Tag Archives: risk

Property and Casualty Industry Crowding

Property and casualty insurance company portfolios share a few systematic bets. These crowded bets are the main sources of the industry’s and many individual companies’ relative investment performance. Since the end of 2013, these exposures have cost the industry billions.

Identifying Property and Casualty Industry Crowding

This analysis of property and casualty (P&C) insurance industry portfolios resulted from collaboration with Peer Analytics, the only provider of accurate peer universe comparisons to the insurance industry.

In analyzing property and casualty industry portfolios, we follow the approach of our earlier articles on crowding: We created a position-weighted portfolio (P&C Aggregate) consisting of all property and casualty insurance portfolios reported in regulatory filings. P&C Aggregate covers over 1,300 companies with total portfolio value over $300 billion. We analyzed P&C Aggregate’s risk relative to Russell 3000 index (a close proxy for the U.S. Market) using AlphaBetaWorks’ Statistical Equity Risk Model to identify sources of crowding.

Property and Casualty Industry 2014-2015 Underperformance

P&C Aggregate systematic (factor) performance lagged the market by over 4%, or over $12 billion, since the end of 2013. This is largely due to low (short, underweight) exposures to Market (Beta), Health, and Technology factors:

Chart of the factor returns of the Property and Casualty Industry’s Aggregate Portfolio relative to Market during 2014-2015

2014-2015 Underperformance due to Property and Casualty Industry’s Portfolio Factor Exposures

Below are the main contributing exposures, in percent:

Factor	Return	Portfolio Exposure	Benchmark Exposure	Relative Exposure	Portfolio Return	Benchmark Return	Relative Return
Market	16.64	91.90	99.97	-8.07	15.25	16.63	-1.39
Health	21.12	6.59	13.09	-6.50	1.30	2.58	-1.29
Technology	5.93	8.93	19.10	-10.17	0.53	1.13	-0.60
FX	21.94	-3.72	-1.19	-2.53	-0.75	-0.24	-0.51
Energy	-25.18	7.26	5.67	1.59	-1.99	-1.56	-0.43

For some companies, these exposures may be due to conscious portfolio and risk management processes. For others, they may have been unintended. For industry as a whole, robust risk and portfolio management would have generated billions in additional returns.

Property and Casualty Industry Year-end 2013 Crowding

Property and casualty industry’s recent crowding has been costly in practice. P&C Aggregate’s relative factor bets have cost it over 4% since year-end 2013. The industry made $12 billion less than it would have if it had simply matched market factor exposures.

Year-end 2013 Systematic (Factor) Exposures

Below are P&C Aggregate’s most significant factor exposures (Portfolio in red) relative to Russell 3000 (Benchmark in gray) as of 12/31/2013:

Chart of the factor exposures contributing most to the factor variance of Property and Casualty Industry’s Aggregate Portfolio relative to Market on 12/31/2013

Factors Contributing Most to the Relative Portfolio Risk for Property and Casualty Industry Aggregate on 12/31/2013

P&C Aggregate’s factor exposures drive its systematic returns in various scenarios. The exposures above (underweight Market and Technology factors) suggest the P&C industry is preparing for technology crash akin to 2001. This and other historical regimes provide the stress tests below, similar to those now required of numerous managers.

Property and Casualty Industry Year-end 2014 Crowding

Year-end 2014 Systematic (Factor) Exposures

Property and casualty industry portfolio turnover is low. Consequently, industry factor exposures at year-end 2014 were close to those at year-end 2013. Below are P&C Aggregate’s most significant factor exposures (Portfolio in red) relative to Russell 3000 (Benchmark in gray) as of 12/31/2014:

Factors Contributing Most to the Relative Portfolio Risk for Property and Casualty Industry Aggregate on 12/31/2014

The main exposures of the property and casualty industry were: short/underweight Market (Beta), long/overweight Size (large companies), short Health, and short Technology. The industry crowds towards large and low-beta Consumer and Financials stocks:

Factor	Portfolio Exposure	Benchmark Exposure	Relative Exposure	Factor Volatility	Share of Absolute Factor Variance	Share of Absolute Total Variance	Share of Relative Factor Variance	Share of Relative Total Variance
Market	90.39	99.97	-9.58	13.44	98.18	96.21	55.19	26.60
Size	13.32	-1.01	14.33	8.03	-0.91	-0.90	46.71	22.51
Health	7.68	13.09	-5.41	6.91	0.29	0.28	6.19	2.98
Technology	9.31	19.10	-9.79	5.80	-0.06	-0.06	4.16	2.00
Mining	1.54	0.63	0.91	15.61	-0.20	-0.19	1.76	0.85
Energy	3.93	5.67	-1.74	10.47	1.04	1.02	1.62	0.78
Consumer	27.11	23.04	4.08	3.91	-0.68	-0.66	1.53	0.74
Finance	21.48	18.92	2.56	5.48	-1.93	-1.89	1.49	0.72
Value	1.52	0.78	0.73	13.45	-0.04	-0.04	0.61	0.29

Scenario Analysis: 2000-2001 Outperformance

Given property and casualty industry’s under-weighting of Market and Technology, it would experience its highest outperformance in an environment similar to the 2001 technology crash. In this environment, industry’s systematic exposures would generate 2% outperformance:

Chart of the factor returns of the Property and Casualty Industry’s Aggregate Portfolio relative to Market during 2000-2001

2000-2001: Stress test of outperformance due to Property and Casualty Industry’s Portfolio Factor Exposures

Below are the main contributors to this outperformance, in percent:

Factor	Return	Portfolio Exposure	Benchmark Exposure	Relative Exposure	Portfolio Return	Benchmark Return	Relative Return
Technology	-36.83	9.31	19.10	-9.79	-3.96	-7.99	4.04
Market	-29.28	90.39	99.97	-9.58	-26.75	-29.27	2.52
Consumer	19.60	27.11	23.04	4.08	5.03	4.26	0.77
Finance	27.27	21.48	18.92	2.56	5.48	4.81	0.66
Value	42.82	1.52	0.78	0.73	0.58	0.30	0.28
Mining	32.25	1.54	0.63	0.91	0.47	0.20	0.28

Scenario Analysis: 1999-2000 Underperformance

Given property and casualty industry’s under-weighting of Market and Technology, it would experience its highest underperformance in an environment similar to the 1999 technology boom. In this environment, industry’s systematic exposures would underperform the market by more than 10%:

Chart of the factor returns of the Property and Casualty Industry’s Aggregate Portfolio relative to Market during 1999-2000

1999-2000: Stress test of underperformance due to Property and Casualty Industry’s Portfolio Factor Exposures

Below are the main contributors to this underperformance, in percent:

Factor	Return	Portfolio Exposure	Benchmark Exposure	Relative Exposure	Portfolio Return	Benchmark Return	Relative Return
Technology	53.04	9.31	19.10	-9.79	4.30	8.95	-4.66
Market	29.23	90.39	99.97	-9.58	26.22	29.22	-3.00
Size	-18.83	13.32	-1.01	14.33	-2.63	0.20	-2.83
Consumer	-16.57	27.11	23.04	4.08	-4.72	-4.02	-0.70
Finance	-20.59	21.48	18.92	2.56	-4.54	-4.01	-0.54
Energy	14.38	3.93	5.67	-1.74	0.62	0.90	-0.27
FX	6.84	-3.74	-1.19	-2.55	-0.25	-0.08	-0.17
Value	-14.04	1.52	0.78	0.73	-0.17	-0.09	-0.08
Mining	-8.54	1.54	0.63	0.91	-0.08	-0.03	-0.05
Communications	0.52	1.30	2.06	-0.76	0.02	0.04	-0.01

Conclusions

There is factor (systematic/market) crowding of property and casualty insurance companies’ long U.S. equity portfolios.
The main sources of systematic crowding are short (underweight) exposures to Market (Beta), Technology, and Health.
Since year-end 2013, factor exposures have cost the property and casualty industry over 4%, more than $12 billion, in underperformance.
For some portfolios, this may be a conscious risk management decision; for others, it is a costly oversight.
By managing its exposures in recent quarters, the industry would have generated billions in additional returns.

The information herein is not represented or warranted to be accurate, correct, complete or timely.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Copyright © 2012-2015, AlphaBetaWorks, a division of Alpha Beta Analytics, LLC. All rights reserved.
Content may not be republished without express written consent.

Sectors Most Exposed to USD FX

2 Replies

Currencies are major drivers of other assets. In periods of Foreign Exchange (FX) volatility, there is much discussion of its impact on specific equity sectors. Regrettably, market noise obscures true industry-specific performance, so FX impact is impossible to judge from simple index returns. But, by stripping away market effects, we observe relationships between pure sector returns and exchange rates:

Oil Drillers have the largest negative correlation with USD and one of the largest negative exposures.
Retailers have the highest positive correlation and one of the highest positive exposures.

Below we identify sectors most exposed to USD FX volatility and quantify these relationships.

Pure Sector Performance

As we illustrated earlier, market noise obscures relationships among individual sectors; it also conceals industry-specific performance. Without separating pure industry-specific returns from the market, robust risk management, performance attribution, and investment skill evaluation are impossible. When stripped of market effects, pure sector factors capture sector-specific trends and risks, including sector-specific USD exposures.

Equity Market’s USD FX Exposure

In addition to industry-specific foreign currency exposures, the equity market is significantly correlated with the currency market. Broad macroeconomic risks affect both exchange rates and the equity market. Below we plot U.S. Market returns against USD returns:

Chart of the correlation between USD FX and U.S. Equity Market

USD FX and U.S. Market Return Correlation

The beta of the U.S. Equity Market to USD FX is approximately -1.1: Over the past five years, when USD appreciated by 1% relative to a basket of foreign currencies, the U.S. Equity Market decreased by approximately 1.1%. USD FX variance explains approximately 38% of U.S. market variance. Perhaps more accurately, 38% of U.S. market variance is due to shared macroeconomic variables that drive both equities and currencies.

The exposure of an individual stock to USD FX is a combination of market, sector, and idiosyncratic effects.

Sectors Most Negatively Exposed to USD FX

Sectors with the highest negative correlation to USD are not surprising:

Chart of the correlation between pure sector factors and USD FX for the sectors most negatively correlated with USD FX

Pure Sector Factors Most Negatively Correlated with USD FX

Sector	USD FX Correlation	USD FX Correlation p-value	USD FX Beta	USD FX Beta p-value
Contract Drilling	-0.45	0.0002	-1.01	0.0006
Integrated Oil	-0.39	0.0011	-0.56	0.0011
Coal	-0.36	0.0021	-1.10	0.0004
Oilfield Services Equipment	-0.34	0.0042	-0.69	0.0059
Information Technology Services	-0.30	0.0109	-0.27	0.0373
Oil and Gas Production	-0.27	0.0174	-0.44	0.0131

(Note that we use the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient to evaluate correlations. Spearman’s correlation is robust against outliers, unlike the commonly used Pearson’s correlation. All correlations are significant; most at a 1% level or better.)

Oil Price USD FX Exposure

Commodity industries’ (oil, coal, etc) exposure to USD FX is due to their macroeconomic sensitivity, inflation sensitivity, and the global nature of the commodity markets. When USD strengthens, USD-denominated commodity prices have to decline in order for broad currency-weighted prices to remain unchanged. Consequently, commodity prices tend to be strongly negatively correlated with USD FX:

Chart of the correlation between historical USD FX returns and Oil Price returns

USD FX and Oil Price Return Correlation

The Oil Price’s beta to USD FX is -1.9: Over the past five years, when USD appreciated by 1% relative to a basket of foreign currencies, the Oil Price decreased by approximately 1.9%. 30% of Oil Price variance is explained by the shared macroeconomic variables that drive both commodity and currency markets.

Information Technology Sector USD FX Exposure

Information Technology Services is a typical export industry that suffers margin compression when USD-denominated costs increase relative to foreign-currency-denominated revenues. However, our analysis indicates this exposure is barely statistically significant with the beta’s p-value of 0.04. This exposure is also low: a 1% increase in USD FX is associated with approximately 0.3% decrease in the value of the sector.

Sectors Most Positively Exposed to USD FX

The list of sectors with the highest positive correlation to USD FX is less intuitive:

Chart of the correlation between USD FX returns and the returns of pure sectors factors most positively correlated with it

Pure Sector Factors Most Positively Correlated with USD FX

Sector	USD FX Correlation	USD FX Correlation p-value	USD FX Beta	USD FX Beta p-value
Real Estate Investment Trusts	0.29	0.0121	0.39	0.0101
Pulp and Paper	0.30	0.0102	0.52	0.0123
Aerospace and Defense	0.31	0.0084	0.32	0.0206
Beverages Alcoholic	0.33	0.0049	0.43	0.0025
Catalog Specialty Distribution	0.33	0.0045	0.41	0.0349
Department Stores	0.37	0.0020	0.70	0.0085

The list is dominated by import-sensitive sectors that benefit from a boost in U.S. consumer purchasing power from an appreciating USD. Also, when the USD appreciates, the associated drop in import prices boosts aerospace and defense companies, likely due to depreciating foreign inputs.

The presence of REITs on the list appears unexpected. Yet, it is due to the same shared variables as the negative correlation between REITs and oil prices: inflation, growth rates, and macroeconomic uncertainty.

Conclusion

Industry-specific performance is clouded by market noise.
By stripping away the effects of market and macroeconomic variables, we reveal the performance of Pure Sector Factors and their relationships with USD FX.
Commodity producers and information technology exporters most consistently suffer from appreciating USD.
Importers and retailers most consistently benefit from appreciating USD.

The information herein is not represented or warranted to be accurate, correct, complete or timely.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Copyright © 2012-2015, AlphaBetaWorks, a division of Alpha Beta Analytics, LLC. All rights reserved.
Content may not be republished without express written consent.

Hedge Fund Crowding – Q3 2014

Leave a reply

U.S. hedge funds share a few systematic and idiosyncratic long bets. These crowded bets are the main sources of aggregate hedge fund relative performance and of many individual funds’ returns. We survey the risk factors and the stocks behind most of Q3 2014 hedge fund herding.

Investors should treat crowded ideas with caution: Due to the congestion of their hedge fund investor base, crowded stocks tend to be more volatile and are vulnerable to mass selling. In addition, the risk-adjusted performance of consensus bets has been disappointing.

Identifying Crowding

This piece follows the approach of our earlier articles on fund crowding: We created an aggregate position-weighted portfolio (HF Aggregate) consisting of popular securities held by approximately 500 U.S. hedge funds with medium to low turnover. We then evaluated the HF Aggregate risk relative to the U.S. Market (Russell 3000) using AlphaBetaWorks’ Statistical Equity Risk Model and looked for evidence of crowding. Finally, we analyzed risk and calculated each fund’s tracking error relative to HF Aggregate to see which most closely resembled it.

Hedge Fund Aggregate Risk

The Q3 2014 HF Aggregate had 2.7% estimated future tracking error relative to the Market. Risk was evenly split between factor (systematic) and residual (idiosyncratic) bets:

Source	Volatility (%)	Share of Variance (%)
Factor	1.99	52.64
Residual	1.89	47.36
Total	2.74	100

This 2.7% tracking error estimate decreased by a fifth since our Q2 2014 estimate of 3.3%.

The HF Aggregate is nearly passive and will have a very hard time earning a typical fee. Because of this, investing in a broadly diversified portfolio of long-biased hedge funds is almost certainly a bad idea.

Hedge Fund Factor (Systematic) Crowding

Below are HF Aggregate’s (red) most significant factor exposures relative to the U.S. Market (gray):

Chart of the current and historical exposures of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate to factors contributing most to its risk relative to the U.S. Market.

Factors Contributing Most to the Relative Risk for U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate

We now consider the sources of HF Aggregate’s factor (systematic) variance relative to the U.S. Market. These are the components of the Factor Volatility in the above table. Market (higher beta) and Oil bets are responsible for over 80% of the factor risk relative to the U.S. Market:

Chart of the variance contribution for factors contributing most to the relative risk of the U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate

Factors Contributing Most to Relative Factor Variance of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate

The HF Aggregate has become considerably more systematically crowded since Q2 2014: The following factors are the top contributors to the Q3 2014 relative systematic risk:

Factor	HF Relative Exposure (%)	Portfolio Variance (%²)	Share of Systematic Variance (%)
Market	11.23	2.34	59.10
Oil Price	2.52	1.05	26.66
Finance	-7.04	0.33	8.46
Utilities	-3.19	0.24	6.11
Industrial	5.27	0.14	3.64
Other Factors		-0.14	-3.97
Total		3.96	100.00

The following were the top contributors to the Q2 2014 relative systematic risk:

Factor	HF Relative Exposure (%)	Portfoio Variance (%²)	Share of Systematic Variance (%)
Market	14.64	4.01	65.41
Size	-9.93	0.90	14.61
Utilities	-3.40	0.32	5.25
Technology	6.46	0.27	4.44
Oil Price	0.62	0.23	3.68
Other Factors		0.40	6.61
Total		6.13	100.00

Note that, following the poor performance of this factor throughout 2014, the short Size (small-cap) bet has been liquidated. Instead, hedge funds increased their long oil exposure by almost 2%. This crowded long oil bet has been another costly mistake.

Hedge Fund Residual (Idiosyncratic) Crowding

Turning to HF Aggregate’s residual variance relative to the U.S. Market, just seven stocks are responsible for half of the relative residual (idiosyncratic) risk:

Chart of the contribution to relative residual variance of the most significant residual (stock-specific) bets of the U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate

Stocks Contributing Most to Relative Residual Variance of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate

These stocks may be wonderful individual investments, but they have a lot of sway in the way HF Aggregate and individual funds closely matching it will move. They will also be affected by the whims of capital allocation into hedge funds as an asset class. Investors should be ready for seemingly inexplicable volatility in these names. The list is mostly unchanged from the previous quarter:

Symbol	Name	Exposure (%)	Share of Idiosyncratic Variance (%)
LNG	Cheniere Energy, Inc.	1.61	15.28
VRX	Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.	2.36	9.76
MU	Micron Technology, Inc.	1.45	6.34
AGN	Allergan, Inc.	2.82	6.08
BIDU	Baidu, Inc. Sponsored ADR Class A	1.30	3.83
HTZ	Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.	1.36	3.68
CHTR	Charter Communications, Inc. Class A	1.68	3.67
EBAY	eBay Inc.	1.62	2.58
AIG	American International Group, Inc.	1.37	2.17
CA:CP	Canadian Pacific Railway	1.74	2.02
SHPG	Shire PLC Sponsored ADR	1.28	1.70

Investors should be especially careful and perform particularly thorough due-diligence when investing in crowded names, since any losses will be magnified when hedge funds rush for the exits. Fund allocators should thoroughly investigate hedge fund managers’ crowding to avoid investing in a pool of undifferentiated bets.

AlphaBetaWorks assists in both tasks: Our sector crowding reports identify hedge fund herding in each equity sector. Our hedge fund crowding data identifies manager skill and differentiation and is predictive of future performance.

Summary

There is both factor (systematic/market) and residual (idiosyncratic/security-specific) crowding of long hedge fund portfolios.
Hedge funds have become more crowded and more passive in Q3 2014.
The main sources of factor crowding are: Market (higher beta) and Oil.
The main sources of residual crowding are: LNG, AGN, VRX, MU, BIDU, and AIG.
Our research reveals that, collectively, hedge funds’ long U.S. equity portfolios tend to generate negative risk-adjusted returns. Crowded bets tend to disappoint and hedge fund investors should pay close attention to crowding before allocating capital.

The information herein is not represented or warranted to be accurate, correct, complete or timely.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Copyright © 2012-2015, AlphaBetaWorks, a division of Alpha Beta Analytics, LLC. All rights reserved.
Content may not be republished without express written consent.

Smart Beta and Market Timing

2 Replies

Why Returns-Based Style Analysis Breaks for Smart Beta Strategies

Smart beta (SB) strategies tend to vary market beta and other factor exposures (systematic risk) over time. Consequently, market timing is an important source of their risk-adjusted returns, at times more significant than security selection. We have previously discussed that returns-based style analysis (RBSA) and similar methods fail for portfolios that vary exposures. Errors are most pronounced for the most active funds:

Estimates of a fund’s historical and current systematic risks may be flawed.
Excellent low-risk funds may be incorrectly deemed poor.
Poor high-risk funds may be incorrectly deemed excellent.

Due to the variation in Smart Beta strategies’ exposures over time, returns-based methods tend to fail for these strategies as well.

Three Smart Beta Strategies

We analyze the historical risk of three SB strategies as implemented by the following ETFs:

Low Volatility Indexing – PowerShares S&P 500 Low Volatility Portfolio ETF (SPLV)
Fundamental Indexing – PowerShares FTSE RAFI US 1000 Portfolio ETF (PRF)
Quality Indexing – PowerShares S&P 500 High Quality Portfolio ETF (SPHQ)

SPLV indexes 100 stocks from the S&P 500 with the lowest realized volatility over the past 12 months. PRF indexes the largest US equities based on book value, cash flow, sales, and dividends. SPHQ indexes the constituents of the S&P 500 with stable earnings and dividend growth.

All three smart beta strategies varied their factor exposures including their market exposures.

Low Volatility ETF (SPLV) – Market Timing

The low-volatility smart beta strategy has varied its market exposure significantly, increasing it by half since 2011. As stocks with the lowest volatility – and their risk – changed over time, the fund implicitly timed the broad equity market. The chart below depicts the market exposure of SPLV over time:

Chart of this historical U.S. market exposure of the low volatility smart bet (SB) strategy as implemented by PowerShares S&P 500 Low Volatility Portfolio ETF (SPLV)

PowerShares S&P 500 Low Volatility Portfolio ETF (SPLV) – Historical U.S. Market Exposure

Low Volatility ETF (SPLV) – Historical Factor Exposures

SPLV’s market exposure fluctuates due to changes in its sector bets. Since the market betas of sectors differ from one another, as sector exposures vary so does the fund’s market exposure:

Chart of the historical exposures to significant risk factors of the low volatility smart bet (SB) strategy as implemented by PowerShares S&P 500 Low Volatility Portfolio ETF (SPLV)

PowerShares S&P 500 Low Volatility Portfolio ETF (SPLV) – Significant Historical Factor Exposures

Low Volatility ETF (SPLV) – Returns-Based Analysis

The chart below illustrates a returns-based analysis (RBSA) of SPLV. A regression of SPLV’s monthly returns against U.S. Market’s monthly returns estimates the fund’s U.S. Market factor exposure (beta) at 0.50 – significantly different from the historical risk observed above:

Chart of the regression of the historical returns of PowerShares S&P 500 Low Volatility Portfolio ETF (SPLV) against the Market

PowerShares S&P 500 Low Volatility Portfolio ETF (SPLV) – Historical Returns vs. the Market

This estimate of beta understates SPLV’s historical market beta (0.55) by a tenth and understates current market beta (0.70) by more than a third. RBSA thus fails to evaluate the current and historical risk of this low volatility smart beta strategy. Performance attribution and all other analyses that rely on estimates of historical factor exposures will also fail.

Fundamental ETF (PRF) – Market Timing

The market risk of the Fundamental ETF has been remarkably constant, except from 2009 to 2010. Back in 2009 PRF increased exposure to high-beta (mostly financial) stocks in a spectacularly prescient act of market timing:

Chart of the historical exposures of the fundamental smart beta (SB) strategy as implemented by the PowerShares FTSE RAFI US 1000 Portfolio ETF (PRF) to U.S. and Canadian Markets

PowerShares FTSE RAFI US 1000 Portfolio ETF (PRF) – Historical Market Exposure

Fundamental ETF (PRF) – Historical Factor Exposures

The historical factor exposure chart for PRF illustrates this spike in Finance Factor exposure from the typical 20-30% range to over 50% and the associated increase in U.S. Market exposure:

Chart of the exposures of the fundamental smart beta (SB) strategy as implemented by the PowerShares FTSE RAFI US 1000 Portfolio ETF (PRF) to significant risk factors

PowerShares FTSE RAFI US 1000 Portfolio ETF (PRF) – Significant Historical Factor Exposures

This 2009-2010 exposure spike generated a significant performance gain for the fund. PRF made approximately 20% more than it would have with constant factor exposures, as illustrated below:

Chart of the historical return from market timing (variation in factor exposures) of the PowerShares FTSE RAFI US 1000 Portfolio ETF (PRF)

PowerShares FTSE RAFI US 1000 Portfolio ETF (PRF) – Historical Risk-Adjusted Return from Market Timing

By contrast, PRF’s long-term risk-adjusted return from security selection is insignificant:

Chart of the historical returns from security selection (stock picking) of the PowerShares FTSE RAFI US 1000 Portfolio ETF (PRF)

PowerShares FTSE RAFI US 1000 Portfolio ETF (PRF) – Historical Risk-Adjusted Return from Security Selection

Factor timing turns out to be more important for the performance of some smart beta strategies than security selection.

Fundamental ETF (PRF) – Returns-Based Analysis

A returns-based analysis of PRF estimates historical U.S. market beta around 1.05:

Chart of the regression of the returns of PowerShares FTSE RAFI US 1000 Portfolio ETF (PRF) against the U.S. Market

PowerShares FTSE RAFI US 1000 Portfolio ETF (PRF) – Historical Returns vs. the Market

This 1.05 beta estimate only slightly overstates the fund’s current and historical betas, but misses the 2009-2010 exposure spike. Returns-based analysis thus does a decent job evaluating the average risk of a fundamental indexing smart beta strategy, but fails in historical attribution.

Quality ETF (SPHQ) – Market Timing

The market exposure of the quality smart beta strategy (SPHQ) swung wildly before 2011. It has been stable since:

Chart of the U.S. and Canadian Market exposures of the quality smart beta (SB) strategy as implemented by the PowerShares S&P 500 High Quality Portfolio ETF (SPHQ)

PowerShares S&P 500 High Quality Portfolio ETF (SPHQ) – Historical Market Exposure

Quality ETF (SPHQ) – Historical Factor Exposures

As with the other smart beta strategies, market timing by SPHQ comes from significant variations in sector bets:

Chart of the historical exposures of the quality smart beta (SB) strategy as implemented by the PowerShares S&P 500 High Quality Portfolio ETF (SPHQ) to significant risk factors

PowerShares S&P 500 High Quality Portfolio ETF (SPHQ) – Significant Historical Factor Exposures

Quality ETF (SPHQ) – Returns-Based Analysis

A returns-based analysis of SPHQ estimates historical U.S. market beta around 0.86:

Chart of the regression of the historical returns of PowerShares S&P 500 High Quality Portfolio ETF (SPHQ) against the U.S. Market

PowerShares S&P 500 High Quality Portfolio ETF (SPHQ) – Historical Returns vs. the Market

Given the large variation in SPHQ’s risk over time, this 0.86 beta estimate understates the average historical beta but slightly overstates the current one. While the current risk estimate is close, RBSA fails for historical risk estimation and performance attribution.

Conclusions

Low volatility indexing, fundamental indexing, and quality indexing smart beta strategies vary market and other factor exposures (systematic risk) over time.
Due to exposure variations over time, returns-based style analysis and similar methods tend to fail for smart beta strategies:
- Funds’ historical systematic risk estimates are flawed.
- Funds’ current systematic risk estimates are flawed.
- Performance attribution and risk-adjusted performance estimates are flawed.
Analysis and aggregation of factor exposures of individual holdings throughout a portfolio’s history with a capable multi-factor risk model produces superior risk estimates and performance attribution.

The information herein is not represented or warranted to be accurate, correct, complete or timely.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Copyright © 2012-2015, AlphaBetaWorks, a division of Alpha Beta Analytics, LLC. All rights reserved.
Content may not be republished without express written consent.

Returns-Based Style Analysis – Overfitting and Collinearity

1 Reply

Plagued by overfitting and collinearity, returns-based style analysis frequently fails, confusing noise with portfolio risk.

Returns-based style analysis (RBSA) is a common approach to investment risk analysis, performance attribution, and skill evaluation. Returns-based techniques perform regressions of returns over one or more historical periods to compute portfolio betas (exposures to systematic risk factors) and alphas (residual returns unexplained by systematic risk factors). The simplicity of the returns-based approach has made it popular, but it comes at a cost – RBSA fails for active portfolios. In addition, this approach is plagued by the statistical problems of overfitting and collinearity, frequently confusing noise with systematic portfolio risk.

Returns-Based Style Analysis – Failures for Active Portfolios

In an earlier article we illustrated the flaws of returns-based style analysis when factor exposures vary, as is common for active funds:

Returns-based analysis typically yields flawed estimates of portfolio risk.
Returns-based analysis may not even accurately estimate average portfolio risk.
Errors will be most pronounced for the most active funds:
- Skilled funds may be deemed unskilled.
- Unskilled funds may be deemed skilled.

These are not the only flaws. We now turn to the subtler and equally critical issues – failures in the underlying regression analysis itself. We use a recent Morningstar article as an example.

iShares Core High Dividend ETF (HDV) – Returns-Based Style Analysis

A recent Seeking Alpha article provides an excellent illustration of problems created by overfitting and collinearity. In this article, Morningstar performed a returns-based style analysis of iShares Core High Dividend ETF (HDV).

Morningstar estimated the following factor exposures for HDV using the Carhart model:

Morningstar: Returns-Based Analysis of the iShares Core High Dividend ETF (HDV) Using the Carhart Model

iShares Core High Dividend ETF (HDV) – Estimated Factor Exposures Using the Carhart Model – Source: Morningstar

The Mkt-RF coefficient, or loading, is HDV’s estimated market beta. A beta value of 0.67 means that given a +1% change in the market HDV is expected to move by +0.67%, everything else held constant.

The article then performs RBSA using an enhanced Carhart + Quality Minus Junk (QMJ) model:

Morningstar: Returns-Based Analysis of iShares Core High Dividend ETF (HDV) Using the Carhart + Quality Minus Junk (QMJ) Model

iShares Core High Dividend ETF (HDV) – Estimated Factor Exposures Using the Carhart + Quality Minus Junk (QMJ) Model – Source: Morningstar

With the addition of the QMJ factor, the market beta estimate increased by a third from 0.67 to 0.90. Both estimates cannot be right. Perhaps the simplicity of the Carhart model is to blame and the more complex 5-factor RBSA is more accurate?

iShares Core High Dividend ETF (HDV) – Historical Factor Exposures

Instead of Morningstar’s RBSA approach, we analyzed HDV’s historical holdings using the AlphaBetaWorks’ U.S. Equity Risk Model. For each month, we estimated the U.S. Market exposures (betas) of individual positions and aggregated these into monthly estimates of portfolio beta:

Chart of the historical market exposure (beta) of iShares Core High Dividend ETF (HDV)

iShares Core High Dividend ETF (HDV) – Historical Market Exposure (Beta)

Over the past 4 years, HDV’s market beta varied in a narrow range between 0.50 and 0.62.

Both of the above returns-based analyses were off, but the simpler Carhart model did best. It turns out the simpler and a less sophisticated returns-based model is less vulnerable to the statistical problems of multicollinearity and overfitting. Notably, the only way to find out that returns-based style analysis failed was to perform the more advanced holdings-based analysis using a multi-factor risk model.

Statistical Problems with Returns-Based Analysis

Multicollinearity

Collinearity (Multicollinearity) occurs when risk factors used in returns-based analysis are highly correlated with each other. For instance, small-cap stocks tend to have higher beta than large-cap stocks, so the performance of small-cap stocks relative to large-cap stocks is correlated to the market.

Erratic changes in the factor exposures for various time periods, or when new risk factors are added, are signs of collinearity. These erratic changes make it difficult to pin down factor exposures and are signs of deeper problems:

A principal danger of such data redundancy is that of overfitting in regression analysis models.
-Wikipedia

Overfitting

Overfitting is a consequence of redundant data or model over-complexity. These are common for returns-based analyses which usually attempt to explain a limited number of return observations with a larger number of correlated variable observations.

An overfitted returns-based model may appear to describe data very well. But the fit is misleading – the exposures may be describing noise and will change dramatically under minor changes to data or factors. A high R squared from returns-based models may be a sign of trouble, rather than a reassurance.

As we have seen with the HDV example above, exposures estimated by RBSA may bear little relationship to portfolio risk. Therefore, all dependent risk and skill data will be flawed.

Conclusions

When a manager does not vary exposures to the market, sector, and macroeconomic factors, returns-based style analysis (RBSA) using a parsimonious model can be effective.
When a manager varies bets, RBSA typically yields flawed estimates of portfolio risk.
Even when exposures do not vary, returns-based style analysis is vulnerable to multicollinearity and overfitting:
- The model may capture noise, rather than the underlying factor exposures.
- Factor exposures may vary erratically among estimates.
- Estimates of portfolio risk will be flawed.
- Skilled funds may be deemed unskilled.
- Unskilled funds may be deemed skilled.
Holdings-based analysis using a robust multi-factor risk model is superior for quantifying fund risk and performance.

The information herein is not represented or warranted to be accurate, correct, complete or timely.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Copyright © 2012-2015, AlphaBetaWorks, a division of Alpha Beta Analytics, LLC. All rights reserved.
Content may not be republished without express written consent.

When “Smart Beta” is Simply High Beta

Leave a reply

WisdomTree Mid Cap Earnings Fund (EZM) vs. PowerShares Dynamic Large Cap Value Portfolio (PWV)

Many “smart beta” funds are merely high-beta, delivering no value over traditional index funds. On the other hand, some smart beta strategies are indeed exceptional and worth their fees.

Most analyses of enhanced index funds and smart beta strategies lack a rigorous approach to risk evaluation and performance attribution. Consequently, risky and mediocre funds are mislabeled as excellent, while conservative and exceptional funds are wrongly considered mediocre. Investors relying on simplistic analyses may end up with mediocre funds, hidden risks, and subpar performance.

The Not-So-Smart Beta

Some smart beta funds deliver consistent outperformance with high liquidity and low tracking error. Others merely deliver high market beta or high exposures to other common risk factors. Analyses of these funds’ performance are usually simplistic, failing to differentiate between the two groups.

Enhanced indexing and smart beta strategies are usually more active than the underlying indices. This can cause their risk to vary dramatically over time. For instance, a fund’s market beta can vary by 40-50% over a few years. This variation makes it difficult to determine whether a particular strategy is smart or merely risky. When a market correction arrives, risky funds suffer outsized losses.

Many estimate the beta of a fund by fitting its returns to the market or a benchmark using a regression, a technique known as returns-based style analysis. This is a flawed approach, which fails to accurately estimate the risk of active strategies. We discussed the flaws of returns-based style analysis in earlier articles.

A robust approach to estimating a fund’s historical risk and risk-adjusted performance is to evaluate its holdings over time. At each period, the risk of individual holdings is aggregated to estimate the risk of the fund. This is AlphaBetaWorks’ approach, implemented in our Performance Analytics Platform. Our analysis reveals that many “smart beta” funds are merely high-beta. These funds deliver no value over traditional index funds. On the other hand, some smart beta strategies are indeed exceptional and worth the fees they charge.

WisdomTree Mid Cap Earnings Fund (EZM) – Historical Risk

On the surface, the returns of the WisdomTree Mid Cap Earnings Fund (EZM) appear strong. The fund has dramatically outperformed its broad benchmark, the Russell Midcap Index (IWR):

Chart of the Cumulative Return of WisdomTree Mid Cap Earnings Fund (EZM) and of the Benchmark (IWR)

Cumulative Return of WisdomTree Mid Cap Earnings Fund (EZM) vs the Benchmark (IWR)

However, this is nominal outperformance, not risk-adjusted outperformance.

The main source of security risk and return is market risk, or beta. With this in mind, we analyzed the holdings of EZM and IWR during each historical period, calculated their holdings’ risk, and calculated the total risk of each fund. Not surprisingly, IWR’s beta has been stable, averaging 1.09 (109% of the risk of U.S. Market). Meanwhile, EZM’s beta has varied in a wide range, averaging 1.18 (118% of the risk of U.S. Market):

Chart of the historical beta of the WisdomTree Mid Cap Earnings Fund (EZM) compared to the historical beta of the Benchmark (IWR)

Historical Beta of WisdomTree Mid Cap Earnings Fund (EZM) vs the Benchmark (IWR)

EZM had higher returns, but it also consistently took more market risk. With greater risk comes greater volatility, and a down cycle will affect EZM more.

To determine its risk-adjusted return, we must compare the performance of EZM to the performance of a passive portfolio with the same factor exposures. Below are EZM’s current and historical factor exposures:

Chart of the historical and current factor exposures of the WisdomTree Mid Cap Earnings Fund (EZM)

Historical Factor Exposures of WisdomTree Mid Cap Earnings Fund (EZM)

WisdomTree Mid Cap Earnings Fund (EZM) – Risk-Adjusted Performance

Instead of owning EZM, investors could have owned a passive portfolio with similar risk (a passive replicating portfolio). If EZM had profitably timed the market (varied its risk) or selected securities, it should have outperformed.

EZM’s risk-adjusted performance closely matches a passive replicating portfolio. Relative to its passive equivalent, EZM has generated negligible active return (abReturn in the following chart):

Chart of the historical passive and active returns of the WisdomTree Mid Cap Earnings Fund (EZM)

Historical Passive and Active Return of WisdomTree Mid Cap Earnings Fund (EZM)

PowerShares Dynamic Large Cap Value Portfolio (PWV) – Risk-Adjusted Performance

Let’s contrast the performance of EZM with the results of another smart beta option: PowerShares Dynamic Large Cap Value Portfolio (PWV).

PWV has also varied U.S. Market exposure by approximately 40%:

Chart of the historical and current factor exposures of the PowerShares Dynamic Large Cap Value Portfolio (PWV)

Historical Factor Exposures of PowerShares Dynamic Large Cap Value Portfolio (PWV)

PWV has consistently outperformed its passive replicating portfolio and produced strong active returns due to market timing and security selection:

Chart of the historical passive and active returns of the PowerShares Dynamic Large Cap Value Portfolio (PWV)

Historical Passive and Active Return of PowerShares Dynamic Large Cap Value Portfolio (PWV)

Conclusion

Performance evaluation tools lacking accurate insights into risk may rank the better-performing but riskier EZM ahead of PWV, which produced superior active returns. The accurate picture of their relative active performance emerges once both funds’ historical holdings are examined with a multi-factor risk model and their excess returns distilled.

Unsuspecting investors relying on simplistic analysis may conclude that a risky and mediocre fund is excellent while a conservative and exceptional fund is mediocre. At best, they will face higher-than-anticipated risks. At worst, they will get a nasty surprise when a correction comes.

The information herein is not represented or warranted to be accurate, correct, complete or timely.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Copyright © 2012-2015, AlphaBetaWorks, a division of Alpha Beta Analytics, LLC. All rights reserved.
Content may not be republished without express written consent.

Upgrading Fund Active Returns

Leave a reply

And Not Missing Out

Maybe your fund took extra risk to keep up with its benchmark. Maybe your fund should have made more – much more – given the risks it took. By the time market volatility reveals underlying exposures, it may be too late to avoid severe losses. There is a better way: Investors can continuously monitor a fund’s risk, the returns it should be generating, and the value it creates. This value should matter most to investors and allocators. Regrettably, most fund analysis tools and services pay no attention to it.

To illustrate, we analyze two funds: one that did much worse than it should have, and one that did better.

PRSCX – Negative Active Returns

The T. Rowe Price Science & Technology Fund (PRSCX) manages approximately $3 billion. This fund generally tracks its benchmark and it gets 3 star rating from a popular service. Notwithstanding this, PRSCX has produced persistently negative active returns. Given its historical risk, PRSCX should have made investors far more money: Over the past ten years, an investor would have made 50-80% more owning a passive portfolio with PRSCX’s risk profile.

Chart of the historical cumulative passive and active returns of T. Rowe Price Science & Technology Fund (PRSCX)

T. Rowe Price Science & Technology Fund (PRSCX) – Passive and Active Return History

While we seem to bolster arguments for passive investing, reality is more complex: Active returns (both positive and negative) persist over time. Thus, upgrading from PRSCX to a fund with persistently positive active returns is a superior move. We will provide one candidate.

PRSCX – Historical Risk

The chart below shows PRSCX’s historical risk (exposures to significant risk factors). The red dots indicate monthly exposures (as a percentage of assets) over the past 10 years; the black diamonds indicate latest exposures:

Chart of the historical exposures of T. Rowe Price Science & Technology Fund (PRSCX) to significant risk factors

T. Rowe Price Science & Technology Fund (PRSCX) – Exposure to Significant Risk Factors

PRSCX varied its exposures over time. U.S. Market is the most important exposure, reaching 200% (market beta of 2) at times. As expected for a technology fund, its U.S. Technology exposure has been near 100%. Also note PRSCX’s occasional short bond exposure. Many equity funds carry large hidden bond bets due to the risk profile of their equity holdings. Most investors and portfolio managers are not aware of these bets. Yet for these funds, bond risk is a key driver of portfolio returns and volatility.

PRSCX – Historical Active Returns

The above exposures define a passive replicating portfolio matching PRSCX’s risk. The fund manager’s job is to outperform this passive alternative by generating active returns.

To isolate active returns, we quantify passive factor exposures, estimate the passive return, and then calculate the remaining active return – αβReturn. We further break down αβReturn into risk-adjusted return from security selection, or stock picking (αReturn), and market timing (βReturn):

Component	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
Total	1.6	2.46	7.1	11.88	-43.8	67.83	21.25	-4.51	6.25	43.7	9.39
Passive	-0.69	1.4	5.45	19.26	-46.13	77.52	23.21	-3.42	20.36	51.54	13.61
αβReturn	0.98	-0.69	-2.2	-7.45	2.71	-11.61	-2.22	-8.24	-13.76	-14.14	-5.84
αReturn	-1.95	-3.29	-6.45	-2.79	7.92	0.78	4.17	-12.31	-11.47	-4.54	1.11
βReturn	2.94	2.6	4.25	-4.66	-5.2	-12.39	-6.39	4.07	-2.29	-9.6	-6.95
Undefined	1.3	1.75	3.85	0.07	-0.38	1.92	0.26	7.15	-0.35	6.3	1.61

Note that we are unable to account for trades behind some of the returns – the “Undefined” component. It may be due to private securities or intra-period trading; it may be passive or active. Yet, even if we assume that all undefined returns above are active, PRSCX still delivered persistently negative αβReturn over the past ten years. Furthermore, the compounding of negative αβReturn leaves investors missing out on 50-80% in gains.

FSCSX – An Upgrade Option with Similar Historical Risk

While a passive portfolio would have been superior to PRSCX, it is not the best upgrade. Allocators and investors can do better owning a fund with consistently positive αβReturns, since αβReturns persist. One candidate is Fidelity Select Software & Computer Services Portfolio (FSCSX):

Chart of the historical exposures of Fidelity Select Software & Computer Services Portfolio (FSCSX) to significant risk factors

Fidelity Select Software & Computer Services Portfolio (FSCSX) – Exposure to Significant Risk Factors

Currently, FSCSX and PRCSX have similar exposures. AlphaBetaWorks’ risk analytics estimate the current annualized tracking error between the two funds at a 5.29% (about the same volatility as bonds, and less than one half of market volatility).

FSCSX – Historical Active Returns

FSCSX’s 3-year trailing average annual return of 23% is slightly ahead of PRSCX’s 20%. But most importantly, given its lower historical risk, FSCSX has delivered positive αβReturns versus PRSCX’s significantly negative ones. The chart below shows FSCSX’s ten-year performance. The purple area is the positive αβReturn. The gray area is FSCSX’s passive return:

Chart of the historical cumulative passive and active returns of Fidelity Select Software & Computer Services Portfolio (FSCSX)

Fidelity Select Software & Computer Services Portfolio (FSCSX) – Passive and Active Return History

FSCSX is superior to a passive portfolio with similar risk and to PRSCX. Mind you, this is not a sales pitch for FSCSX but merely a consequence of its positive αβReturn and αβReturn persistence.

Few fund investors and allocators possess the tools to quantify active returns. Yet, this knowledge is an essential competitive advantage, leading to improved client returns, client retention, and asset growth. Unfortunately, many are content to pick funds based on past nominal returns and to suffer the consequences: picking yesterday’s winners tends to pick tomorrow’s losers. AlphaBetaWorks spares clients from the data processing headaches, financial modeling, and statistical analysis of thousands of portfolios, delivering predictive risk and skill analytics on thousands of funds.

Conclusions

Analyzing a fund’s performance relative to a benchmark ignores the most important question: What should you have made given its risk?
Some mutual funds produce persistently negative active returns; others produce persistently positive active returns.
Upgrading from a fund with persistently negative active return (αβReturn) to a replicating passive portfolio tends to improve performance.
Upgrading from a passive portfolio to a fund with persistently positive αβReturn also tends to improve performance.
Tools that accurately estimate fund risk and active returns provide enduring competitive advantages for investors and professional allocators, leading to improved client returns, client retention, and asset growth.

The information herein is not represented or warranted to be accurate, correct, complete or timely.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Copyright © 2012-2014, AlphaBetaWorks, a division of Alpha Beta Analytics, LLC. All rights reserved.
Content may not be republished without express written consent.

Hedge Fund Closet Indexing

Leave a reply

Fee Harvesting is a Problem for All Asset Classes

To generate active returns in excess of its fees, an active fund must take some active risk. However, some managers passively manage their funds but charge active fees. Others become less active as they accumulate assets. This problem of closet indexing is not confined to mutual funds. Over a third of the long capital of U.S. hedge funds is invested too passively to warrant a typical 1.5/15% fee structure, even if the funds’ managers are highly skilled. Investors could replace closet indexers with passive vehicles or truly active skilled managers and improve performance.

Closet Indexing Background

Two of our earlier articles explored past and current mutual fund closet indexing:

One article analyzed historical risk and performance of U.S. mutual funds. It discovered that over a quarter (26%) of the funds have been so passive that, even after exceeding the information ratios of 90% of their peers, they would still not be worth the 1% mean management fee.

The other article addressed current risk and predicted volatility of U.S. mutual funds. It found that over two thirds (70%) of their capital is currently taking so little active risk that it will fail to merit the 1% mean management fee, even if the funds’ managers are highly skilled.

