A New Paradigm for Balancing Risk and Return

March 21, 2012

One of the greatest challenges facing money managers in the aftermath of 2008 has been how to balance the fear of loss against the need to take risk in order to generate positive real returns. Striking the right balance between them will, I believe, be the key to investment success in 2012.

Risk managers tend to reduce their market exposure (or increase hedging) in response to signs of escalating risk, extrapolating from current volatility and correlation trends. Investors tend to bet on mean reversion: they typically focus on returns and frequently add to their highest-conviction positions in the face of rising uncertainty.

The investor approach was long an engine of success. From 1993 through 2007, buying the market on dips paid off. While the S&P 500 fell at an annualized rate of more than 20% during months when the CBOE’s volatility index (VIX) rose more than 1%, it bounced back smartly in the following months.

Since 2008, however, the risk-management approach has triumphed. In months when market volatility has risen by 1% or more, the market fell at an annualized rate of nearly 70% on average—and continued to lose ground in the following month as well, as the display below shows.

Buying on Dips Hasn't Worked Well Since the 2008 Meltdown We strongly suspect that the poor performance of active managers over the last several years has been at least partly tied to the inherent conflict between relying on shorter-horizon risk management while seeking returns from investments that can take years to play out.

Last year, for example, investors who took a flier on long-horizon stocks in mid-year were burned at first. The S&P 500 lost 14% in August and September. But those who exited during the market drop missed the rally that began in October and has intensified more recently. The problem was a risk/return mismatch: seeking short-term gratification from a long-term asset.

Hence, in the current market we believe that paying attention to systematic sources of risk and return will be at least as important as the selection of specific securities.

In 2011, the systematic exposures that really mattered were dividend yield and low-volatility/low-beta. Stocks with these characteristics outperformed. But as a result, such stocks have become extremely crowded and expensive—making some traditionally low-risk strategies very risky.

Today I see three themes that offer a powerful upside: dividend growth (rather than yield); compellingly valued beta or cyclicality, and companies attractive on the basis of normalized cash flow (candidates for leveraged buyouts).

How much to invest in each of these themes depends on each investor’s investment horizon. Longer-horizon investors would generally emphasize undervalued cyclical stocks and LBO candidates, which I expect will return to favor over time. Short-horizon investors should emphasize dividend growth.

Rebalancing will also be crucial. I favor adding to risk exposures as volatility rises and reducing risk as the markets become calmer. Today, with the markets charging ahead, I think a modestly defensive tilt is in order.

While there are clear signs of economic improvement and some of the sovereign-debt problems have been ameliorated, the basic risk-management philosophy has not been altered by these recent events. Hence, increases in perceived risk will be accompanied by outsized market drawdowns and investors will be well served by maintaining a highly diversified stance and rebalancing position sizes in line with market volatility.

This article was first published on Institutional Investor.com.

The views expressed herein do not constitute research, investment advice or trade recommendations and do not necessarily represent the views of all AllianceBernstein portfolio-management teams. 

A New Paradigm for Balancing Risk and Return
Back to a top