Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
M* JR looks at "conservative" or "low-risk" funds with complex long-short or derivative strategies. They typically perform poorly, but are often lumped with genuine low-risk funds such as ultra-ST or ST investment-grade bond funds or regular conservative-allocation funds. https://www.morningstar.com/portfolios/when-low-risk-means-high-risk
”This column should not be read as a criticism of low-risk investments. They aren’t required for younger investors, who need not worry about redeeming their funds at the wrong time (at least, if they are sensible), but they are critical for retirees who are withdrawing their assets. Ballast prevents them from entering a bear market spiral in which they spend ever-larger percentages of their portfolio to realize the same amount of money. Do that for long, and you are in real trouble.”
Do younger investors (ie ages 25-45) really pay much attention to portfolio construction / hedging? Sure, some do. And likely if they’re reading this board they pay greater attention than the average working stiff with a job, kids in school, a big mortgage and 25 + years to retirement.
Good article. Hopefully (as the author suggests) well considered portfolio specific hedging may reduce short term volatility for those already in the withdrawal stage. In no way, shape or form would I ever argue that hedging improves longer term performance. And … there’s always the option (hedge) of moving a big chunk into cash and / or CDs, as one well-heeled poster appears to have done recently. As a sometimes landscaper / gardener, I’m aware that hedges come in many different shapes and colors.
Volatility reduction tactics can improve long term performance. It depends on how long the term is. As you imply, in the withdrawal stage long term is decidedly shorter. Two quotes come to mind.
Keynes: In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again.
Shilling (attrib Keynes): The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent
I liken the “drag effect” of portfolio hedging to brakes on a car. A car would be much more efficient and would travel farther if you just left it rolling along.
PS - @msf said “Shilling (attrib Keynes): The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
That’s scary if true. It suggests our perspective on markets based on most of our investing lifetimes may not reflect reality. My “hands-on” experience dates to 1995, or about 30 years. Prior to that I paid little attention. Despite a few awful downturns (2000, 2008, 2020, 2022) U.S. equities have dramatically outpaced just about every other kind of investment. I dare say that holding bonds or other hedges over that 30 year span would have resulted in a lower overall return.
But, as I think Shilling / Keynes implies, that 30 year period may represent some type of alternative universe rather then reality.
FWIW / Fido’s analytics currently put me at 51% equities. Too high. Waiting for a good chance to reduce that.
Without getting too deep into the weeds, unlike @msf who prefers the “plain vanilla” variety, most of my equities are of “fudge” variety - meaning they are held inside multi-asset funds, CEFs and long-short funds. So the relatively high % in equities reflects these managers’ current positioning. Makes deciding to sell any particular position a bit more challenging. But not impossible.
If you are going to remain "overweight" in equities, the 1 phrase that sticks in my mind is:
"A rising tide lifts all boats" - JFK
....and the reverse is true as well. Defensive sectors (Utilities, Health, etc.) don't always hold up. So it would be nice to think that there are "low risk" strategies that could work. But they rarely do.
The M* article that YBB posted pointed out that both Low-volatility and Alternative investments have been hampered severely by extremely low interest rates (earned by Treasuries and Cash collateral) over the past 15 years.
The article finished with: "But what feels good is not necessarily what is right. As a rule, competitive gains do not occur without accompanying pain.
That’s a message worth remembering when investment vendors respond to a stock downturn by selling safety. They always do."
Comments
Do younger investors (ie ages 25-45) really pay much attention to portfolio construction / hedging? Sure, some do. And likely if they’re reading this board they pay greater attention than the average working stiff with a job, kids in school, a big mortgage and 25 + years to retirement.
Good article. Hopefully (as the author suggests) well considered portfolio specific hedging may reduce short term volatility for those already in the withdrawal stage. In no way, shape or form would I ever argue that hedging improves longer term performance. And … there’s always the option (hedge) of moving a big chunk into cash and / or CDs, as one well-heeled poster appears to have done recently. As a sometimes landscaper / gardener, I’m aware that hedges come in many different shapes and colors.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/08/09/remain-solvent/
Still, I maintain significant exposure to vanilla equities. Though that is with what I feel is adequate ballast that can be drawn down as needed.
I liken the “drag effect” of portfolio hedging to brakes on a car. A car would be much more efficient and would travel farther if you just left it rolling along.
PS - @msf said “Shilling (attrib Keynes): The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
That’s scary if true. It suggests our perspective on markets based on most of our investing lifetimes may not reflect reality. My “hands-on” experience dates to 1995, or about 30 years. Prior to that I paid little attention. Despite a few awful downturns (2000, 2008, 2020, 2022) U.S. equities have dramatically outpaced just about every other kind of investment. I dare say that holding bonds or other hedges over that 30 year span would have resulted in a lower overall return.
But, as I think Shilling / Keynes implies, that 30 year period may represent some type of alternative universe rather then reality.
FWIW / Fido’s analytics currently put me at 51% equities. Too high. Waiting for a good chance to reduce that.
Without getting too deep into the weeds, unlike @msf who prefers the “plain vanilla” variety, most of my equities are of “fudge” variety - meaning they are held inside multi-asset funds, CEFs and long-short funds. So the relatively high % in equities reflects these managers’ current positioning. Makes deciding to sell any particular position a bit more challenging. But not impossible.
"A rising tide lifts all boats" - JFK
....and the reverse is true as well. Defensive sectors (Utilities, Health, etc.) don't always hold up. So it would be nice to think that there are "low risk" strategies that could work. But they rarely do.
The M* article that YBB posted pointed out that both Low-volatility and Alternative investments have been hampered severely by extremely low interest rates (earned by Treasuries and Cash collateral) over the past 15 years.
The article finished with:
"But what feels good is not necessarily what is right. As a rule, competitive gains do not occur without accompanying pain.
That’s a message worth remembering when investment vendors respond to a stock downturn by selling safety. They always do."