Risk-Controlled Investment Strategies

Teach-in Risk-Controlled Investment Strategies 5th March 2013
Risk-Controlled
Investment Strategies
1
Tuesday 5th March 2013

Volatility Control
2
Dan Mikulskis
ALM & Investment Strategy

We summarise our approach to putting clients in control of their funding goals in seven steps
Redington
Our Approach
33
Volatility Control and Risk Parity are examples of
Step 3: Liquid Alpha and Beta strategies

Introduction : How Does Volatility Control Work
Drive to the conditions
4

How do we Volatility Control
• Volatility Control is achieved through varying the exposure to equities dynamically in response to the volatility level
• As equity volatility rises, we reduce exposure from equity toward cash, depending on the volatility target
• Here we illustrate the dynamic exposure of a volatility control approach targeting 10% volatility
5
Source: Bloomberg; Calculations: Redington

Why use Volatility Control
For Defined Benefit pension funds:
- Prudent way of controlling risk in equity portfolio;
- Can get better risk adjusted returns than a fixed market exposure;
- Can help to manage/improve the risk budget by targeting a set level of volatility;
- More cost effective way of getting downside protection on an equity portfolio.
For Insurance Companies:
- May get capital reductions compared to a fixed allocation to equity markets;
- For With Profit and Variable Annuity products, can get cheaper downside protection.
For Defined Contribution pension funds:
- Can get much cheaper downside protection than fixed market allocation;
- e.g. 50bps per year to protect at 80% of highest NAV.
6

What Volatility Control is (and isn’t)
Volatility Control is ...
• An alternative approach to allocating capital;
• A technique for managing risk;
• A passive investment style;
• Implemented on a mandate level;
• Also known as Risk Control or Volatility Target.
7
Volatility Control is not ...
• A quantitative trading rule that tries to outperform
equities;
• A mechanism for trying to predict market crashes;
• A process for selecting low volatility stocks;
• A process for weighting individual stocks according to their
volatility;
• A guaranteed downside protection vehicle against
instantaneous crashes.

Why Volatility Control (1)
• Equity Volatility varies very substantially through time.
• Both above and below the long term average.
8

What does Volatility Control achieve
9
• The Volatility Control approach keeps the trailing volatility close to the target level of 10%.

• Across time periods and markets, Volatility Control has historically produced better risk-adjusted outcomes than a fixed
market exposure allocation
10
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Volatility Controlled Portfolio FTSE 100 Total Return Portfolio

• Across time periods and markets, Volatility Control has historically produced better risk-adjusted outcomes than a fixed
market exposure allocation
11
Notes:
1. Measured in excess of relevant cash rate (3m LIBOR where data exists, proxy otherwise)
2, Measured as standard deviation of daily returns (100 day measure)
20 years ending
31.12.2012
MSCI World FTSE 100 S&P 500
Index Volatility
Control 10%
Index Volatility
Control 10%
Index Volatility
Control 10%
Excess Return1 (%p.a.) 2.6 3.6 2.9 3.2 4.6 4.1
Volatility2 (%p.a.) 15.0 10.9 18.6 10.6 19.2 10.7

Case Study 1 : January 2008 – June 2009
12
• The FTSE 100 peaked in May 2008, then fell very sharply in September and October 2008 following the collapse of
Lehman Brothers.
• At this point volatility increased sharply.
• The FTSE 100 reached its bottom in March 2009 before beginning its recovery.

13

• The Volatility Control approach de-geared substantially well before the market lows
• Hence the drawdown suffered was much shallower, around -25% compared to -55%
14

15
• Over this period the FTSE 100 index rallied consistently with a relatively low volatility, increasing by around 45% over the
2.5 year period

• As the volatility of the FTSE 100 fell below the target of 10%, the market exposure of the volatility controlled portfolio
increased to greater than 100%. A cap was in place at 150% exposure but this was never reached.
• As volatility increased toward the middle of 2006 the volatility control approach de-geared to a 60% exposure level.
16
-10%
10%
30%
50%
70%
90%
110%
130%
150%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
AnnualizedVolatility(%)ofFTSE100
%Allocationofvolatilitycontrolledapproach
FTSE Allocation FTSE Rolling Volatility

17
• In this case the value of the volatility controlled portfolio and the fixed market exposure portfolio increased roughly in line,
with substantially the same realised volatility.

