by Ahmed Farooq, VP, ETF Business Development, Franklin Templeton ETFs
Over A Century of Evolution
When you look at the history of index investing, it is incredible how long it has been around and how much it has evolved over the past century. Indexing started in 1896 when Charles Dow, an editor at the Wall Street Journal and co-founder of the Dow Jones and Company, helped create the price weighted index. In the 1970s we saw the first glimpse of index investing with market cap weighted strategies, which allowed investors to gain broad based exposures to large markets around the world. Then in 2005, we saw the launch of the first smart beta strategy that used a single factor exposure and most recently we’ve seen a slew of multi-factor strategies being introduced into the marketplace.
Factor based investing has received a lot of buzz over the past couple of years, but I still hear a lot of confusion when I speak to advisors about how to use them, which is understandable, with so many options and strategies to choose from today. I am often asked three questions: which factor or factors should I choose; have factor-based approaches provided better results over the long term; and how easily can they be implemented into my existing portfolios?
Factors are not a new phenomenon. They have been showcased in a number of academic research papers and implemented through active strategies during the past few decades. What we are seeing today, with the advent of smart beta ETFs, is the creation of a true rules-based strategies that focus on either a single-factor or grouping several single-factors together. By removing the day-to-day discretion of an active manager, the cost has come down significantly, and the AUM growth of factor strategies, which is typically expressed in an ETF, has being quite amazing to see.
To understand factors, I think it is helpful to imagine them as a DNA marker that explains the primary characteristics of a stock’s behaviour over time. There have been six factors that have been most discussed by academics because historically they have rewarded investors with better outcomes over the long term:
· Quality – companies with good profitability, earnings growth, low debt/equity
· Value – companies that are undervalued with lower valuations
· Momentum – companies that a have stronger recent price appreciation
· Low Volatility – companies with lower volatility or risk then the market
· Dividend – companies that are paying higher dividends per share on average then the market
· Size – companies with smaller market capitalization versus the overall market.
Delivering a desired outcome
So how do these different factors work together in your clients’ portfolios? The most basic strategy is a factor rotation strategy that focuses on a single factor. In this strategy you either overweight or underweight the factor based on the current economic cycle, but it’s worth noting that this can take a lot of work, result in higher trading costs and a potentially higher margin of error. Most importantly, when you’re attempting to pick and choose the right factors at the right time you will increase your market timing risk.
A multi-factor strategy gives investors access to investment vehicles that may smooth out the performance ride while delivering a desired outcome compared to a single factor rotation strategy. Of course, choosing the right multi-factor strategy is a key consideration too.
Our Multi-Factor Approach
At Franklin Templeton, our Smart beta ETFs are based on a multi-factor approach where we create a proprietary index that is custom weighted. For example, with FLEM our Franklin LibertyQT Emerging Market ETF we put our conviction behind the Quality factor at 50%, Value factor at 30%, Momentum factor at 10% and then the Low Volatility factor at 10%, as seen below.
I believe our multi-factor approach tends to provide a truer bias to the factors that investors are looking to get exposure to by implementing an aggregate scoring methodology. It eliminates the risk of stock duplication, where you may have similar stock positions being duplicated in each of the factor exposures that are being combined. Equally important is considering your weighting scheme. You can choose either equal weighted or custom weighted with conviction. With this approach it is important to look under the hood of each investment to see which methodology jives best with your investment philosophy.
Building A Better Portfolio
What are the benefits and how would a multi-factor strategy fit into an existing portfolio? Let build out a quick case study. I recently had a conservative client who was contemplating adding a small percentage to emerging market to her portfolio. Based on her current risk budget, she was hoping to maintain a similar drawdown as her portfolio that had no emerging markets exposure. We looked at adding an emerging markets allocation of 5% in both a multi-factor EM strategy and a passive mandate. Adding FLEM, a higher conviction multi-factor strategy helped smooth out the ride by capturing a lower overall max drawdown and worst month scenario in comparison to having a passive emerging market exposure in the portfolio. Even comparing to the original portfolio, the smart beta emerging market exposure provided a better ride.
This is just one example, but there are plenty of ways you can implement a multi-factor approach to your portfolio. Please feel free to contact me if you would like to learn more about the benefits of our unique multi-factor strategy used in our lineup of Smart Beta ETFs.
Commissions, management fees and expenses may all be associated with investments in ETFs. Investors should carefully consider an ETF’s investment objectives and strategies, risks, fees and expenses before investing. The prospectus and ETF facts contain this and other information. Please read the prospectus and ETF facts carefully before investing. ETFs trade like stocks, fluctuate in market value and may trade at prices above or below the ETF’s net asset value. Brokerage commissions and ETF expenses will reduce returns. Performance of an ETF may vary significantly from the performance of an index, as a result of transaction costs, expenses and other factors. The indicated rates of return are the historical annual compounded total returns including changes in share or unit value and reinvestment of all dividends or distributions and do not take into account sales, redemption, distribution or optional charges or income taxes payable by any security holder that would have reduced returns. ETFs are not guaranteed, their values change frequently and past performance may not be repeated.
Ahmed Farooq’s comments, opinions and analyses are for informational purposes only and should not be considered individual investment advice or recommendations to invest in any security or to adopt any investment strategy. Because market and economic conditions are subject to rapid change, comments, opinions and analyses are rendered as of the date of the posting and may change without notice. The material is not intended as a complete analysis of every material fact regarding any country, region, market, industry, investment or strategy.
All investments involve risks, including the possible loss of principal. Investments in foreign securities involve special risks including currency fluctuations, economic instability and political developments. Investments in emerging markets, of which frontier markets are a subset, involve heightened risks related to the same factors, in addition to those associated with these markets’ smaller size, lesser liquidity and lack of established legal, political, business and social frameworks to support securities markets.
This post was first published by Ahmed Farooq, Franklin Templeton