Tag Archives: feeds

Video: The Devil Is In The Details

The conventional thinking is that all quantitative managers are the same – that they analyze the same data, read the same academic research, and use the same concepts to identify attractive stocks. In this video, Robert Furdak, Co-Chief Investment Officer at Man Numeric, challenges this view by arguing that ‘the devil is in the details’ and that the distinctions in how quantitative managers construct and combine models to generate trading signals are significant. To illustrate this, he looks at existing value models that most people might think would be highly correlated to show that returns become progressively better (and volatility decreases) as the value models become more evolved. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The value of an investment and any income derived from it can go down as well as up and investors may not get back their original amount invested. Opinions expressed are those of the author, may not be shared by all personnel of Man Group plc (‘Man’) and are subject to change without notice.

Is Indexing Just Another Wall Street Fad?

Here’s an interesting comment from value investor Seth Klarman on the rise of indexing (this is from 1991!): Klarman is obviously biased because he’s in the business of selling a high fee asset management platform. If indexing is right, then his form of highly active alpha chasing asset management is wrong. This is basically what Bill Ackman was saying when he lashed out against indexing earlier this year. Anyhow, I think Klarman and Ackman are brilliant and I could never do what they’ve done over the years, but I did want to highlight some of the comments here because there are common concerns that I don’t think are fully warranted. SK: Indexing is predicated on efficient markets. CR: No, this is one point I’ve reiterated in my repetitive posts on the myth of passive investing . Indexing doesn’t work because markets are efficient. Efficiency has nothing to do with it . Indexing works because the costs of active management are so high. Bogle outlined this thinking back in 2003 . SK: The higher the percentage of all investors who index, the more inefficient the markets become as fewer and fewer investors would be performing research and fundamental analysis. CR: This is the paradox of indexing. Indexing, by definition, requires active management. In order for the passive indexers to remain passive, they need active managers to make the markets that fulfill their indexing needs. There cannot be a world of only passive indexers. So, if indexing is eating the world, then there should be more opportunities for active managers in the form of market making and index arbitrage opportunities. Active managers like high frequency trading firms are flourishing in this world. Indexing doesn’t kill active management. It just forces it to change. And if Klarman is right, then he should embrace indexing as it could create more opportunities for more active managers to discover inefficiencies. SK: If everyone practiced indexing… CR: Nope, this is impossible. Indexing requires active management to implement the various index fund strategies that exist. Speaking of which, there are so many “indices” out there today that the whole idea of indexing has become rather nebulous. The indexing world is comprised of all sorts of different strategies that try to take advantage of different inefficiencies in the market. Index funds are just product wrappers doing exactly what Seth Klarman is trying to do in his hedge fund. For instance, the Vanguard Value Fund is trying to capture the value premium by holding a specific set of stocks that meet a certain “value” criteria. The only real difference between this index fund and Seth Klarman’s hedge fund is that the Vanguard fund is lower fee, more tax efficient and more diversified. SK: “[Indexing] means that in a proxy contest, it makes no real difference to the manager of an index fund whether the dissidents or the incumbent management wins the fight”. CR: The vast evidence on the failure of active managers over the decades shows that public market investors don’t understand corporations better than managements. I don’t see how this evidence adds credence to the idea that we should want public investors to be even more active in the daily management activities of corporations… If anything, the failure of active managers means we should want public investors to voice fewer opinions about how companies should be run and instead of voting with their proxies, stick to voting with their wallets. SK: I believe that indexing will turn out to be just another Wall Street fad. CR: Well, this was fabulously wrong. Indexing assets have exploded since 1991 as more active strategies have floundered.

Liquid Alternative Investments For Ordinary Investors

Barron’s did a nice special report this week on AQR’s liquid alternative investments. AQR, which is run by Cliff Asness, John Liew and David Kabiller, is a pioneer in the liquid alternatives space and manages an impressive $141 billion in assets. They also happen to be a competitor of mine. My partner, Dr. Phillip Guerra, has developed an entire suite of liquid alternative strategies based on many of the same principles used by AQR. As Barron’s writes, Since U.S. stocks peaked in July, few investments have produced strong returns. Global stocks, junk bonds, and most commodities have declined-in many cases, sharply. And many so-called alternative investments have failed to provide hoped-for diversification benefits. Just look at the big losses suffered by some notable hedge funds. The situation hasn’t been much better among liquid alternatives, or mutual funds that use hedge fund strategies such as merger and convertible arbitrage, long/short equity, and trend-following in futures markets. Yet, against this tough backdrop, a bunch of academics are delivering. Their firm, AQR Capital Management (AQR stands for applied quantitative research), is a distinctive investment manager that seeks to translate academic insights about finance and the markets-such as the appeal of value and momentum investing-into winning quantitative strategies for institutional and retail buyers… Indeed, the stock market selloff since the start of this year has shaped up as a key test of whether liquid alts can deliver the promised diversification and protect investors during downturns. Liquid-alt funds have been rightly criticized for generally disappointing returns during the recent bull market-and high fees, to boot. During a raging bull market, alternative strategies will almost always underperform… as will most traditional long-only active managers. It makes sense to dump every last cent into an S&P 500 index fund and be done. But the kind of market we’ve experienced since 2009 isn’t normal. It was a product of low valuations following the 2008 meltdown and the loosest monetary policy in history from the Fed. But with the market now in expensive territory and with the Fed’s easy money policies slowly on the way out, an alternative strategy makes all the sense in the world, at least with a portion of your portfolio. You want returns that are uncorrelated to the market. You’re not betting against the market, mind you. You’re just looking for something that marches to the beat of its own drum. I like what AQR is doing. But there’s a big problem with it: While they advertise that their alternative funds are liquid, they are all but unattainable for the vast majority of investors. The minimum investment on many of their mutual funds is as high as $1 million. We can do it better. With an investment of just $100,000 (and actually less with our robo-advisor option), we can execute a comparable strategy and do so with far lower fees. To see how our results stack up against AQR and the rest, take a look here . I’m a big believer in the benefits of a long-term buy-and-hold strategy, particularly for younger investors. But I’m also realistic and realize fully that a long-only strategy will go through long periods of underperformance. From 1968 to 1982 – a period of 14 years – long-only investors in U.S. stocks wouldn’t have earned a single red cent. Now, I have no way of knowing if we are about to enter a long dry spell like that. But if you are in or near retirement, doesn’t it make sense to have at least a portion of your portfolio in a strategy that zigs when the market zags? Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered specific investment advice or as a solicitation to buy or sell any securities. Sizemore Capital personnel and clients will often have an interest in the securities mentioned. There is risk in any investment in traded securities, and all Sizemore Capital investment strategies have the possibility of loss. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. This article first appeared on Sizemore Insights as Liquid Alternative Investments for Ordinary Investors