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

How to avoid being the butt of a carbon price joke

Executive director of the Asset Owners Disclosure Project and business director of the Climate Institute, Julian Poulter, aruges the progress of carbon legislation in Australia is a wake-up call to asset owners around the globe. mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

What price is right for a low carbon future

Australia’s lower house of Parliament passed a carbon tax yesterday. It prices carbon at $23 a ton. India’s carbon tax is 80 rupees (about $1) a ton. So what is the appropriate price of carbon? According to Robert Litterman in his Financial Analysts Journal editorial, it is a complex equation that should reflect fundamental uncertainty

Déjà vu as Wilshire warns CalPERS of ARS portfolio risks

CalPERS’ absolute return strategies program is over-reliant on quantitative tools, inadequately staffed and may be overweight in certain strategies and risks, according to Wilshire’s annual review of the portfolio.mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Investors have more than just voting in their engagement armoury, study finds

Institutional investors are using just a fraction of the “weapons” they have at their disposal when they engage with companies, and need to use the entire proxy proposal process better, Rob Bauer told attendees at a recent PRI conference.mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

DiNapoli defends DB schemes

New York State Comptroller, Thomas DiNapoli, has defended public defined benefit schemes, saying that they are not a drag on state government finances, are sustainable and form a vital part of the US economy.mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored Content scnative1 scnative2 scnative3

Funds seek the elixir of scale

The investment firepower and cost savings promised by economies of scale have enraptured the Australian superannuation industry. This has instilled in some funds an urge to merge in order to enjoy the benefits of being large. However some investment chiefs believe that bigger size brings a new set of problems that can undermine performance.mrec4inarticleinline Sponsored

Previous