Low-risk equity investment – From theory to practice
- 93 Downloads
- 2 Citations
Abstract
Financial theory assumes that higher risk is compensated on average by higher returns. However, the outperformance of low-volatility stocks during the last 50 years has been among the most puzzling anomalies in equity markets. At the same time, low-risk investing has recently gained a remarkable interest, due to its documented performance coupled with the unprecedented volatility experienced during the last global financial crisis. The section ‘Literature Review’ of our study discusses how researchers have been documenting such anomaly and explaining (since the early nineties) this phenomenon with theories referring to leverage constraints, behavioral bias, delegated portfolio, benchmarking and the utility function of fund managers. Recognizing that most of the available empirical research focuses on the US equity market, section ‘Empirical Evidence in the International Arena’ is dedicated to some additional tests that we have run on the persistency and significance of the anomaly in the international arena: We find that the relationship between risk-adjusted returns and risk is negative indeed, and that the relationship holds regardless of the risk measure employed for tests (Beta or volatility). In section ‘Can Skewness And Convexity Explain the Low-Risk Anomaly?’, we investigate two possible explanations of the anomaly related to the distribution of equity returns, namely skewness and convexity. We find that high-risk stocks exhibit higher skewness and higher convexity than low-risk stocks. These results may effectively explain the anomaly because, if the price paid for stocks with higher-than-average skewness and convexity is inflated, their subsequent returns are consequently lower-than-average, at least in risk-adjusted terms. In the last section of our research, we discuss two popular risk-based smart beta strategies (minimum variance and risk parity) proving that both of them benefit from the low-risk anomaly via a significant and systematic bias toward low-risk stocks. We ultimately discuss some best practices of implementing the minimum-variance process, and provide an effective and parsimonious portfolio construction rule for the risk parity process.
Keywords
Low-risk stocks volatility volatility effect behavioral finance market efficiencyNotes
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Corentin Bouzac for his help in literature review and statistical tests, and to Amundi Equity Quant Research for backtests. The author have discussed many of the topics of the present research in a previous working paper (http://research-center.amundi.com/page/Publications/Working-Paper/2013/Low-risk-equity-investments-Empirical-evidence-theories-and-the-Amundi-experience?search=true).
References
- Ang, A., Hodrick, R.J., Xing, Y. and Zhang, X. (2006) The cross-section of volatility and expected returns. The Journal of Finance 61 (1): 607–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Arnott, R. D., Hsu, J. and Moore, P. (2005) Fundamental indexation. Financial Analyst Journal 61 (2): 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Baker, M., Bradley, B. and Wurgler, J. (2011) Benchmarks as limits to arbitrage: Understanding the low volatility anomaly. Financial Analysts Journal 67 (1): 40–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Baker, N. L. and Haugen, R. A. (2012) Low Risk Stocks Outperform within All Observable Markets of the World. Social Science Research Network Working Paper.Google Scholar
- Black, F., Jensen, M.C. and Scholes, M.S. (1972) The capital asset pricing model: Some empirical tests. In: M.C. Jensen (ed.) Studies in the Theories of Capital Markets, New York: Praeger Publishers, pp. 79–121.Google Scholar
- Black, F. (1993) Beta and Returns. The Journal of Portfolio Management 20 (1): 8–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Blitz, D. and Van Vliet, P. (2007) The volatility effect: Lower risk without lower return. The Journal of Portfolio Management 17 (1): 102–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Carvalho, R.L., Lu, X. and Moulin, P. (2011) Demystifying equity risk-based strategies: A simple alpha plus beta description. The Journal of Portfolio Management 38 (3): 56–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Chunhachinda, P., Dandapani, K., Hamid, S. and Prakash, AJ. (1997) Portfolio selection and skewness: Evidence from international stock markets. The Journal of Banking and Finance 21 (2): 143–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Clarke, R., De Silva, H. and Thorley, S (2006) Minimum variance portfolios in the US equity market. The Journal of Portfolio Management 33 (1): 10–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Clarke, R., De Silva, H. and Thorley, S. CFA (2011) Minimum variance portfolio composition. The Journal of Portfolio Management 37 (2): 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cornell, B. and Roll, R. (2005) A delegated-agent asset-pricing model. Financial Analyst Journal 61 (1): 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cowan, D. and Wilderman, S. (2011) What the Beta Puzzle Tells Us about Investing. GMO White Paper.Google Scholar
- Fama, E. and French, K. (1992) The cross-section of expected stock returns. The Journal of Finance 47 (2): 427–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fama, E. and MacBeth, J.D. (1973) Risk, return, and equilibrium: Empirical tests. The Journal of Political Economy 81 (3): 607–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Frazzini, A. and Pedersen, L. H. P. (2010) Betting against Beta. Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper.Google Scholar
- Haugen, R. A. and Baker, N. L. (1991) The efficient market inefficiency of capitalization-weighted stock portfolios. The Journal of Portfolio Management 17 (3): 35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kraus, A. and Litzenberger, R.H. (1976) Skewness preference and the valuation of risk assets. The Journal of Finance 31 (4): 1085–1100.Google Scholar
- Maillard, S., Roncalli, T. and Teiletche, J. (2010) The properties of equally-weighted risk contributions portfolios. The Journal of Portfolio Management 36 (4): 60–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Markowitz, H. (1952) Portfolio selection. The Journal of Finance 7 (1): 77–91.Google Scholar
- Malongo, H., Morel, T. and Lambinet, R. (2013) Bubbles and regimes: Two complementary approaches. Amundi Cross Asset Investment Strategy – Special Focus, http://research-center.amundi.com/page/Publications/Special-Focus/2013/Bubbles-and-Regimes-Two-Complementary-Approaches?search=true.
- Piotroski, J. D. (2000) Value investing: The use of historical financial statement information to separate winners from losers. Journal of Accounting Research 28 (Supplement): 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Prakash, A. J., Chang, C. H. and Pactwa, T. E. (2003) Selecting a portfolio with skewness: Recent evidence from US, European, and Latin American Equity markets. Journal of Banking and Finance 27 (7): 1375–1390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Russo, A. (2014) Understanding Smart Beta: Beyond Diversification and Low Risk. Amundi Discussion Paper.Google Scholar
- Sharpe, W.F. (1964) Capital asset prices: A theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. Journal of Finance 19 (3): 425–442.Google Scholar
- Shefrin, H. and Statman, M. (2000) Behavioral portfolio theory. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Finance 35 (2): 127–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Shepard, P. (2011) The Barra integrated model (BIM301). MSCI Research Notes, https://www.msci.com/resources/events/BIM301%20Research%20Notes.pdf.Google Scholar
- Sornette, D. (2004) Why Stock Markets Crash (Critical Events in Complex Financial Systems). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Thomas, R. and Shapiro, R. (2007) Managed Volatility: A New Approach to Equity Investing. State Street Global Advisors White Paper.Google Scholar