zwitserlanden
Achieving your investment goals with factors: Reduce risk

Achieving your investment goals with factors: Reduce risk

25-04-2018 | Insight

Factor-based strategies can help reduce potential downside risk. First article of a series on how factors can help investors achieve specific goals.

Speed read

  • Risk reduction has become a major investment theme
  • One way to achieve this is to adopt a low volatility strategy
  • Some low volatility strategies are better than others

The context

In recent years, risk reduction has become a top priority for many investors. Successive market wobbles in the 2000s raised awareness about the need to preserve capital in down markets, to ensure long-term outperformance and wealth accumulation. In order to achieve such risk reduction, numerous investors have turned to low-volatility products.

Virtually unknown less than a decade ago, low-volatility investing has now become a popular approach. In fact, a FTSE Russell survey of asset owners, carried out in 2017, found that downside risk reduction ranked first among the top investment goals triggering the evaluation of factor-based strategies.

Stay informed on Quant investing with monthly mail updates
Stay informed on Quant investing with monthly mail updates
Subscribe

Scientific grounding

The low-volatility factor refers to the empirical finding that securities that generate relatively stable returns compared to the broader market, have achieved higher risk-adjusted returns over the longer term (see Figure 1). As a result, investing in low-risk stocks tends to generate higher Sharpe ratios in the long term.

This effect was first documented by various academics1, who tested the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) in the early 1970s. For example, in a long-term study of the US market, Robert Haugen and James Heins demonstrated that contrary to what is expected by CAPM, low-beta stocks in the United States outperformed high-beta stocks in the period 1929-1971. However, these discoveries remained widely ignored by the investment community for decades.

Figure 1: Cumulative performance of low/high volatility stocks in the US, 1929-2014*

Further research confirmed this ‘low-beta effect’ for other equity markets and Robeco researchers2 documented a similar effect: low-volatility stocks generate higher risk-adjusted returns. Additional academic studies demonstrated that the volatility effect is growing stronger in the European, Japanese and Emerging equity markets.

Many reasons have been brought forward by academics to explain this anomaly and why it should persist in the future. Among the most frequently mentioned explanations is the fact that focusing on low-risk stocks leads to high tracking error, which is unattractive for portfolio managers of outsourced investment mandates with strict limits on the maximum deviation from a capitalization-weighted index. Another frequently mentioned explanation is the fact that retail investors often buy stocks in the same way as 'lottery tickets', preferring the sexy stocks that are getting attention in the news.

Additional considerations

Following the success of low-risk strategies launched by several active managers, many index providers and passive managers have also jumped on the bandwagon by introducing low-volatility indices and ETFs. Various terms are used to describe these products, ranging from minimum volatility to managed volatility or minimum variance. Ultimately, all of these approaches seek to exploit the low-volatility anomaly, in one way or another.

Not all low-volatility strategies look alike, though, and some have proven to harvest factors more efficiently than others. For example, many generic low-volatility strategies are based on a single backward-looking historical measure of risk, such as volatility or beta. This construction may expose the strategy to some pitfalls, such as miscalculated downside risk.

Another common pitfall of generic low volatility strategies is that they often do not take into account valuation or price momentum aspects. Indeed, buying stocks solely on the basis of their past volatility or beta can lead investors to buy securities that are overvalued or penalized by an unfavorable trend in price, which could be a drag on the performance.

1F. Black, M. Jensen and M. Scholes (1972), “The Capital Asset Pricing Model: Some Empirical Tests”, Studies in the Theory of Capital Markets. E. Fama and J. MacBeth (1973), “Risk, Return, and Equilibrium: Empirical Tests“, Journal of Political Economy. R. Haugen, and J. Heins (1975), “Risk and the Rate of Return on Financial Assets: Some Old Wine in New Bottles”, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis.
2D. Blitz and P. van Vliet (2007), The Volatility Effect: Lower Risk Without Return, Journal of Portfolio Management, pp. 102-113. Winner of Citation of Excellence Award from Emerald Publishing (2008).

Achieving your investment goals with factors

This series of articles aims to illustrate the wide variety of investment goals that can be achieved through factor-based strategies.

Read all of the articles:

Achieving your investment goals with factors: Reduce risk Achieving your investment goals with factors: Enhance returns Achieving your investment goals with factors: Improve diversification
Subjects related to this article are:

Important legal information

The content displayed on this website is exclusively directed at qualified investors, as defined in the swiss collective investment schemes act of 23 june 2006 ("cisa") and its implementing ordinance, or at “independent asset managers” which meet additional requirements as set out below. Qualified investors are in particular regulated financial intermediaries such as banks, securities dealers, fund management companies and asset managers of collective investment schemes and central banks, regulated insurance companies, public entities and retirement benefits institutions with professional treasury or companies with professional treasury.

The contents, however, are not intended for non-qualified investors. By clicking "I agree" below, you confirm and acknowledge that you act in your capacity as qualified investor pursuant to CISA or as an “independent asset manager” who meets the additional requirements set out hereafter. In the event that you are an "independent asset manager" who meets all the requirements set out in Art. 3 para. 2 let. c) CISA in conjunction with Art. 3 CISO, by clicking "I Agree" below you confirm that you will use the content of this website only for those of your clients which are qualified investors pursuant to CISA.

Representative in Switzerland of the foreign funds registered with the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority ("FINMA") for distribution in or from Switzerland to non-qualified investors is Robeco Switzerland AG, Josefstrasse 218, 8005 Zürich, and the paying agent is UBS Switzerland AG, Bahnhofstrasse 45, 8001 Zürich. Please consult www.finma.ch for a list of FINMA registered funds.

Neither information nor any opinion expressed on the website constitutes a solicitation, an offer or a recommendation to buy, sell or dispose of any investment, to engage in any other transaction or to provide any investment advice or service. An investment in a Robeco/Robeco Switzerland AG product should only be made after reading the related legal documents such as management regulations, articles of association, prospectuses, key investor information documents and annual and semi-annual reports, which can be all be obtained free of charge at this website, at the registered seat of the representative in Switzerland, as well as at the Robeco/Robeco Switzerland AG offices in each country where Robeco has a presence. In respect of the funds distributed in Switzerland, the place of performance and jurisdiction is the registered office of the representative in Switzerland.

This website is not directed to any person in any jurisdiction where, by reason of that person's nationality, residence or otherwise, the publication or availability of this website is prohibited. Persons in respect of whom such prohibitions apply must not access this website.

I Disagree