Analysis of Bitcoin’s historical trading behaviour shows it has exchange rate volatility an order of magnitude higher than the volatilities of widely used currencies, undermining its usefulness as a unit of account or a store of value.

Bitcoin’s daily exchange rates exhibit virtually zero correlation with bona fide currencies, making it useless for risk management purposes and exceedingly difficult for its owners to hedge. Bitcoin appears to behave more like a speculative investment than like a currency.

Access this New York University paper here

Is Bitcoin a real currency

MSCI’s risk management tool, BarraOne incorporated 31 private real estate models and a macro-factor asset allocation model in 2013 and this year will add global private equity analysis giving it coverage across all asset classes.

BarraOne, which is widely used among investors for risk analysis and management, started as an equities analysis tool, but now includes data across most asset classes.

Peter Shepard, executive director and head of multi-asset class and alternatives research at MSCI, who led the development of the new Barra Integrated Model, says the model now does two things: it covers all asset classes, and incorporates the main drivers of risk and return.

The additions reflect the many facets that drive asset classes as well as the way they interact, acknowledging that alternatives is not a single asset class, but then neither is fixed income.

In the context of factor-based asset allocation private equity has more in common with equities than say real estate.

The impact of adding alternatives is significant, Shepard says.

“By weight alternatives is about 10-15 per cent of the average portfolio, but by risk, especially active risk is it more like 90 per cent of risk.”

MSCI will work with the Burgiss Group for its private equity data and will add global private equity to the US private equity data it already incorporates in the model.

The new integrated model now also incorporates the main drivers of risk and return.

“At the highest level we have identified the main drivers of risk return. These are generalised equity (public and private), pure alternatives, and for fixed income we have credit, interest rates and break-even inflation.”

Pure alternatives are defined as the things that capture the market, such as the strategy component of hedge funds.

“There is a surprising amount of commonality among strategies, it’s the strategy beta.”

While credit is an area where credit and equity could be a single factor, the crisis showed that spreads in credit were driven by liquidity which was hard to understand in terms of underlying equity. For this reason, while they are “two sides of the same coin”, they were identified as separate factors.

One of the important facets of the factor methodology is that while it acknowledges the model needs to incorporate detail, such as that German and Greek bonds are not the same, it doesn’t need that detail on a daily basis.

“It attributes risk to macro factors and a residual factor which is like the highlight on a dashboard telling you to look beyond the hood,” Shepard says.

“There are four tiers with more factors depending on what question you are asking. The residual is there to tell you if you need to ask a question, that is a new feature added to BarraOne. “

It is used in two settings, the standard risk setting and the context of risk-factor based asset allocation, he says.

MSCI recently acquired IPD, with data across real estate and infrastructure and farmland and timberland.

“This has been a great benefit to us. In real estate the three golden words are location location, location. For us the three rules of success are data, data data.”

It has also changed the methodology as it applies to private assets, so that they are “de-smoothed”, to account for the subjectivity of private asset valuations being based on a model rather than a market transaction.

“The key is that in the long run valuations and value have to come together,” he says. “There is much higher standalone and correlation risk and this has implications for asset allocation. Private real estate being uncorrelated with other markets is not reflected in the data once you account for smoothing.”

The risk-adjusted benefit of being able to rebalance a portfolio is worth tens of basis points, according to new research that assigns risk and return measures to liquidity so it can be analysed alongside other portfolio decisions. The award-winning research is now being used by large sovereign wealth funds, to determine the value they should put on allocations to illiquid assets.

 

In their paper, Liquidity and portfolio choice: a unified approach, authors Will Kinlaw, Mark Kritzman and David Turkington, use “shadow allocations” of liquidity treating it as an asset or liability depending on the purpose.

They say that liquidity can be deployed for offensive or defensive purposes, where an offensive use improves the optimality of the baseline (examples would be tactical or dynamic asset allocation), and the defensive restores optimality (such as rebalancing).

The purpose of the use of liquidity, will determine whether it is treated in the study as a liability or asset. For a defensive allocation of liquidity it becomes a shadow liability.

The authors use this framework to analyse liquidity, and the implications for asset allocation.

Because there is limited data, and theory, when it comes to shadow liquidity assets, the authors relied on simulations for their case studies.

One example considered a case where an investor could continually rebalance compared to where they couldn’t.

Thousands of Monte Carlo simulations later, they found that the risk-adjusted benefit of being able to rebalance is worth about 40 basis points.

“Being able to rebalance is an important use of liquidity, and this shows that benefit,” Will Kinlaw, senior managing director and head of the portfolio and risk management group at State Street Global Exchange, says.

“This research shows that liquidity is a concern for all investors, and it’s just not to meet cash needs, but it’s to capitalise on opportunities.”

Kinlaw, and his co-authors Mark Kritzman chief executive of Windham Capital Management and professor at MIT Sloan School and David Turkington a fellow State Street managing director, won the 2013 Peter L. Bernstein award for the paper published in the Journal of Portfolio Management.

One of the more important, and practical, implications of the study is it frames liquidity into the language of risk and return. This means it can be examined in the same context as other portfolio decisions.

“It shows that liquidity is ‘X’ so you know what you are foregoing. You can ask how much to allocate to illiquidity, or you can also frame it in the context of ‘given our allocations how much should we demand from illiquid assets’,” Kinlaw says. “We are working with a number of clients including a large sovereign wealth fund, which is using it to assess what premium to demand from illiquid assets. It has very practical applications.”

In the past liquidity has been assessed as a separate part of the portfolio.

“But we think this makes for arbitrary decisions regarding risk and return,” Kinlaw says. “What we are doing is accounting for reality, liquidity does have risk and return characteristics.”

The authors are not arguing that liquidity should trump other portfolio assessments, but that risk and return assumptions should be adjusted for liquidity.

“Some investors ask isn’t it already priced in, for example Treasury bonds versus mortgage instruments. And this is true, but only for the average investor. Every investor has different needs and liquidity profiles.”

By way of example, Kinlaw says given an asset or portfolio and its return is forecast with perfect insight, then if the asset is completely illiquid, it can’t be traded, then the return you get will reflect the forecast.

But if it is tradeable, then at the end of the year the return is not that of the asset, but something higher because it can be traded.

“It is a measure of the benefit the investor has from holding the asset,” he says.

The analysis has implications for asset allocation and portfolio construction decisions.

The authors looked at model portfolios with allocations to listed equities, fixed income, private equity and hedge funds, which are considered illiquid because of lock-up periods.

“Portfolio optimisations show an allocation to 80 per cent hedge funds and private equity. This is because the optimiser only sees risk measured as standard deviation. It doesn’t account for many things, including liquidity. Our model layers in liquidity considerations in the shadow asset allocation, which results in a reduction in the allocation to those assets.”

 

The winning paper was chosen through a blind review process by an independent committee that included Gary Gastineau (ETF Consultants), William Goetzmann (Yale School of Management) and Ronald Kahn (Blackrock).

Each year conexust1f.flywheelstaging.com interviews CIOs and executive staff of the world’s largest asset owners, gaining insight into their investment strategy, asset allocation and demands from managers. In 2013 funds were focused on costs, increased portfolio look-through, “partnering” with managers and how to position fixed income exposures. This selection of quotes from CIOs of some of the world’s largest investors reflects the mood of 2013.

 

 

 

“If you give managers freedom to make more decisions, they frequently make more poor decisions. Having said that, I think we have also gone too far in giving them boundaries.”

Chris Ailman, chief investment officer of $170-billion Californian Teachers Fund, CalSTRS.

Read the full story here

“For us, we see a particular advantage in focusing on the total portfolio while bringing our investment expertise to bear through deep relationships with our external managers. It helps us avoid getting dragged in to implementation issues in a way that can be distracting and take us away from what we believe we really need to think about.”

David Neal, chief investment officer, the $91 billion Australian Future Fund

Read the full story here

 

A lot of fund manager selection can be about who rings the personal assistant of the CIO the most.”

Alex Gracian, chief investment officer of the London Pension Fund Authority

Read the full story here

“Valuation is relatively basic but the majority of investors don’t pay attention to it; they favour glamorous stocks and that’s accepted because of the short-term pressures.”

Ronald Wuijster, chief client officer, APG, which manages €314 billion ($480 billion)

Read the full story here

 

“The secular bull market in bonds, over three decades old now, is over.”

John Skjervem, chief investment officer of Oregon State Treasury’s investment division which runs $80 billion worth of state investments including the $62-billion Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund

Read the full story here

“We do believe that better governance means better returns.”

Michael Brakebill, chief investment officer of the $36.6-billion Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System

Read the full story here

 

“Within a context of increasing water scarcity and adverse water related events, the fund’s long-term returns may be impacted through company specific risks or increased systematic risks driven by these externalities. Mapping and understanding such risks can be a challenge but is fundamental in supporting investment decisions.”

Jan Thomsen, chief risk officer at 4,714 billion kroner ($810 billion) Norges Bank Investment Management

Read the full story here

 

Our philosophy for active or passive management is based on efficiencies of the market, the ease of replicating the benchmark, cost and the ability of active managers to add value.”

Lee Ann Palladino, chief investment officer at the$26-billion Hartford-based State of Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds

Read the full story here

“Good investment ideas draw capital, but so do bad ones. When it comes to investing, there is sometimes a first-mover disadvantage.”

Theresa Whitmarsh, executive director of the $92.1-billion Washington State Investment Board

Read the full story here

 

We primarily invest in price/valuation gaps where we are confident that gap truly exists. We are more contrarian in our investing than trend or momentum driven. We were long equities in March 2009 when the natural position was the foetal position.”

Adrian Orr, chief executive, the NZ$24 billion ($19 billion) New Zealand Super

Read the full story here

 

“We have some old-fashioned economics to ground what we’re doing and why sustainability matters,” she says. “It is ground-breaking stuff this investment beliefs work. We want to be engaged owners. This is a transformation, it’s like the oil tanker turning around.”

Anne Simpson, director of corporate governance at $266-billion CalPERS

Read the full story here

“We spend of a lot of time evaluating performance and analysing our costs and fees. It’s prudent and it’s what Project SAVE is all about.”

Michael Trotsky, executive director and chief investment officer of the Massachusetts Pension Reserve Investment Management Board, managers of Massachusetts $53.2-billion Pensions Reserves Investment Trust fund. He refers to a process which has saved PRIM around $29 million in fees this financial year, and should be on course to save approximately $40 million per year once fully in place.

Read the full story here

“We will increase our private equity holdings further, no doubt about it.”

Niels Erik Petersen, Unipension’s chief investment officer, of the DKK 95-billion ($16.4 billion) investor Unipension

Read the full story here

“We want to take more risk when we can…”

Toine van der Stee, director of the €16.5-billion ($21.2-billion), KLM pension fund

Read the full story here

“The hedge fund strategy is an evolving area where we are working with the university.”

Bill Moriarty, the chief executive and president of University of Toronto Asset Management

Read the full story here

“If you believe in an emerging market, we feel this should reflect itself in an appreciation of the currency.”

Sunil Krishnan, head of market strategy at $62-billion British Telecom Pension Scheme Management Limited

Read the full story here

 

Nobel Prize winner, Robert Merton, has thrown down the gauntlet. He claims that by focusing on a retirement income goal he can beat any competitor that is managing a 70:30 portfolio that has wealth accumulation as the goal. Do you dare take him on?

The defined contribution pension management industry has it wrong, according to Professor Robert Merton.

“There is so much competition over getting alpha, but everyone has access to the same hedge funds. Give up! That’s not what is important,” Merton says.

Instead the focus should be on goals-based investing, he says. And the right goal for most people is an inflation-protected income at retirement, not wealth accumulation. It’s something Merton talks about with a passion that has supported a 45-year career researching risk and lifecycle investing.

Conventional retirement fund investments focus on wealth accumulation and measure risk as volatility of the portfolio, he says. In this context success looks like maximising the size of each individual’s account balance.

Instead, Merton proposes a new generation defined contribution plan – called Managed DC – which puts retirement income squarely in focus as both the investment goal and as the measure of success. Risk then becomes falling short of achieving the income you need. Managing retirement funds in such a way will provide a much higher degree of certainty of actually succeeding, he argues.

“The secret sauce of Managed DC is that if you are willing to agree on a goal, say for example $58,000 per year protected against inflation in retirement, and my competitors and I start with the same Sharpe ratio, but I use dynamic strategies based on the goal versus a 70:30 portfolio, then I promise you I’ll beat them,” he says. “Focusing on the goal is like having 20 per cent more assets.”

Merton, who has spent his entire career writing and researching lifecycle investing first publishing in 1969. These days he is the School of Management Distinguished Professor of Finance at the MIT Sloan School of Management. He is also the University Professor Emeritus at Harvard University,

In his opinion the retirement management industry should change its language, and techniques, to focus on income, and to look at earnings for spending and lifestyle.

“For people outside the financial services industry that is normal, but for the entire history of defined contribution the language is about portfolio returns, not income.”

Most lifecycle products use age as the only trigger for investment allocation differences, but Merton argues income is an essential piece of information.

“Adding income a big step up from age alone,” he says. “For example, a 34-year old woman earning $168,000 is very different to a 34-year old man earning $56,000. Age doesn’t tell you nearly enough to make a sensible asset allocation.

With target date funds the investment mix is such that as you get older you get more conservative because of age alone. That’s wrong. Actually the prime drivers of fund asset allocation are the risk composition of total retirement assets. That includes future contributions and how close you are to fully funding the income goal.”

In this way Merton argues that what drives the asset mix is not age, but the amount of remaining human capital and the funding ratio.

“Although they are correlated why go on a correlation? Go to the primary drivers including income and account balance., Those give you all the answers.”

He believes that defaulted defined contribution funds can get that income information from the administrator, and that getting that information is really important.

Merton who co-founded Long-Term Capital Management, is currently resident scientist at Dimensional Fund Advisors, where he is developing this next-generation, integrated pension-management solution system that addresses the deficiencies associated with traditional defined benefit and defined contribution plans.

He says the motivation for the Managed DC concept came out of the 2000-02 crisis when worldwide stock markets fell and interest rates fell at the same time, an experience repeated in the global financial crisis of 2008-09.

“Traditional DC was not well set up to serve as the core retirement product,” he says, adding in the US defined contribution was originally a supplement to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) as a footnote for higher paid executives motivated by tax.

As corporate funds were struggling with their offering, Merton saw an opportunity.

“What would a CFO rather hear from a manager – a 17 per cent return alongside a 10 per cent fall in the funding ratio, or a 3 per cent return alongside a rise in the funding ratio? The CEO wants to hear that they don’t have to contribute. The funding ratio looks at the income.” Traditionally defined contribution plans only looks at one side of the balance sheet, the asset side. In contrast Merton’s Managed DC borrows some of the elements of defined benefit schemes and takes into account the liabilities side in asset allocation.

To put his ideas into action, Merton chose Dimensional, an independent, transparent firm founded on financial science, something dear to his heart. (Merton received the Alfred Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1997 for a new method to determine the value of derivatives.)

“For innovating you need the right culture, and Dimensional has the quality people, it’s transparent and has had great success,” he says. “I want to succeed at this, I don’t like the idea of failure, I don’t plan on failing.”

The basic premise of “Managed DC” is income for life adequate for a good retirement, rather than unlimited risk taken in static wealth maximisation strategies. And the investment strategy is the dynamic management of each member’s asset allocation.

“You have to stay live, not fixed, and continuously innovate on a cost benefit basis. It is the art of the science,” he says. “Believe in better not best. It is not realistic to be perfect.”

 

 

 

Robert Merton’s work can be accessed here

 

Because it’s nearly Christmas, and conexust1f.flywheelstaging.com will close down for the holidays, we thought this research piece was apt.

Elroy Dimson, Peter L. Rousseau, and Christophe Spaenjers, have looked at the impact of aging on wine prices and the performance of wine as a long-term investment, using a unique historical database for five long-established Bordeaux wines that they construct from auction and dealer prices.

The findings suggest that the non-financial “psychic return” to holding wines that are substantially beyond maturity is at least 1 per cent.

Using an arithmetic repeat-sales regression, the researchers estimate an annualised return to wine investments (net of insurance and storage costs) of 4.1 per cent between 1900 and 2012.

Wine underperforms equities over this period, but outperforms government bonds, art, and stamps. Wine and equity returns are positively correlated.

To access the research (open a bottle) and click here The price of wine