the choice of using index funds or ETFs. Index funds are bought or sold from the fund issuer, not on an exchange. ETFs are bought or sold on an exchange. For individual investors index funds may not be available at the same price point as for institutional investors. Furthermore, the range of index funds available to individual investors is much less diverse than ETFs. Trading index funds takes time (approximately 4-5 days to sell and settle, 4-5 days to purchase, so 8-10 days to switch), whereas ETFs can be bought on a same-day basis, and cash from sales settles 2 days after trading reducing unfunded round-trip times to 4 days for switches. If stock brokers allow it, they may allow purchases of one transaction to take place based on the sales proceeds of another transaction so long as they both settle on the same day. The ability to trade should not be seen as an incentive to trade, rather it enables the timely reaction to material changes in the market or economy. For professional investors, some index funds are cheaper than ETFs. Where asset allocation is stable and long-term, index funds may offer better value compared to ETFs. Where asset allocation is dynamic and there are substantial liquidity or time-sensitive implementation requirements, ETFs may offer better functionality than index funds. Professional investors can also evaluate the use of ETFs in place of index futures . For significant trade sizes, a complete cost-benefit analysis is required. The benefit of the ETF approach being that futures roll can be managed within an ETF, benefitting from economies of scale. For large investors, detailed comparison is required in order to evaluate the relative merits of each. The benefits of using ETFs There are considerable benefits of using ETFs when constructing and managing portfolios. Some of these benefits are summarised below:
Summary There’s no such thing as “passive investing”. There is such a thing as “index investing” and it means adopting a systematic (rules-based), diversified and transparent approach to access target asset class, screened, factor or strategy exposures in a straightforward, or very nuanced way. It is the systematisation of the investment process that enables competitive pricing, relative to active, “non-index” funds. This is a trend which has a long way to run before any “equilibrium” between index and active investing is reached. Most investors, automatically enrolled into a workplace pension scheme are index investors without knowing it. The “instutionalisation of retail” means that a similar investment approach is permeating into other channels such as discretionary managers, financial advisers, and self-directed investors. © Elston Consulting 2020 all rights reserved  [5 minute read, open as pdf] Sign up for our upcoming CPD webinar on diversifying income risk Summary
Dividend concentration risk is not new, just more visible A number of blue chip companies announced dividend reductions or suspensions in response to financial pressure wrought by the Coronavirus outbreak. This brought into light the dependency, and sometimes over-dependency, on a handful of income-paying companies for equity income investors. For UK investors in the FTSE 100, the payment of dividends from British blue chip companies provides much of its appeal. However a look under the bonnet shows a material amount of dividend concentration risk (the over-reliance on a handful of securities to deliver a dividend income). On these measures, 53% of the FTSE 100’s dividend yield comes from just 8 companies; whilst 22% of its dividend yield comes from energy companies. The top 20 dividend contributors provide 76% of the dividend yield. We measure dividend concentration risk by looking at the product of a company’s weight in the index and its dividend yield, to see its Contribution to Yield of the overall index. Fig.1. FTSE 100 Contribution to Yield, ranked  Source: Elston research, Bloomberg data, as at June 2020 Quality of Income More important than the quantity of the dividend yield, is its quality. As income investors found out this year, there’s a risk to having a large allocation to a dividend payer if it cuts or cancels its dividend. Equally, there’s a risk to having a large allocation to a dividend payer, whose yield is only high as a reflection of its poor value. Screening for high dividend yield alone can lead investors into “value-traps” where the income generated looks high, but the total return (income plus capital growth) generated is low. Contrast the performance of these UK Equity Income indices, for example. Fig.2. UK Equity Income indices contrasted  Source: Elston research, Bloomberg data. Total returns from end December 2006 to end June 2020 for selected UK Equity Indices. Headline Yield as per Bloomberg data as at 30th June 2020 for related ETFs. The headline yield for the FTSE UK Dividend+, FTSE 100 and S&P UK Dividend