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

Real estate sustainability

The Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark (GRESB), which will launch its third annual sustainability survey today, has announced a partnership with the Global Reporting Initiative to enhance sustainability reporting. The survey allows participating fund managers to benchmark their portfolio on environmental and social performance against their peers. The GRESB Foundation is backed by 30 institutional

Top1000funds.com audience using social media for business

Thank you to all our readers who responded to the Top1000funds.com Audience Behaviour Survey. The survey’s overall aim was to allow us to better tailor our portfolio of products and events to you our readers. Some of the interesting findings included that our typical reader is aged between 41 and 50 and earns between $96,000

Global property lures investors

Property investors should look beyond the current languid growth in developed market economies and position their portfolios for a recovery in the world economy in 2013 and 2014, Mark Roberts the global head of RREEF Real Estate says. Roberts, who also chairs the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries (NCREIF), points to initial yield

Why Global Investment Matters

The recent rally on global markets does not mean that the risk environment has abated Towers Watson’s global head of investment Carl Hess has warned. Speaking from New York prior to the launch of the consultant’s report Global Investment Matters, Hess says that while the risk of the imminent collapse of financial markets has lessened,

Extracting value from managers

Three funds find effective ways to get better value from staff, co-investment and private markets. The Danish ATP, Australian Sunsuper and the Teachers Retirement System of Texas are among the funds looking at innovative ways to extract value and interact with the managers of their private equity allocations. Institutional investors are increasingly seeking new ways

Limited partners hold fee-bargaining power

In a harsh capital-raising climate, ATP Private Equity Partners and TRS have different startegies on how to drive hard bargains on private equity fees. Institutional investors are gaining concessions on private equity management fees, with a near-record number of funds on the road seeking funds resulting in a shift in bargaining power to limited partners.

Previous