In the realm of investing, the low volatility anomaly presents a counterintuitive scenario where low-volatility assets not only keep pace but often surpass their high-volatility counterparts in terms of average returns, challenging longstanding financial doctrines. This phenomenon, defying the foundational belief that higher risk should command higher returns, underscores the significance of understanding the interplay between cognitive and behavioral biases and asset performance.
As the discourse on low volatility anomaly gains traction, exploring its implications for portfolio management becomes crucial. This involves dissecting how cognitive biases influence investor decisions and the relative performance of low-volatility instruments. From there, investors can unravel the surprising truth behind the low volatility anomaly, gaining insights into how it reshapes conventional investment strategies and the role of behavioral biases in financial markets.
The Low-Volatility Anomaly
The low-volatility anomaly, a concept that challenges traditional financial theories, is observed when low-volatility stocks yield higher returns than their high-volatility counterparts across most markets. This phenomenon contradicts the central financial tenet that higher risk should be compensated with higher returns, thus presenting a significant stock market anomaly.
The Capital Asset Pricing Model, a cornerstone of modern financial theory developed in the late 1960s, proposes a direct, positive relationship between a stock’s systematic risk exposure—or beta—and its expected future returns. However, empirical evidence has consistently falsified this prediction, showing that stocks with higher beta values have historically underperformed compared to those with lower beta values.
Volatility, a statistical measure of the dispersion of returns for a given security or market index, is often associated with the degree of investment risk. Traditionally, higher volatility is equated with higher risk, suggesting that a security’s value can change dramatically over a short period in either direction.
Conversely, lower volatility implies more stable security values. The CAPM model predicts that this risk should correlate with higher expected returns. Yet, the low-volatility anomaly demonstrates that the relationship between risk and return is much flatter, or even negative, challenging long-held beliefs in finance.
Historical Observations And Initial Discoveries
Robert Haugen and James Heins first reported the low-volatility anomaly in the early 1970s. Their research, analyzing U.S. stock performance from 1926 to 1969, found that portfolios with lower variance in monthly returns experienced higher average returns than their higher-risk counterparts.
This groundbreaking discovery was initially too controversial, leading to delayed publication of its findings. Subsequent studies over the last 50 years have consistently supported the existence of the low-volatility anomaly, not only in equity markets but also in fixed-income markets globally, further challenging the traditional risk-return paradigm.
Similarly, in their 2007 paper The Volatility Effect: Lower Risk Without Lower Return, David Blitz and Pim van Vliet found that higher volatility was associated with lower future returns in developed markets, a result that remained unchanged across many sub-samples. This pattern of findings underscores the persistent nature of the low volatility anomaly across different periods and market conditions.
Additionally, Eastspring Investments’ analysis of the 500 largest U.S. stocks by market capitalization from June 1973 to November 2018 showed that low-volatility portfolios outperformed both the S&P 500 index and high-volatility portfolios.
Theoretical Explanations
Behavioral finance offers insight into the low volatility anomaly by examining the psychological factors influencing investor decisions. One prominent theory is the lottery effect, where investors perceive high-risk stocks as lottery tickets, leading to their overvaluation despite poor returns.
This behavior, coupled with investor overconfidence and a tendency to overreact to analyst forecasts, contributes to the anomaly. Such behavioral biases result in a preference for high-volatility stocks without a corresponding increase in reward, challenging the assumption of rational information processing posited by CAPM.
Furthermore, leverage and shorting constraints limit investors’ ability to act on mispriced assets, while regulatory constraints and the fear of unlimited losses further exacerbate the issue. Additionally, mutual fund managers’ remuneration structure, which often links bonuses to outperformance, incentivizes a preference for high-risk stocks.
This misalignment of interests, investors’ relative performance objectives, and the gaming effect, where fund managers buy high-risk stocks to beat benchmarks, collectively flatten the risk-return relationship. These factors, combined with human nature’s resistance to change and the challenges arbitrageurs face in correcting mispricings, suggest that the low volatility anomaly will likely persist.
Implications For Investors And Portfolio Management
Investors wrapping their heads around the low volatility anomaly must reconsider their portfolio management strategies to harness its potential benefits effectively. The evidence suggests that incorporating low-volatility allocations can enhance returns without proportionately increasing risk, a valid principle even in speculative market environments.
For instance, Acadian Asset Management found that reallocating a portion of a traditional 70% MSCI World/30% FTSE World Government Bond Index mix to the MSCI Minimum World Volatility Index has historically yielded superior returns for the same level of volatility, demonstrating the practical advantages of integrating low-volatility strategies into diversified portfolios.
Furthermore, the rise of low-volatility investing, as seen in the substantial assets managed by ETFs like USMV
iShares Edge MSCI Min Vol USA ETF
Invesco S&P 500 Low Volatility ETF
While low-volatility strategies offer a compelling approach to risk-adjusted returns, they are not without their drawbacks. Periods of underperformance, particularly when low-volatility trades become crowded, highlight the necessity for investors to prepare for potential downturns. Moreover, the sector-specific and overvaluation risks associated with low-volatility stocks necessitate a cautious approach, emphasizing the importance of diversification and robust portfolio construction.
Investors should also be mindful of the macroeconomic factors and systematic risks that low-volatility portfolios might be exposed to despite their generally reduced market exposure. Addressing these challenges involves a nuanced understanding of low-volatility investing’s dynamics and an active management approach to effectively navigate its complexities.
The evidence and theoretical discussions presented highlight the importance of cognitive and behavioral insights in financial decision-making processes, urging a departure from solely quantitative models to a more holistic approach that includes psychological factors. Looking forward, the dynamics of low-volatility investing and its implications on portfolio management signal a pivotal trend in the financial markets that emphasizes the efficacy of incorporating behavioral finance into investment strategies.
The low volatility anomaly serves as a cornerstone for developing more resilient and adaptive investment strategies. By acknowledging and leveraging the insights derived from the anomaly, investors can better navigate the complexities of the market, enhancing their potential for long-term wealth accumulation in an ever-changing financial environment.
Read the full article here