Case Study 3 : January 2011 – December 2012
• This period saw substantial market volatility across global markets during August and September of 2011, followed by a
sustained rally in 2012 and decreasing volatility.
18

19
• As the volatility of the FTSE 100 increased during August and September of 2011, the exposure of the volatility controlled
strategy decreased to around 40%.
-10%
10%
30%
50%
70%
90%
110%
130%
150%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
AnnualizedVolatility(%)ofFTSE100
%Allocationofvolatilitycontrolledapproach
FTSE Allocation FTSE Rolling Volatility

• Despite the period of increased volatility, the FTSE 100 recovered to its pre-August 2011 level relatively quickly, and
continued to rally from there.
• As the volatility control approach had de-geared during the volatile phase, it did not participate fully in the recovery.
• The volatility controlled approach behaved as it should have done, reducing volatility experienced during August and
September 2012.
20

Implementing Volatility Control
• The most straightforward implementation is through a rebalancing program using futures.
• Most efficient for this to be managed by the LDI manager to make the most effective use of collateral.
• Most of the major UK LDI providers have indicated their ability and willingness to manage such mandates.
• We believe appropriate fee levels are :
 Small mandate with no additional LDI ~ 20-25bps
 Large mandate alongside an LDI mandate ~10-15bps
 As Vol Control is a “passive plus” type of strategy, we believe these are appropriate
• Separately it is possible to implement through a Total Return Swap (TRS) with an investment bank.
• This potentially introduces an extra layer of complexity and liquidity, which will only be worth doing if the cost savings are
significant enough.
21

• One advantage of a Volatility Controlled approach to investing is that it is much cheaper to buy downside protection
against a large fall in the portfolio’s value.
• The uncertainty of equity volatility (as shown before) means that downside protection options carry a large premium.
Extensions of Volatility Control : A Pathway to Cost Effective Portfolio Downside Protection
22

23

24
1 Year Protection level Approximate cost to protect equity
portfolio (%) over 1 year
Approximate Cost to protect 10% Vol
Control portfolio (%) over 1 year
90% 3.9 1.3
85% 2.8 0.5
80% 1.9 0.2
Source: Bloomberg, Barclays; Calculations: Redington

Volatility Control in the press and media
25

26
“Regarding target volatility indexes, we have
shown that their long-run Sharpe ratio is always
better than the Sharpe ratio of the underlying
equity index as long as the target volatility level is
chosen within reasonable boundaries.”

27
“To date, Volatility Target funds have not seen
widespread take-up. One of the major concerns
seems to be whether the concept is too complex
and difficult to communicate.”
“However, it can be argued that such an
approach helps an advisor meet client suitability
requirements as it enables them to discuss
maximum expected fund value falls.”

Conclusions & Further Information
 Volatility Control is an approach to portfolio construction that aims for a more consistent risk through time, compared to a
fixed market allocation.
 It does this by varying the allocation to equities through time.
 Analysis over long time periods and across markets shows that this approach can deliver better risk-adjusted return
outcomes than a fixed market exposure.
 Volatility Control is easy and cost-effective to implement, being a semi-passive approach.
Further Reading -
The Actuary Magazine December 2012
http://www.theactuary.com/features/2012/12/volatility-control-taming-the-beast/
RedViews
http://redington.co.uk/getattachment/eea3dd74-37c8-446e-afa9-fd8d1973f295/Taming%20The%20Beast.aspx
RedBlogs
http://blog.redington.co.uk/Articles/Dan-Mikulskis/September-2012/VOLATILITY-CONTROL.aspx
http://blog.redington.co.uk/Articles/Dan-Mikulskis/December-2012/TAMING-THE-BEAST.aspx
The Journal of Indexes November / December 2012
http://www.indexuniverse.com/publications/journalofindexes/joi-articles/12932-optimal-design-of-risk-control-strategy-indexes.html
28

Risk Parity: Balancing Risk
Across Asset Classes
29
Aniket Das
Manager Research Team

What is Risk Parity?
30
Risk Parity refers to a systematic approach to multi-asset
investing which allocates to a variety of asset classes (or risk
factors) according to risk exposure rather than asset value.

The Problem with Traditional Asset Allocation – #1
31
Average UK Pension Fund Asset Allocation
Equities
Nominal Govt Bonds
Inflation-Linked Bonds
Property
Alternatives
Risk Allocation
Equities
Nominal Govt Bonds
Inflation-Linked Bonds
Property
Alternatives
c.90% of risk from equities
Source: UBS; Calculations: Redington

The Problem with Traditional Asset Allocation – #2
32
-10%
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
Feb-10 May-10 Aug-10 Nov-10 Feb-11 May-11 Aug-11 Nov-11 Feb-12 May-12 Aug-12 Nov-12
TrailingMonthlyReturn
Average PF Asset Allocation Equity Component
Correlation = 0.91
Source: UBS; Calculations: Redington

Why do we have this situation?
33

Leverage in Risk Parity, Leverage in Equities
34
208%
186%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
350%
400%
450%
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
Totalleverage(DebttoEquity)
MSCI World Debt to Equity Ratio Risk Parity 12% Vol Total Leverage Employed
MSCI World Average Risk Parity 12% Vol Average
Source: MSCI, S&P, Merrill Lynch; Calculations: Bloomberg, Redington

What does a Risk Parity portfolio look like? – #1
35
- Introducing a simple risk parity model we created, utilising 43 years of data:-
- Equities: MSCI World Net TR Index (1970-2012)
- Bonds: Bloomberg Generic 10 Year US Treasury (1970-73) / Merrill Lynch 7-10 Year US Treasury TR Index (1973-2012)
- Commodities: S&P GSCI TR Index (1970-2012)
- Equal risk weight to each asset class (i.e. 33.3% of portfolio risk in equities, 33.3% in bonds and 33.3% in commodities)
- 24 month trailing volatility used to forecast future volatility
- Rebalancing occurs monthly
- No transaction costs (futures trading of major market instruments is relatively cheap)
N.B: Manager implementations of risk parity will vary from this simple model as will be discussed later
Equities
Bonds
Commodities

Teach-in Risk-Controlled Investment Strategies 5th March 2013 36
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012
Equities
Volatility (LHS) Portfolio Allocation (RHS, Inverted Scale)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012
Bonds
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012
Commodities
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012
Trailing24-MonthVolatility
Asset Class Volatility
Equities Bonds Commodities
What does a Risk Parity portfolio look like? – #2

What does a risk parity portfolio look like? – #3
37
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012
PortfolioWeight
Unlevered, no volatility target
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012
PortfolioWeight
Levered @ 10% volatility

Risk Parity Performance - #1
38
Jan 1971 –
Dec 2012
Unlevered
Risk Parity
Risk Parity
@ 10% Vol
60% Equities
40% Bonds
50% Equities
50% Bonds
100% Bonds 100% Equities 100% Commodities
Total Return 9.46% 10.36% 8.73% 8.69% 8.10% 8.55% 8.98%
Excess Return 2.91% 3.76% 2.21% 2.18% 1.63% 2.04% 2.46%
Volatility 7.02% 10.00% 9.84% 8.77% 7.57% 15.18% 20.38%
Sharpe Ratio 0.41 0.38 0.22 0.25 0.21 0.13 0.12
-1000%
0%
1000%
2000%
3000%
4000%
5000%
6000%
1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012
CumulativeTotalReturn
Unlevered Risk Parity Risk Parity @ 10% Vol
60% Equities / 40% Bonds 50% Equities / 50% Bonds
0
1
10
100
1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012
TotalReturnIndex(logscale)
Unlevered Risk Parity Risk Parity @ 10% Vol
60% Equities / 40% Bonds 50% Equities / 50% Bonds

Risk Parity Performance - #2
39
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012
CumulativeContributiontoPortfolioExcessReturn

0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
10 Year US Treasury Yield Rising Interest Rate Period
Risk Parity and Rising Interest Rates
40
# Time Change
in Yield
(bps)
Unlevered
Risk Parity
Risk
Parity
10% Vol
60 / 40
Portfolio
1 Feb 1972 –
Sep 1975
+244 1.16% 0.00% -7.83%
2 Dec 1976 –
Feb 1980
+571 -2.44% -4.13% -2.30%
3 May 1980 –
Sep 1981
+508 -13.90% -9.83% -12.85%
4 Feb 1983 –
Jun 1984
+304 -1.25% -2.89% -3.40%
5 Aug 1986 –
Sep 1987
+231 10.44% 10.53% 14.32%
6 Sep 1993 –
Nov 1994
+246 -7.48% -11.11% -4.37%
7 Sep 1998 –
Jan 2000
+169 3.77% 4.78% 10.71%
8 May 2003 –
Jun 2006
+130 7.58% 10.93% 8.68%
Annualised Excess Return
Annualised Excess Return
Over Months Where
Interest Rates Rose
Annualised Volatility
Over Months Where
Interest Rates Rose
Unlevered Risk Parity -6.53% 6.75%
Risk Parity 10% Vol -9.30% 10.04%
60 / 40 Portfolio -6.72% 9.33%

Alpha / Beta Separation
41
Return Cash Beta Alpha

The Risk Parity Manager Universe
42
Passive (β)
• Relatively pure risk
parity beta
• Balances risk between
asset classes or other
risk factors
• May include smarter
beta approaches within
asset classes (e.g. an
enhanced commodity
index)
Semi-Active (β + α)
• Risk parity beta + mild
amounts of alpha
• Alpha may be
generated through
discretionary bets (e.g.
taking macro views) or
through systematic tilts
(e.g. cutting the
volatility target in
higher risk
environments)
Active (β + α)
• Risk parity beta + large
amounts of alpha
(hopefully!)
• May not resemble risk
parity much if very
active
• Typically charge higher
fees for the added
“activeness” / alpha
Global macro / quantitative equities
/ hedge fund managers
Traditional balanced fund managers
now offering risk parity solutions

Risk Parity Managers – How do they vary?
43
•Pooled fund offerings will typically target a volatility of 8-10%, though there may be
differences. For segregated mandates, the volatility target can usually be specified (up to 25%).Volatility Target
•In our simple risk parity model, we used trailing 24-month volatility to forecast future
volatility. Managers are likely to use different calculations from ours, including the use of
implied volatilities in some cases.
Volatility Window
•Unlike our model in which we used 3 asset classes, risk parity managers may use more asset
classes (e.g. credit). However, the inclusion of more asset classes doesn’t necessarily make it
better. Many managers balance risk across risk factors rather than asset classes.
Asset Classes
•We rebalanced monthly although most managers will trade more frequently than this, often
when the benefits of rebalancing outweigh the costs (which are low due to the use of futures
contracts).
Rebalancing
•Within each asset class rests the choice of what futures instruments to use. For example, many
managers are now choosing to use the 30 Year US Treasury rather than the 10 Year. Smarter,
customised commodity indices are also a feature of many managers.
Beta Instruments
•These will vary depending on manager philosophy and investment process though crucially
the purpose of alpha and beta separation is to isolate true skill from generic market risk
premia.
Alpha Sources
•Given the extensive use of futures contracts, the management of collateral is a key aspect in
terms of fund management for risk parity strategies. The level of free cash in place to satisfy
collateral calls should be monitored.
Collateral Management

Drawdowns in the Risk Parity Manager Universe
44
Source: Managers, eVestment, Salient Partners, Bloomberg
Max drawdown =
-21.4%
-54.0%
-32.1%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
Oct-07 Jan-08 Apr-08 Jul-08 Oct-08 Jan-09 Apr-09 Jul-09 Oct-09 Jan-10 Apr-10 Jul-10
Drawdown
Manager A Manager B Manager C
Manager D Manager E Manager F
Salient Risk Parity Index MSCI World 60/40

Risk Parity is a beta solution (and should be priced accordingly!)
45
Mgr A Mgr B Mgr C Mgr D Mgr E Mgr F Mgr G Mgr H Mgr I
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
TotalExpenseRatio(BasisPoints)
Source: Managers, eVestment

Implementing Risk Parity in Your Portfolio
46
- Risk Parity is not a panacea. It is, however, a more efficient approach to portfolio construction than traditional methods. It
firmly places a focus on risk as well as return.
- There are other asset classes and risk factors with betas and alphas worth pursuing which risk parity cannot access easily.
Risk parity requires exposures to be able to be taken synthetically. This precludes investment in asset classes which cannot be
traded either through futures or swaps (e.g. illiquid credit, insurance-linked securities, etc.)
- Therefore, risk parity can be seen as a solution to only part of the entire investment portfolio – that which focuses on major
publicly-traded markets. This “bucket” in the investment portfolio is what we term “step 3 - liquid alpha and beta strategies”
(see table below).
- In addition to volatility-controlled equities and risk parity, within the liquid alpha and beta strategies bucket, we also
recommend clients consider trend-following strategies (also known as CTA managers). These risk-controlled strategies offer a
liquid risk premium as well as portfolio diversifying characteristics.
Part of Redington’s Seven
Steps to Full Funding™

13-15 Mallow Street London EC1Y 8RD Telephone : +44 (0) 20 7250 3331 www.redington.co.uk
Contacts
47
Disclaimer
For professional investors only. Not suitable for private
customers.
The information herein was obtained from various sources.
We do not guarantee every aspect of its accuracy. The
information is for your private information and is for
discussion purposes only. A variety of market factors and
assumptions may affect this analysis, and this analysis
does not reflect all possible loss scenarios. There is no
certainty that the parameters and assumptions used in this
analysis can be duplicated with actual trades. Any
historical exchange rates, interest rates or other reference
rates or prices which appear above are not necessarily
indicative of future exchange rates, interest rates, or other
reference rates or prices. Neither the information,
recommendations or opinions expressed herein constitutes
an offer to buy or sell any securities, futures, options, or
investment products on your behalf. Unless otherwise
stated, any pricing information in this message is indicative
only, is subject to change and is not an offer to transact.
Where relevant, the price quoted is exclusive of tax and
delivery costs. Any reference to the terms of executed
transactions should be treated as preliminary and subject
to further due diligence .
Please note, the accurate calculation of the liability profile
used as the basis for implementing any capital markets
transactions is the sole responsibility of the Trustees'
actuarial advisors. Redington Ltd will estimate the liabilities
if required but will not be held responsible for any loss or
damage howsoever sustained as a result of inaccuracies in
that estimation. Additionally, the client recognizes that
Redington Ltd does not owe any party a duty of care in this
respect.
Redington Ltd are investment consultants regulated by the
Financial Services Authority. We do not advise on all
implications of the transactions described herein. This
information is for discussion purposes and prior to
undertaking any trade, you should also discuss with your
professional tax, accounting and / or other relevant
advisers how such particular trade(s) affect you. All
analysis (whether in respect of tax, accounting, law or of
any other nature), should be treated as illustrative only and
not relied upon as accurate.
©Redington Limited 2013. All rights reserved. No
reproduction, copy, transmission or translation in whole or
in part of this presentation may be made without
permission. Application for permission should be made to
Redington Limited at the address below.
Redington Limited (6660006) is registered in England and
Wales. Registered office: 13-15 Mallow Street London
EC1Y 8RD
Dan Mikulskis
Director
ALM & Investment Strategy
Direct Line: 020 3326 7129
dan.mikulskis@redington.co.uk
Aniket Das
Associate
Manager Research Team
Direct Line: 020 3326 7153
aniket.das@redington.co.uk

Risk-Controlled Investment Strategies

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Destacado

Destacado (9)

Similar a Risk-Controlled Investment Strategies

Similar a Risk-Controlled Investment Strategies (20)

Más de Redington

Más de Redington (20)

Último

Último (20)

Risk-Controlled Investment Strategies