Topic Tags: U.S. Equity

Quantitative vs. Fundamental Strategies: Who Has the Edge?

How do performance trends differ between quantitative and fundamental strategies? This week we explore those differences amongst U.S. large, mid, and small cap equities over the past business cycle.

Quantitative and fundamental strategies first differ in their approach to selecting stocks. Quantitative strategies rely on mathematical models weighing a varying amount of factors while fundamental strategies rely on solid company standing, outlook, and a more human touch through proprietary analyst research.

Within the large cap universe, quantitative funds, on average, were unable to provide much downside protection during the financial crisis. However, over the course of the ensuing bull market these funds were able to outperform the benchmark and eventually their fundamental counterparts. This could perhaps be attributed to quantitative funds having a greater ability to react nimbly to any buy signals generated as a result of massive inflows into the large cap benchmarks in recent years. Strategies within the small cap universe experienced a scenario on the opposite end of the spectrum. Here, quantitative funds were able to offer neither superior upside nor downside protection versus the benchmark; on average these performed worse than the index and over the course of the bull market were unable to outperform enough to recoup those extra losses. As this universe of smaller companies has less analyst coverage, perhaps quantitative strategies struggled to capture enough readily available data from which their models could generate accurate signals. Strategies in the mid cap space exhibit an interesting pattern of their own. Quantitative strategies were able to protect on the downside along with fundamental strategies and were also able to outpace the outperformance of fundamentals.

While these patterns are certainly not guaranteed to persist through the next business cycle, they may offer insight into which universes quantitative strategies have either an advantage or disadvantage, whether it informational or reactionary. As quantitative strategies continually adapt through additions of new factors or tweaks to their models, it will be interesting to see how the two strategy types compare over the next business cycle.

Print PDF

Will the Yield Curve Invert?

The Chinese yield curve inverted recently. Does this mean that the U.S. yield curve might invert soon? What does inversion mean for investors? Inverted yield curves have been precursors of bad news for the equity market. In the past 20 years, the U.S. yield curve inverted twice, once in 2000 and once in 2006 and the S&P 500 subsequently dropped 48% and 53% following each inversion, respectively. When the yield curve inverts, it usually means that the market is pessimistic about the economy and drives up long bond prices as safe havens, thereby reducing their yields relative to short bond yields, which typically have been driven up by rate hikes.

This week’s chart observes several signals that appear just before the yield curve inverts. First, there are several years of a downward trend in the spread between 10-Year and 2-Year Treasury yields (also known as steepness) and an upward trend in the equity market, as the orange and red arrows show in the chart. Since the last inversion in 2006, we have seen this signal for a while. Second, GDP growth reaches its peak. For the last five years, GDP growth has been stable and at a moderate level, and it is unclear if it has reached a peak or could grow further. Lastly, it takes time for the spread to become negative and the change is not abrupt. Before the inversion, the spread was around 30bps in 2000 and 15bps in 2006. The spread as of May 2017 was around 50bps and still has room to contract.

Overall, there are several signals that suggest that yield curve inversion is coming. However, inversion is unlikely to happen in the near future. The current yield curve is reasonably steep, the market has a positive sentiment about the economy and other economic boosts from the Trump administration may come into play, such as job creation initiatives and tax cuts for businesses and consumers. Yield curve inversion is not yet impending.

Print PDF

What Do Falling Correlations Mean for Active U.S. Equity Managers?

The Implied Correlation Index measures the average correlation of the stocks in the S&P 500 index. When the index is high, individual stocks are more likely to move in tandem with the broad index; when it is low, return dispersion among stocks in the index will be higher.

The Implied Correlation Index measures the average correlation of the stocks in the S&P 500 index. When the index is high, individual stocks are more likely to move in tandem with the broad index; when it is low, return dispersion among stocks in the index will be higher.

Looking at the 1 year chart above, the correlation downtrend is easily visible. With low correlation levels, opportunities should be present for active managers to find alpha and begin outperforming their benchmarks once again. With higher return dispersion, active managers will have an increased opportunity to pick winning stocks. If correlations continue this pattern, it should be easier to identify successful active managers rather than those who have ridden the macro trends of the market in recent years. If nothing else, falling correlations within the index provide an opportunity for active managers to recover from general underperformance versus the benchmark which has plagued them in recent years.

Diverging Market Opinions (aka The Bears vs The Bulls)

This week’s Chart of the Week examines a recent phenomenon seen in valuations for both bonds and equities. U.S. stock prices rose quickly over the last year and a half with the S&P 500’s P/E ratio climbing to 21.8, surpassing its 20 year average. Meanwhile the Bloomberg Barclays Aggregate Index saw its option adjusted spread (OAS) fall below its 20 year average to .43%. OAS is a primary metric for valuating bond prices and this tightening suggests that bond prices are relatively expensive.

This is a rare situation as it is counterintuitive for both indices to be valued highly at the same time. Highlighted in the gray bars on the chart are the months when this occurred. During the late 90s equity valuations hit historic highs with the tech bubble. Treasury rates during this time were as high as 7%, so even though spreads were low the total yield on the Agg was still relatively high. Today’s environment is much different with Treasury yields around 2%. Excluding a transitory period in 2003 this was the only other time when this happened.

What makes this so unusual is bond and equity prices typically move in opposite directions of each other. Stock valuations increase when investors are confident in the markets and want to take advantage of a strong economy. Bond prices typically rise during “risk off” periods when investors look to be more defensive. The fact that both are rising seems to suggest there is increasing polarization of opinions in the financial markets. Since there is so little precedence for this situation it is difficult to know what to expect, but something almost certainly will have to give. Only time will tell who will win: the bulls or the bears.

Are Quant Strategies Poised to Replace Fundamental Managers?

As 2016 performance trickled in, the depth and prevalence of underperformance became very apparent. What made 2016 such a particularly difficult year for active management? Many have cited the tumultuous events throughout the year ranging from the market dip and subsequent recovery in the first quarter, to the Brexit, to the unexpected Trump victory. Rapidly reacting and adapting to these market changes – let alone capturing any alpha – was incredibly challenging.

As 2016 performance trickled in, the depth and prevalence of underperformance became very apparent. What made 2016 such a particularly difficult year for active management? Many have cited the tumultuous events throughout the year ranging from the market dip and subsequent recovery in the first quarter, to the Brexit, to the unexpected Trump victory. Rapidly reacting and adapting to these market changes — let alone capturing any alpha — was incredibly challenging.

Notably, quantitative strategies seemed to have an easier time reacting to these events than fundamental strategies. Quantitative, or “quant,” strategies rely heavily on statistical and mathematical screens and indicators which largely remove human emotion and judgment from the equation. These models arguably enabled portfolios to recognize the surprise market events of 2016 and adapt much more quickly than fundamental strategies. However, while quant strategies largely proved successful relative to their fundamental counterparts in 2016 during an array of smaller disruptive events, this pattern is not proven to hold during severe inflection points.

Does Active U.S. Equity Management Have a Future?

February 2017

Active vs. Passive

To this day, significant debate continues about the topic of active versus passive investing in U.S. equities, with the discussion typically centering on the fundamental question of “Is the market efficient?” Active investors believe that the market is inefficient and an informational advantage can lead them to identify investments that will beat their respective indices. Critically, active investing features human judgment with respect to a company’s relative attractiveness and profit realization over an investment horizon. Passive investors, on the other hand, believe the market is efficient and that stock prices reflect all available information which could affect their prices. If markets are truly efficient, then a diversified, low-cost exposure to an asset class would be the best course of action.

Download PDF

Will Investors Continue to Move Away from Active U.S. Equity Strategies?

This week’s chart shows asset flows between active and passively managed mutual funds and exchange traded funds (ETFs) in U.S. equities. Over the last eleven calendar years, active strategies experienced cumulative outflows totaling $864 billion, while passive strategies saw inflows of nearly $460 billion.

This week’s chart shows asset flows between active and passively managed mutual funds and exchange traded funds (ETFs) in U.S. equities. Over the last eleven calendar years, active strategies experienced cumulative outflows totaling $864 billion, while passive strategies saw inflows of nearly $460 billion.

Strong passive flows such as this can potentially have a negative effect on active performance since stocks are less able to differentiate themselves on fundamental factors. When passive strategies receive significant inflows, all stocks in an index are purchased and receive price support. This can have a material impact on stocks with limited trading volume, thus this is more of an issue for small-cap versus mid or large-cap. Within small-cap, passive inflows in 2016 totaled $7.6 billion while active outflows totaled $18.5 billion. The Russell 2000 Value posted the strongest return within the nine U.S. equity style boxes during 2016, while active strategy outperformance in small-cap value was especially challenged relative to the other style boxes.

With passive U.S. equity indices ranking in the top half or better of their respective peer groups in recent years, active strategies have largely lagged behind their benchmarks. This performance lag is a primary reason why asset flows have shifted to passive strategies. Since a passive strategy essentially owns the market, passive allocations have fully participated in the current bull market, while active strategy performance depends on how a particular fund’s bets fared relative to its benchmark. Passive investing represents a low-cost means of gaining exposure to an asset class and fees are often a small fraction of the fees paid for active management. With valuations at or close to all-time highs, active manager performance will be closely monitored in 2017 to see if their higher fees are justified in this current market environment.

2017 Market Preview

January 2017

Similar to past market preview newsletters, we enter the year with a new set of questions. What shape will Trump’s policies take and how will they impact the market? Will the formal start of the Brexit have an impact on portfolios? To what degree and pace will the Fed increase interest rates? These topics among many others are covered in the following articles as we offer our annual market preview newsletter. Each year presents new challenges to our clients, and other headlines will emerge as the year goes on; it is critical to understand how asset classes will react to each new development and what such reactions will mean to investors. The following articles contain insightful analysis and key themes to monitor over the coming year, themes which will underlie the actual performance of the asset classes covered. Recognizing that many of our clients may not have time to cover the following 30 pages of material, we offer the primary conclusions for each asset class heading into 2017.

Download PDF

What Does the Buffett Indicator Tell Us About U.S. Equity Valuations?

As markets continue to reach new all-time highs many investors are wondering how much more runway is left for the current 8-year bull market. While different valuation metrics will tell different stories, it can be helpful to look at what Warren Buffett has dubbed the single best measure of long-term market valuations.

For this week’s chart of the week, we take a look at the “Buffett Indicator” which consists of the Wilshire 5000 index market cap divided by the quarterly nominal GDP of the U.S. economy. As of the third quarter, the reading stood at 121%, just below its two decade high and 45-year two standard deviation average. These readings would suggest that the market is overbought. However, there is no perfect market indicator, so while the Buffett Indicator can be used as a sign of caution to investors who are considering committing further funds to U.S. equities, it should not be relied upon as an exclusive predictor of future market returns. Although the Buffett Indicator suggests that valuation levels are high, positive earnings growth began to emerge in late 2016 and could provide further support for current valuations if companies can deliver on profit projections. These statistics will be watched closely as the year unfolds to gauge the future direction of the U.S. equity market.

2016 Asset Allocation Winners and Losers

January is a time to reflect on the past year and assess what went right and what went wrong, and asset allocation is no different in this regard. Elevated valuations at the start of 2016 did not hold back U.S. equities as they climbed to record highs; small caps were the outright winner with a 21% return. These smaller cap companies received a post-election boost as they were expected to be less affected by the strengthening dollar and potential trade policies enacted by Trump, since they do not typically conduct much international business. The knock-on benefits of a potential lower corporate tax rate also helped propel small-cap equities higher after the election.

January is a time to reflect on the past year and assess what went right and what went wrong, and asset allocation is no different in this regard. Elevated valuations at the start of 2016 did not hold back U.S. equities as they climbed to record highs; small-caps were the outright winner with a 21% return. These smaller-cap companies received a post-election boost as they were expected to be less affected by the strengthening dollar and potential trade policies enacted by Trump, since they do not typically conduct much international business. The knock-on benefits of a potential lower corporate tax rate also helped propel small-cap equities higher after the election.

Internationally, slowing growth concerns were a determinant of performance. The “anti-establishment” sentiment seen in Europe was a major source of uncertainty. Emerging markets were the most appealing in terms of relative valuations, which helped them deliver double-digit returns after three consecutive negative years.

Lastly, fixed income was led by high yield bonds which rallied back from an end-of-year dip in 2015, with lower quality issues leading the way. Long duration bonds were also a top performer within fixed income, as were bank loans. After the Trump victory revived inflation expectations, TIPS became a topic of discussion. Realistically, as policies will take time to implement, inflation will manifest slowly and will be only one of a few indicators to monitor.

Of course, 2016 is behind us and investors are at this point more interested in what the markets will bring us in 2017. While predicting market winners and losers each year is a difficult exercise, it is safe to say that we will not see a repeat of 2016 asset class performance, and maintaining a diversified portfolio with disciplined rebalancing will help to mitigate risk no matter what happens across the global markets.