Beware of recency bias

Every the year the 2016 Russell Investments/ASX Long-term Investing Report provides an invaluable summary of before and after-tax returns on various asset classes for Australian investors, over 10 and 20 years.

Naive investors are likely to automatically pursue the asset classes that offer the highest yields. Recent performance is more likely to attract our attention than more stable longer-term performance. Josh Brown highlighted last year that mutual funds that attracted the most new investment tended to underperform funds that attracted the least new inflows. I suspect that the same applies to asset classes.

If we consider each of the asset classes highlighted, it is clear that performance over the next 10 years is likely to be substantially different from the last decade.

Australian Asset Classes 10-year Performance to 31 December 2015

Source: 2016 Russell Investments/ASX Long-term Investing Report

Australian Shares

Australian Shares endured a (hopefully) once-in-a-lifetime financial crisis in 2008. 10-Year performance is going to look a lot different in two years time (20-years is 8.7% p.a.). Prices of Defensive stocks, on the other hand, have since been inflated by record low interest rates.

Residential Property

Residential property prices boomed on the back of low interest rates and an influx of offshore investors. But growth is now slowing.

RBA: Australian Housing Growth

Listed Property

REITS were smashed in 2008 (20-years is 7.7% p.a.). But before contrarians leap into this sector they should consider the impact of low interest rates, with many trading at substantial premiums to net asset value.

Bonds & Cash

Low interest rates again are likely to impact future returns.

Global Shares

Global Shares also weathered the 2008 financial crisis (20-year performance (unhedged) is 6.4% p.a.). Subsequent low interest rates had the greatest impact on Defensives, while Growth & Cyclicals trade at more conservative PEs.

I won’t go through the rest of the classes, but there doesn’t seem to be many attractive alternatives. It may be a case of settling for the cleanest dirty shirt, and the least smelly pair of socks, in the laundry basket.

The Trouble With Chasing Hot Strategies | Josh Brown

This should be blindingly obvious, but amazing how often it is ignored. Great post from Josh Brown at Reformed Broker:

How do most investors (and many advisors) select funds or strategies to allocate to? They look at what’s been working, learn the story and get long…….
And then mean reversion shows up – outperforming managers subsequently underperform, hot themes become over-loved, winning strategies become too crowded to offer excess returns. “No problem,” says the advisor, I’ve got six new ideas to replace the six ideas that are no longer working!”

It’s sad to say, but this is exactly how it works. I’ve been watching this for almost 20 years…….

Research Affiliates has an interesting pair of charts demonstrating this phenomenon in a new note from Rob Arnott, Jason Hsu and Co. They illustrate that increasing fund flows are a decent predictor of subsequent underperformance and that performance-chasing is destructive to returns across all types of investment products:

Research Affiliates

The Decline and Fall of Fund Managers | WSJ

Jason Zweig predicts the demise of active fund managers:

So active management won’t disappear entirely. But index funds and comparable exchange-traded portfolios now account for 28% of total fund assets, up from 9% in 2000. And no wonder. Over the past one, three, five and 10 years, only one-fourth to one-third of all stock funds have beaten the index for their category, according to investment researcher Morningstar.

Meanwhile, index funds effectively match the returns of those market benchmarks at fees that often run only one-tenth of those of active funds.

Skeptics have pointed out that if individual investors — those Wrong-Way Corrigans of the financial world — are rushing into passive funds, then active funds might be due for a resurgence….But the net supply of outperformance always is zero; one fund manager can beat the market only at the expense of another who must lag behind it.

Not quite true. Active management is not a zero-sum game. Zweig is ignoring individual investors who, as a body, consistently under-perform the benchmark index.

Mega fund managers are more likely to promote index funds because their size makes it difficult to beat the benchmark index, while smaller, more nimble players are able to do so.

Read more at The Decline and Fall of Fund Managers – MoneyBeat – WSJ.

