This is one of the reasons why I try to assess in what circumstances a "bet" against Value or Quality may be appropriate. If I can understand the fundamental strengths and weaknesses with tilting to each side, then I can determine if a tilt is good for myself and how much of one. If I cannot understand the tilt from both sides, then I do not tilt.Logan Roy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 4:31 pm The key with backtesting (if there is one) is to identify principles from simply expecting history to repeat. A principle may be an approach to diversification, or offsetting assets with low correlations in most situations, etc. But a *bet* on something like Value or Quality, because it's done well in the past, can just as easily be exactly the wrong thing to do, as it may just lead you to old anomalies that have been arbitraged away, or things that were never really anomalies, and are only on our radar because they've done better through sheer chance.. That's the dilemma active investors have always had. It's never been easy to solve that one. I think it's generally a mistake for passive investors to go down that rabbit hole. Better to focus on principles, like diversification, correlations, the relationship between asset classes and macroeconomics..
Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
-
- Posts: 6011
- Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:18 pm
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
Passive investing: not about making big bucks but making profits. Active investing: not about beating the market but meeting goals. Speculation: not about timing the market but taking profitable risks.
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
Yes – I think the way traders use factors now, and the way they're talked about on Bloomberg, etc. they've become useful alternative ways to express opinions on, or hedge risks from, macroeconomic scenarios.. So obviously Quality is what you want when there's risk to margins/fundamentals (e.g. recession), Value is often an economic growth/recovery play, or a way to avoid overheated markets, Growth is a way to go ultra-long duration, when there's likely to be easing/low rates .. Tech's progress this year is being talked about directly as a bet on easing in the not-too-distant.secondopinion wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 4:50 pmThis is one of the reasons why I try to assess in what circumstances a "bet" against Value or Quality may be appropriate. If I can understand the fundamental strengths and weaknesses with tilting to each side, then I can determine if a tilt is good for myself and how much of one. If I cannot understand the tilt from both sides, then I do not tilt.Logan Roy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 4:31 pm The key with backtesting (if there is one) is to identify principles from simply expecting history to repeat. A principle may be an approach to diversification, or offsetting assets with low correlations in most situations, etc. But a *bet* on something like Value or Quality, because it's done well in the past, can just as easily be exactly the wrong thing to do, as it may just lead you to old anomalies that have been arbitraged away, or things that were never really anomalies, and are only on our radar because they've done better through sheer chance.. That's the dilemma active investors have always had. It's never been easy to solve that one. I think it's generally a mistake for passive investors to go down that rabbit hole. Better to focus on principles, like diversification, correlations, the relationship between asset classes and macroeconomics..
I think the idea of persistent premiums is extremely dubious, just because any grouping of stocks will likely have half beating the market, and half underperforming, over any period. And if we have a radically different set of macroeconomic circumstances this century, we should expect different sectors and styles to dominate. It's crazy to me we've got into the idea that some of these styles inevitably outperform.
-
- Posts: 6011
- Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:18 pm
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
That is why I have focused my discussion on tilting using factors for other reasons than a premium. Then either one has to speculate that the tilt will be more profitable for the investment timeframe only, or they invest because the tilt is more favorable from a personal risk assessment relevant to themselves only.Logan Roy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:44 amYes – I think the way traders use factors now, and the way they're talked about on Bloomberg, etc. they've become useful alternative ways to express opinions on, or hedge risks from, macroeconomic scenarios.. So obviously Quality is what you want when there's risk to margins/fundamentals (e.g. recession), Value is often an economic growth/recovery play, or a way to avoid overheated markets, Growth is a way to go ultra-long duration, when there's likely to be easing/low rates .. Tech's progress this year is being talked about directly as a bet on easing in the not-too-distant.secondopinion wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 4:50 pmThis is one of the reasons why I try to assess in what circumstances a "bet" against Value or Quality may be appropriate. If I can understand the fundamental strengths and weaknesses with tilting to each side, then I can determine if a tilt is good for myself and how much of one. If I cannot understand the tilt from both sides, then I do not tilt.Logan Roy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 4:31 pm The key with backtesting (if there is one) is to identify principles from simply expecting history to repeat. A principle may be an approach to diversification, or offsetting assets with low correlations in most situations, etc. But a *bet* on something like Value or Quality, because it's done well in the past, can just as easily be exactly the wrong thing to do, as it may just lead you to old anomalies that have been arbitraged away, or things that were never really anomalies, and are only on our radar because they've done better through sheer chance.. That's the dilemma active investors have always had. It's never been easy to solve that one. I think it's generally a mistake for passive investors to go down that rabbit hole. Better to focus on principles, like diversification, correlations, the relationship between asset classes and macroeconomics..
I think the idea of persistent premiums is extremely dubious, just because any grouping of stocks will likely have half beating the market, and half underperforming, over any period. And if we have a radically different set of macroeconomic circumstances this century, we should expect different sectors and styles to dominate. It's crazy to me we've got into the idea that some of these styles inevitably outperform.
Passive investing: not about making big bucks but making profits. Active investing: not about beating the market but meeting goals. Speculation: not about timing the market but taking profitable risks.
-
- Posts: 523
- Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2021 7:07 am
- Location: Below the Mac bridge (Troll)
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
Just to be clear, my own interests in value were never to outperform other sectors of the market generally, but rather to hold up better than average for the specific case of a declining or level market where the relatively large 5.2% withdrawal rate could cause more rapid declines in a portfolio. If the market increases at a generally historic rate, I would generally expect value to fare no better than, and likely significantly worse than, other market sectors. But that is fine for a retiree with a decreasing investment timeframe. Not trying to beat the market, trying to stave off early portfolio depletion.Logan Roy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:44 amYes – I think the way traders use factors now, and the way they're talked about on Bloomberg, etc. they've become useful alternative ways to express opinions on, or hedge risks from, macroeconomic scenarios.. So obviously Quality is what you want when there's risk to margins/fundamentals (e.g. recession), Value is often an economic growth/recovery play, or a way to avoid overheated markets, Growth is a way to go ultra-long duration, when there's likely to be easing/low rates .. Tech's progress this year is being talked about directly as a bet on easing in the not-too-distant.secondopinion wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 4:50 pmThis is one of the reasons why I try to assess in what circumstances a "bet" against Value or Quality may be appropriate. If I can understand the fundamental strengths and weaknesses with tilting to each side, then I can determine if a tilt is good for myself and how much of one. If I cannot understand the tilt from both sides, then I do not tilt.Logan Roy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 4:31 pm The key with backtesting (if there is one) is to identify principles from simply expecting history to repeat. A principle may be an approach to diversification, or offsetting assets with low correlations in most situations, etc. But a *bet* on something like Value or Quality, because it's done well in the past, can just as easily be exactly the wrong thing to do, as it may just lead you to old anomalies that have been arbitraged away, or things that were never really anomalies, and are only on our radar because they've done better through sheer chance.. That's the dilemma active investors have always had. It's never been easy to solve that one. I think it's generally a mistake for passive investors to go down that rabbit hole. Better to focus on principles, like diversification, correlations, the relationship between asset classes and macroeconomics..
I think the idea of persistent premiums is extremely dubious, just because any grouping of stocks will likely have half beating the market, and half underperforming, over any period. And if we have a radically different set of macroeconomic circumstances this century, we should expect different sectors and styles to dominate. It's crazy to me we've got into the idea that some of these styles inevitably outperform.
"It's not the best move, but it is a move." - GMHikaru
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
I think the problem with running the numbers is that, because Value has a history of outperformance, it's giving you the impression there'll be more to spend. It's why I try never to use Small-Cap Value in backtests, because the historic premium gives any portfolio or drawdown plan a hefty (but not necessarily reliable) boost.HeavyChevy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 12:14 pmJust to be clear, my own interests in value were never to outperform other sectors of the market generally, but rather to hold up better than average for the specific case of a declining or level market where the relatively large 5.2% withdrawal rate could cause more rapid declines in a portfolio. If the market increases at a generally historic rate, I would generally expect value to fare no better than, and likely significantly worse than, other market sectors. But that is fine for a retiree with a decreasing investment timeframe. Not trying to beat the market, trying to stave off early portfolio depletion.Logan Roy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:44 amYes – I think the way traders use factors now, and the way they're talked about on Bloomberg, etc. they've become useful alternative ways to express opinions on, or hedge risks from, macroeconomic scenarios.. So obviously Quality is what you want when there's risk to margins/fundamentals (e.g. recession), Value is often an economic growth/recovery play, or a way to avoid overheated markets, Growth is a way to go ultra-long duration, when there's likely to be easing/low rates .. Tech's progress this year is being talked about directly as a bet on easing in the not-too-distant.secondopinion wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 4:50 pmThis is one of the reasons why I try to assess in what circumstances a "bet" against Value or Quality may be appropriate. If I can understand the fundamental strengths and weaknesses with tilting to each side, then I can determine if a tilt is good for myself and how much of one. If I cannot understand the tilt from both sides, then I do not tilt.Logan Roy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 4:31 pm The key with backtesting (if there is one) is to identify principles from simply expecting history to repeat. A principle may be an approach to diversification, or offsetting assets with low correlations in most situations, etc. But a *bet* on something like Value or Quality, because it's done well in the past, can just as easily be exactly the wrong thing to do, as it may just lead you to old anomalies that have been arbitraged away, or things that were never really anomalies, and are only on our radar because they've done better through sheer chance.. That's the dilemma active investors have always had. It's never been easy to solve that one. I think it's generally a mistake for passive investors to go down that rabbit hole. Better to focus on principles, like diversification, correlations, the relationship between asset classes and macroeconomics..
I think the idea of persistent premiums is extremely dubious, just because any grouping of stocks will likely have half beating the market, and half underperforming, over any period. And if we have a radically different set of macroeconomic circumstances this century, we should expect different sectors and styles to dominate. It's crazy to me we've got into the idea that some of these styles inevitably outperform.
Rather, I think as secondopinion says, the usefulness of things like Value may be as tilts to diversify a portfolio. So Value tends to overweight cyclicals, like banks, and there are interesting relationships with banks doing better on the carry trade, with higher rates, which usually means stronger dollar; whereas as asset like gold typically does better on a weak dollar.. So Value stocks and gold have a slightly useful relationship at some level (to give a random example) – and it's those relationships I think you can build diversification around in a portfolio, and reduce the chances of a bad outcome (which is what I think portfolio planning is largely about).
- dogagility
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:41 am
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
A good way to solve SORR is to use a reasonable retirement withdrawal plan like variable portfolio withdrawal.
Make sure you check out my list of certifications. The list is short, and there aren't any. - Eric 0. from SMA
- Charles Joseph
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2022 10:49 pm
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
All a waste of time. Just buy and hold the total market at an asset allocation which lets you sleep at night.
I have 12 years of fixed income, and almost two years in cash. The rest in stocks. Works out to 50/50. I'm done slicing and dicing and analyzing.
I languished in the Complexity stage of Rick Ferri's Index Investing Stages for many years. Now I'm basking in the Simplicity stage.
Also, see my sig.
I have 12 years of fixed income, and almost two years in cash. The rest in stocks. Works out to 50/50. I'm done slicing and dicing and analyzing.
I languished in the Complexity stage of Rick Ferri's Index Investing Stages for many years. Now I'm basking in the Simplicity stage.
Also, see my sig.
"The big money is not in the buying and selling, but in the waiting." - Charles Munger
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
Personally I think this is even more unrealistic for planning purposes than using a constant inflation-adjusted withdrawal rate. Spending should be expected to be lumpy but it should not be expected to match portfolio ups and downs. You may need to spend more in the years when the market is down and pretending you have the flexibility to simply use a percentage withdrawal provides a false sense of control. I think we adjust naturally based on our expected outcome and seeing returns higher or lower than expected without needing a variable withdrawal rule.dogagility wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 7:04 pmA good way to solve SORR is to use a reasonable retirement withdrawal plan like variable portfolio withdrawal.
Backtesting shows that even CAPE-based predictions can't tell you what to spend annually within a factor of 2 using a stock portfolio. The only way to reliably control spending is using something like a TIPS ladder but that comes at a high expected cost. Lifestyle may only be 1/2 as much to guarantee future spending with a TIPS ladder and historically we already achieve this in a stock portfolio by controlling our spend rate naturally in response to outcomes.
In short, we can't control spend rate within a factor of 2 without lowering spend rate by a factor of 2. Choose your poison.
- dogagility
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:41 am
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
If a retiree's withdrawal amount is static (i.e. no discretionary spending including) and the portfolio is just able to support that withdrawal amount, then the retiree's portfolio might be too small to support their retirement should a significant portfolio decline occur.abc132 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:50 amPersonally I think this is even more unrealistic for planning purposes than using a constant inflation-adjusted withdrawal rate. Spending should be expected to be lumpy but it should not be expected to match portfolio ups and downs.dogagility wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 7:04 pmA good way to solve SORR is to use a reasonable retirement withdrawal plan like variable portfolio withdrawal.