This article surveys long portfolios of hedge funds. We analyze current and historical long positions of approximately 300 concentrated medium and lower turnover U.S. hedge funds, identifying those that are unlikely to earn their fees in the future given their current active risk. We then quantify the problem of closet indexing for a typical hedge fund investor.

How Much Active Risk is Needed to Earn a Fee?

The Information Ratio (IR) is a measure of active return relative to active risk (tracking error). The best-performing 10% of U.S. hedge funds’ long portfolios achieve IR’s of 0.54 and higher; 90% achieve IR’s below 0.54:

Chart of the Distribution of Information Ratios of Long Portfolios of U.S. Hedge Funds

U.S. Hedge Fund Information Ratio Distribution – Long Positions

If a fund’s long portfolio exceeds the performance of 90% of its peers and achieves an IR of 0.54, then it needs tracking error above 1.85% to generate active return above 1%.

What active return will cover a typical fee? We make conservative assumptions that funds’ long equity portfolios are burdened with 1.5% management fee and 15% incentive allocation. Assuming 7% expected market return, the mean fee is 2.55%.

If all funds were able to achieve the 90th percentile of IR, they will need annual tracking error above 4.7% to earn this estimated mean fee and generate a positive net active return.

Hedge Fund Active Risk

Tracking error is due to active risks a fund takes: security selection risk due to stock picking and market timing risk due to variation in factors bets. We applied the AlphaBetaWorks Statistical Equity Risk Model to funds’ historical and latest holdings and estimated their historical and future tracking errors. Tracking errors were calculated relative to fund-specific benchmarks that represent each fund’s unique passive risk profile.

Over a tenth (33) of the funds have such low historical tracking errors that, even if they exceeded the performance of 90% of their peers, they would have failed to merit the 2.55% estimated mean fee:

Chart of the Distribution of Historical Tracking Errors of Long Portfolios of U.S. Hedge Funds

U.S. Hedge Fund Historical Tracking Error Distribution – Long Positions

Over a fifth (61) of the funds have such low estimated future tracking errors that, even if they exceed the performance of 90% of their peers, they will fail to merit the 2.55% estimated mean fee:

Chart of the Distribution of Estimated Future Tracking Errors of Long Portfolios of U.S. Hedge Funds

U.S. Hedge Fund Estimated Future Tracking Error Distribution – Long Positions

While there is less closet indexing among hedge funds than among mutual funds, the fees that hedge funds charge are significantly higher — to say nothing of the higher expectations that these higher fees warrant. When practiced by hedge funds, closet indexing is all the more egregious.

Capital-Weighted Hedge Fund Closet Indexing

Larger hedge funds are more likely to engage in closet indexing. While approximately 20% of hedge funds surveyed have estimated future tracking errors below 4.7%, they represent nearly 40% of assets ($207 billion out of the $391 billion total in our sample). Therefore, more than a third of hedge fund long capital will not earn the 2.55% estimated mean fee, even when the managers are skilled.

Chart of the Distribution of Capital Estimated Future Capital-Weighted Tracking Error of Long U.S. Hedge Fund Capital

U.S. Hedge Fund Capital Estimated Future Tracking Error Distribution – Long Positions

The assumption of all funds exceeding historical IR’s of 90% of their peers is unrealistic. In practice, a portfolio of large hedge funds, built without attention to closet indexing, may be doomed to generate negative active returns, regardless of the managers’ skills. The 2.55% fee cited here is the estimated mean. Plenty of closet indexers charge more on their long equity portfolios and plenty of investors who remain with them stand to lose more.

A Map of Hedge Fund Skill and Activity

Our previous article discussed the evolution of skilled managers’ utility curves as an explanation for their reluctance to take risk. As a manager accumulates assets, fee harvesting becomes increasingly attractive. The map of U.S. hedge fund active management skill and activity below illustrates that large skilled funds tend to be relatively less active:

Chart Showing the Distribution of U.S. Hedge Fund Active Management Skill and Activity for Long Positions.

U.S. Hedge Fund Active Management Skill and Activity – Long Positions

Conclusions

20% of long U.S. hedge fund portfolios surveyed are currently so passive that, even after exceeding the information ratios of 90% of their peers, they will still fail to merit a typical fee.
39% of long U.S. hedge fund capital surveyed will fail to merit a typical fee, even if its managers are highly skilled.
Investors must monitor the evolution of their hedge fund managers towards closet indexing and mitigate fee harvesting.
A typical investor may be able to replace over a third of long hedge fund capital with passive vehicles or active skilled managers, improving performance.

The information herein is not represented or warranted to be accurate, correct, complete or timely.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Copyright © 2012-2014, AlphaBetaWorks, a division of Alpha Beta Analytics, LLC. All rights reserved.
Content may not be republished without express written consent.

Mutual Fund Closet Indexing – Part 3

Leave a reply

Why Most Investors Lose, Even if Their Manager is Skilled

An actively managed fund must take risk sufficient to generate active returns in excess of the fees that it charges. However, as skilled managers accumulate assets, they tend to become less active. Skilled managers who took sufficient active risk to earn their fees in the past may be closet indexing today. Consequently, over two thirds of the capital invested in “active” U.S. mutual funds is allocated to managers who are unlikely to earn the average fee, even if highly skilled. Simply by identifying these managers, investors can eliminate most active management fees and improve portfolio performance.

Closet Indexing Defined

Our first article in this series discussed closet indexing and proposed a new metric of fund activity: Active Share of Variance – the share of volatility due to active management (security selection and market timing). The second article analyzed historical performance of U.S. mutual funds and discovered that over a quarter (26%) of the funds surveyed have been so passive that, even after exceeding the information ratios of 90% of their peers, they would still not be worth the 1% mean management fee.

Too Little Current Risk to Earn Future Fees

Thus far, our analysis improved on existing closet indexing metrics by evaluating past fund activity. The shortcoming of this analysis has been its failure to identify funds that have been active in the past but are closet indexing today. This article addresses the shortcoming: We analyze current and historical positions of approximately 1,700 non-index medium and lower turnover U.S. mutual funds, identifying those that are unlikely to earn their management fees in the future given their current active risk.

The Information Ratio (IR) is a measure of active return relative to active risk (tracking error). The top 10% of the funds achieve IR’s greater than or equal to 0.30; 90% achieve IR’s below 0.30:

Chart of the Distribution of Information Ratios for U.S. Mutual Funds

U.S. Mutual Fund Information Ratio Distribution

If a fund exceeds the performance of 90% of its peers and achieves IR of 0.30, then it needs tracking error above 3.3% to generate active return above 1%. The mean expense ratio for active U.S. mutual funds is approximately 1%. Therefore, if all funds were able to achieve the 90th percentile of IR, they will need annual tracking error above 3.3% to earn the mean fee and generate a positive net active return.

Over half (911) of the funds have such low estimated future tracking errors that, even if they exceeded the performance of 90% of their peers and achieved the IR of 0.30, they will fail to merit the 1% mean management fee:

Chart of the Distribution of Estimated Future Tracking Errors for U.S. Mutual Funds

U.S. Mutual Fund Estimated Future Tracking Error Distribution

Capital-Weighted Closet Indexing

Larger mutual funds are more likely to engage in closet indexing. While only 54% of mutual funds surveyed have estimated future tracking errors below 3.3%, they represent 70% of the assets ($2.4 trillion out of the $3.4 trillion total). Therefore, even if capital is invested with highly skilled managers, more than two thirds of it will not earn the 1% mean management fee:

Chart of the Distribution of Estimated Future Tracking Error of the Capital Invested in U.S. Mutual Funds

U.S. Mutual Fund Capital Estimated Future Tracking Error Distribution

A portfolio that primarily consists of large mutual funds may be doomed to generate negative active returns, regardless of the managers’ skills. The 1% management fee cited here is the mean. Plenty of closet indexers charge more and plenty of investors who remain with them stand to lose more.

Conclusions

Over half (54%) of active U.S. mutual funds surveyed are currently so passive that, even after exceeding the information ratios of 90% of their peers, they will still fail to merit a 1% management fee.
Over two thirds (70%) of active U.S. mutual fund capital surveyed will fail to merit a 1% management fee, even if its managers are highly skilled.
Skilled active managers do exist, but investors need to capture them early in their life cycles.
Investors must monitor the evolution of their skilled managers towards passivity.
By identifying closet indexers, a typical investor can eliminate most active fees and improve performance.

The information herein is not represented or warranted to be accurate, correct, complete or timely.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Copyright © 2012-2014, AlphaBetaWorks, a division of Alpha Beta Analytics, LLC. All rights reserved.
Content may not be republished without express written consent.

Mutual Fund Closet Indexing – Part 2

Leave a reply

Can a Fund Earn Its Fees if It Does Not Try?

To be worth the fees it charges, an actively managed fund must take some active risk, rather than merely mirror passive market exposures. However, over a quarter of “active” medium and lower turnover US mutual funds take so little active risk, they are unlikely to earn their management fees. In this article, we build on our earlier work and estimate the risk an active fund must take in order to earn the 1% mean management fee. Simply by testing for funds that are taking too little risk to generate positive net active returns, investors can save billions in fees each year.

Closet Indexing Defined

Our earlier article discussed closet indexing and proposed a new metric of fund activity: Active Share of Variance – the share of volatility due to active management (security selection and market timing). This analytic relies on the factor analysis of historical holdings and is immune to the issues with holdings-based analysis and the issues with returns-based analysis that affect the popular closet indexing tests: Active Share and R². This article uses the AlphaBetaWorks’ Performance Analytics Platform to objectively evaluate the level of fund activity necessary to earn a typical management fee.

Too Little Risk to Make a Difference

Is it possible for a highly skilled manager to take too little risk to earn management fees?

We surveyed 10 years of US filings history of approximately 1,700 non-index medium and lower turnover mutual funds with at least 5 years of filings. This group holds over $3.4 trillion in assets.

We applied the AlphaBetaWorks Statistical Equity Risk Model to funds’ historical holdings to estimate risk at the end of each month. We then attributed the following month’s returns to factor(market) and residual(security-specific) sources, estimated the appropriate factor benchmark, and calculated market timing returns due to variations in factor exposures.

The Information Ratio (IR) is a measure of active return relative to active risk (tracking error). The AlphaBetaWorks Performance Analytics Platform calculated historical (realized) IRs for all funds in the group. The 90^th percentile of IR for the group is 0.30, which suggests that 90% of funds needed a tracking error above 3.3% to generate an active return above 1%:

US Mutual Fund Information Ratio Distribution

Knowing that the mean expense ratio for active US mutual funds is approximately 1.0%, if all funds were able to achieve the 90^th percentile of IR, they would need annual tracking error over 3.3% to generate a positive net active return. Over a quarter (445) of the funds in our survey realized tracking errors below this threshold; they have been so passive that, even assuming an IR of 0.30, they would have failed to generate 1% gross and 0% net active returns:

US Mutual Fund Tracking Error Distribution

A Map of US Mutual Fund Skill and Activity

The evolution of skilled managers’ utility curves is one possible explanation for this reluctance to take risk. Perhaps, as a manager accumulates assets, fee harvesting becomes increasingly attractive. The map of fund active management skill and activity, included below, supports this hypothesis: Large skilled funds tend to be relatively less active. In fact, all the funds in the active and skilled (“Hungry”) group are relatively small:

US Mutual Fund Active Management Skill and Activity

Conclusions

Over a quarter (26%) of US mutual funds surveyed have been so passive that, even after exceeding the information ratios of 90% of their peers, they would still fail to merit a 1% management fee.
Large skilled funds tend to be relatively more passive.
Skilled active managers exist, but investors need to capture them early in their life cycles.
For this group alone, by identifying funds that take too little risk to generate positive active returns, investors could save between $4 and $10 billion in annual management fees.

Thus far, our work improves on the existing closet indexing metrics by evaluating past fund activity. In subsequent articles we will use the AlphaBetaWorks Performance Analytics Platform to analyze current risk and closet indexing, identifying those funds that are unlikely to earn their management fees in the future.

Identifying Property and Casualty Industry Crowding

Property and Casualty Industry 2014-2015 Underperformance

Property and Casualty Industry Year-end 2013 Crowding

Year-end 2013 Systematic (Factor) Exposures

Property and Casualty Industry Year-end 2014 Crowding

Year-end 2014 Systematic (Factor) Exposures

Scenario Analysis: 2000-2001 Outperformance

Scenario Analysis: 1999-2000 Underperformance

Conclusions

Pure Sector Performance

Equity Market’s USD FX Exposure

Sectors Most Negatively Exposed to USD FX

Oil Price USD FX Exposure

Information Technology Sector USD FX Exposure

Sectors Most Positively Exposed to USD FX

Conclusion

Identifying Crowding

Hedge Fund Aggregate Risk

Hedge Fund Factor (Systematic) Crowding

Hedge Fund Residual (Idiosyncratic) Crowding

Why Returns-Based Style Analysis Breaks for Smart Beta Strategies

Three Smart Beta Strategies

Low Volatility ETF (SPLV) – Market Timing

Low Volatility ETF (SPLV) – Historical Factor Exposures

Low Volatility ETF (SPLV) – Returns-Based Analysis

Fundamental ETF (PRF) – Market Timing

Fundamental ETF (PRF) – Historical Factor Exposures

Fundamental ETF (PRF) – Returns-Based Analysis

Quality ETF (SPHQ) – Market Timing

Quality ETF (SPHQ) – Historical Factor Exposures

Quality ETF (SPHQ) – Returns-Based Analysis

Conclusions

Returns-Based Style Analysis – Failures for Active Portfolios

iShares Core High Dividend ETF (HDV) – Returns-Based Style Analysis

iShares Core High Dividend ETF (HDV) – Historical Factor Exposures

Statistical Problems with Returns-Based Analysis

Multicollinearity

Overfitting

Conclusions

WisdomTree Mid Cap Earnings Fund (EZM) vs. PowerShares Dynamic Large Cap Value Portfolio (PWV)

The Not-So-Smart Beta

WisdomTree Mid Cap Earnings Fund (EZM) – Historical Risk

WisdomTree Mid Cap Earnings Fund (EZM) – Risk-Adjusted Performance

PowerShares Dynamic Large Cap Value Portfolio (PWV) – Risk-Adjusted Performance

Conclusion

And Not Missing Out

PRSCX – Negative Active Returns

PRSCX – Historical Risk

PRSCX – Historical Active Returns

FSCSX – An Upgrade Option with Similar Historical Risk

FSCSX – Historical Active Returns

Conclusions

Fee Harvesting is a Problem for All Asset Classes

Closet Indexing Background

How Much Active Risk is Needed to Earn a Fee?

Hedge Fund Active Risk

Capital-Weighted Hedge Fund Closet Indexing

A Map of Hedge Fund Skill and Activity

Conclusions

Why Most Investors Lose, Even if Their Manager is Skilled

Closet Indexing Defined

Too Little Current Risk to Earn Future Fees

Capital-Weighted Closet Indexing

Conclusions

Can a Fund Earn Its Fees if It Does Not Try?

Closet Indexing Defined

Too Little Risk to Make a Difference

A Map of US Mutual Fund Skill and Activity

Conclusions

Copyright © 2012-2014, AlphaBetaWorks, a division of Alpha Beta Analytics, LLC. All rights reserved. Content may not be republished without express written consent.

Copyright © 2012-2014, AlphaBetaWorks, a division of Alpha Beta Analytics, LLC. All rights reserved.
Content may not be republished without express written consent.