The pitfalls of passive in a global multi-asset benchmark

The pitfalls of passive in a global multi-asset benchmark

20-09-2017 | 5ヵ年アウトルック
There is no global benchmark for a multi-asset passive investment fund, so a group of researchers invented one – with surprising results.
  • Laurens Swinkels
    Laurens
    Swinkels
    Quant Equity Researcher

Speed read

  • Passive investors tend to allocate to specific asset classes
  • A study created a Global Market Portfolio for comparisons
  • Results showed that going fully passive is not the best outcome
Would you like to read the full report?
Would you like to read the full report?
Download 'Expected Returns 2018-2022'

Investors tend to use passive investment to allocate to certain asset classes, rather than as a total solution. The problem is that while there are some true benchmarks such as the MSCI World Index for stocks and the Barclays Aggregate Index for bonds, there is no such undisputed benchmark in the multi-asset space.

So, what would a true passive benchmark for multi-asset investors be like, and would it have the potential to achieve true benchmark status in the future? In Historical Returns of the Market Portfolio, former Robeco chief strategist Ronald Doeswijk, Robeco researcher Laurens Swinkels and Rabobank quant analyst Trevin Lam simulated the effects of one.

Their starting point was to invent a Global Market Portfolio (GMP) that aggregated all investors worldwide, with weights that reflect the constitution of the average portfolio today. This can be seen in the chart below.

A theoretical Global Market Portfolio. Source: https://personal.eur.nl/lswinkels/

Returns of the GMP

Then they used a database that gives a historical record of returns going back to 1960, based on the work of Roger Ibbotson and Laurence Siegel, who were the first researchers to carry out a rigorous study on a theoretical GMP. During the 56-year sample period (1959-2015), this portfolio delivered a compounded annual return of 8.4%.

For the four main asset classes, equities realized the highest compounded annual return of 9.5%, followed by real estate’s 9.2%, non-government bonds’ (investment grade and high yield) 7.4% and government bonds’ 7.0%. When adjusted for the inflation that was prevalent from 1960 to 1979, the average annual real return of the market portfolio was 2.8%, while in the disinflationary period from 1980 to 2015, the GMP had an average return of 6.2%.

However, following such a passive portfolio may not be optimal, as certain markets can move away from what can be seen as equilibrium, leading to false valuations over time. This was seen during the dotcom bubble, when technology stocks traded at hefty multiples that later turned out to be wrong. In terms of asset supply, stocks and bonds are often issued when market conditions are good, and these timing effects are hidden when calculating true returns.

Alternative portfolios

To get around these problems, the authors constructed three portfolios with fixed weights that are annually rebalanced; as their allocation never changes, it makes them easier to compare over time. The first was equally weighted in the four main asset classes. For the second, the size of each asset class’s market capitalization was taken into account, creating a portfolio with a 40% weight in equities, 30% in government bonds, 20% in non-government bonds and 10% in real estate. The third alternative portfolio contained 50% equities and 50% government bonds.

And the result? All three generated a higher average compounded return than the market, amounting to 31% for the equally weighted portfolio, 25% for the rank weighted portfolio and 15% for the 50/50 portfolio.

In other words, the GMP is probably not the optimal portfolio. This, in conjunction with the fact that the multi-asset market approach varies significantly when it comes to risk profiles, seems to indicate that there is limited scope for a successful future for the true passive approach, no matter how popular investing this way becomes.

This article is a summary of one of the five special topics in our new five-year outlook.

Expected Returns 2018-2022.
Expected Returns 2018-2022.
Read all articles

重要事項

当資料は情報提供を目的として、Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V.が作成した英文資料、もしくはその英文資料をロベコ・ジャパン株式会社が翻訳したものです。資料中の個別の金融商品の売買の勧誘や推奨等を目的とするものではありません。記載された情報は十分信頼できるものであると考えておりますが、その正確性、完全性を保証するものではありません。意見や見通しはあくまで作成日における弊社の判断に基づくものであり、今後予告なしに変更されることがあります。運用状況、市場動向、意見等は、過去の一時点あるいは過去の一定期間についてのものであり、過去の実績は将来の運用成果を保証または示唆するものではありません。また、記載された投資方針・戦略等は全ての投資家の皆様に適合するとは限りません。当資料は法律、税務、会計面での助言の提供を意図するものではありません。

ご契約に際しては、必要に応じ専門家にご相談の上、最終的なご判断はお客様ご自身でなさるようお願い致します。

運用を行う資産の評価額は、組入有価証券等の価格、金融市場の相場や金利等の変動、及び組入有価証券の発行体の財務状況による信用力等の影響を受けて変動します。また、外貨建資産に投資する場合は為替変動の影響も受けます。運用によって生じた損益は、全て投資家の皆様に帰属します。したがって投資元本や一定の運用成果が保証されているものではなく、投資元本を上回る損失を被ることがあります。弊社が行う金融商品取引業に係る手数料または報酬は、締結される契約の種類や契約資産額により異なるため、当資料において記載せず別途ご提示させて頂く場合があります。具体的な手数料または報酬の金額・計算方法につきましては弊社担当者へお問合せください。

当資料及び記載されている情報、商品に関する権利は弊社に帰属します。したがって、弊社の書面による同意なくしてその全部もしくは一部を複製またはその他の方法で配布することはご遠慮ください。

商号等: ロベコ・ジャパン株式会社  金融商品取引業者 関東財務局長(金商)第2780号

加入協会: 一般社団法人 日本投資顧問業協会