With the Federal Funds rate as close to "zero" as it can feasibly get, it would seem that interest rates have only one directly to go: up. And given the mathematics of bond investing - as interest rates rise, bond prices fall - many advisors and their clients have decided that the only prudent course is to wait for rates to rise before investing into the bond markets. Yet the truth - as a recent white paper points out - is that there is a cost to waiting, in the form of earning lower returns while waiting for interest rates to rise. Which means to say the least, if you're engaging in a strategy of waiting on bonds for interest rates to rise... you better be right about when and how much they actually do increase!
In the standard framework of portfolio management, changing a client's exposure to risk is essentially analogous to changing their overall exposure to risk assets. Want conservative growth? Invest in a portfolio with 40% equities and 60% fixed. Want a more moderate growth portfolio? Increase to 60% equities. More aggressive growth? Allocate your portfolio further towards an equity tilt. At its core, the proposition is pretty straightforward: increase your overall portfolio allocation increasingly towards risk assets to increase the overall risk (and hopefully, return) profile of the portfolio. But what if there was another way to increase overall risk? What if, rather than increasing overall risk by adding a little risk to the whole portfolio, the risk was increased by adding a lot of volatility to a very small portion of the money?
As the terms "being tactical" or "tactical asset allocation" become increasingly popular, more and more advisors now must decide whether they, too, are "tactical" or not when describing their investment process and philosophy to current and prospective clients. Traditionally, the dividing line was simply whether one was active or passive, a determination that could be made pretty clearly by looking at the portfolio: were there a bunch of actively traded stocks and bonds, or a series of actively managed mutual funds that did the same thing? With tactical, though, it's no longer sufficient to simply look at whether there are stocks and bonds in the portfolio, or actively managed mutual funds; instead, some tactical investors implement their strategies by selecting only passive index funds, but still utilize them in an active, tactical process. Which begs the question: where exactly do you draw the line on being tactical?Read More...
Rebalancing is a investing staple of the financial planning world. The execution of a rebalancing strategy helps to ensure that the client's asset allocation does not drift too far out of whack, as without such a process a portfolio holding multiple investments with different returns would eventually lead to a portfolio that increasingly favors the highest return investments due to compounding. Yet in practice, most financial planners often discuss rebalancing not only as a risk-reduction strategy (by ensuring that higher-return higher-volatility assets do not drift to excessive allocations), but also as a return-enhancing strategy. However, in reality, there is nothing inherent about rebalancing that would be anticipated to generate higher returns... unless you get the market timing right.
For many planners, passive and strategic investment management is the way to go. As such planners often point out, the evidence is mixed at best that any money manager can ever consistently generate alpha by outperforming their appropriate benchmark. Accordingly, as those planners advocate, the best path is to minimize investment costs as much as possible (since we know expenses we don't pay is more money we keep in our pockets), and investment allocation changes should only occur via a regular rebalancing process. Yet rebalancing does not always improve your returns; sometimes, it actually reduces future wealth. So if you try to come up with a "passive" rebalancing strategy that only enhances returns and doesn't ever reduce them... does that mean you're actually being active after all?
The debate about which is better - passive versus active investing - has been around for a long time. But in a world of pooled investment vehicles, especially with such a breadth of mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs), there are technically two levels on which decisions must be made: within the funds, and amongst the funds. Consequently, to describe the approach of an investment advisor, we should ultimately describe the process at both levels, to make clearer distinctions. For instance, are you strategically passive, or would strategically active be a better description. Wait, strategically active? What does THAT mean!?
If there’s one new asset class that seems to have truly caught the imagination of clients, it’s gold. Technology, real estate, and emerging markets have all caught fire for some period of time in recent years, but gold still seems to stir something emotional in us, above and beyond just the pangs of greed that have characterized the other hot investments of the decade. Perhaps it’s the fact that gold is something that theoretically performs well in times of distress; it can serve as a hedge in times of inflation, help protect against the declining value of our currency, and be a safe harbor when everything else is in trouble. Given so much client anxiety about today’s economic environment, it’s not difficult to understand the appeal. In the end, there is perhaps only one significant problem: gold doesn’t actually have any value; it can only accomplish these financial feats of strength because we believe that it can.
Under classic Modern Portfolio Theory, there is a single portfolio that is considered to have the most efficient risk/return balance for a given target return or target risk level; any portfolio which deviates from the "optimal" allocation must, by definition, either offer lower returns for a comparable level of risk, or result in higher risk for the same level of return. Accordingly, as the theory is extended, advisors should avoid making portfolio shifts that constitute tactical "bets" in particular stocks, sectors, asset classes, etc., as it must by definition result in a portfolio that is not on the efficient frontier; one that will be accepting a lower return for a given level of risk, or higher risk for a comparable return. Unfortunately, though, this perspective on MPT with respect to making tactical portfolio shifts is not accurate, for one simple reason: it is based on an invalid assumption that there is a single answer for the "right" return, volatility, and correlation assumptions that will never change over time, even though Markowitz himself didn't think that was a good way to apply his theory!
With the financial crisis of 2008-2009, some planners appear to be considering - if not adopting - a somewhat more active approach. Unfortunately, though, for many planners any investment strategy that is not purely passive and strategic must be equated to "market timing" - a pejorative term. Yet the planners who have implemented some form of tactical asset allocation generally do not call themselves market timers; they recoil at the term as much as passive, strategic investors do. So where do you draw the line... what IS the difference between being "tactical" and being a "market timer"? In truth, it seems that once you dig under the hood, the differences are nuanced, but they are many, and significant.
Determining whether an active manager is having a positive impact is a difficult thing to measure, without a doubt. Yet before one can even begin to determine if a manager is delivering value, you must first consider what it takes to constitute "value" in the first place. How much does an active manager need to outperform, in order to be delivering value to the client, to be worth the fee that is paid to the manager? Yet for some reason, we scale we use to measure the cost is very different than how we measure (out)performance. Is there a double-standard here?