Aristocrat Indices was 8.10%, 4.44%, and 4.07% respectively as at end June 2020. However, the annualised long-run total return (income plus capital growth) 1.03%, 4.29% and 4.82% respectively. Looking at yield alone is not enough. The dependability of the dividends, and the quality of the dividend paying company are key to overall performance. Mitigating dividend concentration risk: quality yield, with low concentration The first part of the solution is to focus on high quality dividend-paying companies. One of the best indicators of dividend quality is a company’s dividend policy and track record. A dependable dividend payer is one that has paid the same or increased dividend year in, year out, whatever the weather. The second part of the solution is to consider concentration risk and make sure that companies’ weights are not skewed in an attempt to chase yield. This is evident by contrasting the different index methodologies for these equity income indices. The FTSE 100 does not explicitly consider yield (and is not designed to). The FTSE UK Dividend+ index ranks companies by their dividend yield alone. The S&P UK Dividend Aristocrats only includes companies that have consistently paid a dividend over several years, whilst ensuring there is no over-dependency on a handful of stocks. A look at the top five holdings of each index shows the results of these respective methodologies. Fig.3. Top 5 holdings of selected UK equity indices  Put simply, the screening methodology adopted will materially impact the stocks selected for inclusion in an equity income index strategy. What about active managers? A study by Interactive Investor looked at the top five most commonly held stocks in UK Equity Income funds and investment trusts. For funds, the most popular holdings were GlaxoSmithKline, Imperial Brands, BP, Phoenix Group & AstraZeneca. For investment trusts, the most popular holdings are British American Tobacco, GlaxoSmithKline, RELX, AstraZeneca and Royal Dutch Sell. Unsurprisingly, each of the holdings above is also a constituent of the S&P Dividend Aristocrats index, hence ETFs that track this index simply provide a lower cost way of accessing the same type of company (dependable dividend payers with steady or increasing dividends), but using a systematic approach that enables a lower management fee. Understanding what makes dividend income dependable for an asset class such as UK equities, is only part of the picture of mitigating income risk. Income diversification is enabled by adopting a multi-asset approach. The advantage of a multi-asset approach The advantage of a multi-asset approach is two-fold. Firstly the ability to diversify equity income by geography for a more globalised approach, to benefit from economic and demographic trends outside the UK. Secondly the ability to diversify income by asset class, to moderate the level of overall portfolio risk. For investors who never need to dip into capital, have a very high capacity for loss, and can comfortably suffer the slings and arrows of the equity market, equity income works well – so long as the quality of dividends is addressed, as above. But for anyone else, where there is a need for income, but a preference for a more balanced asset allocation, a multi-asset income approach may make more sense. The rationale for a multi-asset approach is therefore to capture as much income as possible without taking as much risk as an all-equity approach. Value at Risk vs Income Reward There is always a relationship between risk and reward. For income investors, it’s no different. To be rewarded with more income, you need to take more risk with your capital. This means including equities over bonds, and, within the bonds universe, considering both credit quality (the additional yield from corporate and high yield bonds over gilts), and investment term (typically, the longer the term, the greater the yield). This overall level f risk being taken can be measured using a Value at Risk metric (a “worst case” measure of downside risk). If you want something with very low value-at-risk, shorter duration gilts can provide that capital protection, but yields are very low. Even nominally “safe” gilts, with low yields, nonetheless have potential downside risk owing to their interest rate sensitivity (“duration”). UK Equities offer a high yield, but commensurately also carry a much higher downside risk. The relationship between yield and Value-at-Risk (a measure of potential downside risk) is presented below. Fig.4. Income Yield vs Value at Risk of selected asset classes/indices  Source: Elston research, Bloomberg data, as at 30th June 2020. Note: an investment with a Value at Risk (“VaR”) of -10% (1 year, 95% Confidence) means there is, to 95% confidence (a 1 in 20 chance), a risk of losing 10% of the value of your investment over any given year. Asset class data reflects representative ETFs.
