united kingdomen
Factor investing challenges: finding the appropriate degree of transparency

Factor investing challenges: finding the appropriate degree of transparency

31-10-2017 | Factor investing challenges
How transparent should a factor investing strategy be? Factor-based products have become increasingly popular in recent years. But how to implement them in practice still remains a puzzle for many newcomers. Finding the right balance between the fully transparent basic investment solutions and the more sophisticated, but also more opaque ones, is a delicate task.

Speed read

  • Products based on public indices are prone to overcrowding and arbitrage
  • Sophistication must also be treated with caution, as it can lead to opacity
  • A strategy should be as simple as possible, and as complex as needed
Stay informed on Quant investing with monthly mail updates
Stay informed on Quant investing with monthly mail updates
Subscribe

One key reason for the stunning success of so-called ‘smart beta’ exchange traded funds (ETFs), which are based on public indices, is that they are generally considered a cheaper, more straightforward alternative to active factor investing strategies. The fact that their investment process is fully transparent is usually a powerful sales argument, as it allows clients to easily understand the different trades and the resulting positions in their portfolio.

A good example of these simple products, are the popular ETFs that replicate the S&P Low Volatility index. This index targets the low volatility premium by selecting 100 stocks, out of the 500 included in the S&P 500 parent index, merely based on their volatility over the preceding twelve months.

However, full transparency comes at a price for those who passively follow this kind of benchmark. The fact that these indices are publicly available to market players and that changes in their composition are announced well ahead of actual inclusions and exclusions makes them prone to overcrowding and arbitrage, since opportunistic investors can easily figure out in advance which trades are going to be executed, and can opportunistically take advantage of this.

As a result, portfolios that replicate these indices tend to systematically buy securities at already inflated prices and to sell them at depressed ones. This can significantly damage performance in the long run. In a 2016 research paper1 focusing on MSCI Minimum Volatility indices for various markets, Joop Huij and Georgi Kyosev, from Robeco’s factor investing team, estimated that maintaining the transparency of public factor-based indices costs investors 16.5 basis points per year.

Sophistication, not opacity

But public availability is far from being the only issue with generic ‘smart beta’. In a previous article in this series, which was dedicated to the major challenges faced by investors considering factor investing, we already mentioned that these products still tend to involve a significant amount of market index exposure as well as unexpected negative exposures to other factors. Moreover, the use of basic factor indices also often implies inefficient portfolio construction processes, that may lead to unnecessary turnover, high concentration on some countries or business sectors, or to an excessive exposure to large capitalization stocks.

Addressing the different pitfalls associated with generic index-based products requires the adoption of more sophisticated approaches, which are typically offered by active asset managers. These can be provided through classic proprietary active strategies or bespoke indices, that are only transparent to the clients who use them. This ensures the risk of overcrowding and arbitrage is avoided.

However, sophistication should also be treated with caution, as it can lead to opacity. For example, investors should avoid solutions using excessively complex definitions for the different factor premiums, as well as those relying on dubious portfolio construction tools.

As simple as possible, as complex as needed

At Robeco we make sure to keep our factor-based strategies as simple as possible, and as complex as needed. We strive for investment approaches that ensure efficient exposure to the well-rewarded factor premiums while remaining transparent to clients, with portfolios and transactions that are easily explained.

For all of our quantitative strategies, we therefore prefer intuitive portfolio construction algorithms over off-the-shelf optimization tools which tend to look like a ‘black box’. In equity markets, for example, our disciplined investment process is fully based on the ranking generated by our quantitative stock selection model. Instead of relying on an optimizer at a later stage, unintended market risk exposure is already neutralized in the stock selection phase.

This reduces the need for more complex optimizers and risk models in the portfolio construction stage of the investment process. It enables us – and our clients – to understand the reason behind each portfolio position and each buy or sell decision. Applying our more robust and transparent portfolio construction algorithm makes it much easier to remain in full control.

1‘Price Response to Factor Index Additions and Deletions’, Joop Huij and Georgi Kyosev, 2016.

Factor investing challenges
Factor investing challenges

This series of articles aims to answer some of the key issues faced by investors when implementing factor investing strategies.

Read all articles

Disclaimer

Please read this important information before proceeding further. It contains legal and regulatory notices relevant to the information contained on this website.

The information contained in the Website is NOT FOR RETAIL CLIENTS - The information contained in the Website is solely intended for professional investors, defined as investors which (1) qualify as professional clients within the meaning of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), (2) have requested to be treated as professional clients within the meaning of the MiFID or (3) are authorized to receive such information under any other applicable laws. The value of the investments may fluctuate. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Investors may not get back the amount originally invested. Neither Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V. nor any of its affiliates guarantees the performance or the future returns of any investments. If the currency in which the past performance is displayed differs from the currency of the country in which you reside, then you should be aware that due to exchange rate fluctuations the performance shown may increase or decrease if converted into your local currency.

In the UK, Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V. (“ROBECO”) only markets its funds to institutional clients and professional investors. Private investors seeking information about ROBECO should visit our corporate website www.robeco.com or contact their financial adviser. ROBECO will not be liable for any damages or losses suffered by private investors accessing these areas.

In the UK, ROBECO Funds has marketing approval for the funds listed on this website, all of which are UCITS funds. ROBECO is authorized by the AFM and subject to limited regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority. Details about the extent of our regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority are available from us on request.

Many of the protections provided by the United Kingdom regulatory framework may not apply to investments in ROBECO Funds, including access to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and the Financial Ombudsman Service. No representation, warranty or undertaking is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information on this website.

If you are not an institutional client or professional investor you should therefore not proceed. By proceeding please note that we will be treating you as a professional client for regulatory purposes and you agree to be bound by our terms and conditions.

If you do not accept these terms and conditions, as well as the terms of use of the website, please do not continue to use or access any pages on this website.

I Disagree