Rebalancing not so simple with diverse beta sources

Simple reblancing of portfolios back to strategic ranges after a market rise or fall is not as simple as you may think, according to a research note from brokers Morgan Stanley. The new investment required after a fall may be surprisingly large.

Morgan Stanley has long been an advocate of slow rebalancing by pension funds and in the latest research note the broker says that when a fund uses a slow rebalancing strategy, the portfolios with a high beta variance enjoy the greatest positive “convexity” in asset value.

What this means is that certain portfolios, such as those with a high dispersion of beta sources – with high beta variance – will lead to more desirable lower betas in falling markets and higher beta values in rising markets.

The researchers say that the movement of a fund’s beta from its intended value can involve a “second order convexity” effect depending on the distribution of beta components within the portfolio, giving an extra kick to the movement.

This affects the amount of rebalancing needed to bring the portfolio back to its target beta after a market move.

“Rebalancing liquidity is often underestimated,” they say. “For example, after a 30 per cent market decline, a 7 per cent equity purchase is needed to bring a standard 60:40 portfolio back to its initial 60 per cent equity exposure. With higher convexity, the required liquidity for rebalancing would be even greater.”

Sponsored Content

It is more difficult and complicated controlling tracking error and maintaining a prescribed beta target for funds with high beta variance, with a high dispersion of beta sources.

“On the other hand, a high beta variance leads to the more desirable beta values in falling markets and higher beta values in rising markets,” the researchers say.

The beta shift after a market move can be directionally asymmetrical and surprisingly large in magnitude. But the “second order convexity” effect can also come into play, depending on the specific distribution of beta components within the portfolio.

Leave a Comment

Sort content by

Tennessee finally enters private equity game

The $28 billion Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System is a late entrant into private equity with its debut $25 million allocation to the Draper Fisher Jurvetson Fund X, occurring at the same time the fund has cut its allocation to short term assets by 5 per cent. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

UN fund increases equities exposure

The $37 billion United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund increased its allocation to equities by 4 per cent in the past quarter, at the expense of real estate and bonds, and is now overweight the asset class, as it continues to support active management. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

CalPERS measures liqudity levels

  About half of the $201 billion in assets managed by CalPERS is available to liquidate within 90 days according to a new total fund liquidity assessment to be presented to the investment committee as part of the quarterly risk management update, which also shows the fund to have a total leverage of 19 per

Mapping the risks of bigger government

Bigger appetites for absolute return strategies, new attitudes to risk and governance, and the onset of major regulation – these were the forces for change identified in Watson Wyatt’s 2008 study, Defining Moments. But the social fallout from the financial crisis has sparked another phenomenon that could heavily impact institutional investors, according to Tim Hodgson

LACERS alters allocations to hedge against inflation

The $9.3 billion Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System will tilt its asset allocation to hedge against inflation and will discuss altering its investment policy to explicitly address inflation at each annual asset allocation review. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Massachusetts special commission recommends system changes

A recently completed report by a special commission into the appropriateness of the Massachusetts retirement system contemplated the defined benefit versus defined contribution benefit design, concluding that the existing defined benefit structure was optimal, in part because it put the portfolio management in the hands of professionals. The report entitled, The Special Commission to Study

Previous