Advisor Blog

Clifford S. Asness (pictured in his office), Roni Israelov and John M. Liew, all from AQR Capital Management, were named co-winners of the annual CFA Institute's Graham and Dodd Award for their article on the benefits of global equity diversification.  The award recognizes excellence in research and financial writing in articles in 2011 issues of the Financial Analysts Journal, a publication of the CFA Institute. Their article, “International Diversification Works (Eventually),” was published in the May/June issue.

The paper concludes that although critics of international diversification observe that it does not protect investors against short-term market crashes because markets become more correlated during downturns, this observation misses the bigger picture.  Over longer time horizons, underlying economic growth matters more than short-term panics with respect to returns, and international diversification does an excellent job of protecting investors.

According to a research report published by Vanguard, recent stock market volatility is not unexpected when compared to previous time periods of significant macroeconomic events.

"Although the stock market volatility... appears extraordinary relative to the calm of the last year, [data] demonstrates that the levels of market variations today are, in fact, "ordinary" relative to the volatility of other periods characterized by major gobal macro events." state authors Francis M. Kinniry Jr., CFA, Todd Schlanger and Christopher B. Philips, CFA.

From July 1992 to August 2011, the S&P 500 Index moved an average of 0.7% per day.  The daily volatility spiked - or doubled - to 1.46% when significant global events occurred.  "As a result, we would argue that... volatility in equities, although high and painful to many investors, was not unexpected, given the market environment and the widespread repricing of risk.  Thus, in Vanguard's view, to cast the current environment as a 'new paradigm' of volatility is misleading."

The Vanguard report found that from August 5 (the day that S&P downgraded US Treasury debt, kicking off this period of volatility) to August 30, the S&P 500 Index moved an average of 2.5% per day.  We examined the September and October time period and found that the average daily volatility was 1.6% and 1.5% respectively.  It is not unusual for volatility to spike and slowly decay (statistically, it is serially autocorrelated). 

In 2008, we saw 23 days when the S&P 500 moved more than 4%.  This level of volatility occurred for seven days in 2009, no days in 2010, and has occurred six times, so far, in 2011.  Movement of 1% happened on 129 days in 2008, 108 days in 2009, 67 days in 2010, and 59 days in 2011 to date.

The Vanguard report looked at the volatility of two hypothetical balanced stock/bond portfolios - an 80% S&P 500/20% Barclays Aggregate Bond and a 40% S&P 500/60% Barclays Aggregate Bond.  As expected, in 2008 and 2011, the S&P 500 experienced "markedly more volatility than the two more conservative portfolios." and concluded that investors with balanced, diversified portfolios have faced much less aggregate volatility than the headlines would suggest.  We concur.

Finally, the authors note that "realized volatility is a critical factor in the equity risk premium (ERP), or the extra return demanded by investors for investing in stocks instead of less risky assets such as bonds or cash" and that "periods of heightened volatility or risk can actually increase the forward ERP."  This is, of course, consistent with the message that risk and return in capital markets are inevitably related.

The current renewed volatility in financial markets is reviving unwelcome feelings among many investors—feelings of anxiety, fear, and a sense of powerlessness. These are completely natural responses. Acting on those emotions, though, can end up doing us more harm than good.

At base, the increase in market volatility is an expression of uncertainty. The sovereign debt strains in the US and Europe, together with renewed worries over financial institutions and fears of another recession, are leading market participants to apply a higher discount to risky assets.

So, developed world equities, oil and industrial commodities, emerging markets, and commodity-related currencies like the Australian dollar are weakening as risk aversion drives investors to the perceived safe havens of government bonds, gold, and Swiss francs.

It is all reminiscent of the events of 2008, when the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the sub-prime mortgage crisis triggered a global market correction. This time, however, the focus of concern has turned from private-sector to public-sector balance sheets.

As to what happens next, no one knows for sure. That is the nature of risk. But there are a few points individual investors can keep in mind to make living with this volatility more bearable.

• Remember that markets are unpredictable and do not always react the way the experts predict they will. The recent downgrade by Standard & Poor's of the US government's credit rating, following protracted and painful negotiations on extending its debt ceiling, actually led to a strengthening in Treasury bonds.

• Quitting the equity market at a time like this is like running away from a sale. While prices have been discounted to reflect higher risk, that's another way of saying expected returns are higher. And while the media headlines proclaim that "investors are dumping stocks," remember someone is buying them. Those people are often the long-term investors.

