australiaen
Benchmarking Low Volatility strategies

Benchmarking Low Volatility strategies

15-06-2011 | Research
How should investors evaluate a low volatility strategy? First, they need a benchmark.
  • David Blitz
    David
    Blitz
    Head of Quant Research

Speed read

  • Finding a natural Low Volatility benchmark is not straightforward
  • MSCI Minimum Volatility indices resemble active strategies
  • Capitalization-weighted market portfolio remains the best option
Stay informed on Quant investing with monthly mail updates
Stay informed on Quant investing with monthly mail updates
Subscribe

In this article,1 we discuss the benchmarking of low volatility investment strategies, which are designed to benefit from the empirical result that low-risk stocks tend to earn high risk-adjusted returns. Although the minimum-variance portfolio of Markowitz is the ultimate low volatility portfolio, the authors argue that it is not a suitable benchmark, as it can only be determined with hindsight.

This problem can be overcome with investable minimum variance strategies, but because various approaches are equally effective at minimizing volatility, it is ambiguous to elevate the status of any one particular approach to benchmark. For example, the authors discuss the recently introduced MSCI Minimum Volatility indices and conclude that these essentially resemble active low volatility investment strategies themselves, rather than a natural benchmark for such strategies.

In order to avoid these issues, they recommend to simply benchmark low volatility managers against the capitalization-weighted market portfolio, using risk-adjusted performance metrics such as the Sharpe ratio or Jensen’s alpha.

1 Blitz, D.C. and Van Vliet, P., 2011, ‘Benchmarking Low-Volatility strategies’, The Journal of Index Investing.

Disclaimer

I agree to the Robeco Disclaimer and the collection and use of my personal data by Robeco, for the purposes for which such data is collected and used as set out in the Privacy Policy, including for the purpose of direct marketing of Robeco products or services.

Your data will be treated with utmost care and will not be passed on to third parties.

Subjects related to this article are:
Logo

Disclaimer

BY CLICKING ON “I AGREE”, I DECLARE I AM A WHOLESALE CLIENT AS DEFINED IN THE CORPORATIONS ACT 2001.

What is a Wholesale Client?
A person or entity is a “wholesale client” if they satisfy the requirements of section 761G of the Corporations Act.
This commonly includes a person or entity:

  • who holds an Australian Financial Services License
  • who has or controls at least $10 million (and may include funds held by an associate or under a trust that the person manages)
  • that is a body regulated by APRA other than a trustee of:
    (i) a superannuation fund;
    (ii) an approved deposit fund;
    (iii) a pooled superannuation trust; or
    (iv) a public sector superannuation scheme.
    within the meaning of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993
  • that is a body registered under the Financial Corporations Act 1974.
  • that is a trustee of:
    (i) a superannuation fund; or
    (ii) an approved deposit fund; or
    (iii) a pooled superannuation trust; or
    (iv) a public sector superannuation scheme
    within the meaning of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 and the fund, trust or scheme has net assets of at least $10 million.
  • that is a listed entity or a related body corporate of a listed entity
  • that is an exempt public authority
  • that is a body corporate, or an unincorporated body, that:
    (i) carries on a business of investment in financial products, interests in land or other investments; and
    (ii) for those purposes, invests funds received (directly or indirectly) following an offer or invitation to the public, within the meaning of section 82 of the Corporations Act 2001, the terms of which provided for the funds subscribed to be invested for those purposes.
  • that is a foreign entity which, if established or incorporated in Australia, would be covered by one of the preceding paragraphs.
I Disagree