Following smart beta indices is a popular way to implement factor investing. But as money pours into these strategies, capacity issues cast doubt on their ability to keep their promises.
When implementing a strategy, investors and asset managers will necessarily be faced with a number practical hurdles. These hurdles include elements such as direct and indirect transaction costs, constraints regarding the number of trades that can be executed with a certain period for a given security, or simply the management of investment in- and outflows.
As assets under management (AuM) grow, these hurdles only tend to get bigger and can end up having a considerable impact on performance. This is what determines the capacity of an investment strategy or an investment style: the point where additional inflows start weighing on the overall performance of a strategy or style.
The growing popularity of smart beta strategies has led many experts to wonder whether capacity issues might arise sooner or later. A recent study1 by one of the largest providers of smart beta products attempted to answer this question. It concluded that smart beta indices have a huge, almost unlimited, capacity. But we challenge this assertion.
Indeed, we argue that smart beta trades simply become unfeasible at the AuM levels suggested in the study. Most trades would be ten to 100 times the typical daily volume of the stocks in question. Investors placing buy or sell orders of this size would probably trigger circuit breakers put in place by stock exchanges.
Meanwhile, the study does not consider trade feasibility and only looks at the estimated transaction costs of trades. Using a proprietary model, the authors give examples suggesting that the transaction cost estimates for common trade sizes are similar to those found using other transaction cost models, such as some of those used in the academic literature and even our own proprietary model.
But these models are calibrated for conventional trade sizes, which are typically in the range of 0% to 20% of the average daily transaction volume of a stock. Assuming that the predictions of these kinds of models can be extrapolated to trades bigger than ten to 100 times the typical daily volume of a stock clearly seems far-fetched.
Properly designed active factor strategies can provide the high capacity that investors are looking for
We also argue that properly designed active factor strategies can provide the high capacity that investors are looking for. The intuition behind this result is that while smart beta indices concentrate all their trades on just a handful of rebalancing dates every year, active factor strategies can trade gradually, making full use of the liquidity that is offered by the market.
In a simulation example, we rebalanced MSCI Minimum Volatility indices gradually by delaying trades. We found no loss in performance but a spectacular improvement in trade feasibility. This holds true not just for MSCI Minimum Volatility indices, but also for other smart beta indices such as MSCI Quality and MSCI Value-weighted indices.
1R. Ratcliffe, P. Miranda and A. Ang, 2017, ‘Capacity of Smart Beta Strategies from a Transaction Cost Perspective’, The Journal of Index Investing.
This report is not available for users from countries where the offering of foreign financial services is not permitted, such as US Persons.
Your details are not shared with third parties. This information is exclusively intended for professional investors. All requests are checked.
The information contained on these pages is for marketing purposes and solely intended for Qualified Investors in accordance with the Swiss Collective Investment Schemes Act of 23 June 2006 (“CISA”) domiciled in Switzerland, Professional Clients in accordance with Annex II of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (“MiFID II”) domiciled in the European Union und European Economic Area with a license to distribute / promote financial instruments in such capacity or herewith requesting respective information on products and services in their capacity as Professional Clients.
The Funds are domiciled in Luxembourg and The Netherlands. ACOLIN Fund Services AG, postal address: Affolternstrasse 56, 8050 Zürich, acts as the Swiss representative of the Fund(s). UBS Switzerland AG, Bahnhofstrasse 45, 8001 Zurich, postal address: Europastrasse 2, P.O. Box, CH-8152 Opfikon, acts as the Swiss paying agent. The prospectus, the Key Investor Information Documents (KIIDs), the articles of association, the annual and semi-annual reports of the Fund(s) may be obtained, on simple request and free of charge, at the office of the Swiss representative ACOLIN Fund Services AG. The prospectuses are also available via the website www.robeco.ch. Some funds about which information is shown on these pages may fall outside the scope of the Swiss Collective Investment Schemes Act of 26 June 2006 (“CISA”) and therefore do not (need to) have a license from or registration with the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA).
Some funds about which information is shown on this website may not be available in your domicile country. Please check the registration status in your respective domicile country. To view the RobecoSwitzerland Ltd. products that are registered/available in your country, please go to the respective Fund Selector, which can be found on this website and select your country of domicile.
Neither information nor any opinion expressed on this 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 Switzerland Ltd. product should only be made after reading the related legal documents such as management regulations, prospectuses, annual and semi-annual reports.