Skip to main content

Which equity factors won in 2017?


  • We look at the different factor versions of World Equity indices to see which factors won in 2017.
  • World Equity Momentum factor delivered highest 1Y total return at +20.57%
  • World Equity Momentum factor delivered highest 1Y risk-adjused return with Sharpe ratio of 1.94


Focus on market cap indices is a choice, not an obligation
A market cap weighted approach has well known drawbacks: it biases larger companies, regardless of efficiency and is "procyclical" - buying larger amounts of more expensively valued companies.

This is a critique of "passive investing". We don't believe there's such a thing as passive investing. There is index investing and non-index investing. There is subjective investing and systematic investing. Choice of index, choice of methodology, choice of asset allocation are all active decisions. Index investing simply delivers the desired investment approach in a way that is efficient, transparent and cheap.

Factor-based indices
The arrival of factor-based indices, means that for a required World Equity exposure, we can select which factors we want exposure to: for example, Size, Momentum, Quality, Value or Minimum Volatility.

The different factors can be summarised as follows:

  • Size: smaller capitalisation companies
  • Momentum: companies with upward price trend
  • Quality: companies with strong and stable earnings
  • Value: companies that are undervalued relative to their fundamentals
  • Min Volatility: companies with lower volatility performance characteristics


How have these different factors fared?
Ranking the 1Y performance of these factors in 2017: Momentum factor delivered the highest total return at +20.6%, followed by Size factor at +13.1%, followed by Quality factor at +12.5%, followed by Value factor at +11.5%, and finally Min Volatility at +7.1%. This compares to +13.2% for the traditional cap-weighted approach.

Fig 1. Equity Factor 1Y Realised Risk-Return


On a 3Y basis, the annualised returns of Momentum come in at +18.2%, followed by Size at +15.7%, followed by Quality at +15.2%. This compares to +14.6% for the traditional cap-weighted approach.

Fig 2. Equity Factor 3Y Realised Risk-Return


Risk-Adjusted Returns
Ranking the 1Y risk adjusted performance by Sharpe Ratio: Momentum leads at 1.94, followed by Size at 1.44, followed by Quality at 1.30. This compares to 1.37 for the traditional cap-weighted approach.

On a 3Y basis, Size leads at 1.33, followed by Momentum at 1.30, followed by Quality at 1.19. This compares to 1.15 for the traditional cap-weighted approach.

In Fig 3. we plot the 1Y and 3Y Sharpe ratio for each World Equity factor relative to traditional cap-weighted Global and EM Equity indices, to compare the risk-adjusted returns of different factor exposures over different time frames.

Fig 3. Equity Factor Sharpe Ratios


Conclusion: a differentiated approach
We are not suggesting that one factor approach is inherently superior to another. But with a broader array of factor exposures readily accessible to decision-makers to match with their portfolio requirements, there's no longer need to complain about the limitations of cap-weighted indices.

NOTICES: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.  I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it.
This article has been written for a US and UK audience.  Tickers are shown for corresponding and/or similar ETFs prefixed by the relevant exchange code, e.g. “NYSEARCA:” (NYSE Arca Exchange) for US readers; “LON:” (London Stock Exchange) for UK readers.  For research purposes/market commentary only, does not constitute an investment recommendation or advice, and should not be used or construed as an offer to sell, a solicitation of an offer to buy, or a recommendation for any product.  This blog reflects the views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of Elston Consulting, its clients or affiliates.  For information and disclaimers, please see www.elstonconsulting.co.uk
Photo credit: N/A; Chart credit: Elston Consulting; Table credit: Elston Consulting
All product names, logos, and brands are property of their respective owners. All company, product and service names used in this website are for identification purposes only. Use of these names, logos, and brands does not imply endorsement.

Chart data is as at 30-Dec-17

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The cost of Marmite, and Brexit’s quiet fear gauge

UK commentators are looking for data points that vindicate the Referendum result one way or the other Sterling’s slide and the FTSE 100 Index level together or in isolation are not the best indicators for a Brexit fear gauge The potential inflationary impact of a ‘hard Brexit’ has caused UK breakeven rates to spike, creating a real challenge for the Bank of England Give me a sign Just as high priests in Roman times, after slaughtering their offering, examined its entrails to gauge the Gods’ favour,  so too have UK commentators been searching for any statistical insight or market data point to declare whether the shock Brexit result is likely to lead to economic success or failure. The data point phoney war The data that has come out since the EU Referendum on 23 rd June 2016 is meaningless as we still don’t know what Brexit looks like.  It’s been a phoney war for headlines, as stunned commentators search for a gauge to measure policymakers by. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Market timing is a mug’s game

John Authers’ Long View article in the FT this weekend addresses market timing.  While he claims that just passive investors are such bad timers, we would go further: most are. Attempts to time the market (choosing the right moment to buy or sell into risk assets) are a mug’s game.  Great for brokerages that delight in investors’ fees levied to senselessly overtrade.  Bad for investor’s portfolio outcomes.  Despite the annual survey by Dalbar that investors’ attempts to time the market is really bad for their portfolio, people – including some portfolio managers – still try and have a go. The problem is that in timing the market, we become slaves to our behavioural biases around entry points, and the noise around market sentiment.  An investor fearing Brexit might have – out of emotion – sold everything to cash stocked up on gold sovereigns and run for the hills whilst tracing Irish ancestry.  The smart thing was to acknowledge sterling weakn...
1 comment
Read more

More for less: Stateside ETFs have just got cheaper

BlackRock announced today that is cutting its fees on its iShares Core (US) range.  Investors can gain broad market exposures for 4-14bp.  This compares to 7-25bp for the iShares Core (UK) range. A diversified multi-asset 70/30 ETF portfolio will cost US investors can 8bp (that’s 8 cents per $100), compared to 14bp for a similar strategy for UK investors. Might the UK follow suit? We’ll see. Big dreams The cuddly  caption announcing the move says “Smaller Fees means Bigger Dreams”, which is warm-hearted.  But it’s also sort of fair.  Today’s retail investor has more access to breadth and depth of international markets than our parents ever dreamed of (if they ever dreamed of that sort of thing). What does this mean, apart from being cheaper? Well firstly, Moore’s law applies to ETF pricing & capacity as much as it does to semiconductors.  That’s not  new or surprising.  But the sustained deflationary pressure on fund fees is ...
Post a Comment
Read more