Equity

One Investing Style to Thrive in the Late Cycle

Amid slowing economic growth and depressed market sentiment, cracks are emerging in how institutional asset managers have evaluated risk versus value during the recent 10-year bull market.
November 2019

Amid slowing economic growth and depressed market sentiment, cracks are emerging in how institutional asset managers have evaluated risk versus value during the recent 10-year bull market.

To help navigate the changes, David Rosenblatt, Portfolio Manager at BMO Global Asset Management, offers a unique mix of theory and personal insight on how investors can not only survive – but thrive – as the cycle turns.

Shifting Sands in the Economy

Whether in the U.S. or across the world economy, there is mounting evidence that economic growth in the next two to three year period will differ significantly from the past decade.

Each morning brings a new tweet that can shift markets, impact global trade flows and cause greater volatility. Meanwhile, beyond the surface-level rhetoric and politically driven decisions, there’s still a macro environment which does not look particularly healthy: key yield curves are flat or inverted, global GDP growth has slowed, and key drivers of the economy such as auto sales, rail volumes, and industrial machinery production are all down. With leading indicators sending a clear signal, we find the onus is on bullish investors to tell us why the expansion should continue for a longer period of time.

The continuance of low (or even negative) interest rates also suggests that traditional asset allocation may not be as effective going forward. To be more specific, as risk spreads tighten and bonds become more expensive, it may be increasingly difficult to hedge equity exposure with fixed income investments. Without an appropriate counterbalance, we may start to see portfolio risk profiles change in ways that alter investors’ allocations and, consequently, their investment returns.

A Potential Answer to Rising Uncertainty

To mitigate portfolio drawdowns, many institutional asset managers have turned to low volatility strategies that seek to generate returns by reducing risk. Extensive empirical research has proven that names with low variance outperform higher risk counterparts, not only by reducing downside capture but also by skewing towards better quality holdings that produce sufficient income to withstand a downturn. Contrary to standard finance theory, which claims a positive correlation between risk and reward, the existence of a “low volatility anomaly” suggests human beings are wired to overpay for more speculative payoffs.   

This cognitive bias, known as the lottery effect, is borne out through decades of historical data. One study examined the performance of the largest 1,000 U.S. stocks (by market cap) over four decades, concluding that risk-adjusted returns have a clear inverse relationship, as shown below.

Equity Performance by Quintiles of Volatility, 1970-2011

Low volatility strategies are also particularly effective in up-and-down markets, a feature demonstrated by the simple, clear arithmetic of reduced downside capture. For instance, imagine two stocks with identical expected returns over time, but at different levels of risk exposure; one will experience 30% volatility, the other 10%. If both securities face tailwinds in Year 1 and equal-sized headwinds in Year 2, their performance would vary substantially. Counterintuitive though it may be, the chart below shows how lower risk equities deliver outperformance by preserving more value during the downswing and compounding it over time, rather than simply capturing greater upside when markets are running high. 

Low-risk equity

Year 1 (+10%) x Year 2 (-10%) = 99% of Principal Value

High-risk equity

Year 1 (+30%) x Year 2 (-30%) = 91% of Principal Value

How I Learned to Appreciate Risk vs. Value

Though the benefits of low beta stocks have been known to some degree since 1972, I first encountered the ideas as an undergraduate student dissatisfied with conventional theory. I had started down an economics path and began asking why it revealed only part of the story. From my vantage point, markets and institutions were made up of individuals who make decisions, and psychology seemed a natural complement to what I was learning. It appeared to show how the world exists, not how we think it should exist. But given that my school did not offer an integrated program at the time, it was incumbent on me to create my own “behavioural finance” degree – which I did, graduating with a double major.

While it took several years for me to transition to equity investing, and put my skills to the test, the unique DIY program certainly laid the base for an objective understanding of what drives value in markets; and then from a subjective point of view, how people process that information and make decisions that may or may not be ideal given the information they have.

Another crucial lesson came during my time working in consulting leading up to and then through the 2008 financial crisis. With our clients being mainly financial institutions, we focused on implementing robust risk management processes in order to fortify their businesses and strengthen their risk positions. For years after the crisis it was a constant fire drill trying to help fix problems that were previously invisible. One example that comes to mind is a mid-sized bank that was heavily involved in Florida real estate; during the recovery period, we worked with them to devise and execute a series of steps to re-build their internal risk controls. Unlike many peers, they survived.

Psychology seemed a natural complement to what I was learning. It appeared to show how the world exists, not how we think it should exist.

More importantly though, I gained an inside view of what could go wrong in a catastrophe. It opened my eyes to all of the risks that lie underneath the surface, or behind the curtains in a company, that to an outside observer might be hard to discern, but can mean the difference between being one of the world’s major companies and being insolvent. Looking back, it was the experience working in risk management consulting that taught me to take a more skeptical view of information that’s made publicly available or provided by management, given that whichever issues are “low priority” to them today could eventually become important. It taught me the true meaning of risk.

Achieving True Low Volatility

There are all kinds of approaches to defining low volatility. The first delineation is whether risk is examined at the individual security level, or for the portfolio as a whole. Portfolio managers in the former category naively sort investments from highest to lowest beta in order to carve out a niche at the bottom end of the spectrum, which can lead to portfolios that prove to be fragile in the face of changing risk regimes. True low volatility portfolios, however, measure the impact each holding has on overall risk, even if that means buying some slightly more volatile stocks that provide a hedging advantage.

How do you think about your benchmark?

The boundaries and dimensions of the investment universe is another important consideration. At BMO Global Asset Management, we have a global strategy that invests in developed and emerging markets of all cap sizes, which we think allows us to take the most comprehensive approach to lowering risk and really finding the best opportunities. If we were to limit our view to just large cap developed markets, our ability to discover assets that thrive in different environments would be severely reduced.

A third question to ask any low volatility manager is, “How do you think about your benchmark?” Many, if not most, have sector exposure rules that attempt to mirror the index, meaning that if there is 25% exposure to technology the strategy may have a mandate to stay between 20 and 30%. Consider the possibilities: in the event that technology assets become high risk, some low volatility strategies would still be required to invest a sizeable portion into the sector, based on their internal rules.

We take a differentiated, more holistic approach to risk management. Granted, our Canadian, U.S. and global low volatility strategies include common-sense limits on overall sector exposure to ensure diversification, but from there we really want to focus on gaining access to areas we consider high quality and low risk – regardless of how they compare to the benchmark.

Conclusion and Outlook

The 10-year market expansion, which peaked in the first quarter of 2018, was characterized by a barbell approach to risk where investors split interest between high growth, wide moat companies (mainly in the technology space) and firms that outwardly appeared low risk, such as utilities. While those two sectors were suitable for the extended post-2008 recovery, we are starting to see more skepticism about which firms qualify for the “low risk” label and which do not.

Though recent declines have been gradual and we haven’t yet seen a truly sharp downturn, this is precisely the environment in which low volatility strategies can deliver outperformance. After all, given that the inverted yield curve is an ominous sign with a good track record of predicting recessions, and there are presidential elections and ongoing trade war developments that can increase market volatility, it seems prudent for investors to adopt a defensive posture that can deliver in all market scenarios.

To learn more about BMO Low Volatility Strategies, and other ideas to enhance your portfolio, please contact your Regional BMO Asset Management Institutional Sales & Service Representative.

For a deeper dive on using low volatility to improve risk-adjusted returns, read:

 

Also in the Fall 2019 Issue of IQ:

Achieving an ESG Edge in Emerging Markets >

UK Real Estate Provides TRUE Alternative Exposures >

Related Capability

Learn more about our U.S. Equity capabilities.

Subscribe to our insights

Not intended for distribution outside of Canada.

Certain of the products and services offered under the brand name BMO Global Asset Management are designed specifically for various categories of investors in a number of different countries and regions and may not be available to all investors. Products and services are only offered to such investors in those countries and regions in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

This communication is intended for informational purposes only and is not, and should not be construed as, investment, legal or tax advice to any individual. Particular investments and/or trading strategies should be evaluated relative to each individual’s circumstances. Individuals should seek the advice of professionals, as appropriate, regarding any particular investment.

Any statement that necessarily depends on future events may be a forward-looking statement. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of performance. They involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Although such statements are based on assumptions that are believed to be reasonable, there can be no assurance that actual results will not differ materially from expectations. Investors are cautioned not to rely unduly on any forward-looking statements. In connection with any forward-looking statements, investors should carefully consider the areas of risk described in the most recent simplified prospectus.

BMO Global Asset Management is a brand name that comprises BMO Asset Management Inc., BMO Investments Inc., BMO Asset Management Corp., BMO Asset Management Limited and BMO’s specialized investment management firms.

®/™Registered trade-marks/trade-mark of Bank of Montreal, used under licence.

Related articles
No posts matching your criteria
  • July 2020

    Is value dead?

    Value investing has consistently trailed the broader market in recent years, prompting some institutional investors to question its role in the portfolio.

  • July 2020

    Did someone say conviction?

    Conviction is one word that’s hard to come by during these uncertain times.

  • Low volatility equities: Why now, why active?

    Against the backdrop of rising volatility and expensive valuations for risk reduction, an active low volatility strategy that empowers investors to reduce risk at reasonable cost while maintaining equity upside for the long-term is imperative now more than ever.

  • Hedging against FAANG Optimism

    Even though FAANGs are revered as pillars of the U.S. stock market, BMO Head of Disciplined Equities, David Corris, thinks there is a better way to out-distance the Index over the long term. According to David, targeting less trendy, low volatility companies that are typically – and systematically – undervalued is how risk-focused investors can achieve equity market exposure, while preserving downside protection.

  • Global Small-Cap Allocation: A Catalyst to Portfolio Success

    While institutional investors worldwide have traditionally focused on larger-cap stocks, increasingly, more asset owners and managers are strategically allocating to small caps as part of their global equity portfolios.

  • 01/01/2018

    Small Cap Does Not Have to Equal Big Risk

    Portfolio managers Tyler Hewlett and David Taylor defy the conventional notion that equates small-cap stocks with a high amount of risk – with their track record of focusing on quality, growth and value creation for the long term.