Dynamic allocation using minimum volatility

Active managers who are increasingly on the ropes as beta strategies encroach upon their alpha returns can take heart from the latest research from index provider MSCI. In the latest insight from Barra, Dynamic Allocation Strategies Using Minimum Volatility: Detecting Regime Shifts to Enhance Active & Passive Investing, Philippe Durand and John Regino argue that although beta has evolved to erode the role of active management, dynamic allocation can add real value within low volatility strategies by strategically targeting periods of outperformance.

Demand for low volatility strategies has ballooned since the financial crisis pushed investors towards their higher returns and reduced risks around those returns. Assets in low-volatility exchange-traded funds have jumped to over $12 billion under management and are accelerating. Research from BlackRock shows the average monthly inflow in 2011 was $100 million compared to 2012 when this rose to $400 million per month, surging again in the first four months of 2013 to $1.6 billion. Most investors have built their exposure to low volatility via cheap, passive strategies but active management can also pay off. “Minimum volatility doesn’t outperform every period. It’s hard to say when it will and sometimes you have to wait a year or even two. We decided to find ways to time our allocation to minimum volatility at the point it does work,” explains Regino, vice president of portfolio management analytics at MSCI.

To test their thesis, Regino and Durand timed switched between a low volatility portfolio especially tailored for dynamic allocation and the parent index, MSCI USA. In the first trial they set a value of 30 on the CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) – a common measure of volatility on the US equity market – as the trigger to switch out of the index to the minimum volatility portfolio. “This level is historically associated with a high level of market stress. Periods with high VIX levels may coincide with periods of risk aversion in the market, potentially resulting in outperformance of the minimum volatility portfolio,” they say.

A second strategy switched to the minimum volatility portfolio and reducing total risk when the index was in decline, dropping below its six-month simple moving average (6M SMA). The last variation used an allocation decision that was based on the prior three-month performance of both portfolios, selecting the one with the higher return. Results from the three tests showed the latter two strategies performed best, capturing the superior returns of the minimum volatility portfolio but with much lower risk relative to the MSCI USA Index. Although the VIX captured volatility spikes quickly, it was slow to react once volatility had dissipated. “Both the 6M SMA and Momentum strategies exhibited higher information ratios than the minimum volatility portfolio. They captured the superior returns of the minimum volatility portfolio, but with much lower risk relative to the MSCI USA Index,” says Regino and Durand.

Regino says their research is only an illustration and says “active managers already have their own, subtle ways of thinking about timing”. Yet the basic theory is already apparent in some investment strategies, such as the $28.4-billion Arizona State Retirement System, which switches between its various risk premia indices at opportune times using Barra models. The key barriers to switching strategies are trading costs and ensuring the “maximisation of upside capture and minimisation of downside capture”. During lower volatility periods, the costs incurred by trading are also high relative to the potential performance benefit. The best active strategy would avoid excessive turnover during low volatility periods.

“In high volatility periods, the returns were greater in magnitude and trading decisions would have a larger impact, so a switching strategy would be more effective,” says the duo. But during spikes in volatility, the evidence is compelling for those managers looking to add extra value. “None of the risk premia tells you anything about timing,” concludes Regino.

Sponsored Content

Leave a Comment

GIC, Temasek eye trillions of growth in climate adaptation market

GIC, Temasek eye trillions of growth in climate adaptation market

Singapore’s two largest asset owners, GIC and Temasek, see attractive opportunities in climate adaptation solutions – a relatively underfunded area compared to decarbonisation. The former has already made selective adaptation investments and said the opportunity set across public and private debt and equity could increase to $9 trillion by 2050.

Sort content by

Macro sensitive portfolio strategies

This research paper by MSCI defines macro-economic risk as the change in asset value due to persistent shocks to real economic growth. This definition underscores the role of long horizons in macroeconomic risk and the principal issue facing investors: how should asset allocation respond to large macroeconomic shocks, given that their consequences are likely to

What is intergenerational justice?

In the paper Pension Funds, Sovereign-wealth Funds and Intergenerational Justice from the Norwegian School of Economics, those Scandinavians have come up with something better than the national alcohol monopoly: a natty new finance term. “Intergenerational justice” (try saying it thrice after a glass of aquavit) seems to refer to a combination of two things: a

Handy Sandy:
analysing the hurricane

When Hurricane Sandy descended on the east coast of the United States and headed inland, it forced the closure of all the nation’s financial markets. Christopher Finger and Oleg Ruben at MSCI thought this was important because, although there are plenty of precedents for natural disasters in terms of economic impact, the storm was singular

The procyclicality premium

Moving with business cycles, procyclical stocks have been found to yield higher average returns than countercyclical stocks. William Goetzmann and Akiko and Masahiro Watanabe use 50 years of real GDP growth expectations from economists’ surveys to determine forecasted economic states in order to avoid the effects of econometric forecasting model error. The scholars created a

Leverage aversion, efficient frontiers and the efficient region

This paper suggests a new specification for leverage aversion, which may better capture the unique risks of leverage. The authors also introduce mean-variance-leverage efficient frontiers, comparing them with conventional mean-variance efficient frontiers. They conclude that leverage aversion can have a large impact on portfolio choice. Leverage aversion, efficient frontiers and the efficient regionmrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content

Previous