Our Multi-Asset Income index has, unsurprisingly, a risk level between that of gilts and equities, and captures approximately 65% of the yield, but with only 52% of the Value-at-Risk. Summary How you get your income – whether from equities, bonds or a mix – is critical to the amount of risk an investor is willing and able to take, and is a function of asset allocation. Understanding the asset allocation of an income funds is key to understanding its risks (for example, Volatility, Value at Risk and Max Drawdown). The dependability of dividend income you receive - whether from value traps or quality companies; whether concentrated or diversified – is a function of security selection. This can be either manager-based (subjective), or index-based (objective). For investors requiring a dependable yield, a closer look at how income is generated – through asset allocation and dividend dependability – is key.  Investors should prefer the certainty of index funds which track the index less passive fees, than the hope and disappointment of active funds which, in aggregate, track the index less active fees.
In this series of articles, I look at some of the key topics explored in my book “How to Invest With Exchange Traded Funds” that also underpin the portfolio design work Elston does for discretionary managers and financial advisers. Clarifying terms We believe that typically an index fund or ETF can perfectly well replace an active fund for a given asset class exposure. As with all disruptive technologies, many column inches have been dedicated to the “active vs passive” debate. However, with poorly defined terms, much of this is off-point. If active investing is referring to active (we prefer “dynamic”) asset allocation: we fully concur. There need be no debate on this topic. Making informed choices on asset allocation – either using a systematic or non-systematic decision-making process – is an essential part of portfolio management. If, however, active investing refers to fund manager or security selection, this is more contentious, and this should be the primary topic of debate. Theoretical context: the Efficient Market Hypothesis The theoretical context for this active vs passive debates is centred on the notion of market efficiency. The efficient market hypothesis is the theory that all asset prices reflect all the available past and present information that might impact that price. This means that the consistent generation of excess returns at a security level is impossible. Put differently, it implies that securities always trade at their fair value making it impossible to consistently outperform the overall market based on security selection. This is consistent with the financial theory that asset prices move randomly and thus cannot be predicted . Putting the theory into practice means that where markets are informationally efficient (for example developed markets like the US and UK equity markets), consistent outperformance is not achievable, and hence a passive investment strategy make sense (buying and holding a portfolio of all the securities in a benchmark for that asset class exposure). Where markets are informationally inefficient (for example frontier markets such as Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Vietnam ) there is opportunity for an active investment strategy to outperform a passive investment strategy net of fees. Our view is that liquid indexable markets are efficient and therefore in most cases it makes sense to access these markets using index-tracking funds and ETFs, in order to obtain the aggregate return for each market, less passive fees. This is because, owing to the poor arithmetic of active management, the aggregate return for all active managers is the index less active fees. The poor arithmetic of active management Bill Sharpe, the Nobel prize winner, and creator of the eponymous Sharpe Ratio, authored a paper “The Arithmetic of Active Management” that is mindblowing in its simplicity, and is well worth a read. We all know the criticism of passive investing by active managers is that index fund [for a given asset class] delivers the performance of the index less passive fees so is “guaranteed” to underperform. That’s true, but it misses a major point. The premise of Sharpe’s paper is that the performance, in aggregate, of all active managers [for a given asset class] is the index less active fees. Wait. Read that again. Yes, that’s right. The performance of all active managers is, in aggregate (for a given asset class) the index less active fees. Sounds like a worse deal than an index fund? It’s because it is. How is this? Exploring the arithmetic of active Take the UK equity market as an example. There are approximately 600 companies in the FTSE All Share Index. Now imagine there are only two managers of two active UK equity funds, Dr. Star and Dr. Dog. Dr. Star consistently buys, with perfect foresight, the top 300 performing shares of the FTSE All Share Index each year, year in year out, consistently over time. This is because he avoids the bottom 300 worst performing shares. His performance is stellar. That means there are 300 shares that Dr. Star does not own, or has sold to another investor, namely to Dr. Dog. Dr. Dog therefore consistently buys, with perfect error, the worst 300 performing shares of the FTSE All Share Index each year, year in year out, consistently over time. His performance is terrible. However, in aggregate, the combined performance of Dr. Star and Dr. Dog is the same as the performance of the index of all 600 stocks, less Dr. Star’s justifiable fees, and Dr. Dog’s unjustifiable fees. The performance of both active managers is, in aggregate, the index less active fees. It’s a zero sum game. In the real world the challenge of persistency – persistently outperforming the index to be Dr.Star – means that over time it is very hard, in efficient markets to persistently outperform the index. So investors have a choice. They can either pay a game of hope and fear, hoping to consistently find Dr. Star as their manager. Or they can be less exciting, rational investor who focus on asset allocation and implement it using index fund to buy the whole market for a given asset exposure keep fees down. Given this poor “arithmetic” of active management, why would you ever chose an active fund (in aggregate, the index less active fees) over a passive fund (in aggregate the index less passive fees)? Quite. Monitoring performance consistency The inability of non-index active funds to consistently outperform their respective index is evidenced both in efficient market theory, and in practice. Consistent with the Efficient Market Hypothesis, studies have shown that actively managed funds generally underperform their respective indices over the long-run and one of the main determinant of performance persistency is fund expenses . Put differently, lower fee funds offer better value for money than higher fee funds for the same given exposure. This is a key focus area from the UK regulator as outlined in the Asset Management Market Study. In practice, the majority of GBP-denominated funds available to UK investors have underperformed a related index over longer time horizons. Whilst the percentage of funds that have beaten an index over any single year may fluctuate from year to year, no active fund category evaluated has a majority of outperforming active funds when measured over a 10-year period. This tendency is consistent with findings on US and European based funds, based on the regularly published “SPIVA Study”. The poor value of active managers who “closet index” “Closet indexing” is a term first formalised by academics Cremers and Petajisto in 2009 . It refers to funds whose objectives and fees are characteristic of an active fund, but whose holdings and performance is characteristic of a passive fund. Their study and metrics around “active share” and “closet indexing” caused a stir in the financial pages on both sides of the Atlantic as active fund managers started to watch the persistent rise of ETFs and other index-tracking products. The issue around closet index funds is not simply about fees. It’s as much about transparency and customer expectations. Understanding Active Share Active Share is a useful indicator developed by Cremers and Petajisto as to what extent an active (non-index) fund is indeed “active”. This is because whilst standard metrics such as Tracking Error look at the variability of performance difference, active share looks at to what extent the weight of the holdings within a fund are different to the weight of the holdings within the corresponding index. The higher the Active Share, the more likely the fund is “True Active”. The lower the Active Share, the more likely the fund is a “Closet Index”. How can you define “closet indexing”? There has been some speculation as to what methodology the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) used to deem funds a “closet index”. In this respect, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the pan-European regulator’s 2016 paper may be informative. Their study applied a screen to focus on funds with 1) assets under management of over €50m, 2) an inception date prior to January 2005, 3) Fees of 0.65% or more, and 4) were not marketed as index funds. Having created this screen, ESMA ran three metrics to test for a fund’s proximity to an index: active share, tracking error and R-Squared. On this basis, a fund with low active share, low tracking error and high R-Squared means it is very similar to index-tracking fund. Based on ESMA’s criteria, we estimate that between €400bn and €1,200bn of funds available across the EU could be defined as “closet index” funds. That’s a lot of wasted fees. Defining “true active” We believe there is an essential role to play for “true active”. By this we mean high conviction fund strategies either at an asset allocation level. True active (asset allocation level): at an asset allocation level, hedge funds which have the ability to invest across assets and have the ability to vary within wide ranges their risk exposure (by going both long and short and/or deploying leverage) would be defined as “true active”. Target Absolute Return (TAR) funds could also be defined as true active given the nature of their investment process. Analysing their performance or setting criteria for performance evaluation is outside the scope of this book. However given the lacklustre performance both of Hedge Funds in aggregate (as represented by the HFRX index) and of Target Absolute Return funds (as represented by the IA sector performance relative to a simple 60/40 investment strategy), emphasises the need for focus on manager selection, performance consistency and value for money. True active (fund level): we would define true active fund managers as those which manage long-only investments, either in hard-to-access asset classes or those which manage investments in readily accessible asset classes but in a successfully idiosyncratic way. It is the last group of “active managers” that face the most scrutiny as their investment opportunity set is identical to that of the index funds that they aim to beat. True active managers in traditional long-only asset classes must necessarily take an idiosyncratic non-index based approach. In order to do so, they need to adopt one or more of the following characteristics, in our view:
Their success, or otherwise, will depend on the quality of their skill and judgement, the quality of their internal research resource, and their ability to absorb and process information to exploit any information inefficiencies in the market. True active managers who can consistently deliver on objectives after fees will have no difficulty explaining their skill and no difficulty in attracting clients. By blending an ETF portfolio with a selection of true active funds, investors can reduce fees on standard asset class exposures to free up fee budget for genuinely differentiated managers. Summary In conclusion, “active” and “passive” are lazy terms. There is no such thing as passive. There is static and dynamic asset allocation, there is systematic and non-systematic tactical allocation, there is index-investing and non-index investing, there are traditional index weighting and alternative index weighting schemes. The use of any or all of these disciplines requires active choices by investors or managers.  [2 minute read, open as pdf] Sign up for our upcoming webinar on incorporating ESG into model portfolios Summary
Defining terms With a growing range of ethical investment propositions available to portfolio designers, we first of all need to define and disambiguate some terms.
Criteria-based approach works well for indices Applying ESG criteria to a universe of equities acts as a filter to ensure that only investors are only exposed to companies that are compatible with an ESG investment approach. Creating a criteria-based approach requires a combination of screening, scoring and weighting. Looking at the MSCI World SRI 5% Capped Index, for example, means:
Indices codify criteria An index is “just” a weighting scheme based on a set of criteria. A common, simple index is to include, for example, the 100 largest companies for a particular stock market. SRI indices reflect weighting schemes, albeit more complex, but importantly, represent a systematic (rules-based) and hence objective approach. However, the appropriateness of those indices is as only as good as their methodology and the quality of the screening, scoring and weighting criteria applied. Proof of the pudding To mix metaphors, the proof of the pudding is in the making of performance that is consistent with the parent index, whilst reflecting all the relevant scoring and screening criteria. This allows investors to have their ESG cake, as well as eating its risk-return characteristics. Contrast, for example, the MSCI World Index with the MSCI World Socially Responsible Investment 5% Issuer Capped Index. The application of the screening and scoring reduces the number of companies included in the index from 1,601 to 386. But the weightings adjustments are such that the relative risk-return characteristics are similar: the SRI version of the parent index has a Beta of 0.98 to the parent index and is 99.4% correlated with the parent index. Fig.1. Comparative long-term performance  Source: Bloomberg data Fig.2. Year to Date Performance  Source: Bloomberg data,
Focus on compliance, not hope of outperformance Indeed pressure on the oil price and the performance of technology this year (technology firms typically have strong ESG policies) means that SRI indices have slightly outperformed parent indices. However, our view is that ESG investing should not be backing a belief that performance should or will be better than a mainstream index. In our view, ESG investing should aim to deliver similar risk-return characteristics to the mainstream index for a given exposure but with the peace of mind that the appropriate screening and scoring has been systematically and regularly applied. [1] For more on this ratings methodology, see https://www.msci.com/esg-ratings  What kind of investor are you: a stock selector, a manager selector or an index investor?
In this series of articles, I look at some of the key topics explored in my book “How to Invest With Exchange Traded Funds” that also underpin the portfolio design work Elston does for discretionary managers and financial advisers. In previous articles, we looked at things to consider when designing a multi-asset portfolio. Let’s say, for illustration, an investor decides on a balanced portfolio invested 60% in equities and 40% in bonds. The “classic” 60/40 portfolio. You now have a number of options of how to populate the equity allocation within that portfolio. We look at each option in turn. Equity exposure using direct equities: “the stock selectors” This is the original approach, and, for some, the best. We call this group “Stock Selectors”: investors who prefer to research and select individual equities and construct, monitor and manage their own portfolios. To achieve diversification across a number of equities, a minimum of 30 stocks is typically required (at one event I went to for retail investors I was slightly nervous when it transpired that most people attending held fewer than 10 stocks in their portfolio). Across these 30 or more stocks, investors should give due regards to country and sector allocations. Some golden rules of stock picking would include:
The advantage of investing in direct equities is the ability to design and manage your own style, process and trading rules. Also by investing direct equities there are no management fees creating performance drag. But when buying and selling shares, there are of course transactional, and other frictional costs, such as share dealing costs and Stamp Duty. The most alluring advantage of this approach is the potential for index-beating and manager-beating returns. But whilst the potential is of course there, as with active managers, persistency is the problem. The more developed markets are “efficient” which means that news and information about a company is generally already priced in. So to identify an inefficiency you need an information advantage or an analytical advantage to spot something that most other investors haven’t. Ultimately you are participant in a zero-sum game, but the advantage is that if you can put the time, hours and energy in, it’s an insightful and fascinating journey. The disadvantage of direct equity is that if it requires at least 30 stocks to have a diversified portfolio, then it requires time, effort and confidence to select and then manage those positions. The other disadvantage is the lack of diversification compared to a fund-based approach (whether active or passive). This means that direct investors are taking “stock specific risks” (risks that are specific to a single company’s shares), rather than broader market risk. In normal markets, that can seem ok, but when you have occasional outsize moves owing to company-specific factors, you have to be ready to take the pain and make the decision to stick with it or to cut and run. What does the evidence say? The evidence suggests that, in aggregate, retail investors do a poor job at beating the market. The Dalbar study in the US, published since 1994, compares the performance of investors who select their own stocks relative to a straightforward “buy-and-hold” investment in an index funds or ETF that tracks the S&P500, the benchmark that consists of the 500 largest traded US companies. The results consistently show that, in aggregate, retail investors fare a lot worse than an index investor. Reasons for this could be for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to:
But selecting the “right” 30 or more stocks is labour-intensive, and time-consuming. So if you enjoy this and are confident doing this yourself, then there’s nothing stopping you. Indeed, you may be one of the few who can, or think you can, consistently outperform the index year in, year out. But it’s worth remembering that the majority of investors don’t manage to. For most people, a direct equity/direct bond portfolio is overly complex to create, labour intensive to manage and insufficiently diversified to be able to sleep well at night. Furthermore owning bonds directly is near impossible owing to the high lot sizes. So why bother? Investors who want to leave stock picking to someone else have two options to be “fund” investors selecting active funds. Or “index” investors selecting passive funds. Equity exposure using active funds: the “manager selectors” A fund based approach means holding a single investment in fund which in turn holds a large number of underlying equities, or bonds, or both. Investor who want to leave it to an expert to actively pick winners and avoid losers can pick an actively managed fund. We call this group “Manager Selectors”. But then you have to pick the “right” actively managed fund, which also takes time and effort to research and select a number of equity funds from active managers, or seek out “star” managers who aim to consistently outperform a designated benchmark for their respective asset class. And whilst we all get reminded that past performance is not an indicator of future performance, there isn’t much else to go by. In this respect access to impartial independent research and high quality,unbiased fund lists is an invaluable time-saving resource. The advantage of this approach that with a single fund you can access a broadly diversified selection of stocks picked by a professional. The disadvantage of this approach is that management fees are a drag on returns and yet few funds persistently outperform their respective benchmark over the long-run raising the question as to whether they are worth their fees. This is evidenced in a quarterly updated study known as the SPIVA Study, published by S&P Dow Jones Indices, which compares the persistency of active fund performance relative to asset class benchmarks. For efficient markets, such as US & UK equities, the results are usually quite sobering reading for those who are prefer active funds. Indeed many so-called active funds have been outed as “closet index-tracking funds” charging active-style fees, for passive-like returns. So of course there are “star” managers who are in vogue for a while or even for some time. But it’s more important to make sure a portfolio is properly allocated, and diversified across managers, as investors exposed to Woodford found out. In my view, an all active fund portfolio is overly expensive for what it provides. Whilst the debate around stock picking will run and run (and won’t be won or lost in this article), consider at least the bond exposures within a portfolio. An “active” UK Government Bond fund has the same or similar holdings to a “passive” index-tracking UK Government Bond fund but charges 0.60% instead of 0.20%, with near identical performance (except greater fee drag). Have you read about a star all-gilts manager in the press? Nor have I. So why pay the additional fee? What about hedge funds? Hedge funds come under the “true active” category because overall allocation exposure can vary greatly, and there is the ability to position a fund to benefit from falls or rises in securities or whole markets, and the ability to borrow money to invest more than the fund’s original value. But most “true active” hedge funds are not available to retail investors who are more limited to traditional “long-only” retail funds for each asset class. Equity exposure using index funds: the “index investor” Investors who don’ want the time, hassle or cost of picking active managers, or believe that markets are “efficient” often use passive index-tracking funds. We call this group “Index Investors” (full disclosure: I am a member of this group!). These are investors who want to focus primarily on getting the right asset allocation to achieve their objectives, and implement and actively manage that asset allocation but using low cost index funds and/or index-tracking ETFs. The advantage of this approach is transparency around the asset mix, broad diversification and lower cost relative to active managers. The disadvantage of this approach is that it sounds, well, boring. Ignoring the news on companies’ share prices are up or down and which single-asset funds are stars and which are dogs would mean 80% of personal finance news and commentary becomes irrelevant! On this basis, my preference is to be a 100% index investor – the asset allocation strategy may differ for the different objectives between my parents, myself and my kids. But the building blocks that make up the equity, bond and even alternative exposures within those strategies can all index-based. A blended approach Whilst my preference is to be an index investor, I don’t disagree, however, that it’s interesting, enjoyable and potentially rewarding for some retail investors and/or their advisers to spend time choosing managers and picking stocks, where they have high conviction and/or superior insight. Traditionally the bulk of retail investors were in active funds. This is extreme. More and more are becoming 100% index investors: this is also extreme. There’s plenty of ground for a common sense blended approach in the middle. For cost, diversification and liquidity reasons, I would want the core of any portfolio to be in index funds or ETFs. I would want the bulk of my equity exposure to be in index funds, with moderate active fund exposure to selected less efficient markets (for example) small caps, and up to 10% in a handful of direct equity holdings that you follow, know and like. What would a blended approach look like for a 60/40 equity/bond portfolio? 60% equity of which Min 70% index funds/ETFs Max 20% active funds Max 10% direct equity “picks”/ideas 40% bonds of which 100% index funds Summary For most investors, investing is something that needs to get done, like opening a bank account. If you are in this group then using a ready-made model portfolio or low-cost multi-asset fund, like a Target Date Fund, may make sense. For some investors, investing is more like a hobby – something that you are happy to spend time and effort doing. If you are in this group, you have to decide if you are a Stock Selector, Manager Selector or Index Investor, or a blend of all three, and research and build your portfolio accordingly. |
ELSTON RESEARCHInsights Archives
January 2021
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed