Roughly a year ago, I wrote a post discussing the concept of alpha (that rare and valuable thing) which becomes less rare and eventually commoditized into beta in time. Here’s a bit of what I said at that time:
Isn’t alpha supposed to be the returns from a strategy that is based on market inefficiencies? If so, then shouldn’t these market inefficiencies disappear as other players enter the field? This line of thinking is discussed in this paper available on SSRN:
By the way, this paper was written by market participants. At the time of its publishing, the authors worked for ABP Investments which, according to its website, is the 2nd largest pension fund in the world. This paper discusses how investment processes can be divided into two groups:
Traditional beta which they call “commoditized beta”. This is based on exposures to various markets and is the classic definition of market risk. Traditional alpha which they call “non-commoditized beta”. This is based on other risk factors not associated with market exposure.
Basically, the writers of this paper sum up things well in four points (bottom of page 4) provided here ad verbatim:
1. Any investment process which today generates return by taking exposures, which are not well known, will become obsolete progressively, as the exposure premium reduces or the exposure is commoditized.
2. As exposures become commoditized, the space to generate additional alpha return (from the residual) decreases, and the space for beta return increases.
3. There is practically no alpha based exposure, which cannot be commoditized.
4. The investment problem which originated in finding exposures to generate alpha will gravitate towards becoming the process of analyzing when to take a specific commoditized beta exposure.
They go on to say that the alpha versus beta debate is irrelevant. “The eventual investment problem is therefore not to now generate exposure combinations, which would generate alpha, but to be able to time the betas of the existing exposures. We therefore believe that active management will devolve to an exposure based allocation process, where the objective is largely to allocate to different forms of beta, and where alpha does not actually exist. Portfolio diversification is then just the diversification obtained by applying the forecasting process to more than one beta.” This is basically a rewording of point #4 above.
A key point from the above I believe is this: ” … where the objective is largely to allocate to different forms of beta.”
Remember, this was written by some portfolio managers who were at ABP, one of the world’s largest pension plans. They’re trained and compensated to care about the long term horizon, not the short term. But it seems like what they’re saying is that not only should one NOT stick to only investing in the plain vanilla betas (broad market index exposures … let’s just call that the very large, broad, market-cap weighted ETF behemoths which generally come with low management fees) but in fact must allow for the niche exposures personified by the newer and more controversial ETFs that have higher fees. I’m assuming that these niche ETFs provide the required “different forms of beta” mentioned above. The writers say that alpha does not actually exist in these areas (this could be sector or regional exposures). They even go so far as to say that the investment problem should focus on the timing of the beta exposures.
Let me be clear: The moment you talk about timing beta exposures, you’re talking about actively managing your ETF holdings. I’m not sure if this is what the original ETF pioneers were thinking about roughly 15 years ago but I don’t believe that this paper I was referring to was written by two dummies. I have great respect for this philosophical exercise in thinking about alpha and beta.
Why do I bring this up today? Well yesterday, I spoke at the Hedge Funds World Canada conference here in Toronto. I led a session in the afternoon focusing on matters related to beta within an alpha centric world (it’s a hedge fund conference in case the event’s title wasn’t clear). The session following mine focused on alpha but since the two greek letters are very much related in portfolio theory, there was some overlap.
Aside: Interestingly enough, I found the term “beta” used just as much (if not more) than “alpha” in this first day of this conference. There was a session on 130/30 programs. These mandates are engineered to remain extremely constrained so as to continually have beta of 1.0. Again, at a hedge fund conference. Beta 1.0!!! Isn’t that an index fund?! Well not necessarily but it kind of blurs the line between hedge funds and mutual funds. At the least, it certainly makes me think what Jones, Soros, Robertson and other “old school” hedgies would think about a mandate with a target beta of 1.0 being discussed at a hedge fund conference. 130/30 programs also called a variety of other names including “Active extension strategies” and are commonly discussed in many other events both related to hedge funds, ETFs and well just about any investment related conference these days. Think of it, currently anyway, as the rock star of the institutional investment community. Well, I don’t know about rock star … why am I picturing a bunch of pension actuaries dressed up in leather like Kiss for their office Halloween party? Note to self: Too much coffee at the conference today.
Well, from one of the discussions today, I was reminded of the concept of alpha as simply un-commoditized beta. And when I got back home, I found an email from HSBC about a new set of indices:
HSBC has announced the launch of its Global Climate Change Benchmark Index, together with a family of four investable global climate change index products.
