If corporate pensions put 100% in their plan sponsor's stock we would conclude that ONLY security selection drives returns. If investors flipped coins each year to be 100% equities or fixed-income then market timing becomes the SOLE factor. You only have to look at the risks and losses in traditional portfolios to see that "bet on beta" asset allocation needs NEW thinking. Some say investors ought to have more in risky assets due to higher "expected" returns. Instead people would be wise to focus on 100% in skill. For those with liabilities to fund, intolerance of volatility or dislike of deep drawdowns, alpha is the MORE prudent investment.
The actual determinant of superior risk-adjusted returns is investment SKILL not percentages in different UNSKILLED asset classes. If the academic papers had confined their analysis to high frequency strategies obviously they would find that ability at high frequency trading drove performance! Is it valuable information to "discover" that asset allocators' returns largely depend on the asset allocation they chose? Most top performing portfolios concentrate on alpha so why should anyone waste so much time and money on policy beta decisions? ? yes, ? no. How did these papers get through "peer" review? Would never have happened in the hard sciences.
It was a GREAT decade for the S&P 500. No beta for "passive" index fund fans but every day offered an opportunity set of fluctuating securities to capture alpha out of the unskilled. It was an even better 25 years for the Nikkei. No beta since 1984 but vast alpha was generated from security selection and market timing by those with talent. In aggregate, "stocks" can and do underperform "risk free bonds" for decades. 60/40 sounds prudent until rephrased as 90/10 risk. Why have a high risk appetite when unhedged equity indices NEVER compensate with sufficient reward even in bull markets. Last century's 8% return on 16% volatility was an insult but a negative total return with even more risk is absurd. Most bonds also do NOT reward enough for their risk.
Alpha beta separation is trendy but beta tends to swamp alpha as we saw in the downs and ups of 2008/2009. That led to the mistake inherent in the disastrous concept called portable alpha. It was a beta-centric way of getting some investors into hedge funds">hedge funds but failed because it kept asset allocation front and center. It diluted the absolute return attribute and changed it into just another relative return enhanced index product. The "target=_blank>alpha beta separation concept still has too much risk budget in beta. But why bother with beta at all? "Cheap" beta is expensive considering its risk. Cost and risk conscious investors favor alpha. It is a cheaper source of return.
The more vituperative commentary on hedge funds">hedge funds, the more one should invest in alpha vendors. Why tie up precious capital in riskier beta when lower risk alpha is available? Better to identify mispricings and arbitrages than invest in "the market" itself. It is safer to minimize market exposure and analyze specific securities to buy and short sell that just gambling on benchmarks. Most portfolios are very beta biased while some investors implement a beta plus alpha model. The natural progression is to alpha only which has a much better efficient frontier. I do not understand why investors must surrender their wealth to the hazards of beta when superior alternatives exist.
Selecting the RIGHT betas at the RIGHT time is a form of alpha anyway. Choosing the WHICH and WHEN of asset classes takes as much talent and expertise as at the security level. I have no idea where "the markets" are going in the long term but will not take the chance of finding out. Asset and security selection, timing and hedging skill, though rare, are the only properties a conservative investor can rely on if they need adequate and consistent absolute returns. Beta is passive but do we really live in a world that rewards passivity in any activity? I don't think so which is why they are called ACTIVITIES. Alpha comes from acumen driven ACTION.
Successful investing is about leveraging informational, structural and analytical advantages or hiring those that have them. Let's look at portfolios that did well over long periods but didn't asset allocate, instead focusing on security selection or timing. A low frequency trading firm like Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway identifies specific multiyear opportunities in currencies, commodities, stock and bond markets, derivatives and event driven special situations. In contrast the high frequency trading of Jim Simons' Medallion Fund times thousands of liquid securities over shorter holding periods down to microseconds. Producing alpha depends on your knowledge and technology edge applied to appropriate time horizons.
Beta bets drive many portfolios because that is what most investors do. It is like those who assume carbon is necessary for life because the science they know and only lifeforms they have analyzed are carbon-based. The anthropic principle applied to finance. It is false logic similar to the "all swans are white because every swan I've seen is white" phenomenon. Asset allocation fit nicely into the established body of theory which is why it remains popular despite its woeful weaknesses. Efficient, unbeatable markets imply the non-existence of skill! Choose beta because alpha is just "random" luck in a zero sum game? The much cited Brinson Hood Beebower paper has cost too many investors too much money. Beta people advocate index funds since they want you to invest in "the market". But the optimal way to achieve absolute returns at the total portfolio level is to be alpha-centric.
Beta vendors don't manage risk, don't market time and outsource ACTIVE security selection to benchmark construction firms. They even stay fully invested long only in bear markets! A beta-centric portfolio is where investors decide policy asset allocation and then hire managers to basically deliver the return from asset classes and hopefully a bit of alpha on top from tracking error constrained active mandates. Most long only funds have an R-squared with their benchmark over 70% - ie beta explains most of their returns. Alpha strategies and manager selection shouldn't be secondary but that is the result when beta bets dominate the allocation of investment capital.
Alpha vendors see a market of securities offering long/short opportunities in many time horizons within and between asset classes. An alpha-centric portfolio is where investors hire managers to analyze, trade and hedge for absolute returns. Of course you have to be good and work extremely hard to find alpha. Any manager that depends on beta is NOT running a hedge fund. A truly efficient portfolio does not pollute itself with beta. Dismissing all hedge funds">hedge funds is like avoiding all stocks because Enron, General Motors and Nortel fell to zero. Don't invest in bonds because some default and there is no such thing as a risk free rate? Nortel stock lost -100% while a Nortel bond is up +700% but most missed it.
Pure alpha sources do not fit well into the beta allocation process that some find so compelling. Since they are not assets, treating hedge funds">hedge funds as an asset class is wrong. The dispersion of returns across the industry is very high. So variable that AVERAGE performance has little meaning. 10,000 hedge funds">hedge funds, 10,000 strategies. People like to know if "hedge funds">hedge funds" were up or down each month. But what does that mean? Some made money and some lost money. Likewise I am often asked where I think "the market" is going. That is a beta question. Some stocks go up and others go down. Seek alpha.
Do I want "hedge funds">hedge funds" that outperform? No. I look for hedge funds">hedge funds that make money which is a very different target. I know that good hedge funds">hedge funds will have high risk-adjusted returns and bad ones will not. Alternative beta is just another beta and is therefore to be avoided. Most betas are becoming more correlated whether by geography or the equity, credit and real estate correlation to the economy. I am not concerned whether a hedge fund is "market neutral" or not. But it must be able to deliver absolute returns that are "economy neutral".
Alpha is the REAL diversifier because there are so MANY different ways of generating it. Focus on alpha if you want good returns regardless of the economy. Why pay attention to asset classes when investing in SKILL-BASED STRATEGIES makes more sense? Others are welcome to unhedged beta bets but for risk averse conservative investors like me beta with a bit of alpha is inferior to an ALPHA ONLY portfolio. The Greeks got it right thousands of years ago: alpha is always before beta.
by Veryan Allen. Copyright 
los angeles hedge funds |hedge fund operations |new hedge funds |hedge fund sales |hedge fund accounting services |
RSS Feed (xml)
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder