Factor-based investing comes down to investment beliefs, which should guide you in your factor choice and implementation. This should help you manage the associated risks and costs.
Here we will share our beliefs in relation to multi-factor investing and what efficient implementation means to us.
Soviet-era Polish cinematography is often a source of seemingly absurd catchphrases repeated for generations. “How much sugar is in your sugar” is a classic one from the quirky professor in the 1973 comedy Man-Woman Wanted. When we target particular factors within our equity exposures, I increasingly find myself taking on the role of the professor as I try to answer the question “How much factor is in my factor?”. It might seem like an odd question but we can answer this by relying on simple factor definitions and a holistic approach to combining factors. It’s only once we know what our true exposures are, that we can consider how we avoid any unintended secondary exposures that have the potential to sour the overall outcome.
In my recent post "What to factor in and what to factor out?," I explained what the ‘factor’ in factor-based investing really means. While its acronym (FBI) gives the impression that it's rather complex, like the US organisation, investors have been increasingly looking to factor-based investing to drive their investment returns. It's time to consider why...
Factor-based investing has seen rapid growth since the financial crisis, as investors look beyond traditional asset class labels to understand what really drives the performance of their portfolios. Bombarded with new products and an ever-growing body of research, what should investors focus on before jumping on the factor bandwagon?
The low volatility premium has grabbed everyone's attention. Staying flat when markets fell almost 10% this year, the strategy also recorded double-digit returns in 2015. But can it keep its promise of lower risk and superior risk-adjusted returns?