Elston
  • WHO WE ARE
    • About
    • Contact
    • Events
    • Press
  • WHAT WE DO
    • Portfolio Solutions >
      • Our Portfolios
      • Custom Portfolios
      • Research Portfolios
    • Fund Solutions >
      • Our Funds
      • Custom Funds
    • Index Solutions >
      • Our indices
      • Custom Indices
    • SPECIALIST STRATEGIES >
      • Liquid Real Assets
      • UK Equity Income
      • Permanent Portfolio UK
      • All Weather Portfolio UK
      • Dynamic Risk Parity
      • Gold and Precious Metals
      • Enabling Net Zero
    • Research >
      • Investment Research
      • Regulatory Research
    • CPD
  • WHO WE HELP
    • Financial Advisers
    • Discretionary Managers
    • Asset Managers
    • Asset Owners
    • 中文
  • Insights

Insights.

INFLATION IS THE ENEMY

19/5/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
[5 min read, open as pdf]
  • How did we get here?
  • What is the impact?
  • Where do we go from here?
Markets and major economies are in a state of uncertainty in the context of rising inflation, rising interest rates and a risk to economic growth.  How did we get here? What is the impact?  Where do we go from here?
Read full article with charts
0 Comments

UK inflation and sterling pressure

18/5/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
[5 min read, open as pdf]

  • UK inflation hits 40 year high
  • Bank of England has been behind the curve
  • Sterling under pressure – how to protect against inflation
 
Inflation hits 40 year high
UK inflation figures came out today with a print of +9.0%yy (April), from +7.0% (March) and slightly below +9.1%yy consensus estimate.
This is the highest level in 40 years, putting renewed focus on the “cost of living crisis”.  Rising energy and food costs are the primary drivers, linked to the sanctions regime and the Russia/Ukraine war.
The Bank of England has been “behind the curve” as regards to inflation risk.  A look at inflation guidance contained in recent Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) minutes shows.  Near-term inflation guidance has consistently under-estimated inflation since August 2021 – rising from “above 2%”, to 4%, 6%, 8%,, 9% and now 10%.
Read full article with charts
0 Comments

Nowhere to hide: bonds provide no protection

8/4/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
[5 min read, open as pdf for full article]

  • All type of bond exposure showed negative returns in 1q22
  • Rising rates and inflation means bond values remain under pressure
  • Bonds are providing neither stability nor diversification
 
Equity markets endured a triple shock in the first quarter of 2022: a dramatic steepening of the likely path of interests, multi-year high inflation levels and a horrific war unleased in Ukraine.
The traditional rational for including nominal bonds was to provide steady income, lower but positive returns, and diversification – a place of safety in periods of market stress.
In face of rising inflation and rising interest rates, nominal bonds are providing none of these portfolio functions.
Indeed in 1q22 not a single bond exposure delivered positive returns, and over 12 months only inflation-linked exposures delivered positive returns.

 Open as pdf for full article
​CPD Webinar Alternatives to Bonds in a Portfolio

0 Comments

Inflation revisited: lessons from the 1970s

25/3/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
[5 min read, open as pdf]

  • Inflation should moderate in the long-term
  • Current circumstances are different to the 1970s
  • The focus should be normalising rates and supporting growth
 
In a recent CPD webinar, Elston’s Henry Cobbe interviewed Patrick Minford, Professor of Applied Economics at Cardiff University and economic adviser to Margaret Thatcher in the late 1970s and early 1980s to ask about the fight with inflation in the 1970s and any comparisons for today.
 
While it is tempting to look for similarities with the energy shock and period of sustained inflation that the UK suffered in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Professor Minford highlighted some significant differences.  The lower risk of a wage-price spiral, central bank independence and a track record of manging inflation means lower risk of inflation getting out of control in the long-term.  But the short- to medium-term remains under pressure.  In Minford’s opinion, the risk to the growth is the bigger risk: and this would be the right time for HM Treasury to worry less about debt ratios, and turn on Government spending taps.

Read full article, open as pdf
Watch the CPD webinar (50mins)

0 Comments

Alternatives to Bonds within a portfolio

18/3/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
[5 min read, open as pdf]
  • Nominal bonds will remain under pressure
  • Explore the more resilient alternatives within the Bonds universe
  • Property, Infrastructure, Liquid Real Assets and Targeted Absolute Return funds provide alternatives outside of Bonds
 
Rising inflation and rising interest rates, means nominal bonds (such as corporate bonds, UK gilts, and global government bonds) are under pressure, and will remain so for the medium-term. 
For so long as real yields remain negative, bonds are “guaranteed” to lose capital value in real terms over time.
So what are the Alternatives to Bonds in a portfolio for UK investors?
We explore the options within this article open as pdf or full version
0 Comments

Building an all-weather portfolio with ETFs

4/3/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
[5 min read, open as pdf]

Find out more on this topic in our upcoing CPD webinar

  • 60/40 portfolios are under pressure with rising rates and inflation
  • An Equal Risk “all-weather” portfolio provides true diversification
  • An Equal Weight “permanent” portfolio provides resilience
 
For investors with long time horizons who want an all-equity portfolio, there is no shortage of low- cost global equity ETFs.  In cricketing terms, when sunshine’s guaranteed, a grass pitch works just fine.
But when time horizons are shorter and risk control matters more – as in these uncertain times - a multi-asset approach might make better sense.  Put differently, when the weather is changeable or extreme, an all-weather pitch makes more sense.
It’s the same for investments.  In these times of market volatility, rising interest rates and inflation pressure, we explore three different types of multi-asset strategy: the 60/40 portfolio, the “Equal Risk” or all-weather portfolio, and the “Equal Weight” or Permanent Portfolio.

The problem with 60/40
The traditional multi-asset portfolio is the so-called “60/40” portfolio – where 60% is invested in equities, and 40% is invested in bonds.  This is the “classic” multi-asset strategy.  The idea being that you can combine higher risk and return from equities with lower risk income from bonds.  A 60/40 portfolio can be constructed with just two ETFs.  60% in a global equity ETF like SSAC (iShares MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF) or VWRP (Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF); and 40% in a bond ETF – for example AGBP (iShares Core Global Aggregate Bond UCITS ETF GBP hedged) for those wanting global bond (hedged to GBP) exposure, or IGLT (iShares Core UK Gilts UCITS ETF) for those wanting UK government bond exposure.  Or you can make it more and more granular.
But this traditional 60/40 model is under pressure, and the suggestion currently is that the 60/40 portfolio is now “dead”.  Why is this?  Well because for the last 30 years or so, we’ve lived in a world where inflation and interest rates have been trending down – which is doubly good for bonds.  But now we are now in an economic regime where both interest rates and inflation are starting to trend up – which is doubly bad for bonds. 
The other problem with 60/40, is that in times of market stress, the correlation between equities and bonds increases, meaning that bonds lack the diversifying power they may have had in the historical long-run, at a time when it is needed most.
In summary: the advantage of this approach a 60/40 portfolio is easy to construct, and is a classic “balanced” portfolio.  The disadvantage of this approach is that bonds are facing an uphill struggle for the next few years, so may not be as “balanced” as you would want.

