Sleep loss - Investors who seek out lower volatility will typically be sacrificing some return
Everybody loves a winner and the world of investment is no exception. It would make intuitive sense that better-performing funds tend to attract a greater share of investors’ cash – and this has been borne out by plenty of studies, including work by our friends at Empirical Research Partners, which we discussed last year in Left smarting, on the subject of smart-beta products and short-termism.
Oddly enough, however, a new piece of analysis by Empirical – ‘Is security too expensive?’ – which focuses specifically on US-listed exchange-traded funds (ETFs) over the period from 2009 to 2015, finds no clear link between performance and investor flows. You can see this in the chart below, which groups the ETFs into five performance ‘buckets’ as well as each bucket’s market share.
Source: Strategic Insight Simfund, Bloomberg L.P., Empirical Research Partners Analysis – February 2016
While there is no obvious relationship to be seen between performance and fund flows, the Empirical analysts did find a much stronger one when they re-crunched their numbers. This time, they grouped the ETFs into five buckets by volatility and the resulting chart, shown below, clearly suggests a primary consideration for the market over the period since the credit crisis was avoiding volatility.
Source: Strategic Insight Simfund Bloomberg L.P., Empirical Research Partners Analysis – February 2016
The less volatility an ETF was able to demonstrate then, the more inflows it tended to attract – which, incidentally, in itself would have served to suppress volatility even further. Now, it would be going too far to suggest investors were willing to pursue lower volatility at the expense of return as the chances are they would not have been able to identify the strongest performers even if they had wanted to.
Even so, any investor who chooses a lower-volatility fund in the hope of a better night’s sleep will typically be sacrificing return in the longer term. Each to their own of course but, here on The Value Perspective, our primary focus is valuation and we ignore – or at least learn to live with – any associated heightened volatility as we pursue the investments we believe will offer the biggest returns over the longer term. We too love our winners – we just know they can take their time to emerge.
Fund Manager, Equity Value
I joined Schroders as a graduate in 2005 and have spent most of my time in the business as part of the UK equities team. Between 2006 and 2010 I was a research analyst responsible for producing investment research on companies in the UK construction, business services and telecoms sectors. In mid 2010 I joined Kevin Murphy and Nick Kirrage on the UK value team.
The views and opinions displayed are those of Nick Kirrage, Andrew Lyddon, Kevin Murphy, Andrew Williams, Andrew Evans, Simon Adler, Juan Torres Rodriguez, Liam Nunn, Vera German and Roberta Barr, members of the Schroder Global Value Equity Team (the Value Perspective Team), and other independent commentators where stated.
They do not necessarily represent views expressed or reflected in other Schroders' communications, strategies or funds. The Team has expressed its own views and opinions on this website and these may change.
This article is intended to be for information purposes only and it is not intended as promotional material in any respect. Reliance should not be placed on the views and information on the website when taking individual investment and/or strategic decisions. Nothing in this article should be construed as advice. The sectors/securities shown above are for illustrative purposes only and are not to be considered a recommendation to buy/sell.
Past performance is not a guide to future performance and may not be repeated. The value of investments and the income from them may go down as well as up and investors may not get back the amounts originally invested.