Make sure you check out my list of certifications. The list is short, and there aren't any. - Eric 0. from SMA
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
Of course. But we can also say to spend 0$ and have an even better method. It is simply not a good idea to form a plan around a 0% chance of failure based on spending. You should have had zero dollars invested during accumulation if you had the goal of no chance of running out of investment money.dogagility wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 4:00 pmIf a retiree's withdrawal amount is static (i.e. no discretionary spending including) and the portfolio is just able to support that withdrawal amount, then the retiree's portfolio might be too small to support their retirement should a significant portfolio decline occur.abc132 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:50 amPersonally I think this is even more unrealistic for planning purposes than using a constant inflation-adjusted withdrawal rate. Spending should be expected to be lumpy but it should not be expected to match portfolio ups and downs.dogagility wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 7:04 pmA good way to solve SORR is to use a reasonable retirement withdrawal plan like variable portfolio withdrawal.
We have the 1/CAPE prediction that tells us we can often spend a higher percentage after a decline and a lower percentage when valuations become high. You are doing the opposite of this when you employ a variable withdrawal plan. Static real spending is not perfect but it will be closer than cutting your spending in half after a 50% decline. The reasonable person would cut spending by 20% or so even with a static plan. Planning a budget with some fat that can be trimmed is much more reasonable than saying you can always cut spending to match the market returns.
It is the ability to cut spending that increases success rates, not the wildly fluctuating expenses of a variable plan. A static plan with some fat to trim will optimize far more goals for most investors.
- dogagility
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:41 am
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
I assume you either haven't read longinvest's treatises on VPW in this forum or don't agree with these because what you wrote above about variable withdrawal methods is hyperbole.abc132 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 11:55 amOf course. But we can also say to spend 0$ and have an even better method. It is simply not a good idea to form a plan around a 0% chance of failure based on spending. You should have had zero dollars invested during accumulation if you had the goal of no chance of running out of investment money.dogagility wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 4:00 pmIf a retiree's withdrawal amount is static (i.e. no discretionary spending including) and the portfolio is just able to support that withdrawal amount, then the retiree's portfolio might be too small to support their retirement should a significant portfolio decline occur.abc132 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:50 amPersonally I think this is even more unrealistic for planning purposes than using a constant inflation-adjusted withdrawal rate. Spending should be expected to be lumpy but it should not be expected to match portfolio ups and downs.dogagility wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 7:04 pmA good way to solve SORR is to use a reasonable retirement withdrawal plan like variable portfolio withdrawal.
We have the 1/CAPE prediction that tells us we can often spend a higher percentage after a decline and a lower percentage when valuations become high. You are doing the opposite of this when you employ a variable withdrawal plan. Static real spending is not perfect but it will be closer than cutting your spending in half after a 50% decline. The reasonable person would cut spending by 20% or so even with a static plan. Planning a budget with some fat that can be trimmed is much more reasonable than saying you can always cut spending to match the market returns.
It is the ability to cut spending that increases success rates, not the wildly fluctuating expenses of a variable plan. A static plan with some fat to trim will optimize far more goals for most investors.
Make sure you check out my list of certifications. The list is short, and there aren't any. - Eric 0. from SMA
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
I would assume you would have a specific actionable comment if you have read longinvest's treatises so I consider your response hyperbole.dogagility wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 1:04 pmI assume you either haven't read longinvest's treatises on VPW in this forum or don't agree with these because what you wrote above about variable withdrawal methods is hyperbole.abc132 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 11:55 amOf course. But we can also say to spend 0$ and have an even better method. It is simply not a good idea to form a plan around a 0% chance of failure based on spending. You should have had zero dollars invested during accumulation if you had the goal of no chance of running out of investment money.dogagility wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 4:00 pmIf a retiree's withdrawal amount is static (i.e. no discretionary spending including) and the portfolio is just able to support that withdrawal amount, then the retiree's portfolio might be too small to support their retirement should a significant portfolio decline occur.abc132 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:50 amPersonally I think this is even more unrealistic for planning purposes than using a constant inflation-adjusted withdrawal rate. Spending should be expected to be lumpy but it should not be expected to match portfolio ups and downs.dogagility wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 7:04 pm
A good way to solve SORR is to use a reasonable retirement withdrawal plan like variable portfolio withdrawal.
We have the 1/CAPE prediction that tells us we can often spend a higher percentage after a decline and a lower percentage when valuations become high. You are doing the opposite of this when you employ a variable withdrawal plan. Static real spending is not perfect but it will be closer than cutting your spending in half after a 50% decline. The reasonable person would cut spending by 20% or so even with a static plan. Planning a budget with some fat that can be trimmed is much more reasonable than saying you can always cut spending to match the market returns.
It is the ability to cut spending that increases success rates, not the wildly fluctuating expenses of a variable plan. A static plan with some fat to trim will optimize far more goals for most investors.
- dogagility
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:41 am
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
You've been on the forum for many years; you can do the work to find and read threads on variable portfolio withdrawal methods. These methods do not include what I consider hyperbolic comments like "spending 0$", implying the goal is to have a "0% chance of failure", or that variable withdrawal methods have "wildly fluctuating" withdrawals.abc132 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 1:11 pmI would assume you would have a specific actionable comment if you have read longinvest's treatises so I consider your response hyperbole.dogagility wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 1:04 pmI assume you either haven't read longinvest's treatises on VPW in this forum or don't agree with these because what you wrote above about variable withdrawal methods is hyperbole.abc132 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 11:55 amOf course. But we can also say to spend 0$ and have an even better method. It is simply not a good idea to form a plan around a 0% chance of failure based on spending. You should have had zero dollars invested during accumulation if you had the goal of no chance of running out of investment money.dogagility wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 4:00 pmIf a retiree's withdrawal amount is static (i.e. no discretionary spending including) and the portfolio is just able to support that withdrawal amount, then the retiree's portfolio might be too small to support their retirement should a significant portfolio decline occur.
We have the 1/CAPE prediction that tells us we can often spend a higher percentage after a decline and a lower percentage when valuations become high. You are doing the opposite of this when you employ a variable withdrawal plan. Static real spending is not perfect but it will be closer than cutting your spending in half after a 50% decline. The reasonable person would cut spending by 20% or so even with a static plan. Planning a budget with some fat that can be trimmed is much more reasonable than saying you can always cut spending to match the market returns.
It is the ability to cut spending that increases success rates, not the wildly fluctuating expenses of a variable plan. A static plan with some fat to trim will optimize far more goals for most investors.
