|
Portfolio DiversificationCached from www.smartmoney.com
Tradecraft The Diversification Delusion ![]() By Jonathan Hoenig April 26, 2001 LIKE A WARM BATH or high thread-count sheets, nothing feels quite as comfortable as money in the bank. And with the major equity indexes down year-to-date, I'm surely not the only one who finds a sweet satisfaction in watching interest payments tumble in each month to a plain old money-market account. Cash (and cash equivalents like money-market accounts, certificates of deposit or Treasury bills) are often referred to as earning the "risk-free" rate for obvious reasons. Cash provides a predictable, but paltry, return. And while cash deserves a place in everyone's portfolio, you can't just hide in a money market all your life. There are other ways of dealing with risk besides hiding your money under the mattress. The name of the game is wealth creation: In order to make some money, you've got to make some moves. And while it took a 68% drop in the Nasdaq to finally sink in, most investors are now realizing that the most effective way of reducing risk in their portfolio is by diversifying among various types of assets. Diversification lowers a portfolio's volatility and can even enhance returns. And while index funds that track the S&P 500 give the illusion of diversification, because they are weighted by market capitalization they are essentially focused on large-cap stocks. Owning Cisco Systems (CSCO), Intel (INTC), General Electric (GE) and an index fund exposes you to as much diversity as a potluck dinner at David Duke's house. Among financial planners and mutual-fund companies these days, diversification has become synonymous with buying small-cap and midcap stocks. And for most people's portfolios, that's a healthy start: Both small-caps and midcaps have outperformed as of late, and should be considered as part of a stock portfolio. But what most financial planners don't realize is that investing in a range of market capitalizations doesn't solve the real diversification dilemma. The problem is correlation. Let's define some terms: Correlation measures how closely two assets relate to one another. In this case, it refers to how closely two stocks tend to move in the same direction. For example, Cisco and the Nasdaq are very highly correlated. Cisco and the S&P 500 are less correlated, but still tend to move in similar fashion. A perfect correlation would be expressed as 1.0, and would mean that changes in XYZ would result in identical changes in ABC. When XYZ zigs, so will ABC. A perfect negative correlation is expressed as -1.0, and indicates an identical inverse relationship. When XYZ zigs, ABC zags by exactly the same amount. A correlation of zero means there's no relationship between the two securities. A movement in one has no bearing or predictive qualities on the other. And while small-cap and midcap stocks don't move in exactly the same direction to exactly the same degree as large-cap stocks, historically, they're darn close. Using some of the low-cost index proxies available to the individual investor, I have created a correlation table to demonstrate just how tightly linked small-cap and midcap stocks are with their big-cap brethren. The Vanguard Small Cap Index fund (NAESX) (which mirrors the Russell 2000) is strongly correlated with both the Dow and S&P 500, and even more so with the Nasdaq. The S&P MidCap 400, represented here by the exchange-traded MidCap SPDR (MDY), is even more closely correlated with the major indexes. By adding smaller stocks, you will diversify your portfolio away from large caps, but not from the market itself. From a risk-management perspective, it's like adding pepper to an already spicy bowl of chili.
When it comes to diversifying your portfolio, simply holding a broad array of stocks won't reduce your overall risk profile. You've got to focus on holding noncorrelated assets that is, something that will zig while the rest of your portfolio zags. Among market scholars, creating that perfect "mixture" of assets has become known as the "efficient frontier." Not avoiding risk, but dealing with it. Elimination by mitigation. Bonds are a perfect place to start. While they don't boast the historical returns of stocks, bonds have outperformed the broad market for more than a year and are still sorely absent from many investor's portfolios especially those who are in it for "the long haul." According to the Investment Company Institute, stock mutual funds still contain roughly four times as many assets as bond mutual funds. While the returns of individual bonds can be highly volatile, bond mutual funds, even those tracking corporate and junk issues, are statistically uncorrelated with the equity market. Again, I have used Vanguard funds since they tend to be the lowest-cost proxies for their respective indexes.
But bonds are just the beginning. Commodities, currencies, precious metals, real estate and international securities are all generally uncorrelated with stocks. And thankfully, the ever-crafty mutual-fund industry has developed products to allow even the sophomore-sized Soros to take positions in each, spreading bets around among uncorrelated asset classes just as hedge funds do.
The Oppenheimer Real Asset fund (QRAAX) invests in futures and fixed-income instruments that move in relation to commodity prices, and is highly uncorrelated with the stock market (0.01 for the S&P 500 and Dow, 0.04 for the Nasdaq). The fund is off about 8% year-to-date after gaining 36% in 1999 and 44% in 2000. From a macroeconomic perspective, it's one way to benefit from rising fuel prices, since the fund's underlying index (the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index) is highly sensitive to fuel prices. The Franklin Templeton Global Currency fund (ICPGX) holds money-market instruments denominated in three or more of the world's major currencies, and is one of the few ways most investors can quickly hedge themselves against fluctuations in the U.S. dollar. Even more important, it's negatively correlated with the stock market, meaning that when the market falls, the fund should rise. Sadly, the fund has been recently closed to new investors, and will soon be merged into the company's global bond fund, which has much less favorable correlation statistics, as high as 0.32 with the S&P 500. An alternate option could be a precious-metal fund, as gold tends to be negatively correlated with both the dollar and the major equity markets. The Vanguard Gold & Precious Metals fund (VGPMX) is a cost-effective way to get exposure to precious metals. This has been a perennially poorly performing group but its low correlation to stocks means that it has posted a slightly positive return so far this year. Real estate investment trusts, or REITs, continue to boast solid returns and low levels of correlation with the equity market. The iShares Dow Jones Real Estate Index fund (IYR) can be traded like a stock and offers immediate, diversified exposure to REITs, albeit with an emphasis on the index's two biggest names, Equity Office Properties (EOP) and Equity Residential Properties (EQR). Finally, international investing is often suggested as a way to diversify a portfolio away from domestic stocks. But as markets have become more advanced, so have the correlations that link them. Most developed European and Asian stock markets tend to be positively correlated with those in the U.S. Among the notable exceptions is the iShares MSCI Austria fund (EWO), which boasts a low correlation with all major U.S. indexes and is up 10% year-to-date. Jonathan Hoenig is portfolio manager at Capitalistpig Asset Management, a Chicago-based hedge fund. At the time of writing, Hoenig's fund was long, or controlled shares in, iShares Dow Jones Real Estate, Equity Office Properties, Equity Residential Properties and iShares MSCI Austria SmartMoney.com © 2001 SmartMoney. |
|