-AYs!NInstitutional Investor eBook
Low Volatility Equities: BUILDING SHARPER PORTFOLIOS
3PONSOREDBY
2 Institutional Investor eBook Sponsored by INTECH Investment Management LLC May 2014
Sponsored eBook
3 Why Higher Risk Does Not Always Bring Higher Return
5 Lower Reconstitution Drag: The True Source of Low Volatility Outperformance?
8 Optimizing Volatility-Managed Portfolios
10 Smart Volatility Management in a Risk On/Risk Off World
13 Extending Volatility Reduction to Global Equities
15 Conclusion
16 About INTECH
18 Disclaimer
19 Contact Information
Low Volatility Equities: Building Sharper Portfolios
Sponsored eBook
May 2014 Institutional Investor eBook Sponsored by INTECH Investment Management LLC 3
Over time, portfolios of low volatility stocks tend to outper-
form both cap-weighted indexes and portfolios of high
volatility stocksa finding that appears to fly in the face
of normative equilibrium asset pricing models (i.e., higher
risk earns higher reward). In fact, low volatility equity portfolios may deliver
market-like returns for lower risk than their corresponding cap-weighted
benchmarks: for example, the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index outperformed
the cap-weighted S&P 500 Index by 89 basis points per year with 24%
lower risk for the past 25 years ended on December 31, 2013.
Sponsored eBook
Why Higher Risk Does NotAlways Bring Higher Return
Low volatilityportfolios can beattheir bench-marks
4 Institutional Investor eBook Sponsored by INTECH Investment Management LLC May 2014
Assets in low volatility and managed volatility strategies grew more
than six-fold between 2010 and 2013, likely due to investors height-
ened sensitivity to downside risk after the financial crisis of 2008.
However, the outperformance of low volatility portfolios was identified
as far back as the 1970s, though more recently the reason for such
outperformance has been hotly debated, with many people pointing
to some kind of market anomaly.
Yet there is a much simpler explanation available, one that does not
require an anomaly: the outperformance of lower-volatility portfolios
may be a predictable consequence of the relationship between stock
volatility and rebalancing costs, with a compounding effect having a
significant impact on long-term returns.
Why does this distinction matter for investors? Because, while a
market anomaly may disappear in the future, a simple rebalancing and
compounding explanation provides reasons for the long-term persis-
tence of low volatility equitys superiority over cap-weighted bench-
marks. And more importantly, it paves the way toward systematic
approaches that allow for more efficient and dynamic portfolio-level
rebalancing. The ultimate goal may be chosen anywhere between the
following two extremes:
1. Higher portfolio return than the cap-weighted benchmark at a simi-
lar level of volatility; or
2. Similar returns to the benchmark with significantly reduced volatility,
which may allow for a higher allocation to equities for the same level
of total equity risk contribution. n
Low volatility
outperfor-mance
is not an anomaly
Sponsored eBook
May 2014 Institutional Investor eBook Sponsored by INTECH Investment Management LLC 5
Volatility-managed portfolios tend to suffer less
reconstitution drag in the course of regu-
lar portfolio rebalancing, compared to cap-
weighted indexes and portfolios of high volatility
stocks, says Vassilios Papathanakos, Ph.D., Deputy Chief Invest-
ment Officer at INTECH Investment Management. Holding low-
er-volatility stocks within a given investable universe without style
drift, requires periodically selling stocks that have become riskier or
fallen out of the low volatility universe. Applied diligently over time,
this rebalancing rule may harness a compounding effect to create a
considerable performance advantage relative to the market.
According to Papathanakos, the full impact of diversification and
Lower Reconstitution Drag: The True Source of Low Volatility Outperformance?
Vassilios Papathanakos, Ph.D.
Deputy Chief Investment Officer,INTECH Investment Management
Sponsored eBookSponsored eBook
6 Institutional Investor eBook Sponsored by INTECH Investment Management LLC May 2014
EXHIBIT 1: The cost of buying high and selling low
rebalancing on compound returns can be quantified using sophis-
ticated mathematics. Fortunately, volatility-managed portfolios can
be understood using much simpler techniques. He offers this ex-
ample: consider a portfolio that consists of one stock at any given
time, with a required market cap of at least $10 billion. Whenever
the market cap drops below $10 billion the investor must sell the
stock at a loss and then pay a premium to buy another stock that
has risen in value above $10 billiona double-whammy of perfor-
mance drag that one could call sell low/buy high. (Exhibit 1)
Calculating the reconstitution drag for cap-weighted portfo-
Simple ways to
understandvolatility-managedportfolios
Sponsored eBook
time
cap
italiz
atio
n
crossing event
$10Bbuy cost
sell cost
sell old stock
sell new stock
Investors lose twice when the stocks capitalization drops below $10 billionsuffering further underperformance when they sell the old stock (solid line) and missing outperformance (dotted line) when they buy the new stock
May 2014 Institutional Investor eBook Sponsored by INTECH Investment Management LLC 7
lios,1 one sees that broader universes suffer less: the reconstitution
drag for a portfolio of the largest 1,000 U.S. companies is 107
basis points less than a portfolio of the top 100 companies. (This
drag is comparable to the 96-basis-point-a-year average com-
pound outperformance the top 1,000 stocks experience over the
top 100.) If one looks at an index universe of the top 3,000 U.S.
stocks for the period January 1974 through December 2013:
A portfolio consisting of the bottom 20% of stocks in terms of
volatility would have outperformed the index by 33 bps annually
on a compound basis, with 38 bps lower reconstitution drag.
A portfolio consisting of the top 20% of stocks in terms of volatility
would have underperformed the index by 442 bps annually on a
compound basis, with an annual reconstitution drag of 382 bps.
These results suggest that high volatility stocks may actually
have higher arithmetic returns than the average stock on an indi-
vidual basis, but still experience the same long-term (i.e., geomet-
ric) return as the rest of the stocks in the market. In particular, the
trading required to maintain style purity creates such a large per-
formance drag (382 bps) that it overwhelms any stock-level advan-
tagecontributing to most of the total annual underperformance
of 442 bps. n
A broaderportfoliouniversesuffers less
1 A simple equation for calculating the sell low cost for the portfolio of the top 100 companies is:
Capitalization of stock at month end_____________________________ - 1 Capitalization of 100th-largest stock at month end Assuming the sell low and buy high portions of the total cost are approximately equal one can estimate the total reconstitution drag by simply doubling the sell low cost. The equation can be adjusted for the portfolio of the top 1,000 companies in the obvious manner.
Sponsored eBookSponsored eBook
8 Institutional Investor eBook Sponsored by INTECH Investment Management LLC May 2014
When it comes to volatility-managed portfolios,
investors have two main choices: low volatil-
ity strategies aim to match the cap-weighted
benchmark return while lowering portfolio risk
as much as possible; managed volatility strategies, by contrast,
have a two-fold objective of lowering portfolio risk, but at the same
time generating return in excess of the benchmark. In both cases
delivering on those objectives requires more than just picking the
lowest volatility stocks in the universe.
There is a big difference between a portfolio of low volatility
stocks and a low volatility portfolio, says Adrian Banner, Ph.D.,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Investment Officer of INTECH.
The former just looks at the stocks at the individual level, while the
latter seeks to lower volatility at the portfolio level. In the latter case,
managers ought to take into account the volatility of each stock in
relation to every other stock in the portfolio.
This approach is very different from other rule-based weighting
schemes (e.g., cap-, equal-, fundamental-weighting) in which no
consideration is given to the riskiness of each stock. In absolute
volatility portfolioswhere the aim is to increase return per unit of
absolute risk at the portfolio levelthe contribution of each stock
Building a true low
volatilityportfolio
Optimizing Volatility-Managed Portfolios
Sponsored eBook
May 2014 Institutional Investor eBook Sponsored by INTECH Investment Management LLC 9
to total portfolio risk determines the weighting of that security.
And most importantly, because market risk is constantly chang-
ing, absolute volatility strategies require a dynamic approach. For
example, the low volatility portfolio of today most likely will not be
the optimal low volatility portfolio six months from now. By defini-
tion, then, low volatility and managed volatility strategies are not
buy-and-hold strategies. To be successful, they require dynamic
portfolio rebalancing. n
Adrian Banner, Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Investment Officer,INTECH Investment Management
Sponsored eBookSponsored eBook
VIDEO: ADRIAN BANNER, PH.D. ON USING VOLATILITY AS A SOURCE OF RETURN
10 Institutional Investor eBook Sponsored by INTECH Investment Management LLC May 2014
As market volatility increases, volatility reduction be-
comes both more achievable and more valuable,
says Banner. First, volatile markets are less risk-
efficient, making substantial reduction in risk more
readily achievable. Second, in volatile markets, risk reduction is more
valuable: the capital protection that comes with 10%-20% reduction
in volatility or drawdown may be invaluable in sustaining long-term,
compounded portfolio returns. In flat markets, investors do not need
as much downside protection and it may make sense to focus more
on return generation and less on risk reduction.
A dramatic demonstration of dynamic risk reduction, according
to Banner, occurs in managed volatility strategies that may more
closely resemble either a low volatility or a traditional core equity
portfolio, depending on the market levels of risk. Exhibit 2 shows that
in low-risk markets, as the managed volatility strategy seeks greater
excess return and less risk reduction, it ends up looking more like a
traditional core equity strategy. Alternately, in high-risk markets, when
risk reduction is more valuable, the managed volatility strategy seeks
larger risk reduction, reduced capital loss, and comparatively lower
excess returnlooking more like a low volatility strategy.
It is important to note that a dynamic risk-reduction approach
Focus on return
generation versus risk
reduction
Smart Volatility Management in a Risk On/Risk Off World
Sponsored eBook
May 2014 Institutional Investor eBook Sponsored by INTECH Investment Management LLC 11
does not need to depend on market timing, says Papathanakos. It
may rely exclusively on volatility estimates, which are far more reliable
than return estimates. He argues that if market volatility spikes, the
risk of managed volatility portfolios will already be lower than that of
the market because they are designed to be more risk-efficient than
the market cap weighted benchmark. Furthermore, if the increase in
volatility persists, changes in volatility estimates will be reflected rather
promptly due to regular and systematic portfolio optimization and re-
balancing, resulting in a shift to a more defensive positioning as the
strategy assumes the optimal posture for the new market regime.
These two portfolio design features allow managed volatility strategies
to both weather sharp volatility spikes and avoid being whipsawed.
Volatility estimatesare more reliablethan return estimates
EXHIBIT 2:
Hypothetical risk/reward characteristics in two market regimes*
Sponsored eBookSponsored eBook
Low-Risk High-Risk18%
13%
8%
3%6% 6%10% 10%14% 14%18% 18%
18%
13%
8%
3%
Annualized Standard Deviation
Ann
ualiz
ed A
bso
lute
Ret
urn
*Based on MSCI World index 1992-2013
Managed Volatility Strategy
Managed Volatility Strategy
Core Equity Strategy
Core Equity Strategy
Index
Index
Low Volatility Strategy
Low Volatility Strategy
12 Institutional Investor eBook Sponsored by INTECH Investment Management LLC May 2014
Investors may gain two major benefits from focusing on risk reduc-
tion during periods when it is especially needed. Firstly, it may help
the portfolio outperform the market over the long term. Secondly, it
typically reduces capital loss in large market declines. The material
question here is: Is it possible to estimate the volatility structure of
the market accurately enough to achieve this outcome? According to
Banner and Papathanakos, the answer is a clear Yes! Risk metrics
measured by competent statistical methodologies can identify regime
shifts in the market in a timely fashion, especially if estimated regularly.
Exhibit 3 shows volatility reduction over time of a hypothetical man-
aged volatility portfolio, versus the MSCI World Index: in volatile mar-
kets like the early and late 2000s, volatility reduction would spike to
as much as 25% to 35%, while in flat markets volatility reduction may
remain near zero. n
Risk metrics can identify
market shifts in a
timely way
Sponsored eBook
EXHIBIT 3:
Volatility reduction for a hypothetical managed volatility strategy compared to the MSCI World Index
35%
25%
15%
5%
-5%94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13
Vola
tility
Red
uctio
n pe
rcen
tage
(36-
Mon
th A
nnua
lized
Rol
ling)
Year
May 2014 Institutional Investor eBook Sponsored by INTECH Investment Management LLC 13
Extending Volatility Reduction to Global Equities
One can extend this dynamic risk reduction principle
i.e., reducing volatility where it matters mostto vari-
ous asset classes, with emerging market equities being
the prime candidate. Emerging market equities (EME)
have outpaced developed market equities by approximately 3.8% per
year for the past 25 years, and many institutional investors believe
that this EME premium will persist well into the future. But variation in
annual returns for EME has been extraordinarily high.
According to Banner: EME, by virtue of its high risk and high cor-
relation2 to developed equity markets, is a meaningful contributor to
2 Although not shown herein, the correlation between the S&P 500 Index and MSCI EM Index has been steadily increasing. Based on two-year rolling monthly returns, the correlation between the two exceeded 0.8 for the period ending December 31, 2012.
Sponsored eBookSponsored eBook
14 Institutional Investor eBook Sponsored by INTECH Investment Management LLC May 2014
portfolio risk at the global equity structure level. And with steady in-
creases to the EME allocation, the success or failure of the global
equity allocation becomes more and more dependent on the perfor-
mance of the emerging markets portion of the portfolio. The combina-
tion of high performance expectations and high volatility makes EME a
prime target for risk reduction through managed volatility strategies.
Managed volatility strategies could have made a particularly mean-
ingful difference during the 25-year period from 1988 to 2012, when
the realized volatility for the MSCI Emerging Markets Index was 24%,
based on annualized monthly gross returns in U.S. dollars. Exhibit 4
shows the potential risk impact of replacing a traditional EME strategy
with a managed volatility EME strategybased on risk forecasts from
Callan Associates. It shows that a managed volatility EME strategy
could reduce both overall global equity risk, as well as the risk contri-
bution from EME. n
The importance
of emerging markets
in portfolios
EXHIBIT 4:
EME managed volatilitys contribution to risk in the global equity structure
Allocation within Global Equities
Description12%EME
12% EME MV
Decrease33% EME
33% EME MV
Decrease
Global Equity Portfolio Risk 15.4% 14.8% 0.6% 16.8% 15.0% 1.8%
Contribution to Global Equity Portfolio Risk 14.9% 11.4% 3.5% 43.6% 35.7% 7.9%
Source: Callan Associates and Janus Capital. Risk is defined by standard deviation. Risk allocation represents estimates based on variance and correlation forecasts from Callan Associates 2012 Capital markets Assumptions.
Sponsored eBook
May 2014 Institutional Investor eBook Sponsored by INTECH Investment Management LLC 15
Volatility reduction is both possible and highly beneficial
to todays global equity investors, potentially delivering
index-like return for significantly lower riske.g., up to
60% lower risk than the MSCI All Country World Index.
But more importantly, with dynamic risk reduction, managed vola-
tility strategies may deliver excess return over the cap-weighted
benchmark, while also lowering drawdowns in high-risk, high vola-
tility market regimes.
We believe that the mechanism driving outperformance in low
volatility stock portfolios is both simple and straightforward. How-
ever, in our view, building low volatility portfolios is not the same
as simply constructing portfolios of low volatility stocks. This is
because an understanding of risk at the portfolio leveland an ex-
plicit, reliable source of alpha to pay for the required turnoverare
necessary components of realistic implementations. Such a rigor-
ous, rules-based approach to portfolio construction can give inves-
tors both the performance and risk reduction they seek, when and
where they need it most. n
Conclusion
Allocation within Global Equities
Description12%EME
12% EME MV
Decrease33% EME
33% EME MV
Decrease
Global Equity Portfolio Risk 15.4% 14.8% 0.6% 16.8% 15.0% 1.8%
Contribution to Global Equity Portfolio Risk 14.9% 11.4% 3.5% 43.6% 35.7% 7.9%
Sponsored eBookSponsored eBook
Sponsored eBook
16 Institutional Investor eBook Sponsored by INTECH Investment Management LLC May 2014
INTECH: A Pioneer in Equity Portfolio Management
INTECH specializes in large-cap equity management for institu-
tional investors, and has been at the forefront of both the theory
and practice of equity portfolio construction for more than 25
years. Long before the term smart beta was first coined INTECH
had been using the power of mathematics to construct portfolios as a
risk-managed alternative to capitalization-weighted equity portfolios.
INTECHs goal has always been to generate returns greater than the
benchmark index while minimizing relative or absolute risk. The same
investment process has been applied to all of its large-cap equity port-
folios since the firms inception in 1987.
INTECH applies this methodology to a diverse range of strategies
in U.S., Global, European and Emerging Market equity markets. Dif-
ferent relative return targets, of between 1% and 4%, can be speci-
fied, with risk objectives tailored to either minimize tracking error or
portfolio variance, depending on an investors return objectives and
risk budgets. In this way, INTECH strategies can be used to perform
a variety of roles in an overall equity allocation: U.S., global, non-U.S.,
emerging markets, enhanced, core, growth and value, and low and
managed volatility, all within a risk-managed framework. n
Sponsored eBook
Conventional wisdom suggests that investment solutions that require market timing to manage volatility are fraught with peril. By constructing a portfolio based on the level of market volatility rather than return forecasts, its able to adapt more readily to changing market conditions. The result: a portfolio with greater balance between capital preservation and capital appreciation.
For more than 25 years, INTECH has been building portfolios that adapt to fast-changing and volatile markets. To learn how INTECH can provide risk management when you need it most, call us at 800.227.0486 or visit www.intechjanus.com.
A Janus Capital Group Company
Past performance does not guarantee future results. Investing involves risk, including XFWXDWLRQLQYDOXHWKHSRVVLEOHORVVRISULQFLSDODQGWRWDOORVVRILQYHVWPHQW
Smart Volatility Management in a Risk On/Risk Off World
DisclaimerInformation
The views expressed in this article are subject to change
based on market and other conditions. The views are for
general informational purposes only and are not intended
as investment advice, as an offer or solicitation of an offer
to sell or buy, or as an endorsement, recommendation, or sponsor-
ship of any company, security, advisory service, or fund. This informa-
tion should not be used as the sole basis for investment decisions.
Past performance cannot guarantee future results. Investing involves
risk, including the possible loss of principal and fluctuation of value.
The hypothetical illustrations contained herein do not represent the
performance of any particular investment. Advisory fees and other
expenses are not contemplated in the hypothetical illustrations. n
May 2014 Institutional Investor eBook Sponsored by INTECH Investment Management LLC 18
Sponsored eBook
19 Institutional Investor eBook Sponsored by INTECH Investment Management LLC May 2014
Contact Information
John Brown
Head of Global Client Development
INTECH Investment Management
Susan Oh
Head of US Institutional
Janus Capital Institutional
Sponsored eBookSponsored eBook
TOCWhy Higher Risk Does Not Always Bring Higher ReturnLower Reconstitution Drag: The True Source of Low Volatility Outperformance?Optimizing Volatility-Managed PortfoliosSmart Volatility Management in a Risk On/Risk Off WorldExtending Volatility Reduction to Global EquitiesConclusionAbout INTECHDisclaimerContact Information