One thing we can agree on is that "the ability to cut spending increases success rates". Variable portfolio withdrawal methods provide a means to calculate how much to cut spending.
Make sure you check out my list of certifications. The list is short, and there aren't any. - Eric 0. from SMA
-
- Posts: 6234
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
This is far too simplistic and Research Affiliates and AQR had dispelled this notion that certain factors are only persistent during certain "regimes".Logan Roy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:44 am Yes – I think the way traders use factors now, and the way they're talked about on Bloomberg, etc. they've become useful alternative ways to express opinions on, or hedge risks from, macroeconomic scenarios.. So obviously Quality is what you want when there's risk to margins/fundamentals (e.g. recession), Value is often an economic growth/recovery play, or a way to avoid overheated markets, Growth is a way to go ultra-long duration, when there's likely to be easing/low rates .. Tech's progress this year is being talked about directly as a bet on easing in the not-too-distant.
I think the idea of persistent premiums is extremely dubious, just because any grouping of stocks will likely have half beating the market, and half underperforming, over any period. And if we have a radically different set of macroeconomic circumstances this century, we should expect different sectors and styles to dominate. It's crazy to me we've got into the idea that some of these styles inevitably outperform.
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
I think the problem with ideas that aren't simplistic – when we've only really had one example of each basic economic regime over the past 50 years – is that you're possibly just looking at noise. I know the thrust with factors is to make them mathematical entities, but I work in a similar field, and I don't think the work on factors is anywhere near robust enough to make those claims.. I think it's much more that people in this area of finance are woefully uneducated/uninterested in economics and analytics. That's just me. And it's traders. Traders use them to express macro views. I don't think anyone outside the cult of financial academia is using factors for long-term style premia. The evidence just isn't there. (imo)Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 10:30 pmThis is far too simplistic and Research Affiliates and AQR had dispelled this notion that certain factors are only persistent during certain "regimes".Logan Roy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:44 am Yes – I think the way traders use factors now, and the way they're talked about on Bloomberg, etc. they've become useful alternative ways to express opinions on, or hedge risks from, macroeconomic scenarios.. So obviously Quality is what you want when there's risk to margins/fundamentals (e.g. recession), Value is often an economic growth/recovery play, or a way to avoid overheated markets, Growth is a way to go ultra-long duration, when there's likely to be easing/low rates .. Tech's progress this year is being talked about directly as a bet on easing in the not-too-distant.
I think the idea of persistent premiums is extremely dubious, just because any grouping of stocks will likely have half beating the market, and half underperforming, over any period. And if we have a radically different set of macroeconomic circumstances this century, we should expect different sectors and styles to dominate. It's crazy to me we've got into the idea that some of these styles inevitably outperform.
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
Factor tilting just seem like another rationale for active investing.Logan Roy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 9:20 amI think the problem with ideas that aren't simplistic – when we've only really had one example of each basic economic regime over the past 50 years – is that you're possibly just looking at noise. I know the thrust with factors is to make them mathematical entities, but I work in a similar field, and I don't think the work on factors is anywhere near robust enough to make those claims.. I think it's much more that people in this area of finance are woefully uneducated/uninterested in economics and analytics. That's just me. And it's traders. Traders use them to express macro views. I don't think anyone outside the cult of financial academia is using factors for long-term style premia. The evidence just isn't there. (imo)Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 10:30 pmThis is far too simplistic and Research Affiliates and AQR had dispelled this notion that certain factors are only persistent during certain "regimes".Logan Roy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:44 am Yes – I think the way traders use factors now, and the way they're talked about on Bloomberg, etc. they've become useful alternative ways to express opinions on, or hedge risks from, macroeconomic scenarios.. So obviously Quality is what you want when there's risk to margins/fundamentals (e.g. recession), Value is often an economic growth/recovery play, or a way to avoid overheated markets, Growth is a way to go ultra-long duration, when there's likely to be easing/low rates .. Tech's progress this year is being talked about directly as a bet on easing in the not-too-distant.
I think the idea of persistent premiums is extremely dubious, just because any grouping of stocks will likely have half beating the market, and half underperforming, over any period. And if we have a radically different set of macroeconomic circumstances this century, we should expect different sectors and styles to dominate. It's crazy to me we've got into the idea that some of these styles inevitably outperform.
Which, last I checked, still wasn't out performing passive.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
-
- Posts: 6234
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
This post is pretty hilarious. Imagine calling Fama woefully uneducated in economics and analytics.Logan Roy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 9:20 amI think the problem with ideas that aren't simplistic – when we've only really had one example of each basic economic regime over the past 50 years – is that you're possibly just looking at noise. I know the thrust with factors is to make them mathematical entities, but I work in a similar field, and I don't think the work on factors is anywhere near robust enough to make those claims.. I think it's much more that people in this area of finance are woefully uneducated/uninterested in economics and analytics. That's just me. And it's traders. Traders use them to express macro views. I don't think anyone outside the cult of financial academia is using factors for long-term style premia. The evidence just isn't there. (imo)Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 10:30 pmThis is far too simplistic and Research Affiliates and AQR had dispelled this notion that certain factors are only persistent during certain "regimes".Logan Roy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:44 am Yes – I think the way traders use factors now, and the way they're talked about on Bloomberg, etc. they've become useful alternative ways to express opinions on, or hedge risks from, macroeconomic scenarios.. So obviously Quality is what you want when there's risk to margins/fundamentals (e.g. recession), Value is often an economic growth/recovery play, or a way to avoid overheated markets, Growth is a way to go ultra-long duration, when there's likely to be easing/low rates .. Tech's progress this year is being talked about directly as a bet on easing in the not-too-distant.
I think the idea of persistent premiums is extremely dubious, just because any grouping of stocks will likely have half beating the market, and half underperforming, over any period. And if we have a radically different set of macroeconomic circumstances this century, we should expect different sectors and styles to dominate. It's crazy to me we've got into the idea that some of these styles inevitably outperform.
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
Fama himself isn't sure that SV is persistent enough to be exploitable within reasonable individual investor timeframes.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 10:26 am
This post is pretty hilarious. Imagine calling Fama woefully uneducated in economics and analytics.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
-
- Posts: 6234
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
He’s probably also not sure the market is persistent enough to be exploitable over bonds within reasonable investor timeframes.watchnerd wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 10:31 amFama himself isn't sure that SV is persistent enough to be exploitable within reasonable individual investor timeframes.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 10:26 am
This post is pretty hilarious. Imagine calling Fama woefully uneducated in economics and analytics.
Doesn’t mean that historically it generally hasn’t or that there isn’t an intuitive rationale for the existence of a premium
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
I have a similar POV on bonds vs stocks.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 10:33 am
He’s probably also not sure the market is persistent enough to be exploitable over bonds within reasonable investor timeframes.
Doesn’t mean that historically it generally hasn’t or that there isn’t an intuitive rationale for the existence of a premium
And have doubts about the breadth of the spread on the US equity risk premium vs TIPS.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
-
- Posts: 6234
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
We’ve seen long periods where premiums vanish. Sometimes the market must adjust to new realities which cause premiums to get wiped out for a long timewatchnerd wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 10:38 amI have a similar POV on bonds vs stocks.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 10:33 am
He’s probably also not sure the market is persistent enough to be exploitable over bonds within reasonable investor timeframes.
Doesn’t mean that historically it generally hasn’t or that there isn’t an intuitive rationale for the existence of a premium
And have doubts about the breadth of the spread on the US equity risk premium vs TIPS.
That’s not a reason to think they don’t exist, rather it’s more justification to investing in a highly diversified manner across regions and risk factors since the chance that everything is “mispriced” is unlikely
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
This is why I invest in global market caps and don't try to factor tilt.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 10:44 am
We’ve seen long periods where premiums vanish. Sometimes the market must adjust to new realities which cause premiums to get wiped out for a long time
That’s not a reason to think they don’t exist, rather it’s more justification to investing in a highly diversified manner across regions and risk factors since the chance that everything is “mispriced” is unlikely
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
-
- Posts: 6234
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
I do both since I am capturing more risk premiums that way, but to each their ownwatchnerd wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 10:47 amThis is why I invest in global market caps and don't try to factor tilt.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 10:44 am
We’ve seen long periods where premiums vanish. Sometimes the market must adjust to new realities which cause premiums to get wiped out for a long time
That’s not a reason to think they don’t exist, rather it’s more justification to investing in a highly diversified manner across regions and risk factors since the chance that everything is “mispriced” is unlikely
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
Great thread! Am I wrong in believing that only diversification between asset classes matters, not diversification within asset classes?
Regarding factors: You might just aswell invest in other subsets of the market like sectors to gain pseudo-diversification. Or try an equal-weight S&P 500 fund. Or, hypothetically, equal weight every single stock on this planet.
In the end, it will always be a zero sum game. It's all equity risk after all.
Market cap is the only factor-neutral way of investing. Anything else is just betting ("tilting") on some factor-subset of the market.
Regarding factors: You might just aswell invest in other subsets of the market like sectors to gain pseudo-diversification. Or try an equal-weight S&P 500 fund. Or, hypothetically, equal weight every single stock on this planet.
In the end, it will always be a zero sum game. It's all equity risk after all.
Market cap is the only factor-neutral way of investing. Anything else is just betting ("tilting") on some factor-subset of the market.
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
You're not wrong.
At the end of the day, all stocks carry the systemic risk of being stocks.
Thus assets that are "not stocks" do more to defease that risk.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
-
- Posts: 6234
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
Those risks are different within stocks and can manifest at certain periods
S&P500 went nowhere for 13 years but SCV did very well
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
Because you deify him. Asness is very open about how little he knows/cares about macroeconomics. I can't speak for Eugene Fama's education, but his work doesn't really deal with macroeconomics, and in general, the standard of analytics in finance is very crude compared to subjects like physics and math. Which is why groups like RenTech specifically employ people from STEM, rather than finance/economics.. Also, you've got a chart there, from a Bloomberg analyst, showing the historic correlation between style factors and macro regimes. Think maybe there's something in it?Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 10:26 amThis post is pretty hilarious. Imagine calling Fama woefully uneducated in economics and analytics.Logan Roy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 9:20 amI think the problem with ideas that aren't simplistic – when we've only really had one example of each basic economic regime over the past 50 years – is that you're possibly just looking at noise. I know the thrust with factors is to make them mathematical entities, but I work in a similar field, and I don't think the work on factors is anywhere near robust enough to make those claims.. I think it's much more that people in this area of finance are woefully uneducated/uninterested in economics and analytics. That's just me. And it's traders. Traders use them to express macro views. I don't think anyone outside the cult of financial academia is using factors for long-term style premia. The evidence just isn't there. (imo)Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 10:30 pmThis is far too simplistic and Research Affiliates and AQR had dispelled this notion that certain factors are only persistent during certain "regimes".Logan Roy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:44 am Yes – I think the way traders use factors now, and the way they're talked about on Bloomberg, etc. they've become useful alternative ways to express opinions on, or hedge risks from, macroeconomic scenarios.. So obviously Quality is what you want when there's risk to margins/fundamentals (e.g. recession), Value is often an economic growth/recovery play, or a way to avoid overheated markets, Growth is a way to go ultra-long duration, when there's likely to be easing/low rates .. Tech's progress this year is being talked about directly as a bet on easing in the not-too-distant.
I think the idea of persistent premiums is extremely dubious, just because any grouping of stocks will likely have half beating the market, and half underperforming, over any period. And if we have a radically different set of macroeconomic circumstances this century, we should expect different sectors and styles to dominate. It's crazy to me we've got into the idea that some of these styles inevitably outperform.
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
They're not as different as they are for things that aren't stocks at all.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 12:09 pmThose risks are different within stocks and can manifest at certain periods
S&P500 went nowhere for 13 years but SCV did very well
You can't eliminate stock market risk by holding stocks.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
-
- Posts: 6234
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
I don’t deify him at all, and disagree with some of his statements, but to claim he’s not educated on this topic when he’s basically the founder of it through rigorous research is just completely inaccurateLogan Roy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 12:16 pmBecause you deify him. Asness is very open about how little he knows/cares about macroeconomics. I can't speak for Eugene Fama's education, but his work doesn't really deal with macroeconomics, and in general, the standard of analytics in finance is very crude compared to subjects like physics and math. Which is why groups like RenTech specifically employ people from STEM, rather than finance/economics.. Also, you've got a chart there, from a Bloomberg analyst, showing the historic correlation between style factors and macro regimes. Think maybe there's something in it?Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 10:26 amThis post is pretty hilarious. Imagine calling Fama woefully uneducated in economics and analytics.Logan Roy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 9:20 amI think the problem with ideas that aren't simplistic – when we've only really had one example of each basic economic regime over the past 50 years – is that you're possibly just looking at noise. I know the thrust with factors is to make them mathematical entities, but I work in a similar field, and I don't think the work on factors is anywhere near robust enough to make those claims.. I think it's much more that people in this area of finance are woefully uneducated/uninterested in economics and analytics. That's just me. And it's traders. Traders use them to express macro views. I don't think anyone outside the cult of financial academia is using factors for long-term style premia. The evidence just isn't there. (imo)Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 10:30 pmThis is far too simplistic and Research Affiliates and AQR had dispelled this notion that certain factors are only persistent during certain "regimes".Logan Roy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:44 am Yes – I think the way traders use factors now, and the way they're talked about on Bloomberg, etc. they've become useful alternative ways to express opinions on, or hedge risks from, macroeconomic scenarios.. So obviously Quality is what you want when there's risk to margins/fundamentals (e.g. recession), Value is often an economic growth/recovery play, or a way to avoid overheated markets, Growth is a way to go ultra-long duration, when there's likely to be easing/low rates .. Tech's progress this year is being talked about directly as a bet on easing in the not-too-distant.
I think the idea of persistent premiums is extremely dubious, just because any grouping of stocks will likely have half beating the market, and half underperforming, over any period. And if we have a radically different set of macroeconomic circumstances this century, we should expect different sectors and styles to dominate. It's crazy to me we've got into the idea that some of these styles inevitably outperform.
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
-
- Posts: 6234
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
They’re certainly different. You aren’t eliminating stock risk, you are diversifying stock risk through factorswatchnerd wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 12:17 pmThey're not as different as they are for things that aren't stocks at all.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 12:09 pmThose risks are different within stocks and can manifest at certain periods
S&P500 went nowhere for 13 years but SCV did very well
You can't eliminate stock market risk by holding stocks.
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
Are factors diversifying stock risk to any greater degree than just holding the total market?Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 12:32 pmThey’re certainly different. You aren’t eliminating stock risk, you are diversifying stock risk through factorswatchnerd wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 12:17 pmThey're not as different as they are for things that aren't stocks at all.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 12:09 pmThose risks are different within stocks and can manifest at certain periods
S&P500 went nowhere for 13 years but SCV did very well
You can't eliminate stock market risk by holding stocks.
Or are you just tilting the risk in different directions?
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
-
- Posts: 6234
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
Yes, the value premium manifests differently than market betawatchnerd wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 12:35 pmAre factors diversifying stock risk to any greater degree than just holding the total market?Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 12:32 pmThey’re certainly different. You aren’t eliminating stock risk, you are diversifying stock risk through factorswatchnerd wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 12:17 pmThey're not as different as they are for things that aren't stocks at all.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 12:09 pmThose risks are different within stocks and can manifest at certain periods
S&P500 went nowhere for 13 years but SCV did very well
You can't eliminate stock market risk by holding stocks.
Or are you just tilting the risk in different directions?
It won’t prevent acute crisis from hitting both, but longer term it can mean the difference of a dead decade or 10% annualized returns like in the 00s
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
Or it can lead to value under-performing growth for long periods, too.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 12:54 pm Yes, the value premium manifests differently than market beta
It won’t prevent acute crisis from hitting both, but longer term it can mean the difference of a dead decade or 10% annualized returns like in the 00s
That doesn't sound like SOR risk mitigation to me.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
-
- Posts: 6234
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
It can, that’s part of the “risk” in “risk premium”, but it tends to outperform 80% of the time, similar to how the market beats bonds 80% of the time but can occasionally underperform for decadeswatchnerd wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 12:57 pmOr it can lead to value under-performing growth for long periods, too.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 12:54 pm Yes, the value premium manifests differently than market beta
It won’t prevent acute crisis from hitting both, but longer term it can mean the difference of a dead decade or 10% annualized returns like in the 00s
That doesn't sound like SOR risk mitigation to me.
Taking more risk in a diversified fashion is exactly what you want for SOR risk mitigation
SCV has less start date sensitivity than total market, meaning generally has a positive return in a shorter horizon
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
SCV outperforms 80% of the time????Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 1:04 pm
It can, that’s part of the “risk” in “risk premium”, but it tends to outperform 80% of the time, similar to how the market beats bonds 80% of the time but can occasionally underperform for decades
Taking more risk in a diversified fashion is exactly what you want for SOR risk mitigation
SCV has less start date sensitivity than total market, meaning generally has a positive return in a shorter horizon
Source?
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
For a year 2000 retiree, value tilting (especially SCV) within US equities reduced SORR, as opposed to only holding market cap weight. For a year 2010 retiree, value tilting resulted in under performance relative to US TSM, but still had good returns. So in this time period, the answer was a resounding yes. This is easy to see on Portfolio Visualizer, https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion4_3=40
The future is harder to predict. Over long period (30+ years), I anticipate any low-cost broadly diversified equity investment to have positive returns and maybe even fairly similar returns. Over short periods (5-10 years), equity returns are unpredictable, making portfolio diversification with non-equity investments essential. I believe that in the intermediate time period (e.g., 10-30 years), including international and factor-tilt in equity investments will decrease the probability of poor returns.
To tilt or not to tilt is reasonable, as long as broad-based, low cost funds are used, and it is a long-term (preferably life-long) strategy. Still, one should not go too far.
The future is harder to predict. Over long period (30+ years), I anticipate any low-cost broadly diversified equity investment to have positive returns and maybe even fairly similar returns. Over short periods (5-10 years), equity returns are unpredictable, making portfolio diversification with non-equity investments essential. I believe that in the intermediate time period (e.g., 10-30 years), including international and factor-tilt in equity investments will decrease the probability of poor returns.
To tilt or not to tilt is reasonable, as long as broad-based, low cost funds are used, and it is a long-term (preferably life-long) strategy. Still, one should not go too far.
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
A common reason given for variable withdrawal rate on this forum is in fact that money can't run out. That is the one-liner that draws people to this method and the one-liner used by some of its proponents.dogagility wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 7:39 pmYou've been on the forum for many years; you can do the work to find and read threads on variable portfolio withdrawal methods. These methods do not include what I consider hyperbolic comments like "spending 0$", implying the goal is to have a "0% chance of failure", or that variable withdrawal methods have "wildly fluctuating" withdrawals.abc132 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 1:11 pmI would assume you would have a specific actionable comment if you have read longinvest's treatises so I consider your response hyperbole.dogagility wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 1:04 pmI assume you either haven't read longinvest's treatises on VPW in this forum or don't agree with these because what you wrote above about variable withdrawal methods is hyperbole.abc132 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 11:55 amOf course. But we can also say to spend 0$ and have an even better method. It is simply not a good idea to form a plan around a 0% chance of failure based on spending. You should have had zero dollars invested during accumulation if you had the goal of no chance of running out of investment money.dogagility wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 4:00 pm
If a retiree's withdrawal amount is static (i.e. no discretionary spending including) and the portfolio is just able to support that withdrawal amount, then the retiree's portfolio might be too small to support their retirement should a significant portfolio decline occur.
We have the 1/CAPE prediction that tells us we can often spend a higher percentage after a decline and a lower percentage when valuations become high. You are doing the opposite of this when you employ a variable withdrawal plan. Static real spending is not perfect but it will be closer than cutting your spending in half after a 50% decline. The reasonable person would cut spending by 20% or so even with a static plan. Planning a budget with some fat that can be trimmed is much more reasonable than saying you can always cut spending to match the market returns.
It is the ability to cut spending that increases success rates, not the wildly fluctuating expenses of a variable plan. A static plan with some fat to trim will optimize far more goals for most investors.
One thing we can agree on is that "the ability to cut spending increases success rates". Variable portfolio withdrawal methods provide a means to calculate how much to cut spending.
Having actually tested probability based withdrawals myself, I can tell you that someone planning on spending 80k annually may end up spending 160k followed by a reduction to 40k within a 30 year period based on historical outcomes. A factor of 4 decrease in standard of living means 75% of that 160k budget needs to be optional. Those that want to spend 80k generally don't benefit as much from spending 160k and the increase in lifestyle makes the cutback more difficult. I consider a factor of 4 decrease in standard of living significant.
This can be decreased through fixed income products, annuities, and other methods but the reality is we can't control our standard of living without giving up expected returns on the order of our entire portfolio.
Most peoples spending will be lumpy and unlikely to match the variable withdrawal calculation. Most people will be better off spending what they need to when they need to and not dramatically increasing or decreasing a standard of living and retirement goal they have chosen based on their preferences.
You can post a year 2000 retiree spending graph for VPW and we can compare it to constant spending. Let us know how much of our original budget has to be optional. I will assert the optimum is somewhere between the two but closer to constant spending, and with a much more reasonable amount of optional spending.
When we don't know how much we will be spending 10 years in the future and we don't know our death date, we simply don't have tools to make good real time estimates of spending. VPW is unlikely to optimize anything, but it takes a recognition of what we can and can not control. Thee is no harm in using it as a tool, but in my opinion suggesting it as a solution shows limited understanding of what know about the future.
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
No one claimed he was uneducated on those things. I said people who work in that space tend to be – which is true, because it's self-admittedly true in the case of AQR, and I use a hedge fund from Man Group, and it's true there too. Quants are not typically macro guys. So if they don't find macro solutions to things, it's probably because they're not looking for them; don't know how to look for them; or don't want to find them.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 12:31 pmI don’t deify him at all, and disagree with some of his statements, but to claim he’s not educated on this topic when he’s basically the founder of it through rigorous research is just completely inaccurateLogan Roy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 12:16 pmBecause you deify him. Asness is very open about how little he knows/cares about macroeconomics. I can't speak for Eugene Fama's education, but his work doesn't really deal with macroeconomics, and in general, the standard of analytics in finance is very crude compared to subjects like physics and math. Which is why groups like RenTech specifically employ people from STEM, rather than finance/economics.. Also, you've got a chart there, from a Bloomberg analyst, showing the historic correlation between style factors and macro regimes. Think maybe there's something in it?Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 10:26 amThis post is pretty hilarious. Imagine calling Fama woefully uneducated in economics and analytics.Logan Roy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 9:20 amI think the problem with ideas that aren't simplistic – when we've only really had one example of each basic economic regime over the past 50 years – is that you're possibly just looking at noise. I know the thrust with factors is to make them mathematical entities, but I work in a similar field, and I don't think the work on factors is anywhere near robust enough to make those claims.. I think it's much more that people in this area of finance are woefully uneducated/uninterested in economics and analytics. That's just me. And it's traders. Traders use them to express macro views. I don't think anyone outside the cult of financial academia is using factors for long-term style premia. The evidence just isn't there. (imo)Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 10:30 pm
This is far too simplistic and Research Affiliates and AQR had dispelled this notion that certain factors are only persistent during certain "regimes".
Re: analytics. Finance has a much lower bar than we'd have in machine learning or mathematics. The FF factor models are a very vague fit. And when that first occurred to me, I said: if this is as loose as I think it is, we'll have 1,000+ factors within 10 years.. Now we do. We've got more factors in the S&P 500 than there are stocks.. And the problem is, the level of 'proof' for what constitutes a 'factor' (which is meant to be some kind of anomaly or mechanism in markets) is just too low. So I think what we needed way back with the 3-factor model was proper testing: does it account for all alpha in random/equal-weight portfolios (the most basic test, which wasn't done until several decades later); and how easy is it to invent factors using arbitrary/random/nonsensical rules? And I think academia in recent years has answered that. They're running into all the most basic issues around active stock picking and screening – which is another problem with them not taking an interest in the real functioning of markets.
-
- Posts: 6234
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
11 minutes inwatchnerd wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 1:09 pmSCV outperforms 80% of the time????Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 1:04 pm
It can, that’s part of the “risk” in “risk premium”, but it tends to outperform 80% of the time, similar to how the market beats bonds 80% of the time but can occasionally underperform for decades
Taking more risk in a diversified fashion is exactly what you want for SOR risk mitigation
SCV has less start date sensitivity than total market, meaning generally has a positive return in a shorter horizon
Source?
https://youtu.be/2MVSsVi1_e4
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
He didn't say it outperforms 80% of the time.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 12:18 am11 minutes inwatchnerd wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 1:09 pmSCV outperforms 80% of the time????Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 1:04 pm
It can, that’s part of the “risk” in “risk premium”, but it tends to outperform 80% of the time, similar to how the market beats bonds 80% of the time but can occasionally underperform for decades
Taking more risk in a diversified fashion is exactly what you want for SOR risk mitigation
SCV has less start date sensitivity than total market, meaning generally has a positive return in a shorter horizon
Source?
https://youtu.be/2MVSsVi1_e4
He says it exhibits a size and value premium, but both of those are less persistent than the market premium (85%).
He then notes that the size and value premium are less persistent than the market premium itself.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
-
- Posts: 6234
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
He says the Value Premium is 84% of the time with Size 72%watchnerd wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 12:36 amHe didn't say it outperforms 80% of the time.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 12:18 am11 minutes inwatchnerd wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 1:09 pmSCV outperforms 80% of the time????Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 1:04 pm
It can, that’s part of the “risk” in “risk premium”, but it tends to outperform 80% of the time, similar to how the market beats bonds 80% of the time but can occasionally underperform for decades
Taking more risk in a diversified fashion is exactly what you want for SOR risk mitigation
SCV has less start date sensitivity than total market, meaning generally has a positive return in a shorter horizon
Source?
https://youtu.be/2MVSsVi1_e4
He says it exhibits a size and value premium, but both of those are less persistent than the market premium (85%).
He then notes that the size and value premium are less persistent than the market premium itself.
That’s roughly 80% of the time for the blend
He does not say they are less persistent than the market premiums, he says they are roughly equivalent
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
It the market premium exists 85% of the time (which he said), and the blend of SCV persists 80% of the time, that doesn't mean SCV is beating the market 80% of the time.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 12:40 am
He says the Value Premium is 84% of the time with Size 72%
That’s roughly 80% of the time for the blend
He does not say they are less persistent than the market premiums, he says they are roughly equivalent “market beats risk free at roughly the same rate as Small and Value beat the market”
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
-
- Posts: 6234
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
The distinction needs to be made that value beats growth 84% of the timewatchnerd wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 12:42 amIt the market premium exists 85% of the time (which he said), and the blend of SCV persists 80% of the time, that doesn't mean SCV is beating the market 80% of the time.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 12:40 am
He says the Value Premium is 84% of the time with Size 72%
That’s roughly 80% of the time for the blend
He does not say they are less persistent than the market premiums, he says they are roughly equivalent “market beats risk free at roughly the same rate as Small and Value beat the market”
Growth isn’t the same as “the market”, but it’s not too far off.
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
Growth and the market as a whole a very different.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 12:43 amThe distinction needs to be made that value beats growth 84% of the timewatchnerd wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 12:42 amIt the market premium exists 85% of the time (which he said), and the blend of SCV persists 80% of the time, that doesn't mean SCV is beating the market 80% of the time.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 12:40 am
He says the Value Premium is 84% of the time with Size 72%
That’s roughly 80% of the time for the blend
He does not say they are less persistent than the market premiums, he says they are roughly equivalent “market beats risk free at roughly the same rate as Small and Value beat the market”
Growth isn’t the same as “the market”, but it’s not too far off.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
-
- Posts: 6234
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
Not really. It’s a blend that tends to be growththier.watchnerd wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 12:47 amGrowth and the market as a whole a very different.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 12:43 amThe distinction needs to be made that value beats growth 84% of the timewatchnerd wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 12:42 amIt the market premium exists 85% of the time (which he said), and the blend of SCV persists 80% of the time, that doesn't mean SCV is beating the market 80% of the time.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 12:40 am
He says the Value Premium is 84% of the time with Size 72%
That’s roughly 80% of the time for the blend
He does not say they are less persistent than the market premiums, he says they are roughly equivalent “market beats risk free at roughly the same rate as Small and Value beat the market”
Growth isn’t the same as “the market”, but it’s not too far off.
You can look at rolling 10-20 year heat maps of SCV vs S&P 500 and the “win rate” for SCV is roughly in line with that 80% figure I stated earlier
Your chart seems to prove my point, by the way, though the size factor is considered weak
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
The chart doesn't prove your point at all.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 12:51 amNot really. It’s a blend that tends to be growththier.watchnerd wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 12:47 amGrowth and the market as a whole a very different.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 12:43 amThe distinction needs to be made that value beats growth 84% of the timewatchnerd wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 12:42 amIt the market premium exists 85% of the time (which he said), and the blend of SCV persists 80% of the time, that doesn't mean SCV is beating the market 80% of the time.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 12:40 am
He says the Value Premium is 84% of the time with Size 72%
That’s roughly 80% of the time for the blend
He does not say they are less persistent than the market premiums, he says they are roughly equivalent “market beats risk free at roughly the same rate as Small and Value beat the market”
Growth isn’t the same as “the market”, but it’s not too far off.
You can look at rolling 10-20 year heat maps of SCV vs S&P 500 and the “win rate” for SCV is roughly in line with that 80% figure I stated earlier
Your chart seems to prove my point, by the way, though the size factor is considered weak
Small Cap + Value is a narrower intersection than just Small Cap factor by itself.
The *magnitude* of the outperformance might increase when you add the Value factor to Small, but SCV is still going to be tied to the frequency of small cap itself.
I haven't seen any data saying SCV outperforms the market 80% of the time and I don't interpret what Flex said as saying so, either.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
-
- Posts: 6234
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
It shows small caps outperforming 80% of the time, just eye balling itwatchnerd wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 12:55 amThe chart doesn't prove your point at all.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 12:51 amNot really. It’s a blend that tends to be growththier.watchnerd wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 12:47 amGrowth and the market as a whole a very different.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 12:43 amThe distinction needs to be made that value beats growth 84% of the time
Growth isn’t the same as “the market”, but it’s not too far off.
You can look at rolling 10-20 year heat maps of SCV vs S&P 500 and the “win rate” for SCV is roughly in line with that 80% figure I stated earlier
Your chart seems to prove my point, by the way, though the size factor is considered weak
Small Cap + Value is a narrower intersection than just Small Cap factor by itself.
The *magnitude* of the outperformance might increase when you add the Value factor to Small, but SCV is still going to be tied to the frequency of small cap itself.
I haven't seen any data saying SCV outperforms the market 80% of the time and I don't interpret what Flex said as saying so, either.
I don’t know what else to tell you
Ben Felix says SCV lessens time sensitivity, increases returns and diversification, and leads to more reliable portfolio outcomes. That’s why he personally invests in factors. He says it all there in the video
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
Not to my eye, it doesn't.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 12:58 am
It shows small caps outperforming 80% of the time, just eye balling it
I don’t know what else to tell you
Ben Felix says SCV lessens time sensitivity, increases returns and diversification, and leads to more reliable portfolio outcomes. That’s why he personally invests in factors. He says it all there in the video
And, no offense, neither your eyes nor mine eyeballing a graph are citation-worthy sources.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
what % does it look like to you, if you had to estimate it?
Crom laughs at your Four Winds
-
- Posts: 6234
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am
Re: Can value stocks mitigate sequence of returns risk?
You can look at the years, small caps underperform 20 out of roughly 80 years.watchnerd wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 1:01 amNot to my eye, it doesn't.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 12:58 am
It shows small caps outperforming 80% of the time, just eye balling it
I don’t know what else to tell you
Ben Felix says SCV lessens time sensitivity, increases returns and diversification, and leads to more reliable portfolio outcomes. That’s why he personally invests in factors. He says it all there in the video
And, no offense, neither your eyes nor mine eyeballing a graph are citation-worthy sources.
Small caps outperform 75% of the time. Almost identical to what Ben says in the video
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES