Connect with us

3 Reasons to Rethink Risk Parity

Published

on

freedomtowernycjul2015

Seeking to justly capitalize on Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT), risk parity uses the power of leverage to form a diversified portfolio that can generate equity-like returns with using less risk than equities. This alchemist-like strategy aims to construct a well-diversified portfolio that has the highest probability of outperforming cash. At formation, a risk parity portfolio has a low expected risk and return profile; however, investors can apply leverage to achieve the desired risk profile. Interestingly, risk parity breaks norms in not using asset class return forecasts to build a portfolio; it uses risk estimates to size positions within the portfolio. Sounds good?

Risk parity has attracted many adopters on the institutional investor side. Some asset owner converts include Denmark’s ATP, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP), Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan, Indiana Public Retirement System, State of Wisconsin Investment Board (SWIB) and the Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS). In October 2012, TRS invested US$ 584 million in risk parity strategies, awarding it to two external managers, Bridgewater Associates and AQR Capital Management. The Texas pension giant and SWIB developed their own internal risk parity strategy. Some institutional investors find it harder to use external money managers for risk parity due to overlay and control issues.

With that being said, a lot of money managers have been getting into the risk parity business. Some of the heavyweights in risk parity are AQR, Invesco and Bridgewater Associates.

In the last twelve months, risk parity strategies have performed poorly. UK-based investment consulting firm Redington said risk parity lost 5.4% for the year ending June 30th, while U.S. equities and other developed equity markets had positive returns.

Here are 3 reasons why risk parity could be dangerous for an institutional portfolio.

#1.) Massively Underperform in Periods of Rising Interest Rates
How risky are bonds in a prolonged period of zero interest rate policy? Typical risk parity strategies have allocations to nominal bonds which can expect to be pummeled on if interest rates rise faster than expected. In May 2013, the month of the “taper talk”, many risk parity strategies underperformed, seeing fund returns plummet in mid-single digits in a matter of weeks. The interest rate shock of 2013, exposed the sensitivity of risk parity strategies. Ray Dalio’s Bridgewater, known as the godfather of risk parity, had a tough June 2015 month. Bridgewater’s All Weather fund returned -3.78% in the month according to Forbes. Invesco Balanced-Risk Allocation Fund, looking at net asset value, from June 30th, till the beginning of the year netted 0.35%. MSCI World Index posted 2.95% comparing the same period.

Risk Parity Funds and Strategies 2014 Return S&P 500 Price Return USD Excess Return
Bridgewater All Weather Strategy 8.6% 13.69% -5.09%
AQR Global Risk Premium Fund 9.4% 13.69% -4.29%
Invesco Balanced-Risk Allocation Fund 5.5% 13.69% -8.19%
Salient Risk Parity Fund 13.58% 13.69% -0.11%
Putnam Dynamic Risk Allocation 2.69% 13.69% -11.00%

Source: Morningstar, Forbes, Invesco, AQR
 

#2.) When All Asset Values Drop, You Are Still Screwed
Risk parity assumes risk and volatility are related. Like in 2013, when many asset classes fell, the diversified approach failed, leaving nowhere to hide but in cash. Risk parity strategies are short cash, leading to poor performance when cash is king. When markets lose confidence like in 2008, where there was a flight to quality, risk parity would have performed negatively.

#3.) Using Leverage to Reduce Risk
This notion of using leverage to reduce risk makes sense in some scenarios. However, there needs to be sufficient cash in the portfolio to meet margin calls, proper counterparty risk control, true diversification and having a level of asset liquidity. These sophisticated techniques come at a price. Institutional investors when externally allocating are paying big for the modeling and strategic diversification. Varied manager statistical models will yield different answers, thus some managers are able to draw in more clients due to their ability to generate higher returns due to more accurate models.

Japanese Government Capital Provides Initial Life for Texas Bullet Train

Published

on

Dallas-based Texas Central Partners, LLC is the developer of a proposed high-speed rail system, dubbed the Texas Bullet Train, between Dallas and Houston. Project costs are estimated between US$ 12 billion to US$ 15 billion. The developer secured US$ 300 million in project loans from Japan Overseas Infrastructure Investment Corporation for Transport & Urban Development (JOIN) and the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC). [ Content protected for Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute Standard subscribers only. Please subscribe to view content. ]

Continue Reading

DOJ Investing Tesla Over Musk Comments

Published

on

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is conducting a fraud investigation over Tesla as its CEO Elon Musk made public statements on twitter. This is a criminal probe. In addition, earlier, SWFI reported the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is conducting a civil inquiry into Elon Musk regarding his statements.

This all surrounds Musk tweeting in August that he was thinking of taking Tesla private and had “funding secured” for the transaction. Both government authorities are seeing if Musk misled investors and violated federal securities laws with his public statements.

Continue Reading

Marsh & McLennan Companies to Acquire JLT Group

Published

on

Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC), a global professional services firm offering clients advice and solutions in risk, strategy and people, announced that it has reached an agreement to acquire Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group plc (JLT), a provider of insurance, reinsurance and employee benefits related advice, brokerage and associated services. The transaction has been approved by the Board of Directors of each of MMC and JLT. JLT’s largest shareholder, Jardine Matheson Holdings, and JLT directors who collectively represent 40.5% of the issued and outstanding JLT shares in support of the transaction.

[ Content protected for Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute Standard subscribers only. Please subscribe to view content. ]

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.