Misplaced Pages

Low-volatility investing

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

Low-volatility investing is an investment style that buys stocks or securities with low volatility and avoids those with high volatility. This investment style exploits the low-volatility anomaly. According to financial theory risk and return should be positively related, however in practice this is not true. Low-volatility investors aim to achieve market-like returns, but with lower risk. This investment style is also referred to as minimum volatility, minimum variance, managed volatility, smart beta, defensive and conservative investing.

History

The low-volatility anomaly was already discovered in the early 1970s, yet it only became a popular investment style after the 2008 global financial crises. The first tests of the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) showed that the risk-return relation was too flat. Two decades later, in 1992 the seminal study by Fama and French clearly showed that market beta (risk) and return were not related when controlling for firm size. Fisher Black argued that firms or investors could apply leverage by selling bonds and buying more low-beta equity to profit from the flat risk-return relation. In the 2000s more studies followed, and investors started to take notice. In the same period, asset managers such as Acadian, Robeco and Unigestion started offering this new investment style to investors. A few years later index providers such as MSCI and S&P started to create low-volatility indices.

Performance

10 portfolios of stocks sorted on volatility: US 1929-2023

Low-volatility investing is gradually gaining acceptance due to consistent real-life performance over more than 15 years, encompassing both bull and bear markets. While many academic studies and indices are based on simulations going back 20-30 years, some research spans over 90 years, showing low-volatility stocks outperform high-volatility stocks in the long run (see image). Since low-volatility securities tend to lag during bull markets and tend to reduce losses in bear markets, a full business cycle is needed to assess performance. Over shorter time periods, such as one year, Jensen's alpha is a useful performance metric, adjusting returns for market beta risk. For instance, a low-volatility strategy with a beta of 0.7 in a 10% rising market would be expected to return 7%. If the actual return is 10%, Jensen's alpha is 3%.

Criticism

Any investment strategy can lose effectiveness over time if its popularity causes its advantage to be arbitraged away. This could apply to low-volatility investing, highlighted by the high valuations of low-volatility stocks in the late 2010s. Still, David Blitz showed that hedge funds are at the other side of the low-volatility trade, despite their ability to use leverage. Others state that low-volatility is related to the well-known value investing style. For example, after the dotcom bubble, value stocks offered protection similar to low volatility stocks. Additionally, low-volatility stocks also tend to have more interest rate risk compared to other stocks. 2020 was a challenging year for US low-volatility stocks as they significantly lagged behind the broader market by wide margins. Criticism and discussions are primarily found in various academic financial journals, but investors take notice and contribute to this debate.

See also

Further reading

A couple of books have been written about low-volatility investing:

References

  1. Black, F., Jensen, M. C., & Scholes, M. (1972). The capital asset pricing model: Some empirical tests. Studies in the theory of capital markets, 81(3), 79-121.
  2. Fama, E. F., & MacBeth, J. D. (1973). Risk, return, and equilibrium: Empirical tests. Journal of Political Economy, 81(3), 607-636.
  3. Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1992). The cross‐section of expected stock returns. The Journal of Finance, 47(2), 427-465.
  4. Black, Fischer (1993-10-31). "Beta and Return". The Journal of Portfolio Management. 20 (1): 8–18. doi:10.3905/jpm.1993.409462. ISSN 0095-4918. S2CID 154597485.
  5. Ang, A., Hodrick, R. J., Xing, Y., & Zhang, X. (2006). The cross‐section of volatility and expected returns. The Journal of Finance, 61(1), 259-299.
  6. Clarke, Roger, Harindra de Silva & Steven Thorley (2006), “Minimum-variance portfolios in the US equity market”, Journal of Portfolio Management, Fall 2006, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp.10–24.
  7. Blitz, David; van Vliet, Pim (2007). "The Volatility Effect: Lower Risk Without Lower Return". Journal of Portfolio Management. 34 (1): 102–113. doi:10.3905/jpm.2007.698039. S2CID 154015248. SSRN 980865.
  8. "How Can "Smart Beta" Go Horribly Wrong?". researchaffiliates.com. Retrieved 2019-07-24.
  9. Baker, Malcolm; Wurgler, Jeffrey (2012). "Comovement and Predictability Relationships Between Bonds and the Cross-Section of Stocks" (PDF).
  10. "Some investors tried to win by losing less-they lost anyway". The Wall Street Journal. 18 September 2020.
  11. Wigglesworth, Robin (2021-03-22). "A fallen star of the investment world". www.ft.com. Retrieved 2021-09-15.
  12. Hamtil, Lawrence (2019-07-22). "Compendium of Low Volatility Articles". Fortune Financial Advisors. Retrieved 2019-07-24.
  13. Swedroe, Larry (2018-07-12). "Deconstructing the Low Volatility/Low Beta Anomaly". Alpha Architect. Retrieved 2019-07-24.
Category: