Redefining indexes to reflect reality

The investment industry should be constantly looking at the impact of technology on the status quo. Just because indexes have been defined as cap-weighted portfolios, doesn’t mean that can’t change. In fact, the evolution in portfolio management necessitates a change in thinking with regard to the definition of indexes, in particular so risk management can be decoupled from alpha generation. In a new paper that argues for a new definition of what constitutes an index, Andrew Lo, professor of finance at MIT Sloan School of Management pushes the boundaries by not only suggesting change, but by demonstrating a new functional definition for indexes and the benefits, and pitfalls, of doing so.

Technological advances in telecommunications, securities exchanges and algorithmic trading have facilitated a host of new investment products that resemble theme-based passive indexes but which depart from traditional market-cap-weighted portfolios.

Lo proposes broadening the definition of an index using a functional perspective. He says that any portfolio strategy that satisfies three properties should be considered an index:

(1) It is completely transparent

(2) It is investable

(3) It is systematic, or it is entirely rules-based and contains no judgment or unique investment skill.

Sponsored Content

He says that portfolios satisfying these properties that are not market-cap-weighted are given a new name: “dynamic indexes”.

“This functional definition widens the universe of possibilities and, most importantly, decouples risk management from alpha generation. Passive strategies can and should be actively risk managed, and I provide a simple example of how this can be achieved,” he says in the paper.

“Dynamic indexes also create new challenges of which the most significant is backtest bias, and I conclude with a proposal for managing this risk.”

Lo’s paper looks at a brief history of indexes and index funds, defines an index and looks at the separation of alpha, beta and sigma.

He says that indexes have evolved over time and today, indexes serve many purposes. In addition to their original function of information compression, indexes act as indicators of time-varying risk versus reward, and as a benchmark for performance evaluation, attribution and enhancements. And since the advent of the Capital Asset Pricing Model, indexes have been used to construct passive investment vehicles and as building blocks for portfolio management.

But, as Lo and many others have pointed out, the advent of “smart beta” need not be smart at all.

He says that the lack of risk management – or the fact “smart beta” is often accompanied by “dumb sigma” – is perhaps the greatest weakness of traditional passive investing.

“A new framework is needed for thinking about indexes, indexation, and the distinction between active and passive investing that reflects the new reality of technology-leveraged investing.

“The starting point for this new framework is to generalize the definition of a financial index by focusing on its basic function. If an index is to be used as a benchmark against which managers are judged, it must have three key characteristics: it is transparent, investable, and systematic.”

 

To access the full paper click here

What is an index?

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

Sovereign Development Funds: designing strategic investment institutions

The hunt for alpha is leading traditional investors toward more innovative strategies and operating models. And, significantly, one potential source of inspiration for long-term investors has come from an unconventional place: the community of sovereign development funds (SDFs). In this paper academics from Stanford University provide readers with analytical frameworks that can assist in the

Capitalising on institutional co-investment platforms

Co-investment is often perceived as referring to institutional investors investing alongside their external asset managers in companies, but increasingly it refers to investment responsibilities being shared among peer investors, as long-term institutional investors are forming co-investment partnerships with the specific objective of deploying capital collaboratively into attractive investment opportunities. These collaborative partnerships seem to be an

State pension funds tilt towards politically-connected stocks

It is well documented that local bias exists in US state pension fund holdings, but now an article in the Journal of Financial Economics (forthcoming) finds evidence not only of local bias, but bias towards politically-connected stocks.  Not only that, but the article finds that political bias is detrimental to fund performance. “Political bias is

The power of knowledge management

Funds management is often discussed in the context of it being part art and part science, however most of the literature centres around the science, the finance, of funds management. The premise of active management is that skills and knowledge are paramount to capturing excess returns above the benchmark. But despite this premise, little is

Worldwide diversity in funded pension plans

There is a huge diversity in pension system design across the globe, reflecting historical, cultural and institutional diversity. There is much to be learned by each of the different systems, so in order to compare the benefits of various systems, two authors from APG in the Netherlands postulate a new classification of four role models

Re-intermediating investment management

In this paper, Ashby Monk and Rajiv Sharma from the Global Projects Center at Stanford University, examine the balance of power among the various parties in the private assets investment food chain. They argue that fund managers have too much power, as do the consultants that act as gatekeepers to those managers. While the authors

Previous