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
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.
The Slings and Arrows of Passive Fortune
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.
Battea: 2017 Securities Class Action Industry Lookback and Observations
This article is sponsored by 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
The Future of Operations: Simplify, Innovate and Transform
This article is sponsored by Broadridge.
Now that the pain of the global financial crisis and subsequent regulations are starting to fade from view, the asset management industry is facing new challenges that will transform the business. Firms must be nimble enough to support this evolution. That means not only redesigning operations, but also adopting new technologies that can be used for innovation in-house and with the help of partners.
In active management, the industry has created more complex products to generate alpha, while the growth of passive management, spurred by fintech competition, is compressing fees. At the same time, expansion into new markets has added costs. Facing these challenges will require serious improvements to back- and middle-office operations — an overhaul of everything from data validation to trade reconciliation.
For this type of transformation, experts say, it’s not enough to improve the steps in a process. Financial institutions need to eliminate steps. Specifically, executive members of the Asset Management Group of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) say that leading firms should:
Work collaboratively. Firms should collaborate to solve common problems; use associations to identify and promote best practices; and partner with service providers, utilities and regulators to tap their specialized skills and mutualize non-differentiating functions.
Tackle common pain points. Many of the industry’s biggest challenges come from a lack of standardized processes: Standardizing data is the top challenge and sets a foundation to accelerate change.
Leverage transformational technology. Cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and distributed ledger technology can be transformational over the coming three, five or 10 years — but investing now is vital.
Assess, accept and mitigate risks. During times of large transformational change, it should be understood that risks are higher. This traditionally risk-adverse industry must balance the need for bold change against the fear of producing subpar outcomes.
This paper asks how asset managers can move beyond incremental improvements, like shaving costs from processes like post-trade settlement, regulatory compliance and reconciliation, to reimagining how operations are handled. Based on discussions with executives from leading asset management, buy-side, and sell-side firms, as well as service providers, it assesses the drivers for change and the challenges and opportunities ahead, and discusses what actions the industry must take to reach its desired future state.
The long-term vision of how asset management operations should change is best summed up by one word: Simplify.
To learn more about “The Future of Operations” for the asset management industry, download the white paper from Broadridge and the SIFMA Asset Management Group.
To learn more about Broadridge’s solutions for the asset management industry, please visit www.broadridge.com/financial-services/asset-management/
3 weeks ago
HQ Capital Raises Money for U.S. Real Estate
3 weeks ago
Russia-Japan Investment Fund to Back Wood Pellet Production in Russia
3 weeks ago
Is Franklin Templeton the Private IMF for Argentina?
3 weeks ago
Oman Infrastructure Investment Fund Near Creation
3 weeks ago
Gulf Japan Food Fund Buys Majority Stake in Country Hill International
3 weeks ago
Red Sea Project Gets Former Canary Wharf Veteran
1 week ago
CPPIB to Become First Major Pension to Issue Green Bonds
3 weeks ago
SWFI First Read, May 29, 2018