Systematic rebalancing is not necessarily best way to go

The value of systematic rebalancing of portfolios to bring them back closer to strategic allocations has been questioned in new research by Morgan Stanley.The research, by Morgan Stanley’s Martin Leibowitz and Anthony Bova, indicates that portfolios which have not been rebalanced over a 10-year period, have either outperformed those which were rebalanced quarterly or closely matched them for returns.

The main reason for this is that the non-rebalanced portfolios capture the value in market momentum which tends to be lost through rebalancing according to a fixed time schedule.

The authors recommend, instead, that institutional and other investors have a program of “slow rebalancing”, which will avoid much of the dangers of not rebalancing in a bubble but at the same time capture some of the upside from momentum.

They say: “The no-rebalancing strategy has disadvantages in its greater volatility, its beta drift and its intrinsic ‘untidiness’. However, the surprising finding is the extent to which the non-rebalanced portfolio values either exceed or closely match those obtained with more standard rebalancing strategies.

“To the extent that these results can be generalised beyond this specific model, they are supportive of a more flexible and more strategic ‘slow balancing’ approach to realigning a fund’s structure over time.”

The study indicates that setting ranges, such that rebalancing occurs after the portfolio reaches a certain maximum or minimum value, has some benefit but this, too, is not significant compared with either non-rebalanced or quarterly rebalanced portfolios.

Sponsored Content

Slow balancing involves the investor deferring the rebalancing action to a time when it more closely coincides with general revisions in the policy portfolio.

This therefore requires a more active approach to the allocation by the investor, along the lines of a dynamic asset allocation – looking at a shorter time horizon than strategic asset allocation but longer than tactical asset allocation.

Details of the study can be viewed at www.morganstanley.com

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