Skip to main content

Robo Advisors vs. Value Investing Strategies: A Fuzzy Jensen’s Alpha Assessment

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Digital Era and Fuzzy Applications in Management and Economy (XX SIGEF 2021)

Abstract

Robo-advisor (RA) platforms have become fundamental in the areas of finance and technology, as they have revolutionized the way investments are carried out and managed. Nevertheless, investment strategies using traditional financial management are currently being maintained. The objective of this research is to compare an investment portfolio that utilizes similar strategies to those of a RA against an investment portfolio that makes decisions through a consensus of valuation analysts. Fuzzy Jensen’s Alpha is used to compare both portfolios. To create a new portfolio strategy proposal for RA platform as well as a value investing portfolio, we selected Latin American listed companies in Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Chile, and Brazil for the sample. Additionally, we used ETFs to replicate those countries. The timespan considered was from January 15, 2015 to June 28, 2019. The results report that both strategies succeeded in surpassing the benchmark; however, the analysts’ portfolio has accelerated its growth since 2018, increasing its positive gap against the RA portfolio. In this sense, the portfolio developed by the analysts gives an average return higher than the average return of the RA. Nonetheless, the RA portfolio has a higher possibility of obtaining abnormal or unexpected returns than the analyst's value investing portfolio, given the systematic risk involved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. P Gomber JA Koch M Siering 2017 Digital finance and FinTech: current research and future research directions J. Bus. Econ. 87 5 537 580

    Google Scholar 

  2. Fein, M.L.: Robo-Advisors: A closers look. SSRN Working Paper. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2658701 (2015)

  3. ICI: Investment Company Fact Book, 58th edn. Investment Company Institute, Washington, DC (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  4. M Beketov K Lehmann M Wittke 2018 Robo advisors: quantitative methods inside the robots J. Asset Manag. 19 6 363 370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Melone, C.: Investors Attitudes Towards Robo-advisors. My Private Banking Research, Kreuzlingen, Switzerland (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  6. L Bjerknes A Vukovic 2017 Automated advice: A Portfolio Management Perspective on Robo-advisors Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim Master’s thesis

    Google Scholar 

  7. MW Uhl P Rohner 2018 The compensation portfolio Financ. Res. Lett. 27 60 64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. A Ling J Sun M Wang 2019 Robust multi-period portfolio selection based on downside risk with asymmetrically distributed uncertainty set Eur. J. Oper. Res. 285 1 81 95

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. R Bird J Whitaker 2004 The performance of value and momentum investment portfolios: Recent experience in the major European markets part 2 J. Asset Manag. 5 3 157 175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. F D’Acunto N Prabhala AG Rossi 2019 The promises and pitfalls of robo-advising Oxford Univ. Press behalf of The Society for Financial Studies 32 5 1983 2020

    Google Scholar 

  11. B Graham DL Dodd 2009 Security Analysis 6 McGraw Hill New York

    Google Scholar 

  12. EF Fama KR French 1993 Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds J. Financ. Econ. 33 3 56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. A Damodaran 2005 Value and risk: beyond betas Financ. Analyst J. 61 2 38 43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. C Asness A Frazzini R Israel T Moskowitz 2015 Fact, fiction, and value investing J. Portfolio Manage. 42 1 34 52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. SD Campbell SA Sharpe 2009 Anchoring bias in consensus forecasts and its effect on market prices J. Financ. Quant. Anal. 44 2 369 390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. E Otuteye M Siddiquee 2015 Overcoming cognitive biases: heuristic for making value investing decisions J. Behav. Financ. 16 2 140 149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. H Markowitz 1952 Porfolio selection J. Financ. 7 1 7 91

    Google Scholar 

  18. T Bodnar T Zabolotskyy 2016 How risky is the optimal portfolio which maximizes the Sharpe ratio? Adv. Stat. Anal. 101 1 1 28 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10182-016-0270-3

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. WF Sharpe 1966 Mutual fund performance J. Bus. 39 1 119 138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sironi, P.: Fintech innovation: from robo-advisors to goal based investing and gamification, 1st edn. Wiley Finances Series, Hoboken (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  21. K Phoon F Koh 2018 Robo-advisors and wealth management Alternat. Invest. 20 3 79 94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. O Ivanov O Snihovyi V Kobets 2018 Implementation of robo-advisors tools for different risk attitude investment decisions CEUR Workshop Proceedings 2104 161 195 206

    Google Scholar 

  23. K Cortez M Rodríguez B Mendez 2013 An Assessment of abnormal returns and risk in socially responsible firms using fuzzy alpha Jensen and fuzzy beta Fuzzy Econ. Rev. 18 1 37 59

    Google Scholar 

  24. Tanaka, H., Ishibuchi, H.: Possibilistic regression analysis based on linear programming. In: Kacprzyk, J., Fedrizzi M. (eds.) Fuzzy Regression Analysis, pp. 47–60. Omnitech Press, Warsaw and Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  25. J Grefenstette 1986 Optimization of control parameters for genetic algorithms IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 16 1 122 128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. JE Grable S Chatterjee 2014 Reducing wealth volatility: the value of financial advice measured by zeta J. Financ. Plan. 27 8 45 51

    Google Scholar 

  27. CM Jensen 1968 The performance of mutual funds in the period 1945–1964 J. Financ. 23 2 389 416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. R Jarrow P Protter 2013 Positive alphas, abnormal performance, and illusory arbitrage Math. Financ. 23 1 39 56

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. S Flaherty J Li 2004 Composite performance measures Chin. Econ. 37 3 39 66

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Klender Cortez .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Caballero-Fernández, R., Cortez, K., Ceballos-Hornero, D. (2022). Robo Advisors vs. Value Investing Strategies: A Fuzzy Jensen’s Alpha Assessment. In: Rodríguez García, M.d.P., Cortez Alejandro, K.A., Merigó, J.M., Terceño-Gómez, A., Sorrosal Forradellas, M.T., Kacprzyk, J. (eds) Digital Era and Fuzzy Applications in Management and Economy. XX SIGEF 2021. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 384. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94485-8_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics