Practical Applications of Smart Beta: The Good, the Bad, and the Muddy

James White, Victor Haghani
{"title":"Practical Applications of Smart Beta: The Good, the Bad, and the Muddy","authors":"James White, Victor Haghani","doi":"10.3905/pa.8.2.394","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Practical Applications Summary In Smart Beta: The Good, the Bad, and the Muddy, in the March 2020 edition of The Journal of Portfolio Management, James White and Victor Haghani, both of Elm Partners, discuss smart beta factor investing. They debate the merits of the most common smart beta approach: selecting securities based on factors for long-only equity portfolios. They ponder whether markets harbor enough specific risk-sensitivity differences among investors and/or pricing inefficiencies to make smart beta investing worthwhile for the typical investor, after accounting for the extra fees associated with such strategies. The authors observe that portfolios with factor exposure have generally offered higher risk-adjusted returns than market-cap-weighted indexes. But they caution that factor investing may not be all that it appears, noting that to the extent attractive returns arise from inefficiencies, these anomalies tend to dissipate over time. They suggest that if the explanation for returns is compensation for bearing undue risks, it is unlikely, though not impossible, that most investors would want to bear concentrated exposure to that risk beyond what they get by holding the market portfolio. Additionally, factor research in general is compromised by data issues such as periodic regime changes and complex relationships among data categories. With all this in mind, the authors suggest that for most investors, holding a cap-weighted portfolio is the preferred approach. TOPICS: Style investing, portfolio management/multi-asset allocation","PeriodicalId":179835,"journal":{"name":"Practical Application","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Practical Application","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3905/pa.8.2.394","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Practical Applications Summary In Smart Beta: The Good, the Bad, and the Muddy, in the March 2020 edition of The Journal of Portfolio Management, James White and Victor Haghani, both of Elm Partners, discuss smart beta factor investing. They debate the merits of the most common smart beta approach: selecting securities based on factors for long-only equity portfolios. They ponder whether markets harbor enough specific risk-sensitivity differences among investors and/or pricing inefficiencies to make smart beta investing worthwhile for the typical investor, after accounting for the extra fees associated with such strategies. The authors observe that portfolios with factor exposure have generally offered higher risk-adjusted returns than market-cap-weighted indexes. But they caution that factor investing may not be all that it appears, noting that to the extent attractive returns arise from inefficiencies, these anomalies tend to dissipate over time. They suggest that if the explanation for returns is compensation for bearing undue risks, it is unlikely, though not impossible, that most investors would want to bear concentrated exposure to that risk beyond what they get by holding the market portfolio. Additionally, factor research in general is compromised by data issues such as periodic regime changes and complex relationships among data categories. With all this in mind, the authors suggest that for most investors, holding a cap-weighted portfolio is the preferred approach. TOPICS: Style investing, portfolio management/multi-asset allocation
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Smart Beta的实际应用:好的、坏的和混乱的
在2020年3月版的《投资组合管理杂志》上,Elm Partners的James White和Victor Haghani讨论了智能Beta因素投资。他们讨论了最常见的聪明贝塔方法的优点:根据只做多的股票投资组合的因素来选择证券。他们考虑的是,考虑到与此类策略相关的额外费用,市场是否在投资者之间存在足够具体的风险敏感性差异和/或定价效率低下,从而使聪明的贝塔投资对普通投资者来说是值得的。作者观察到,与市值加权指数相比,具有因素敞口的投资组合通常提供更高的风险调整回报。但他们警告称,要素投资可能并非表面上的那样。他们指出,在某种程度上,有吸引力的回报源于效率低下,这些异常现象往往会随着时间的推移而消失。他们认为,如果回报的解释是对承担过度风险的补偿,那么大多数投资者不太可能(尽管并非不可能)愿意承担超出他们持有市场投资组合所获得的风险的集中敞口。此外,因子研究通常受到数据问题的影响,如周期性的制度变化和数据类别之间的复杂关系。考虑到这一切,作者建议,对于大多数投资者来说,持有市值加权的投资组合是首选的方法。主题:风格投资,投资组合管理/多资产配置
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Practical Applications of Joanne Hill – Conversation with Frank Fabozzi Practical Applications of The Life Journey of Wealthy Women: Evolving Experiences Around Money, Work, Family, and Life Choices of Ultrawealthy Women Practical Applications of Sales Dispersion: A Robust Factor to Consider to Achieve Alpha Practical Applications of The Free Boundary of the American Put Practical Applications of The Evolution of Private Equity Fund Value
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1