The all-weather portfolio
The all-weather portfolio concept is that of a multi-asset portfolio that is designed to deliver resilient, consistent performance in different market regimes, or “whatever the weather”.  The term and idea was pioneered by Ray Dalio of Bridgewater Associates (which was established in 1974, shortly after Nixon took the US Dollar off the gold standard) and is designed to answer the question: “What kind of investment portfolio would you hold that would perform well across all environments, be it a devaluation or something completely different?”[1].  Dalio and Bridgewater’s all-weather portfolio assumes equal odds of any of four market regimes (rising/falling growth/inflation) prevailing at any time.  This approach created and pioneered what is also referred to as a “Risk Parity” approach to investing.
The concept of risk parity requires some additional explanation.  A classic 60/40 equity/bond allocation results in a portfolio where over 95% of overall portfolio risk comes from the equity position, and the balance comes from the bond position.  In short, the asset allocation drives portfolio risk, and while a portfolio may be balanced in terms of asset allocation, it is imbalanced in terms of risk allocation.  Risk parity reverses the maths: it means that each asset class contributes equally to the overall risk of a portfolio.  This is why it is also known as an “Equal Risk” approach.  But as risk is dynamic, not stable, the asset weights must adapt to keep the risk allocation stable.
UK investors can build their own all-weather portfolio using four to six ETFs representing broad asset classes: global equities, UK equities, gilts, property, gold and cash equivalent, depending on complexity.  In order to keep the risk allocation stable, the asset weights might need to change each month to reflect the changing risk and correlation relationships of and between those asset classes. 
In summary: the advantage of this Equal Risk approach is that a portfolio is truly diversified from a risk contribution perspective.  The disadvantage of this approach is it requires a regular change of weights to reflect changing short-term volatilities and correlations.

The Permanent Portfolio
The permanent portfolio is a concept pioneered by the late Harry Browne, a US financial adviser, in his 1999 book “Fail-Safe Investing”.  It has many adherents in both the US and the UK, but to date it is only really in the US that one can find ‘Permanent Portfolios’ on offer, something UK investors seem keen to change. 
The concept is similar to the all-weather portfolio, but in a more straightforward format.  Rather than trying to target an “Equal Risk” contribution with changing asset-class weights, the Permanent Portfolio is a simple Equal Weight approach to four main asset classes to reflect different market regimes, so that whatever the regime, the portfolio has got it covered.
Browne outlines four market regimes[2], and related asset exposure for that regime:
  1. Prosperity: growing economy, falling rates: equities (and also bonds) are best assets to hold
  2. Inflation: inflation is rising moderately, rapidly or at a runaway rate: gold is best asset to hold
  3. Tight money or recession: slowing money supply and recession: cash (or equivalent) is best asset to hold
  4. Deflation: prices decline and purchasing power of money grows: bonds are best asset to hold
An equal-weight portfolio therefore consists of 25% equities, 25% bonds, 25% gold and 25% cash (or cash equivalents to earn some interest).  Browne advocates reviewing this portfolio once per annum, and if necessary rebalancing the allocations to their strategic equal weights.
US versions of this strategy use US equities for the equity exposure and US treasuries for the bond exposure.  So what would a UK version look like?
We constructed a Permanent Portfolio for UK investors using 4 London listed ETFs: SSAC for global equities, IGLT for UK bonds, SGLN (iShares Physical Gold ETC) for gold and ERNS (iShares GBP Ultrashort Bond UCITS ETF) for cash equivalents for some additional yield over cash that will capture rising interest rates.
In summary: the advantage of this Equal Weight approach is its simplicity and low-level of maintenance required.  The disadvantage of this approach is that it disregards short-run changes in volatility and correlation that are captured in the Equal Risk approach.

How do they all compare?
Obviously the strategies vary from each other.  To evaluate performance, we have created research portfolios for both these strategies. What becomes apparent is that the outperformance of these low-cost, equal-risk and equal-weight all-weather and permanent portfolios looks relatively attractive when set against many more complex (and expensive) “all-weather” absolute return funds.

Find out more about our All-Weather Portfolio of ETFs for UK investors.
Find out more about our Permanent Portfolio of ETFs for UK investors.
See all our Research Portfolios
Attend our CPD webinar on this topic

[1] https://www.bridgewater.com/research-and-insights/the-all-weather-story
[2] Harry Browne, Fail-Safe Investing, (1999) Rule #11 Build a bullet-proof portfolio for protection (pp.38-49)
0 Comments

Adapting the permanent portfolio for UK investors

3/3/2022

0 Comments

 
0 Comments

Adapting portfolios for inflation

4/2/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
[5 min read, open as pdf]

In our 2022 outlook, we explained why inflation will remain hotter for longer and will settle above pre-pandemic levels.  Advisers should consider how to adapt portfolios for inflation across each asset class – equities, bonds and alternatives.  Research demonstrates how different asset classes exhibit different degrees of inflation protection over different time-frames.  Equities therefore provide a long-term inflation hedge.
  • Short- to Medium-term:    rate-sensitive assets, commodities
  • Medium- to Long-term:     real estate, equities and inflation-linked
  • Long-term                             equities

In this article, we explore how to adapt portfolios for inflation within and across each asset class: Equities, Bonds and Alternatives.

For full article, read as pdf
0 Comments

2022 outlook: key themes

11/1/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture

[3 min read,  open as pdf]
​
  • Adapting portfolios for inflation
  • Income generation in a negative real yield world
  • Positioning portfolios for climate transition
 
2021 in review
Our 2021 market roundup summarises another strong year for markets in almost all asset classes except for Bonds which remain under pressure as interest rates are expected to rise and inflation ticks up.
Listed private equity (shares in private equity managers) performed best at +43.08%yy in GBP terms.  US was the best performing region at +30.06%.
Real asset exposures, such as Water, Commodities and Timber continued to rally in face of rising inflation risk, returning +32.81%, +28.22% and +17.66% respectively.

2022 outlook
We are continuing in this “curiouser, through-the-looking glass” world.  Traditionally you bought bonds for income, and equity for risk.  Now it’s the other way round.
Only equities provide income yields that have the potential to keep ahead of inflation.  Bonds carry increasing risk of loss in real terms as inflation and interest rates rise.
Real yields, which are bond yields less the inflation rate, are negative making traditional Bonds which aren’t linked to inflation highly unattractive.  Bonds that are linked to inflation are highly sensitive to rising interest rates (called duration risk), so are not attractive either.
How to navigate markets in this context?
The big three themes for the year ahead are, in our view:
  1. Adapting portfolios for inflation
  2. Income generation in a negative real yield world
  3. Positioning portfolios for climate transition
We explore each in turn, as well as reviewing updated Capital Market Assumptions for expected returns from different asset classes.

See full report in pdf
Attend our 2022 Outlook webinar
0 Comments

60/40: The Arguments For and Against

14/5/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
[ 5 min read, open as pdf]

  • 60/40 portfolios are under review
  • We look at the arguments both for and against
  • With inflation on the rise, it's time to rethink the “40"
 
Since an article published in 2019 pointed the historic lows in bond yields, many investment firms are starting to rethink the 60/40 portfolio.  This came under even more scrutiny following the market turmoil of 2020.
While some affirm that the 60/40 will outlive us all, others argue against this notion.
We take a look at the main arguments for and against and key insights

What is a 60/40 portfolio?
A 60/40 equity/bond portfolio is a heuristic “rule of thumb” approach considered to be a proxy for the optimal allocation between equities and bonds.  Conventionally equities were for growth and bonds were for ballast.
The composition of a 60/40 portfolio might vary depending on the base currency and opportunity set of the investor/manager.  Defining terms is therefore key.
We summarise a range of potential definitions of terms:
Picture
Furthermore, whilst 60/40 seems simple in terms of asset weighting scheme, it is important to understand the inherent risk characteristics that this simple allocation creates.
For example, a UK Global 60/40 portfolio has 62% beta to Global Equities; equities contribute approximately 84% of total risk, and a 60/40 portfolio is approximately 98% correlated to Global Equities[1].

[1] Elston research, Bloomberg data.  Risk Contribution based on Elston 60/40 GBP Index weighted average contribution to summed 1 Year Value At Risk 95% Confidence as at Dec-20.  Beta Correlation to Global Equities based on 5 year correlation of Elston 60/40 GBP Index to global equity index as at Dec-20.
Picture
Why some think 60/40 will outlive us all.
The relevance of 60/40 portfolio lies in its established historic, mathematical and academic backup. Whilst past performances do not guarantee future returns, it nonetheless provides us with experience and guidance. (Martin,2019)
Research also suggests that straightforward heuristic or “rule-of-thumb” strategies work well because they aren’t likely to inspire greed or fear in investors. They become timeless. Thus, creating a ‘Mind-Gap’. (Martin,2019)
In the US, the Vanguard Balanced Index Fund (Ticker: VBINX US) which combines US Total Market Index and 40% into US Aggregate bonds, plays a major role in showcasing the success of the 60/40 portfolio that has proved popular with US retail investors (Jaffe,2019).  Similarly, in the UK the popularity of Vanguard LifeStrategy 60% (Ticker VGLS60A) showcases the merits of a straightforward 60/40 equity/bond approach.
In 2020, for US investors VBINX provided greater (peak-to-trough) downside protection owing to lower beta (-19.5% vs -30.3% for US equity) and delivered total return of +16.26% volatility of 20.79%, compared to +18.37% for an ETF tracking the S&P 500 with volatility of 33.91%, both funds are net of fees.  In this respect, the strategy captured 89% of market returns, with 61% of market risk.
Picture
For GBP-based investors in 2020 the 60/40 approach had lower (peak-to-trough) drawdown levels (-15%, vs -21% for global equities) owing to lower beta.  The 60% equity fund delivered total return of +7.84% with volatility of 15.12%, compared to +12.15% for an ETF tracking the FTSE All World Index with volatility of 24.29%.  In this respect, the strategy captured 65% of market returns, with 62% of market risk.
Picture
Why some think 60/40 has neared its end
Since its inception the 60/40 portfolio, derived 90% of the risk from stocks. In simple terms, 60% of the asset allocation of the portfolio was therefore the main driver of the portfolio.  Returns (Robertson,2021).  This hardly a surprise given that equities have a 84% contribution to portfolio ris, on our analysis, but the challenge made by some researchers is that if a 60/40 portfolio mainly reflects equity risk, what role does the 40% bond allocation provide, other than beta reduction?

The bond allocation is under increasing scrutiny now is because global economic growth has slowed and traditionally safer asset classes like bonds have grown in popularity making bonds susceptible to sharp and sudden selloffs. (Matthews,2019)

Strategists such as for Woodard and Harris, for Bank of America and Bob Rice for Tangent Capital have stated in their analysis that the core premise of the 60/40 portfolio has declined as equity has provided income, and bonds total return, rather than the other way round.. (Browne,2020)

Another study shows that over the past 65 years bonds can no longer effectively hedge against inflation and risk reduction through diversification can be done more adequately by exploring alternatives such as private equity, venture capital etc. (Toschi, 2021).  Left unconstrained, however, this can necessarily up-risk portfolios.

With bond yields at an all-time low, nearing zero and the fact that they can no longer provide the protection in the up-and-coming markets many investors query the value provided by a bond allocation within a portfolio. (Robertson,2021)
 
Key insights
While point of views might differ about 60/40 as an investment strategy, one aspect that is accepted is that the future of asset allocation looks very different when compared to the recent past.  Rising correlations, low yields have led strategists and investors to incorporate smarter ways of risk management, explore new bond markets like China, create modified opportunities for bonds to hedge volatility through risk parity strategies, as well as using real asset exposure such as real estate and infrastructure. (Toschi, 2021)

Research conducted by The MAN Institute summarises that modifying from traditional to a more trend-following approach introduces the initial layer of active risk management. By adding an element of market timing investors further reduce the risk, when a market’s price declines.

While bonds have declined in yield, they still hold importance in asset allocation for beta reduction.
Further diversifying the portfolio with an allocation to real assets has potential to provide more yield and increased return than government bonds.
 
Summary
The 60/40 portfolio strategy has established itself over many decades, it has seen investors through four major wars, 14 recessions, 11 bear markets, and 113 rolling interest rate spikes.

It has proved resilience as a strategy and utility as a benchmark.

Our conclusion is that 60/40 is not dead: it is a useful multi-asset benchmark and remains a starting point for strategic asset allocation strategies.

​But the detail of the bond allocation needs a rethink.  Incorporating alternative assets or strategies so long as any increased risk can be constrained to ensure comparable portfolio risk characteristics.
 
Henry Cobbe & Aayushi Srivastava
Elston Consulting
 
Bibliography
Browne, E., 2021. The 60/40 Portfolio Is Alive and Well. [online] Pacific Investment Management Company LLC.
Available at: https://www.pimco.co.uk/en-gb/insights/blog/the-60-40-portfolio-is-alive-and-well
Jaffe, C., 2019. No sale: Don’t buy in to ‘the end’ of 60/40 investing. [online] Seattle Times.
Available at: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/no-sale-dont-buy-in-to-the-end-of-60-40-investing/
Martin, A., 2019. The 60/40 Portfolio Will Outlive Us All. [online] Advisorperspectives.com.
Available at:https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2019/11/11/the-60-40-portfolio-will-outlive-us-all#:~:text=As%20two%20recent%20commentaries%20demonstrate,40%20will%20outlive%20us%20all.
Matthews, C., 2021. Bank of America declares ‘the end of the 60-40’ standard portfolio. [online] MarketWatch.
Available at:https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bank-of-america-declares-the-end-of-the-60-40-standard-portfolio-2019-10-15
Robertson, G., 2021. 60/40 in 2020 Vision | Man Institute. [online] www.man.com/maninstitute. Available at:https://www.man.com/maninstitute/60-40-in-2020-vision
Toschi, M., 2021. Why and how to re-think the 60:40 portfolio | J.P. Morgan Asset Management. [online] Am.jpmorgan.com.
Available at: https://am.jpmorgan.com/be/en/asset-management/adv/insights/market-insights/on-the-minds-of-investors/rethinking-the-60-40-portfolio/
0 Comments

Rethinking the 60/40 portfolio

16/4/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
[5min read, open as pdf]

  • What is the 60/40 portfolio, and why does it matter?
  • The problem with Bonds in a 60/40 framework
  • Rethinking the 40%: What are the alternatives?
 
We agree it’s time to rethink the 60/40 portfolio. It’s a useful benchmark, but a problematic strategy.

What is the 60/40 portfolio, and why does it matter?

What it represents?
Trying to find the very first mention of a 60/40 portfolio is proving a challenge, but it links back to Markowitz Modern Portfolio Theory and was for many years seen as close to the optimal allocation between [US] equities and [US] bonds.  Harry Markowitz himself when considering a “heuristic” rule of thumb talked of a 50/50 portfolio. But the notional 60/40 equity/bond portfolio has been a long-standing proxy for a balanced mandate, combining higher-risk return growth assets with lower-risk-return, income generating assets.
What’s in a 60/40?
Obviously the nature of the equity and the nature of the bonds depends on the investor.  US investor look at 60% US equities/40% US treasuries.  Global investors might look at 60% Global Equities/40% Global Bonds.  For UK investors – and our Elston 60/40 GBP Index – we look at 60% predominantly Global Equities and 40% predominantly UK bonds
Why does it matter?
In the same way as a Global Equities index is a useful benchmark for a “do-nothing” stock picker, the 60/40 portfolio is a useful benchmark for a “do-nothing” multi-asset investor.
Multi-asset investors, with all their detailed decision making around asset allocation, risk management, hedging overlays and implementation options either do better than, or worse than this straightforward “do-nothing” approach of a regularly rebalanced 60/40 portfolio.
Indeed – its simplicity is part of its appeal that enables investors to access a simple multi-asset strategy at low cost.
 
The problem with Bonds in a 60/40 framework
In October 2019, Bank of America Merrill Lynch published a research paper “The End of 60/40” which argues that “the relationship between asset classes has changed so much that many investors now buy equities not for future growth but for current income, and buy bonds to participate in price rallies”.
This has prompted a flurry of opinions on whether or not 60/40 is still a valid strategy
The key challenges with a 60/40 portfolio approach is more on the bond side:
  • Government bond provide negligible or negative yield, so investors who want income need riskier asset, like equities, not bonds
  • With interest rates at an all-time low, following a sustained bull-market in bonds, there is downside risk to bonds as/when the rate cycle turns
  • Returns may not always be negatively correlated so there is reduced diversification effect
  • Inflation risk puts growing pressure on nominal bonds
 
So is 60/40 really dead?
In short, as a benchmark no.  As a strategy – we would argue that for serious investors, it never was one.
We therefore think it’s important to distinguish between 60/40 as an investment strategy and 60/40 as a benchmark.
We think that a vanilla 60/40 equity/bond portfolio remains useful as a benchmark to represent the “do nothing” multi-asset approach.
However, we would concur that a vanilla 60/40 equity/bond portfolio, as a strategy offered by some low cost providers does – at this time – face the significant challenges identified in the 2019 report, that have been vindicated in 2020 and 2021. 
For example, during the peak of the COVID market crisis in March 2020, correlations between equities and bonds spiked upwards meaning there was “no place to hide”.  The growing inflation risk has put additional pressure on nominal bonds.  Real yields are negative.  Interest rates won’t go lower.
But outside of some low-cost retail products, very few portfolio managers, would offer a vanilla equity/bond portfolio as a client strategy.  The inclusion of alternatives have always had an important role to play as diversifiers.

 
Rethinking the 40%: What are the alternatives?
When it comes to rethinking the 60/40 portfolio, investors will have a certain level of risk budget.  So if that risk budget is to be maintained, there is little change to the “60% equity” part of a 60/40 portfolio.
What about the 40%?
We see opportunity for rethinking the 40% bond allocation by:
We nonetheless think it is important to:
  1. Rethink the bond portfolio
  2. Incorporate sensible alternatives
  3. Consider risk-based diversification
 
1. Rethinking the bond portfolio
Whilst more extreme advocates of the death of 60/40 would push for removing bonds entirely, we would not concur. 
Bonds have a role to play for portfolio resilience in terms of their portfolio function (liquidity, volatility dampener), so would instead focus on a more nuanced approach between yield & duration.
We would concur that long-dated nominal bonds look problematic, so would suggest a more “barbell” approach between shorter-dated bonds (as volatility dampener), and targeted, diversified bond exposures: emerging markets, high yield, inflation-linked (for diversification and real yield pick-up).

2. Incorporating sensible alternative assets
Allocating a portfolio of the bond portfolio to alternatives makes sense, but we also need to consider what kind of alternatives.
Whilst some managers are making the case for hedge funds or private markets as an alternative to bonds, we think there are sensible cost-efficient and liquid alternatives that can be considered for inclusion that either have bond-like characteristics (regular stable income streams), or provide inflation protection (real assets). 
For regular diversified income and inflation protection, we would consider: asset-backed securities, infrastructure, utilities and property.  The challenge, however, is how to incorporate these asset classes without materially up-risking the overall portfolio.
For inflation protection, we would consider real assets: property, diversified, commodities, gold and inflation-protected bonds.
Properly incorporated these can fulfil a portfolio function that bonds traditionally provided (liquidity, income, ballast and diversification).

3. Consider risk-based diversification as an alternative strategy
One of the key reasons for including bonds in a multi-asset portfolio is for diversification purposes from equities on the basis that one zigs when the other zags.
In the short-term, and particularly at times of market stress, correlations between asset classes can increase, this reduces the diversification effect if bonds zag when equities zag.
We would argue risk-based diversification strategies have a role to play to here, on the basis that rather than relying on long-run theoretical correlation, they systematically focus on short-run actual correlation between asset classes and adapt their asset allocation accordingly.
Traditional portfolios means choosing asset weights which then drive portfolio risk and correlation metrics.
Risk-based diversification strategies do this in reverse: they use short-run portfolio risk and correlation metrics to drive asset weights.
If the ambition is to diversify and decorrelate, using a strategy that has this as its objective makes more sense.
 
Summary
So 60/40 is not dead.  It will remain a useful benchmark for mult-asset investors.
As an investment strategy, vanilla 60/40 equity/bond products will continue to attract assets for their inherent simplicity.  But we do believe a careful rethink of the “40” is required.
0 Comments

Risk-weighted strategies: 4q20 update

29/1/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
[7 min read, open as pdf for full report]
[See CPD webinar on risk-weighted diversification]

  • We look at latest performance for multi-asset risk-weighted strategies
  • A 60/40 portfolio remains 97% correlated with global equities
  • Risk Parity delivers highest risk-adjusted returns and greatest decorrelation

The challenge
A 60/40 portfolio delivers asset-based diversification: it represents a mix between equities and bonds.
However although a 60/40 portfolio reduces market beta, it does not provide “true” (risk-based) diversification: for example, a 60/40 portfolio, as represented by the Elston 60/40 GBP Index remains 97% correlated with Global Equities.
​
This problem only increases in stressed markets where correlations between assets increase, as we saw in 2020.

Risk-weighted strategies for “true” diversification
Risk-weighted stratetgies, which represent multi-asset portfolios constructed towards a specific portfolio risk outcome, enable an alternative, differentiated approach to investing and for incorporating "true“diversification”.  We look at the following risk-based strategies in our analysis: Risk Parity, Max Deconcentration, and Min Variance.  These are summarised in more detail in the report.

Comparing asset-weighted vs risk-weighted strategies
How can we compare the efficacy of traditional asset-weighted strategies (e.g. 20%, 40%, and 60% equity/bond strategies), vs these risk-weighted strategies?

One approach would be to compare the efficacy of risk-based strategies vs asset-based strategies from the perspective of 1) capturing equity returns, whilst 2) providing “true” diversification as measured by decorrelation impact (the reduction in correlation relative to global equities).

In summary, the findings are that a Risk Parity strategy captured a similar level of equity returns as a 40% equity strategy, but with almost twice the level of decorrelation, meaning it delivers far greater “true” diversification relative to an asset-weighted strategy with similar return profile.

Over the 5 years to December 2020, a 40% Equity strategy captured 44.3% of global equities annualised returns and delivered a correlation reduction of -22.3%.  By contrast, a Risk Parity strategy captured 48.5% of global equity reutrns, and delivered a decorrelation of -44.8%, relative to global equities.

So for portfolio constructors looking to deliver “true” risk-based diversification, whilst maintaining exposure to risk assets for the potential for returns, incorporating a risk-based strategy such as Risk Parity, Max Deconcentration, or Min Variance could make sense depending on portfolio risk budgets and preferences.

For full quarterly performance update, open as pdf 
0 Comments

Have Targeted Absolute Return funds delivered in 2020?

28/10/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
[2 min read, open as pdf]

  • Target Absolute Return funds were billed as “all-weather” funds
  • How have they fared in 2020 relative to our Risk Parity Index?
  • We look at Total Return, Max Drawdown and change in correlations in this analysis
 
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
Picture
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
Picture
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)
Picture
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
Picture
Source: Elston research, Bloomberg data, as at 27/10/20 in GBP terms

Summary
Based on this analysis:
  1. Comparing TAR funds to a Global Equity or even 60/40 benchmark is interesting, but less directly relevant.  A Risk Parity Index could be a more appropriate additional comparator.
  2. Despite longer-term performance issues, 2020 has been a good year for ASI Global Absolute Return Strategies delivering solid Total Returns, with low Max Drawdown and a visible decrease in correlation (increase in diversifier effect)
  3. Other absolute return funds have failed to beat the Risk Parity benchmark from a risk (Max Drawdown)/ total return perspective.

0 Comments

Want to bet against the market, or boost its returns? Leveraged and Inverse ETPs are for speculators, not investors

23/10/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
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.

  • Investing implies a disciplined, rational approach to seeking a commensurate level of expected return for a given level of risk using the investor’s own capital.
  • Speculating implies an unstructured, emotional approach to seeking outsize levels of possible return at any level of risk using the speculator’s own or borrowed capital.
 
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:

  • Borrowing (on a secured or unsecured basis) from lender to invest in risk assets, in the expectation that the returns are greater than the interest rate charged for borrowing those funds. Use of borrowing within ETNs to create Leveraged ETNs introduces interest costs into the overall cost of the ETN.
 
  • Options: leverage can be achieved synthetically by buying call options (the right to buy a stock (including ETFs on whole markets) at a certain strike price in the future.  As markets move further away from the strike price, the value of that option increases exponentially. A leveraged short position can be achieved by selling call options.
 
  • Contracts for Difference (CFD): leverage can be achieved synthetically by entering into a contract for difference (where one party contracts to pay the other party the difference between a current value and the value at the start of the contract).  The buyer can use current cash and trade on margin that is based on the size of the trade. Effectively, it means buyers of CFDs only need a small amount of capital to access a much larger position.
 
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
Picture
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:

  • Complexity: short and leveraged products are complex products making them harder to understand and deploy.
 
  • Counterparty risk: furthermore short/leveraged ETPs carry bank counterparty risk as they are swap based agreements unlike traditional ETFs which are physical and own the underlying asset.
 
  • Decay: leveraged products exhibit decay (their ability to perfectly track an index with leverage) diminishes over time from the combined effects of fees and expenses, rebalancing costs and volatility decay[1].
 
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
0 Comments

risk parity dominates risk-adjusted returns in 3q20

13/10/2020

0 Comments

 
[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.
Picture
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.
Picture
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.
Picture
The periodic table shows lack of direction amongst risk-weighted strategies in the quarter.
Picture
​All data as at 30th September 2020
© Elston Consulting 2020, all rights reserved
0 Comments

Liquid Alternative ETF performance for GBP-based investors

9/8/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
  • We look at 2 sub-sectors of Liquid Alternative ETFs available to UK investors: Liquid Alternative Assets and Liquid Alternative Strategies
  • Within Asset Classes, Gold has proven its defensive qualities in market turmoil
  • Within Strategies, Market Neutral has proven most defensive
 
Liquid Alternatives: Assets
We define Liquid Alternative Asset ETFs as tradable ETFs that hold liquid securities that provide access to a particular “alternative” (non-equity, non-bond) asset class exposure.
​
More specifically, we define this as Listed Property Securities, Infrastructure Securities, Commodities, Gold and Listed Private Equity.

Looking at selected ETF proxies for each of these asset classes, the correlations for these Liquid Alternative Assets, relative to Global Equity are summarised below.
Fig.1. Liquid Alternative Assets: Correlation Matrix
Picture
Incorporating these exposures within a multi-asset strategy provides can provide diversification benefits, both from an asset-based perspective and a risk-based perspective.
​
Looking at 5 year annualised performance, only Gold has outperformed Global Equities. Listed Private Equity has been comparable.  Meanwhile Infrastructure has outperformed property, whilst Commodities have been lack-lustre.

Fig.2. Liquid Alternative Assets Returns vs Global Equities
Picture
Looking at performance YTD, gold has returned +31.06% in GBP terms, outperforming Global Equities by 32.54ppt.  Infrastructure has also slightly outperformed equities owing to its inflation protective qualities.
​
Fig.3. YTD performance of Liquid Alternative Assets (GBP terms)
Picture
Source: Elston research, Bloomberg data

Liquid Alternatives: Strategies

We define Liquid Alternative Strategy ETFs as tradable ETFs that provide alternative asset allocation strategies.  By providing differentiated risk-return characteristics, these ETFs should provide diversification and/or reflect a particular directional bias.
​
Fig.4. Examples of European-listed Liquid Alternative Strategies
Picture
Each of these strategies provide a low degree of correlation with Global Equities and therefore have diversification benefits.
​
Fig.5. Liquid Alternative Strategies: Correlation Matrix
Picture
In 2020, the Market Neutral strategy has proven most defensive.
​
Fig.6. Liquid Alternative Strategies: YTD performance
Picture
Source: Bloomberg data, GBP terms, as at July 2020
Conclusion
ETFs offer a timely, convenient, transparent, liquid and low-cost way of allocating or deallocating to a particular exposure.

Blending Liquid Alternative ETFs – both at an asset class level and a strategy level - provides managers with a broader toolkit with which to construct portfolios.
NOTICES
Commercial Interest: Elston Consulting Limited creates research portfolios and administers indices that may or may not be referenced in this article.  If referenced, this is clearly designated as such and is to raise awareness and provide purely factual information as regards these portfolios and/or indices.
Image Credit: Shutterstock
0 Comments

Incorporating options overlays to create defensive ETFs

7/8/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
  • Options overlays can be used to create an alternative payoff profile
  • Covered call and written put strategies are typically defensive for sideways markets/downside protection
  • The ETF format enables access, economies of scale, transparency and timeliness
 
Why use options overlays?
Managers of larger investment portfolios sometimes use options overlays to create an alternative payoff profile relative to a straightforward “long-only” equity holding of a share or index.  This is done to reflect a particular investment view.
Examples of options overlay strategies include Covered Calls and Put Writes.  These strategies to protect investments when markets move sideways and there is higher potential for downside risk.  This typically comes at the expense of explicit costs and foregone returns.
What is a covered call strategy?
A Covered Call strategy combines a holding in equities with sales of call options (an option to buy an equity at a given price within a specific time) on those equities.  In other words, it can be seen as sacrificing unknown future gains on equities in exchange for a known income today.  These aim is 1) to generate returns through income from those sales and 2) reduce downside risk.
What is a written put strategy?
A Put Write strategy combines a cash exposure with sales of put options (an option to sell an equity at a given price within a specific time) on those equities, with the aim of generating an income from option sales whilst providing a cushion during market downturns.
What’s new?
UBS has launched a range of four ETFs that offer a choice of two underlying exposures (S&P 500 or Euro Stoxx 50) combined with these two types of options overlay strategies to give investors access to these defensive strategies that perform better in sideways or downward markets.  The ETFs available are:
​
Fig.1. UBS UCITS ETFs incorporating options strategies
Picture
Source: Elston Research, Bloomberg data
What does this launch mean for investors?
The launch of these ETFs gives investors of any size the opportunity to access these options overlay strategies within a fund exposure, rather than outwith a fund exposure, meaning that they benefit from:
  1. access to the strategy in a way where there are economies of scale (rather than on a bespoke portfolio basis);
  2. consistency and transparency of and index-based approach providing a standardised format for all investors within the fund;
  3. timeliness to allocate or deallocate to that strategy quickly and conveniently.
Are covered call strategies new within a fund structure?
Not really.  Covered call strategies are used to enhance the income of traditional OEICs in the “Enhanced Income” sector.  Funds such as the Schroder Income Maximiser and Fidelity Enhanced Income use a covered call strategy within the fund to generate additional income at the expense for capital growth, as did Enhanced Income ETFs from BMO.  But this is typically done for yield enhancement rather than as a pure defensive strategy.  These UBS ETFs are not yield focus but are using that additional income to provide some cushioning.
Why the ETF format?
The advantage of the ETF format means that investors have the ability to allocate or deallocate to that strategy quickly and conveniently.  As we saw in March, in period of heightened daily volatility, the 4-5 day dealing cycles (8-10 days for an unfunded switch) of traditional OEICs create significant and unintended market timing risk.  The ETF format offers a more timely way of adding or removing a particular exposure.
Who might use these?
Discretionary managers and financial advisers using platforms that can access ETFs may find these strategies a useful addition to the toolkit as a Liquid Alternative strategy.
Are these Liquid Alternative ETPs?
Yes, we would classify them as such.  But we differentiate between Liquid Alternative Asset Classes and Liquid Alternative Strategies.  We would classify these ETFs as Liquid Alternative Strategies, alongside Managed Futures ETFs and Equity Market Neutral ETFs.
What are the drawbacks?
From a UK perspective, whilst the S&P500 product will be a useful proxy for overall market risk, it’s disappointing that there is these overlay strategies are not available for the UK’s FTSE 100 index as that would be of more appeal for UK investors, advisers and managers.
Furthermore, financial advisers using traditional fund-based platforms will not be able to access these type of options overlay strategies, limiting potential usage.
Performance Track record
Whilst the ETFs are new, the underlying indices has been created with data back to July 2012.
In the 8 years to end July 2020 in USD terms, the US Equity Defensive Covered Call Index returned +11.09%, compared to +13.71% for the S&P 500.  The foregone returns being part of the cost of downside protection.  By contrast, the maximum monthly drawdown (in March 2020) for the Covered Call index was -10.74%, compared to -12.51% for the S&P500, a -14% reduction in drawdown.
Over the same time frame, the US Equity Defensive Put Write Index returned +3.81% compared to +2.88% for US Treasuries.  By contrast, the maximum monthly drawdown (in March 2020) for the Put Write index was -8.14%.
Fig.2. Performance vs selected comparators
Picture
Source: Bloomberg data, 31st July 2012 to 31st July 2020, USD terms
In the 1 year to July 2020, the annualised daily volatility of the Covered Call Index was 29.75% compared to 34.10% for the S&P500 (a 12.8% reduction)
In more normal markets – in the 3 years to December 2019, the volatility of the Covered Call Index was 12.27% compared to 12.89% (a 4.8% reduction)

Conclusion
On our analysis, the Put Write index should work well in providing consistent returns in sideways markets in excess of cash/government bonds, but is not immune from severe market shocks.
The Covered Call Index provides a defensive bias whilst maintaining the potential for returns from the underlying exposure.
At a TER of 0.26%-0.29% the strategies are reasonably priced relative to either creating a bespoke options strategy or compared to the OCF of traditional OEICs with embedded options overlays.  Nonetheless, a FTSE 100 exposure would be additionally welcome.
NOTICES
Commercial Interest: Elston Consulting Limited creates research portfolios and administers indices that may or may not be referenced in this article.  If referenced, this is clearly designated as such and is to raise awareness and provide purely factual information as regards these portfolios and/or indices.
Image Credit: Shutterstock
0 Comments

Which multi-asset strategies have fared best in 2q20?

26/7/2020

0 Comments

 
  • Of alternative multi-asset strategies, Max Deconcentration delivered best returns in 2q20
  • Risk Parity has outperformed a 60/40 approach on a risk-adjusted basis over 1, 3 and 5 years
  • Risk Parity has provided greatest level of “true diversification” relative to Global Equities

The second quarter of 2020 saw a rebound in Global Equity markets with a total return of +17.6% in GBP terms.  Unsurprisingly a 60/40 equity/bond portfolio captured approximately 60% of this upside with a total return of +11.2%.

Of the multi-asset risk-based strategies we track, a Maximum Deconcentration approach (also known as an equal weight approach, because each asset class is equally weight), fared best with a return of +10.3%.  By contrast a Min Variance approach and Risk Parity approach returned +9.0% and +5.7% respectively.  Given their relative betas to Global Equity, the results are not surprising.
Fig.1. Total Return (discrete quarter, GBP terms)
Picture
Risk-adjusted basis
On a risk-adjusted 1 year basis, Risk Parity outperformed Global Equities, UK Bonds, a 60/40 portfolio and other multi-asset strategies.
Fig.2. Risk-Return to 30-Jun-20 (1 year, GBP terms) 
Picture
On a 5 year basis, Risk Parity also has the best risk-adjusted returns, with the highest Sharpe ratio at 0.94.
Fig.3. Sharpe Ratio to 30-Jun-20 (5 year, GBP terms)
Picture
Risk-based strategies for “true diversification”
If we define “true diversification” as combining two or more uncorrelated asset classes such that the combined volatility is less than its constituent parts, then a traditional 60/40 portfolio fails to deliver.

We look at correlation reduction and beta reduction to articulate “differentiation impact”.  The greater the reduction of both, the greater the differentiation.

Over the 5 years to 30th June, a 60/40 portfolio (as represented by the Elston 60/40 GBP Index [ticker 6040GBP Index] delivers a reduction in Beta of -41.1% (broadly commensurate with its equity allocation), it only reduces correlation to Global Equities by -2.8%.  Put differently a 60/40 portfolio is almost 100% correlated with Global Equities, and does not therefore provide “true” diversification.

By contrast, a Risk Parity approach not only delivered better risk-adjusted returns, it also delivered “true diversification”.  With a beta reduction of -78.3% and a correlation reduction of -46.6%.  The Differentiation impact of the various multi-asset strategies is summarised below.
Fig.4. Differentiation impact to 30-Jun-20 (5 year, GBP terms)
Picture
Summary
Max Deconcentration provided the highest level of returns in 2q20.  On a 1, 3 and 5 year basis, Risk Parity offers better risk-adjusted returns.  The differentiation impact is greatest for Risk Parity, relative to other multi-asset strategies for "true diversification".

NOTICES
Commercial Interest: Elston Consulting Limited creates research portfolios and administers indices that may or may not be referenced in this article.  If referenced, this is clearly designated and is to raise awareness and provide purely factual information as regards these portfolios and/or indices.

0 Comments

Absolute Return funds are not delivering

16/7/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
  • Targeted Absolute Return (TAR) funds were meant to be “all weather”
  • TAR funds can be complex, opaque and inefficient
  • We measure how four key TAR funds fare vs a Risk Parity approach

​Targeted Absolute Return (TAR) funds were meant to be “all-weather” funds that could deliver returns in up markets, whilst protecting capital in down markets.  If that sounds like a “goldilocks” strategy, it’s because it is.
However, the way these funds-of-strategies are managed can be complex and/or opaque, and the performance has been inefficient.  They are not delivering.
Given there’s been a lot of bad weather globally in the first half of this year, we look at how four leading (by AUM) TAR funds have fared against our Elston Dynamic Risk Parity Index.

Absolute Return funds
Targeted Absolute Return funds are designed to fulfil a diversification function within a portfolio.  This means performing in a way that is less or not correlated with equity markets, whilst offering greater return than cash or bonds.
The portfolio construction approach to TAR funds differs from manager to manager.  But the guiding principle is to achieve diversification by “spreading risk” across multiple, uncorrelated strategies, and “having the potential to make money in falling markets”.

Risk-based strategies as an alternative
Our view is that if the objective is diversification, a risk-based approach to portfolio construction makes sense, using strategies such as Risk Parity for diversification purposes.  Risk Parity ensures “true diversification” by allowing the ever-changing risk characteristics of each asset class to determine portfolio weights, such that each asset class contributes equally to overall portfolio risk.
Furthermore, by constructing the strategy as a straightforward “long-only” approach that does not use leverage, the holdings within the strategy are liquid, transparent and low-cost ETFs, whilst the dynamic weighting scheme is the tool for ensuring equal risk contribution and volatility constraint.
  • To counter complexity, we believe in creating a strategy in a systematic, rules-based approach (i.e. as an index).
  • To counter opacity, we believe in ensuring that a strategy can be implemented using transparent, liquid and low-cost instruments (i.e. physically-replicated Exchange Traded Funds).
  • To ensure efficiency, unlike some institutional risk parity funds, we ensure our risk parity strategy is constructed a mixture of Global Equities and UK Bonds (rather than Global Equities and US Bonds hedged to GBP)
Whilst Targeted Absolute Return funds do not use Risk Parity indices as a benchmark – the fundamental principle – diversifying portfolio risk across a number of contributors of portfolio risk – is nonetheless similar at its core, albeit very different in its implementation.
So how have the strategies fared?

Relative Performance
Year to date, through an extreme stress-test, absolute return strategies have underperformed a Risk Parity approach by 2-4.5%.
Fig.1. YTD performance
Picture
Source: Elston research, Bloomberg data.  Total returns, GBP terms, as at end June 2020
On a 1 year view, these absolute return strategies have underperformed a Risk Parity approach by 6-8%.
Fig.2. 1 year cumulative performance
Picture
Source: Elston research, Bloomberg data.  Total returns, GBP terms, as at end June 2020
On a 3 year view, these absolute return strategies have underperformed a Risk Parity approach by 7-20%.
Fig.3. 3 year cumulative performance
Picture
Source: Elston research, Bloomberg data.  Total returns, GBP terms, as at end June 2020
 
Mixing metaphors: a goldilocks approach to an all-weather portfolio
To achieve all-weather diversifier status is a tall order for any investment strategy.  It requires a “goldilocks” portfolio that:
  • Ensures that risk sufficiently rewarded
  • Allows some volatility to achieve returns, but not too much risk to create excessive downside risk
  • Constrains volatility to reduce downside risk, but not so much as to forego returns,
  • Permits enough beta to keep pace with the market, but without too much correlation
  • Reduces correlation to ensure differentiation, but without foregoing any of the above
As you can see it’s a tall order.  But we can measure how these absolute return funds fare relative to our Risk Parity index on those metrics by comparing
  • Return per unit of risk (Sharpe ratio – is risk rewarded?) in absolute terms, and relative to Global Equities
  • Level of volatility relative to a global equities (is volatility constrained?)
  • Level of returns capture, relative to global equities (is there potential for returns?)
  • Level of beta relative to global equities (is there sufficient reduction for downside protection?)
  • Level of correlation to global equities (is there true differentiation for diversification?
On this basis, the Risk Parity approach
  • Offers best risk-adjusted returns with Sharpe ratio of 0.67
  • Improves risk-adjusted returns significantly vs global equities and a 60/40 portfolio (TAR funds provide poor risk-adjusted returns, as the risk taken is unrewarded)
  • Reduces volatility by -60.0% (more than for a 60/40 strategy, but less than TAR funds (-65 to 80% reduction))
  • Reduces returns by just -30.7% (similar to a 60/40 strategy, and significantly better returns capture than TAR funds)
  • Reduces beta by -78.3% (less so than for TAR funds (~90%), but moreso than a 60/40 portfolio (-40.6%))
  • Reduces correlation by -45.8% (less when compared to -60 to 66% for TAR funds, but substantially more than a 60/40 portfolio that do not provide “true diversification”).

On this basis, our Risk Parity strategy fares well as a decorrelated “diversifier”, without foregoing returns, for a similar level of risk to TAR funds.

What’s wrong with TAR funds? We can’t analyse the individual strategies within the funds, but in aggregate, the statistics below suggest that as a result of their complexity, TAR funds have potentially “over de-correlated”, with insufficient beta to capture the returns available for the risk (volatility) being taken.

Findings are summarised in the table below.
​
Fig.4. 3Y Performance Statistics
Picture
Risk-based strategies: an alternative to absolute return funds?
Targeted Absolute Return funds are opaque, complex and inefficient.

Creating a true diversification strategy is challenging but achievable.

A systematic risk-based approach that adapts to changing relationships between each asset classes is an alternative.

​By ensuring that each asset class contributes equally to the risk of the overall portfolio, without resorting to leverage, could provide a more dependable approach to incorporating a “true diversifier” into a portfolio, without necessarily compromising returns.

NOTICES
Commercial Interest: Elston Consulting Limited creates research portfolios and administers indices that may or may not be referenced in this article.  If referenced, this is clearly designated and is to raise awareness and provide purely factual information as regards these portfolios and/or indices.
0 Comments

Liquid Alt ETPs: success for alternative asset class exposure, less so for  alternative strategies

9/7/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
  • What are Liquid Alternative ETFs?
  • What has adoption been like in the UK?
  • Straightforward vs complex Liquid Alt strategies
 
Following the severe market turbulence of 2020, it’s worth taking a fresh look at “Liquid Alts” within the ETF space.
 
What are Liquid Alternative ETFs?
We define Liquid Alternative ETFs as any ETF that is:
  1. is providing exposure to an asset class or strategy that is an alternative to long-only Equities or long-only Bonds
  2. holds liquid underlying securities and is traded intraday
 
Rise in popularity post GFC
The increased popularity in the US of “Liquid Alts” came after the Global Financial Crisis and related liquidity crunch.  Following the crisis, there was a demand for portfolio diversifiers that were an alternative to bonds, but with a keen focus on liquidity profile of the underlying holdings.
In the US, the tradability of the ETF format meant that a broad range of “Liquid Alt” ETFs were launched, providing access to asset classes such as gold, commodities, and property securities, as well as long/short and more sophisticated “active” or systematic investment strategies packaged up within an ETF.  Liquid Alts became in vogue.
 
What about Liquid Alts in the UK?
First we need to distinguish between the “type” of Liquid Alts available.
We distinguish between those Liquid Alts that give exposure to an alternative asset class; and those that give exposure to an alternative asset allocation strategy.
In the UK, following the financial crisis, we saw the launch of ETFs that gave exposure to alternative asset classes – gold, commodities, property, listed private equity, and infrastructure, for example.    In this respect, the growth – in depth and breadth – of Liquid Alts has been impressive, particularly in the commodities and property sectors.
But when it comes to Liquid Alts to deliver an alternative strategy, the ETP format has not been popular: the preferred format remains daily-dealing funds.  Diversifier strategies, for example absolute return funds such as GARS, systematic trading strategies, long/short funds and funds-of-structured-products, have all been typically manufactured as funds in the UK rather than exchange traded products.
Reviewing the marketing in 2016, we were expecting the range of Liquid Alt strategies available to UK investors to broaden both in the mutual fund format and the ETP format.  As regards mutual funds, that has proven to be the case.  As regards ETPs, Liquid Alt strategies have failed to catch on.
Only a handful of liquid alternative strategy ETPs were launched, and they have largely failed to gain any traction.
 
Why is this?
Whilst straightforward Liquid Alt asset class ETPs have been successful in the UK, Liquid Alt strategy ETPs have failed to gain traction in the UK for 4 reasons, in our view:
  1. In the UK there was less familiarity with ETFs as a fund format, which were and are generally perceived to be 1) single asset class “building blocks”, rather than strategies; and 2) index-tracking, rather than “active”
  2. As a structural “diversifier” to a portfolio, there seemed little need for investors to trade liquid alt strategies on an intraday basis.  A traditional fund format would do.
  3. In the advisory market, most platforms were not configured to trade or hold ETFs, meaning that funds were the structure of choice from a distribution perspective
  4. Where Liquid Alt strategy ETPs have been launched, the actual investment strategy has failed to deliver.
 
Evaluating success: complexity fails
To summarise, in the UK, within the Liquid Alt ETF space, the more straightforward a product, the more traction it’s got.  Importantly, the reverse applies.
 
“Straightforward” liquid alt ETFs
Straightforward liquid alt ETFs provide liquid exposure to a specific asset class, or proxy for an asset class.
​
Fig.1. Liquid Alternative Asset Classes
Picture
​We find these “Liquid Alt” ETFs very useful building blocks to build in some diversifiers in a targeted and transparent way.
 
“Complex” liquid alt ETFs
The more complex liquid alt ETFs launched into the European market, have had far less success, and have ended up in the ETF graveyard..
Examples of complex strategies include: ETFs tracking a proxy of the HFRX Hedge Fund Index, an equity long/short ETF, and a market neutral ETF.

Fig. 2. Liquid Alternative Strategies
Picture

Liquidity lessons learned and relearned
There were painful liquidity lessons learned in the 2008 GFC.  Those liquidity lessons have been relearned for “less liquid alts” delivered by traditional fund formats, where investors were gated in direct property funds during Brexit in 2016 and Coronavirus this year.  By comparison, investors who chose property securities ETFs as their “liquid” way of accessing that exposure experienced no such gating.  Furthermore, the high profile gating of Woodford’s Equity Income fund and GAM absolute return bonds fund are further reminders as to why liquidity of the underlying asset, whether, within a fund or ETF, is so important.
 
Where next?
We see potential for increased competition in the single-asset class liquid alts, particularly infrastructure and listed private equity where there is little choice.
Whilst we expect some ETF providers to continue to create liquid alt trading strategies, we are not convinced that ETPs are the best format for these diversifiers.
Where we do expect innovation is in index-tracking funds that can be held on platform and provide a transparent, liquid and systematic approach to delivering true diversification strategies, as an alternative to opaque, higher cost absolute return funds.

NOTICES
Commercial Interest: Elston Consulting Limited creates research portfolios and administers indices that may or may not be referenced in this article.  If referenced, this is clearly designated and is to raise awareness and provide purely factual information as regards these portfolios and/or indices.
0 Comments
<<Previous

    ELSTON RESEARCH

    insights inform solutions

    Get our weekly newsletter

    Categories

    All
    All Weather Portfolio
    Alternative Assets
    Alternative Strategies
    Bonds
    Business Practice
    Equity Income
    Equity Sectors
    ESG
    ETFs
    Evidence-Based Investing
    Factor Investing
    Gold & Precious Metals
    Guide To Investing
    Index Investing
    Inflation
    Macro
    MULTI ASSET
    Multi Asset Income
    Net Zero
    Permanent Portfolio
    Portfolio Construction
    Private Markets
    Real Assets
    Retirement Investing
    Risk Parity
    Value Factor

    Archives

    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    September 2019
    June 2019
    April 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016

    RSS Feed

Company

Home
About
Terms of Use
​​​Contact
​
​Events
​
Press

Solutions

​​Insights
​​​Research Service
​Research Library
Portfolio Analytics
​Our Portfolios
Custom Portfolios
​Retirement Portfolio
Our Funds
Custom Funds
​Retirement Funds
Our Indices
​Custom Indices
Retirement Indices

Services

CIRP Development
Regulatory Research
​
​​CPD

By client type:
For Advisers
For Discretionary Managers
​For Asset Managers
For Asset Owners


© COPYRIGHT 2012-21. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
  • WHO WE ARE
    • About
    • Contact
    • Events
    • Press
  • WHAT WE DO
    • Portfolio Solutions >
      • Our Portfolios
      • Custom Portfolios
      • Research Portfolios
    • Fund Solutions >
      • Our Funds
      • Custom Funds
    • Index Solutions >
      • Our indices
      • Custom Indices
    • SPECIALIST STRATEGIES >
      • Liquid Real Assets
      • UK Equity Income
      • Permanent Portfolio UK
      • All Weather Portfolio UK
      • Dynamic Risk Parity
      • Gold and Precious Metals
      • Enabling Net Zero
    • Research >
      • Investment Research
      • Regulatory Research
    • CPD
  • WHO WE HELP
    • Financial Advisers
    • Discretionary Managers
    • Asset Managers
    • Asset Owners
    • 中文
  • Insights