• Market recoveries can come just as quickly and just as violently as the prior correction. For instance, in March 2009—when market sentiment was last this bad—the S&P 500 turned and put in seven consecutive of months of gains totalling almost 80 percent. This is not to predict that a similarly vertically shaped recovery is in the cards this time, but it is a reminder of the dangers for long-term investors of turning paper losses into real ones and paying for the risk without waiting around for the recovery.

• Never forget the power of diversification. While equity markets have had a rocky time in 2011, fixed income markets have flourished—making the overall losses to balanced fund investors a little more bearable. Diversification spreads risk and can lessen the bumps in the road.

• Markets and economies are different things. The world economy is forever changing, and new forces are replacing old ones. As the IMF noted recently, while advanced economies seek to repair public and financial balance sheets, emerging market economies are thriving. A globally diversified portfolio takes account of these shifts.

• Nothing lasts forever. Just as smart investors temper their enthusiasm in booms, they keep a reserve of optimism during busts. And just as loading up on risk when prices are high can leave you exposed to a correction, dumping risk altogether when prices are low means you can miss the turn when it comes. As always in life, moderation is a good policy.

The market volatility is worrisome, no doubt. The feelings being generated are completely understandable. But through discipline, diversification, and understanding how markets work, the ride can be made bearable. At some point, value will re-emerge, risk appetites will re-awaken, and for those who acknowledged their emotions without acting on them, relief will replace anxiety.

World Economic Outlook, IMF, April 2011.

Debt crises, sovereign risks, double dips and banking strains: Page One headlines can make for depressing reading these days. But being a smart news consumer—and smart investor—means keeping an eye on the lesser headlines. Here are seven you may not have seen:

• Robust Growth in Germany Pushes Prices—Analysts see a strong chance that German inflation will head towards 3 per cent by the end of the year against a backdrop of robust growth in Europe's biggest economy. (Reuters, July, 27, 2011)

• Brazil Domestic Demand Still Strong—The Economist Intelligence Unit says economic growth in Brazil surprisingly picked up speed in the first quarter, challenging the government’s efforts to cool the expansion. (EIU, July 6, 2011)

• Japan Retail Sales Top Estimates—Japan's retail sales rose 1.1 per cent in June, exceeding all economists' forecasts and adding to signs the economy is bouncing back from an initial post-disaster plunge. (Bloomberg, July 28, 2011)

• No Fear in China—Traders betting on gains in China's biggest companies are pushing options prices to the most bullish level in two years. The Chinese economy is projected to grow by 9.4 per cent in 2011. (Bloomberg, July 28, 2011)

• Southeast Asia Booms—Southeast Asian markets are the world's top performers in 2011 thanks to strong economic and corporate fundamentals. Thailand's index hit a 15-year high in July and Indonesia's a record high. (Reuters, July 22, 2011)

• Australian Boom Keeps Rate Rise on the Agenda—The Australian dollar hit its highest level in 30 years in late July as traders looked to the prospect of another rise in interest rates on the back of a resource investment boom. (WSJ, July 27, 2011)

• NZ Bounces Back—The New Zealand economy has grown more strongly than expected after the Christchurch earthquake, helped by improving terms of trade. The Reserve Bank signals it may raise interest rates soon. (Bloomberg, July 28, 2011)

Standing back from all this, the picture that emerges of the world outside North America and southern Europe is of robust economic conditions. If anything, policymakers in many parts of the world, particularly in Asia, are seeking to pull back demand, rather than stoke it.

Australia, for instance, is enjoying its best terms of trade in more than 50 years. An unprecedented investment boom in mining is injecting extraordinary wealth into the economy and has helped to push the Australian dollar to levels not seen since it was floated in the early 1980s.

Likewise, China, India and much of South-East Asia are seeing strong investment flows and worrying more about over-heating than anything.

This is not to say that all is right with the world. The aftermath of the global financial crisis has created severe problems, particularly in terms of public sector debt and deficits. But we know that that news is in the price. Meanwhile, economic activity in much of the world is thriving.

For equity investors, that means opportunities for wealth building are increasing, not decreasing. Moreover, the global economy is becoming multi-polar, rather than overly dependent on the US, which means the potential benefits from broad diversification are even greater.

That's why focusing too much on the day-to-day headlines with the US debt ceiling or European sovereign issues risks missing many of the good stories out there.

Sometimes, the best advice is to read the newspaper from the inside out.

Last week we came across an "Economic and Policy Watch" update prepared by a major investment bank that reviewed recent government proposals to address the nation's funding crisis. Titled "It Just Gets Worse," the report chided policymakers for actions that "look like a poor cover for loose money, rising inflation, and fiscal problems," and warned that "government financing needs are corrupting monetary policy." As a result of these ill-advised tactics, the bank had turned "more negative" on the outlook for financial stability and saw "little hope of improvement in the inflation/currency mix."

Amidst the barrage of news coverage from dozens of sources probing the US debt/default/downgrade issue, such a conclusion might seem unremarkable. We found it of interest because the focus of the report was not the US Treasury but the government of Indonesia, and it appeared over a decade ago, on July 16, 2001.

Indonesia's sovereign debt rating at that time placed it firmly in the "junk" (non-investment grade) category: B3 from Moody's and single-B from Standard & Poor's. Although Moody's upgraded Indonesia to a B2 rating in 2003 and to Ba1 in early 2011, at no time over the past decade was Indonesia deemed to merit an investment grade rating.

What has been the experience of equity investors in Indonesia since this report was published? The Jakarta Composite Index closed at 415.09 on January 16, 2001, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average finished that day at 10,652.66. On Wednesday, the Jakarta Composite closed at 4,087.09 and the Dow at 12,592.80. If the Dow Jones Average had kept pace with Indonesian stocks over the past decade, it would be over 104,000 today.

Investors in Indonesia have had their share of ups and downs over the years, and markets fell even harder than the US during the financial crisis, with a peak-to-trough loss of nearly 60%. But the recovery was sharper as well: The Jakarta Composite recouped all of its losses by April 2010, and the all-time high on July 22 this year was 45% above the high-water mark of early 2008.

For the ten-year period ending June 30, 2011, total return as computed by MSCI was 29% per year in local currency and 33% in US dollar terms. At no point throughout this period did Indonesia have an investment grade rating for its sovereign debt, and outside observers continue to find fault with the country's troublesome level of corruption, primitive infrastructure, and unpredictable regulatory apparatus.

We are not suggesting that investors should dismiss the effects of a US government credit downgrade. US Treasury securities are so widely held around the world that any potentially destabilizing event is worrisome. Nor are we suggesting that investors focus solely on countries with low credit ratings. Just as a broadly diversified portfolio includes companies with high and low credit quality, investing in countries with both high and low ratings is equally sensible.

Some might say the strong performance of Indonesian stocks over the past decade was at least partly attributable to the nation's improving credit profile, even if it remained at a relatively low level. The US, in contrast, appears to be deteriorating. Our point is that a low credit rating in and of itself is not necessarily a death sentence for equity investors. Citizens of triple-A countries behave much like those living in single-B territory—they eat, drink, shop, get stuck in traffic jams, chatter on mobile phones, and check their Facebook pages. (Indonesia claims the second-largest number of members in the world.) Companies doing business in either location generate cash flows, and investors do their best to evaluate what those cash flows are worth. A triple-A sovereign debt rating is no guarantee of superior equity market returns, and a "junk" rating is no assurance of failure. A diversified strategy will have exposure to both.

Ray Farris, "It Just Gets Worse," ING Barings Economic and Policy Watch, January 16, 2001.

"Global Credit Research," Moody's Investors Service, March 2004.

"Missing BRIC in the Wall," Economist, July 21, 2011.

Securities data provided by Bloomberg.

Yahoo! Finance, finance.yahoo.com (accessed July 25, 2011).

It is axiomatic in the world of financial economics that, in capital markets, risk and return are always related.  In fact, you will often hear that in order to create a portfolio with a higher expected rate of return, one must take additional risk.  One of my friends, who is also a client, recently told me that this seemingly obvious statement is very confusing to a lot of people.  He asked me how this could be true when a comparing a poorly diversified portfolio with a well diversified one.  And, he has a point.

The statement assumes that idiosyncratic risk in the portfolio has already been diversified away.  After that, adding to expected return requires taking more market risk.  Understanding the difference between indiosyncratic (or non-systematic) risk and market (or systematic) risk is critical to understanding this concept.  And, unless you've taken some finance courses or you're a portfolio manager (not a product salesman at a brokerage firm), you may not fully understand this.

Idiosycnratic, or non-systematic risk is risk that can be diversified away in a portfolio.  This is risk associated with individual assets.  An example would be company risk associated with an individual stock position (think Enron, for example).  If you hold just a few stocks in your portfolio, this is very signficant.  If you hold a few thousand stocks, it is so insignificant that it's close to zero.  It has been "diversified away".  The Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) for which Sharpe won the Nobel Prize tells us that investors are not compensated for taking diversifiable (idiosyncratic or non-systematic) risk.  In other words, investors are only compensated for bearing market risk.

Market risk is risk that cannot be diversified away.  Rational investors eliminate all diversifiable risk for which they should not expect to be compensated.  Now, we can examine the statement that higher expected returns require taking additional risk.  The assumption is that diversifiable risk has been taken out of the equation.  Thus, tilting a portfolio toward riskier asset classes like small cap or value stocks increases the expected rate of return.  Likewise, adding less risky assets such as bonds, to the portfolio will reduce the expected rate of return.  Of course, this also reduces the overall risk in the portfolio and is used to adjust the level of portfolio risk to a level that is suitable for a client's risk tolerance, capacity, and time horizon.

The concept is better explained by the statement that, in a properly diversified portfolio, additional expected return can only be achieved by taking additional market risk.

Real estate as a wealth generator is hardly a new idea. People owned property long before the advent of stock exchanges and other capital markets. In more recent times, large corporations and institutions have held commercial real estate in their portfolios.

But individual investors have not traditionally had ready access to a professionally managed, diversified real estate portfolio. This has changed in the last few decades with the development and growth of real estate investment trusts, or REITs. Now individuals can add a real estate component to their portfolio to improve overall diversification.

What is a REIT?

A REIT is a company that owns, operates, and/or finances real estate property.¹ Most of this discussion will address equity REITs, which manage different types of income-producing properties, such as hotels, office buildings, industrial facilities, apartments, and shopping centers. As commercial landlords, equity REITs typically generate dividend income from the rent paid by tenants. Many REITs in the US are traded on the public stock exchanges.

Publicly traded REITs offer investors several potential benefits:

Real estate exposure. While publicly traded REITs account for only a small portion of the real estate investment universe and the equity market, academic evidence suggests that REITs have similar returns to the overall real estate market .² 

Low correlations with financial assets. Over longer periods of time, historical correlations of REITs and stocks have been generally low. (Correlation refers to the co-movement of asset returns. When two assets are positively correlated, their returns tend to move together; when negatively correlated, their returns are dissimilar.)

Diversification. A REIT holds a portfolio of properties, which may specialize by property type and industry, or be broadly diversified according to industry and region. With the more recent advent of real estate securities overseas, investors can further diversify their exposure among foreign developed markets.

Higher yield, regular income, capital appreciation. Since REITs have to pay out a large fraction of earnings as dividends, they tend to offer higher-dividend income than equities, and this may benefit certain income-oriented investors. Total return of the shares is tied to income and change in market value.

Distinct asset class. While REITs are considered equity vehicles and can have significant exposure to the size and value risk factors, they are generally considered to be a separate asset class, due to their low long-term correlations with stocks.

Liquidity and transparency. Publicly traded REITs can be bought or sold whenever the stock market is open for business. The availability of market-determined share prices can reveal information about the market's assessment of the company's prospects, including the ability of the firm's management team.

Tax treatment. REITs operate as "pass-through" corporations in which most income goes directly to shareholders. They typically pay little or no taxes on corporate income.³

Investing in REITS

A REIT mutual fund that manages a portfolio of REITs typically offers more diversification than owning a single REIT. Most REIT funds are either actively managed or indexed. An active fund manager seeks to pick securities that appear undervalued-an approach that often results in over-concentration in a single category, which may raise risks and potential costs, including transaction costs and management fees. On the other hand, an index fund tries to replicate a benchmark, such as the FTSE NAREIT Equity REIT Index or the Dow Jones US Select REIT Index. Although index funds may have lower fees, securities held in the portfolios may experience buying and selling pressure when indexes are reconstituted.

Our preferred approach is a structured strategy. Rather than trying to replicate an index, a manager may choose securities based on risk-return characteristics, diversification benefit, and favorable price negotiation. By keeping costs low and trading efficiently, a structured REIT strategy seeks to generate improved returns over time. Advantages of this approach include broader, more systematic exposure to the REIT universe at a lower cost.

Adding a real estate component to a portfolio may be a good diversification move. But strategy and implementation are crucial, and before investing, you should consider how a real estate strategy and the REIT you select may affect your portfolio. Some factors that may come into play:

Asset coverage. Most actively managed stock funds and indexes include REITs in their equity holdings. This creates the potential for overlapping asset class exposure for investors who add a REIT component in their portfolio. Treating REITs as a separate and distinct strategy helps you achieve more precise risk exposure in the asset class weights. For example, investors with significant direct ownership in real estate may want to exclude REITs from the equity component in their portfolio to better control their overall exposure.

REIT category. Equity REITs may operate property in a specific area of expertise, such as retail, office and industrial, hotels, or health care facilities. Residential REITs own and operate apartment buildings and multi-family commercial dwellings, rather than single-family homes. Mortgage REITs, which lend money directly to real estate owners or invest in existing mortgages or mortgage-backed securities, are generally excluded from the equity REIT universe because they perform more like fixed income instruments, with income based on interest payments. Hybrid REITs combine the strategies of equity and mortgage REITs.

Diversification. As with financial assets, owning a broad mix of REITs can help reduce specific risk in a portfolio. This diversification eliminates exposure to a single REIT category, manager style, or geographic region. Also, adding international real estate can further enhance the potential diversification benefit.⁴ Correlations among international REITs are low across countries, regions, and equity markets, making them a useful complement to equities in developed and emerging markets.

Risk Considerations

REITs carry stock market risk, as well as risks specific to individual real estate properties, sectors, regional markets, and the operating firm. The securities are also subject to market pressures that may push share prices above or below the value of the underlying real estate. However, identifying a market premium or discount in a REIT is difficult since the underlying asset value reported by a REIT is based on an appraisal, which may be several months old. REIT returns also depend on the buying, selling, and operating decisions of management.

A manager may adopt risky strategies, such as heavy leveraging or lack of diversification. They may pay too much for properties, acquire poorly performing properties, change strategies regarding property mix, or make other business decisions that compromise performance. Investors holding foreign REITs or REIT funds are also exposed to risks specific to the country, such as legal structure, investment restrictions, ownership rules, tax treatment, and currency risk.

All of this underscores the importance of knowing your risk tolerance, carefully analyzing REIT fund managers, and diversifying to eliminate exposure to a single REIT manager or category.

Endnotes

1. Equity REITs make up about 91% of the REIT market. Mortgage REITs, which compose about 7% of the market, loan money to real estate owners or invest in existing mortgage-backed securities. Hybrid REITs combine the strategies of equity and mortgage REITs and make up about 1% of the market. Source: National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, Inc. (NAREIT).

2. Joseph Gyourko and Donald B. Keim, "Risk and Return in Real Estate: Evidence from a Real Estate Stock Index," Financial Analysts Journal 49, no. 5 (September-October 1993): 39-46.

3. A US REIT must invest at least 75% of its assets in real estate and derive at least 75% of its income from real estate property or interest on real estate financing. It must also distribute at least 90% of its income to shareholders to maintain tax-advantaged status. This pass-through provision allows REIT investors to have access to the same cash flows as investors in private real estate equity. REIT shareholders, however, generally must pay taxes on income they receive from a REIT.

4. Over the 20-year period from 1990 to 2009, the annual return correlation between US REITs and the US stock market was 0.498 (1.0 denotes exact positive correlation in returns).

Disclosures

The information presented above was prepared by Dimensional Fund Advisors, a non-affiliated third party.

Diversification neither assures a profit nor guarantees against loss in a declining market.

REITs vs. US Stocks

Annual Returns: 2000-2009

US Equity REITs are represented by the Dow Jones US Select REIT Index.
The US equity market is represented by the CRSP 1-10 Index.

Average Annualized Returns: 1990-2009

Returns in USD. Inception dates for Dow Jones US Select REIT Index is January 1978; CRSP Deciles 1-10
Index inception date is January 1926.

Indices are not available for direct investment, and performance does not reflect the expenses associated with the management of an actual portfolio. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

The Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP), at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business (Chicago GSB), is a nonprofit center that also functions as a vendor of historical data. CRSP end-of-day historical data covers roughly 26,500 stocks-active and inactive-listed on the NYSE, Alternext, Amex (formerly AMEX), NASDAQ, and ARCA exchanges. OTC bulletin board stocks are not included.