Diversification – the only ‘free lunch’ in investing

Diversification is often referred to as “the only free lunch in investing” because it affords investors the opportunity to reduce investment risk without reducing returns. Most investments involve a trade-off between risk and return, with higher returns requiring investors to expose themselves to greater risk. But effective diversification allows investors to reduce risk, by spreading their investments, while maintaining higher levels of return.

What is effective diversification?

Not all diversification is effective. Many investors buy a wide range of stocks in the belief that this will protect them from risk. The benefits of such diversification are likely to be insufficient if the stocks are all listed on the same exchange and selected using the same method. The entire portfolio will tend to rise and fall in unison — as in the well-known adage “a rising tide lifts all boats.” The key is to select stocks or investments that have low correlation.

What is correlation?

Correlation is the degree to which separate investments rise and fall together. Correlation measures the tendency of investments to advance or decline independently of each other. The correlation coefficient, identified by the symbol r, expresses the level of dependency between two variables (stocks in our case). Values for the correlation coefficient range from 1.0, for stocks that are perfectly correlated, to -1.0 for stocks that move inversely to each other.

Only two shares of the same stock, like BHP Billiton, are likely to have a correlation as high as 1.0. But stocks from the same sector are likely to share high values. And stocks from the same market are also likely to share a reasonable degree of correlation in larger time frames (i.e. the primary cycle).

You are also unlikely to find stocks that are the perfect inverse of each other — a coefficient of -1.0 — except possibly from an index ETF and its bear counterpart.

We are not necessarily looking for stocks with negative correlation, however, but stocks or investments with low correlation — closer to zero than to 1.0. As you can imagine, going long and short the same stock would protect you from any variation in prices, but would not deliver much in the way of return. If we had a spread of investments with low correlation (i.e low dependency) their price movements will tend to offset each other, providing a smoother portfolio return.

3 Ways to achieve diversification

We are likely to find investments with low correlation using three different techniques:

  • Diversification by asset class;
  • Diversification by geographic location; and
  • Diversification by strategy.

Asset class

There are a number of asset classes available to investors. Asset classes as diverse as stocks, real estate and fine art, however, are all subject the vagaries of the economic cycle and tend to rise and fall together.

Bonds tend to have low correlation to stocks. We need to make a distinction here between government bonds with low risk premiums, which fluctuate largely with the interest rate cycle and tend to be counter-cyclical (i.e negatively correlated) to stocks, and corporate bonds which are subject to far higher risk premiums that may expand and contract in line with the stock market cycle. Credit spreads tend to be low when the stock market is bullish and widen sharply during a contraction.

There are other asset classes such as insurance funds, where risks such as weather events tend to have low correlation to the economic cycle, but investors need a fair degree of expertise to assess the risks associated with these investments.

Geographic location

Australian investors tend to be highly concentrated in the Australian market, with only about 15% of assets invested offshore, both directly and indirectly through managed funds. Most major stock markets tend to rise and fall together, but diversification, especially to US markets, affords investors the opportunity to diversify into sectors not available on the local exchange.

By strategy

Diversification by strategy is often overlooked. If an investor, for example, diversifies their stock portfolio across several value-based fund managers they are likely to find that their investments rise and fall in unison. Even though the managers may hold a wide spread of stocks, they are all selected using a similar process and will tend to behave in a similar manner.

By spreading investments across several strategies, the investor is likely to achieve more effective diversification and more stable returns. Diversification between value-based strategies and our own momentum strategy is an obvious example. Recent research shows ASX 200 Prime Momentum has a low correlation of 0.3368 with the popular Perpetual Industrial Share Fund [PER0011AU] and moderate correlation of 0.4263 with Colonial First State Australian Share – Core [FSF0238AU].

Diversification is not the only “free lunch” available to investors — effective tax planning also enables investors to enhance returns without increasing risk — but it is important and should not be neglected. It is a complex area and we recommend that you consult your financial adviser before taking any action.

The best argument for mutual funds is that they offer safety and diversification.
But they don’t necessarily offer safety and diversification.

~ Ron Chernow