Skip to main content

The WHEN not IF correction


  • Investment strategists were concerned about a correction in 2018 – it was a matter of when, not if
  • Volatility spike and rising correlations limits the effectiveness of asset-based diversification.
  • How risk-based diversification can help in periods of market stress


A well flagged correction
There was near consensus amongst investment managers in their 2018 outlook as regards the risk of a market correction.  Equity markets had climbed relentlessly higher in 2017 with little red ink and eerily low volatility.

The fact that equity volatility had converged with bond volatility illustrates the limitations of an asset-based approach to diversified multi-asset investing.

Of course, it was not to last.  It was a question of “when, not if” equity volatility mean reverted.  And now we at least know when “when” was.

Fig.1 VIX spikes as equity volatility comes back into play.

Source: bloomberg.com

What was the trigger?
A potential trigger was identified as above-expected inflation trends, leading to increased expectations of monetary tightening.  And so it was.

Higher than expected wage growth forced a reassessment of inflation outlook, creating expectations of additional Fed tightening.

What happens next?
A correction enables portfolio managers to consider a fresh look at portfolios.

  1. If fully invested, stay invested. Focus on fundamentals, not technical.  Broad based economic expansion is still on track, and valuations are still ok relative to slightly-higher-but-still-low bond yields.
  2. If sitting on cash reserves, consider an entry point if you believe there’s still room to run for the economy and markets
  3. Stay diversified – across asset classes, and consider risk-based strategies for dynamic diversification

What is risk-based diversification?
In periods of market stress (when the VIX index spikes), correlations between asset classes tend to increase in the short-run, thereby reducing the diversifying power of a traditional asset-based approach.

A risk-based approach means that allocations to asset classes are not driven by their label but to their realised risk, return and correlation characteristics.  This means that genuine diversification can be delivered using a mathematical risk-based approach, rather than relying on labels alone.

Accessing risk-based diversification
US portfolio managers can consider the S&P 500 Managed Risk Index (SPXMR Index), which dynamically allocated between the S&P500 index and cash, whilst maintaining a constant allocation to bonds to deliver a risk parity multi-asset portfolio.  This index is tracked by the DeltaShares® S&P 500® Managed Risk ETF (NYSEARCA:DRML).

UK portfolio managers can consider the Elston Minimum Volatility Index (ESBGMV Index), which dynamically allocates across asset class to deliver a minimum variance multi-asset portfolio. This index is tracked by Commerzbank Elston Multi-Asset Minimum Volatility Certificate (Bloomberg: COSP867<Go>, professional investors only)

Fig.2 ESBGMV Index 12 month rolling volatility for index and asset classes

Source: Elston website, ESBGMV index factsheet as at 6/Feb/18

References:
http://www.spindices.com/indices/strategy/sp-500-managed-risk-index
https://www.deltashares.com/products/sp-500/overview/
http://www.elstonconsulting.co.uk/factsheets.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-02/u-s-added-200-000-jobs-in-january-wages-rise-most-since-2009
[ENDS]
Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.
Business relationship disclosure: The Elston Minimum Volatility Index is licensed to Commerzbank for the creation of investable certificates (professional investors only).
Additional disclosure: 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: as per specified source; Chart credit: as per specified source; Table credit: as per specified source. 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.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

UK votes for Brexit

UK public votes 52% to 48% to leave the EU: the exit process could take 2 to 4 years. Regional differences will create further constitutional strain on the UK Pound plunging, and expect UK Equities to follow suit. Expect flight to safety away from risk assets as the market digests the potential for structural change. Brexit it is The UK public has voted to leave the European Union after 43 years in yesterday’s referendum. Leave has 51.7% of votes so far with 71.8% turnout (higher than pervious general election) suggests a vote for Brexit by a narrow margin. The leaving process could take a minimum of two years, and even Leave campaigners don’t expect the process to complete until 2020. Opinion polls were too close to call Polling pointed to a closer result and recent momentum for the Remain campaign which had given markets an element of (false) security: the final poll put 45% Leave, 44% Remain, 11% Don’t Know.  While the binary nature of the debate suggested...
Post a Comment
Read more