Connect with us

Sponsor Content

Make Diversification your Beta

Published

on

Yves Choueifaty, President and Founder of TOBAM

Yves Choueifaty, President and Founder of TOBAM

This article is sponsored by TOBAM.

Yves Choueifaty, President and Founder of TOBAM, explains why concepts such as “smart beta” or “neutral portfolio” require clear definitions and how the Maximum Diversification® approach answers the need for beta.

What is your definition of Smart Beta? What makes a beta smart?
TOBAM is one of the founders of what has been called by the industry the “Smart Beta” movement since 2005. I do not like the expression smart beta since it lacks clear definition and, as a mathematician, I do not like undefined terminology.

So, what is smart beta? Originally, beta is a measure of how much you access the systematic risk premium available in a given market. Secondly, what is the systematic risk premium? It is the return of the undiversifiable portfolio.

Most of the smart beta approaches emerged from the observation that the current representation of beta by the industry, which is the market capitalisation-weighted benchmark, is failing to achieve two objectives. The first objective is to be close the efficient frontier ex-post, and the second is to be truly diversified.

The market cap-weighted benchmark has failed to meet those two criteria and, as a result, there is a growing demand for a smarter way to access the equity risk premium.

The common thread of mainstream smart beta approaches and their providers is the recognition that market cap-weighted indices are not the optimal solution for investors. In that sense, “Smart beta” approaches are smart or at least “smarter” than the traditional benchmarks.

What defines truly a smart beta approach, I believe, is its capacity to deliver an equilibrium portfolio.

Risk Factor investing, for example, is contradictory with the notion of equilibrium since betting on a factor for pricing or strategic reasons remains an arbitrage. This is as far as the similarities go in the smart beta world.

TOBAM is the founder and unique provider of the Maximum Diversification® approach and Anti-Benchmark® strategy. What makes your approach unique?
The core investment philosophy of TOBAM is to harness diversification to optimally capture risk premium of an asset class. At TOBAM we don’t know if we are “smart” but we believe that we provide the Beta.

Our conviction is that the inefficiency of the market cap-weighted strategy arises from insufficient diversification. TOBAM’s patented Maximum Diversification® approach is designed to maximise the degree of diversification when selecting the weighting of assets in the portfolio allocation process. TOBAM’s proprietary measure of diversification, the Diversification Ratio®, is maximized to produce a portfolio designed to access risk premium evenly from all the independent risk factors available in the market at any given time.

The Anti-Benchmark® portfolios generated by this approach aim at providing greater returns than market cap-weighted benchmarks over a market cycle, while these portfolios typically also have significantly lower volatilities than the market cap-weighted benchmarks.

What is your position in the current debate about the passive versus active management?
“Passive”… “management.” This is the perfect example of an oxymoron. How can you be passive and manage? How can you manage and be passive?

In my mind passive has nothing to do with asset management, it is literally a custody job.

The passive/active dilemma is hiding another much more crucial dilemma. We often tend to assume that a passive portfolio (i.e., following the benchmark) is a neutral portfolio. This is absolutely false. You can be passive, but you definitely are not neutral, implementing a neutral risk allocation. The market cap-weighted benchmarks are hugely biased and completely failing to allocate their risk neutrally across the risk drivers.

Smart beta approaches are active by design. To remain the Most Diversified Portfolio®, for instance, you need to stay active, in order to remain neutral. Being a systematic asset manager, we are systematically active.

Does that mean that the end is near for traditional benchmarks?
I believe that benchmarks have a role to play in the asset management industry. They are representative of the market; they are the sum of all speculation and, as such, provide information for asset managers and investors. They are a very useful tool for the finance industry but they need to remain an output.

The tendency over the last 20 years to use market cap-weighted benchmarks as inputs that some asset managers take as a strategy reference to follow is highly inefficient and potentially destructive for the global economy, as it diverts core asset managers from their fundamental role in the latter.

How would you then define the role of core asset managers for the global economy?
The job of core asset managers within the overall wealth creation process is to re-invest savings into the economy to create wealth for investors through growth and development. Importantly, the real source of wealth is not the “skills” of portfolio managers, but the “skills” of employees working in the companies in which savings are invested, labour, in other words. It is labour, through improved innovation, productivity and corporate governance, that creates wealth for the investor. This is especially true in the case of equity holdings.

The fundamental role of core asset managers is to act as a link between savings and labour and ensure the risks savers are taking are rewarded as well as possible. To achieve this as purely as possible, it is critical to protect investors’ core portfolios against all kinds of speculation.

By definition, a Maximum Diversification® approach intrinsically promotes firms that stand out in terms of innovation, efficiency and strong governance. It is these characteristics that progressively contribute to the creation of growth, wealth and improve the overall well-being of society.

For more information
TOBAM is an asset management company offering innovative investment capabilities whose aim is to maximize diversification. TOBAM’s flagship Anti-Benchmark® strategies, supported by original research and a mathematical definition of diversification, provides clients with diversified core equity exposure, both globally and in domestic markets. As at March 2015, the company manages about $9 billion via its Anti-Benchmark strategies for clients worldwide. Its team includes 36 financial professionals. For more information, please visit www.tobam.fr

Disclaimer:
This material is based on sources considered to be reliable as of the date shown, but the completeness or accuracy of any information or opinions expressed are not warranted by TOBAM. TOBAM reserves the right of revision or change without notice of the information and opinions expressed in this material. TOBAM accepts no liability whatsoever, whether direct or indirect, that may arise from the use of information or opinions contained in this material.

Sponsor Content

How Do Public Pension Funds Invest?

Published

on

This article is sponsored by State Street.

Public Pension Funds (PPFs) are highly idiosyncratic and distinct from other types of institutional investors. The universe of investors that fall within our definition of a PPF is numerous and varied. We count 115 institutions in 70 jurisdictions, diverse in geography and economic development. For the purposes of our study, we examined the top 16 funds whose assets constitute just over two-thirds of the total universe. Despite all the idiosyncrasies of PPFs, we have found some shared characteristics in the evolution of their asset allocation over the past decade.

According to our definition, PPFs held around $5.9 trillion in total assets of 2016 and over 4% of all publicly traded assets, making them a significant global investor group. In particular, given their preferences for specific asset classes, their share is disproportionate in some segments. For example, we estimate that by year-end 2016, PPFs owned over 7% of global tradeable fixed income assets (including 8% government bonds and over 13% of inflation-linked bonds) and over 3% of listed public equities.

Similar to other asset owners, PPFs have undertaken a major reallocation of assets over the past decade. However, the motivating driver has not only been the low yield environment, but also changing regulatory and macro policy settings, which either permitted or encouraged greater diversification along asset classes and geographical exposure.

In detail, the most dominant trend has been the move away from holding domestic (local currency) bonds; in their place, PPFs have redeployed assets towards equities and alternatives, with a small share also diverted into foreign bonds. These allocation trends have been almost universal despite a huge diversity of geography and economic development.

It is important to acknowledge how much this investor group has changed over the past decade, with the asset pool growing by over 40% in dollar terms, and even more if measured in local currencies. While some funds are still predominantly captive buyers of government debt, the bulk of PPFs have been transforming into financial institutions with independent firepower and income-generating capacity. The long-term trend towards more diversified fixed income portfolios is likely to continue, as is the shift towards taking on more risk via equity allocations, subject as ever to changes in market cycles. In this context, we expect most PPFs to not only continue taking on more risk overall, but to further internationalise their portfolios.

Finally, one consideration is that maturing funds catering for aging populations will have to make further adjustments to their asset allocations to account for changing cash flow directions and seek greater contributions and investment returns to bridge any funding gaps.

All information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy is not guaranteed. There is no representation or warranty as to the current accuracy, reliability or completeness of, nor liability for, decisions based on such information and it should not be relied on as such.

This document may contain certain statements deemed to be forward-looking statements. All statements, other than historical facts, contained within this document that address activities, events or developments that SSGA expects, believes or anticipates will or may occur in the future are forward-looking statements. Please note that any such statements are not guarantees of any future performance and that actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements.

Tracking Code: 2172159.1.1.GBL.RTL

VIEW REPORT

Disclaimer
By clicking on the link to view the report, you acknowledge you are an institutional investor or other accredited investor.

Authors
Elliot Hentov, Ph.D. Head of Policy and Research, Official Institutions Group Elliot_Hentov@ssga.com
Alexander Petrov Policy and Research, Official Institutions Group Alexander_Petrov@ssga.com
Sejal Odedra Business Analyst, Client Strategy, Official Institutions Group Sejal_Odedra@ssga.com

Continue Reading

Sponsor Content

The Slings and Arrows of Passive Fortune

Published

on

This article is sponsored by S&P DJI.

If a tale were to be written regaling us with the popular exploits of the modern day active manager in his quest for alpha across the many peaks and valleys of the financial world, passive investment would likely feature prominently in the telling. Passively managed assets have grown tremendously since their introduction in the 1970s to command some 20% of the U.S. stock’s market total-float adjusted capitalization, drawing a deluge of criticism in recent years from proponents of a more traditional, active approach who charge indexers with all manner of supposed ills – from encouraging collusive behavior and exacerbating pricing inefficiencies, to indifference on matters of corporate governance.

But are passive assets and their purveyors really the threat to markets that active management makes them out to be? Or are the problems attributed to their rise merely a reflection of the market forces all participants must face? These are the questions posed by Anu Ganti and Craig Lazzara at S&P Dow Jones Indices (S&P DJI) in their new paper, titled “The Slings and Arrows of Passive Fortune,” which seeks to unravel some of the most pervasive myths surrounding the growing role of index funds, highlight the immense value they bring to asset owners, and posits a future of asymmetric equilibrium between the old and the new that puts each in their proper place based on relative – rather than absolute – performance.

Nobody – including the paper’s authors – denies that index-based investment has made life more challenging for active managers, who count alpha as their very lifeblood; but so too would it be foolish to argue its advancement as one of the most important developments in modern financial history is without merit, or somehow Thucydidean in nature. If anything, active management can and should expect its portion of the pie (which, it must be pointed out, constitutes the majority of assets by a wide margin) to remain subject to nibbles from their passive counterparts – nibbles that may, with time, diminish. The market always has room for more players at the table, after all, and we all play by its rules.

As Director and Managing Director of index investment strategy team at S&P DJI, Ganti and Lazzara provide research and commentary on the firm’s entire product set – covering U.S. and global equities, commodities, fixed income, and economic indices. Both are chartered financial analysts and regular contributors to Indexology, S&P DJI’s appropriately named blog covering developments in the world of indexing.

Continue Reading

Sponsor Content

Battea: 2017 Securities Class Action Industry Lookback and Observations

Published

on

This article is sponsored by Battea.

Source: Battea

There has been incredible growth in securities and antitrust class action litigations and settlements, particularly as they have unfolded in 2016 and 2017. The number of new cases and settlements from traditional securities litigation to antitrust rate rigging, spread inflation and other forms of collusion are at an all time high and shows no signs of slowing down.

With several multi-billion dollar litigations related to Libor, Euribor and Tibor rates, and spread manipulations, the securities, foreign exchange and antitrust class and collective actions litigation space rose exponentially in 2017.

View Whitepaper Here

Continue Reading

Popular

© 2008-2018 Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute. All Rights Reserved. Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute ® and SWFI® are registered trademarks of the Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute. Other third-party content, logos and trademarks are owned by their perspective entities and used for informational purposes only. No affiliation or endorsement, express or implied, is provided by their use. All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms of use agreement which includes our privacy policy. Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute (SWFI) is a global organization designed to study sovereign wealth funds, pensions, endowments, superannuation funds, family offices, central banks and other long-term institutional investors in the areas of investing, asset allocation, risk, governance, economics, policy, trade and other relevant issues. SWFI facilitates sovereign fund, pension, endowment, superannuation fund and central bank events around the world. SWFI is a minority-owned organization.