Strategic Allocation

Are publicly traded Master Limited Partnerships attractive investments? In their June 2014 paper entitled “Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs)”, Frank Benham, Steven Hartt, Chris Tehranian and Edmund Walsh describe and summarize the aggregate performance and characteristics of publicly traded MLPs. These partnerships are predominantly owners of “toll road” energy infrastructure, U.S. oil and natural gas pipelines and resource shipping. Like real estate investment trusts (REIT), MLPs are pass-through entities for tax purposes. Their distributions to partners are not subject to double-taxation as are corporate dividends. Unlike REITs, MLPs may retain income to fund growth. The general (managing) partner of an MLP typically earns an incentive-based share of distributions larger than that of limited (passive) partners. MLPs involve tax, accounting and administrative complications associated with partnerships. Using monthly returns for the capitalization-weighted Alerian MLP Index and for other asset class indexes during January 2000 through April 2014, they conclude that: Keep Reading

What’s the latest research on portfolio construction and risk management? In the the introduction to the July 2014 version of his (book-length) paper entitled “Many Risks, One (Optimal) Portfolio”, Cristian Homescu states: “The main focus of this paper is to analyze how to obtain a portfolio which provides above average returns while remaining robust to most risk exposures. We place emphasis on risk management for both stages of asset allocation: a) portfolio construction and b) monitoring, given our belief that obtaining above average portfolio performance strongly depends on having an effective risk management process.” Based on a comprehensive review of recent research on portfolio construction and risk management, he reports on:

Keep Reading

In the preface to his 2015 book entitled Dual Momentum Investing: An Innovative Strategy for Higher Returns with Lower Risk, author Gary Antonacci states: “We need a way to earn long-term above-market returns while limiting our downside exposure. This book shows how momentum investing can make that desirable outcome a reality. …the academic community now accepts momentum as the ‘premier anomaly’ for achieving consistently high risk-adjusted returns. Yet momentum is still largely undiscovered by most mainstream investors. I wrote this book to help bridge the gap between the academic research on momentum, which is extensive, and its real-world application… I finally show how dual momentum—a combination of relative strength and trend-following…is the ideal way to invest.” Based on a survey of related research and his own analyses, he concludes that: Keep Reading

Does adjusting an asset allocation retirement glidepath according to a stock market valuation metric such as Shiller’s cyclically adjusted price-earnings ratio (CAPE ratio or P/E10) improve the outcome? In their September 2014 paper entitled “Retirement Risk, Rising Equity Glidepaths, and Valuation-Based Asset Allocation”, Michael Kitces and Wade Pfau investigate the interaction of pre-determined allocation glidepaths and P/E10 valuation based on long-run U.S. historical data. They consider the following strategy alternatives:

• Fixed equity allocations of either 45% or 60%.
• Declining (accelerated declining) equity glidepaths that start retirement at 60% stocks and reduce the allocation by 1% (2%) per year.
• Rising (accelerated rising) equity glidepaths that start retirement at 30% stocks and increase the allocation by 1% (2%) per year.
• A standalone dynamic valuation-based strategy with baseline 45% equity, raised (lowered) to 60% (30%) at the beginning of any year for which P/E10 is less than (greater than) 67% (133%) of its inception-to-date median. (See the chart below.)
• Unbounded and bounded combinations of declining or rising glidepaths and the dynamic valuation-based strategy, adding (subtracting) 15% from the equity glidepath at the beginning of any year for which P/E10 indicates undervaluation (overvaluation). Bounded combinations constrain equity allocation to a minimum 30% and a maximum 60%.

They consider both short-term bills (six months to a year) and long-term bonds (10-year) as complements to equities. They use overlapping 30-year intervals to approximate retirement outcomes. They focus on worst-case maximum sustainable real (inflation-adjusted) withdrawal rate over the 30-year retirement interval as the main strategy performance metric. Withdrawals occur at the beginning of each year, with the residual portfolio then rebalanced to target allocations. They assume withdrawals pay the taxes. Using Robert Shiller’s monthly data for U.S. stock market returns, associated P/E10, short-term bill yields (six-month commercial paper/one-year U.S. Treasury notes) and long-term bond yields (10-year U.S. Treasury notes or equivalent) during 1871 through 2013, they find that: Keep Reading

Does playing trends both ways via periodic rebalancing (betting on reversion) and momentum (betting on continuation) reliably produce attractive outcomes? In the August 2014 version of their paper entitled “Rebalancing Risk”, Nick Granger, Doug Greenig, Campbell Harvey, Sandy Rattray and David Zou investigate the effects of adding a momentum overlay to a conventionally rebalanced stocks-bonds portfolio. They note that periodic rebalancing to fixed asset class weights tends to perform well in trendless markets exhibiting mean reversion but suffers during extended trends. They consider simple examples using a 60% target allocation to the S&P 500 Index and a 40% allocation to 10-year U.S. Treasury notes (T-note), rebalanced monthly or quarterly. Their momentum strategy employs a complex daily moving average cross-over model with target volatility 10% that has an average annual turnover of 400%. Using both theoretical arguments and empirical analysis of daily and monthly asset class proxy returns during January 1990 through February 2014, they find that: Keep Reading

How much performance improvement comes from rebalancing a stocks-bonds portfolio, and what specific rebalancing approach works best? In their August 2014 paper entitled “Testing Rebalancing Strategies for Stock-Bond Portfolios Across Different Asset Allocations”, Hubert Dichtl, Wolfgang Drobetz and Martin Wambach investigate the net performance implications of different rebalancing approaches and different rebalancing frequencies on portfolios of stocks and government bonds with different weights and in different markets. With buy-and-hold as a benchmark, they consider three types of rebalancing rules: (1) strict periodic rebalancing to target weights; (2) threshold rebalancing, meaning periodic rebalancing to target weights if out-of-balance by 3% or more; and, (3) range rebalancing, meaning periodic rebalancing to plus (minus) 3% of target weights if above (below) target weights by more than 3%. They consider annual, quarterly and monthly rebalancing frequencies. They use 30 years of broad U.S., UK and German stock market, bond market and risk-free returns to construct simulations with 10-year investment horizons. Their simulation approach preserves most of the asset class time series characteristics, including stocks-bonds correlations. They assume round-trip rebalancing frictions of 0.15% (0.10% for stocks and 0.05% for bonds). Using monthly returns for country stock and bonds markets and risk-free yields during January 1982 through December 2011 to generate 100,000 simulated 10-year return paths, they find that: Keep Reading

“Sticky Winner Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy” tests whether limiting the trading of the “Simple Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy” by holding onto the winner until it drops out of the top three boosts performance of the latter by reducing trading and thereby suppressing trading frictions. A subscriber proposed a more precise approach to limit trading: continue holding a past winner until it loses to a new winner by a significant margin. To investigate whether this approach (Buffered Winner) works, we compare it to the original strategy (Winner), which allocates all funds at the end of each month to the asset class exchange-traded fund (ETF) or cash with the highest total return over the last five months, as applied to the following nine assets:

PowerShares DB Commodity Index Tracking (DBC)
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index (EEM)
iShares MSCI EAFE Index (EFA)
SPDR Gold Shares (GLD)
iShares Russell 1000 Index (IWB)
iShares Russell 2000 Index (IWM)
SPDR Dow Jones REIT (RWR)
iShares Barclays 20+ Year Treasury Bond (TLT)
3-month Treasury bills (Cash)

Using monthly adjusted closing prices for the asset class proxies and the yield for Cash over the period July 2002 (or inception if not available then) through June 2014 (144 months), we find that: Keep Reading

Is there a practical way to apply momentum investing in a Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) framework? In his June 2014 paper entitled “Momentum, Markowitz, and Smart Beta”, Wouter Keller constructs a long-only, unleveraged Modern Asset Allocation (MAA) model in three steps

1. Make MPT tactical by using short historical intervals to predict future asset returns (rate of return, or absolute momentum), return volatilities (based on daily returns) and return correlations (based on daily returns), assuming that measured behaviors will materially persist the next month. Assign zero weight to assets with negative returns over the historical measurement interval.
2. Simplify correlation calculations by relating daily historical returns for each asset to those for a single market return (the average return of all assets weighted equally) rather than to returns for all other assets separately.
3. Dampen errors in rapidly changing asset return, volatility and correlation predictions by “shrinking” them toward their respective averages across all assets in the universe, and dampen the predicted market volatility by “shrinking” it toward zero.

He reforms the MAA portfolio monthly at the first close. His baseline historical interval for estimation of all variables is four months (84 trading days). His baseline shrinkage factor for all variables is 50%. His principal benchmark is the equally weighted (EW) “market” of all assets, rebalanced monthly. He assumes one-way trading friction of 0.1%. He considers a range of portfolio performance metrics: annualized return, annual volatility, maximum drawdown, turnover, Sharpe ratio, Omega ratio and Calmar ratio. Using daily dividend-adjusted prices for assets allocated to three universes (10 exchange-traded funds [ETF], 35 ETFs and 104 U.S. stocks/bonds) during December 1997 through December 2013, he finds that: Keep Reading

Does using after-tax, rather than pre-tax, returns make a big difference in allocating assets based on mean-variance optimization? In their June 2014 paper entitled “What Would Yale Do If It Were Taxable?” Patrick Geddes, Lisa Goldberg and Stephen Bianchi illustrate a three-step approach for adapting the Yale Endowment for investors obligated to pay U.S. taxes:

1. Reverse engineer Yale Endowment allocations by applying covariances of matched benchmark indexes to derive implied pre-tax asset class returns.
2. Apply assumptions about taxes to convert the pre-tax returns to after-tax returns.
3. Apply mean-variance optimization to after-tax returns to calculate optimal allocations based on after-tax returns.

The asset classes addressed are: absolute return (hedge funds), equity (U.S. and global combined), bonds, natural resources, real estate, private equity and cash. For estimating tax impacts, the authors assume: returns from bonds and cash are ordinary income; there are distinct tax obligations for returns from active, passive (index fund) and tax loss-advantaged equity; hedge fund returns are tax-wise similar to active equity; 30% of appreciation from natural resources and private equity are realized each year as long-term gains; and, 30% of appreciation from real estate are realized each year as ordinary income. They ignore any effects of portfolio liquidation. Using Yale Endowment allocations and U.S. tax rules as of  the end of 2013, along with benchmark index covariances during December 1998 through June 2013, they find that:

Keep Reading

Risk parity asset strategies generally make large allocations to low-volatility assets such as bonds, which tend to fall in value when interest rates rise. Is risk parity a safe strategy when rates rise? In their June 2014 research note entitled “Risk-Parity Strategies at a Crossroads, or, Who’s Afraid of Rising Yields?”, Fabian Dori, Manuel Krieger, Urs Schubiger and Daniel Torgler examine how the rising interest rate environment of the U.S. in the 1970s affects risk parity performance. They also examine how inflation and economic growth affect risk parity performance. They use the yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note (T-note) as a proxy for the interest rate. Their risk parity model uses 40-day past volatility for risk weighting and allows leverage to target an annualized portfolio volatility (7.5%, per Fabian Dori). They consider two benchmark portfolios: conservative, allocating 60% to bonds, 30% to stocks and 10% to commodities; and, aggressive, allocating 40% to bonds, 40% to stocks and 20% to commodities. They rebalance all portfolios daily, including estimated transaction costs. They compare six-month returns of risk parity and benchmark portfolios across ranked fifths (quintiles) of contemporaneous six-month changes in interest rates, inflation and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rate. Using daily levels of a generic 10-year T-note, the S&P 500 Index and the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index during January 1970 through June 1996 and actual daily futures prices for 2-year, 5-year and 10-year T-notes, the S&P 500 Index, the NASDAQ 100 Index and the DJ UBS Commodity Index during July 1996 through April 2014, along with contemporaneous interest rate, inflation and GDP data, they find that: Keep Reading