The HSBC Global Climate Change Benchmark Index, developed by CIBM’s Global Research team, is a global reference index which has been designed to reflect and track the stock market performance of key companies that are best placed to profit from the challenges presented by climate change. The performance of the benchmark has been tracked back to 2004 and has outperformed the MSCI World Index by around 70%.
From this benchmark, HSBC has established four investable climate change indices that can be used to create portfolios for a diverse range of investment needs such as long only funds, hedge funds, exchange traded funds, discretionary funds and structured products. The indices are:
- HSBC Climate Change Index
- HSBC Low Carbon Energy Production Index (including: solar, wind, biofuels, geothermal)
- HSBC Energy Efficiency & Energy Management Index (including: Fuel Efficiency Autos, Energy Efficient Solutions, fuelcells)
- HSBC Water, Waste & Pollution Control Index (including: water recycling, waste technologies, environmental pollution control)
In creating these indices, HSBC has responded to changing investor sentiment in global equity markets. The HSBC research team has looked at a wide range of stocks and identified approximately 300 companies that are well positioned to benefit from the challenges of climate change.
Group Chairman Stephen Green said: “HSBC has long recognized the importance of climate change and has shown real commitment to addressing the risks and opportunities it brings. In developing tailored climate change indices we are providing real investment solutions which enable our clients to incorporate climate change into their investment decisions.”
By the way, attached to the email was a 24-page report from HSBC’s Global Equity Quantitative Research group and the lead analyst’s name is Joaquim De Lima. Please don’t ask me for this report as I don’t even know how I suddenly got on their mailing list. I provide this bit of info so that you can go to HSBC and make your own inquiry. Now my thoughts.
What can I say … another set of new indices. Am I surprised that again we see something introduced to the market within the realm of climate change? Not really. The entry of alternative energy related ETFs has shown no signs of slowing down and I have discussed this area several times in the past. By the way, have you seen how PowerShares WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (NYSEARCA:PBW) has been doing?
Up nearly 40% year-to-date and despite some ugliness in concert with the markets this summer, a strong rebound in recent weeks.
Getting back to main topic, what I find interesting is that this sector, or perhaps parts of this sector, should be (only my opinion, of course) the domain of hedge funds. Although not a significant part of the above release from HSBC, ask yourself if the related space of carbon emission credits is really an efficient market. Take any of the above HSBC indices and ask yourself if there is an army of CFA/MBA/PhDs as well as Average Joes at home looking into these markets in the same way as Citigroup or Microsoft. No way … it’s just too new.
[FYI and another aside: I know that carbon trading is a hot topic and I’ve just mentioned it in passing here. According to the HSBC report, the sector breakdown of the overall Global Climate Change Index shows only three stocks (0.29% weighting in the index) to financials of which two (0.22% weight of index) positions are further classified as carbon trading. So basically, don’t think of this index or sub-indices as a strong play for the emissions trading market.]
Despite the fact that these new markets are relatively new, underdeveloped and lacking in the kind of information flow similar to most global large cap equities, I find it interesting that the commoditizing of what should be alpha-centric markets is happening with greater speed. This does not take away, of course, from the fact that within these markets there will certainly be traders, some of whom will be winners and likely many more who will be losers. Some will be alpha providers (losers) and some will be alpha takers (winners).
Thus, with new markets (relatively speaking when I use the term “new”), there will be opportunities for those with a beta point of view (assuming something like an ETF is quickly produced to commoditize that market) as well as those who are alpha-focused. This is not unique and goes simply back to the active versus passive debate which one must consider when investing in any asset class. My comment here, and what I find unique, is simply the observation that the commoditizing of alpha can be faster than one might imagine simply due to the evolution of the ETF industry away from broad market exposures and towards niche markets.
But coming back to the guys formerly at ABP: According to them, the beta point of view is actually a rather active set of decisions (timing beta) and thus leads to much less differentiation from the pure active point of view which is the hedge fund.
Confused? Then the newer niche ETFs likely have little meaning for you and a disciplined buy-hold strategy with a longer focus on the “hold” applies. Not so confused? Then maybe I’ll see you next week in Scottsdale Arizona for the “World Series of Exchange Traded Funds -West” conference where I hope to explore this topic and others in greater detail. Furthermore, for those in the Far East, keep your eyes on this blog as I’m hoping to get a spot in an indexing conference in Hong Kong as well as a fund conference in Seoul both in late November.
Hey, just thought of something. I just said that the speed of bringing an area of the capital markets to beta (that is, commoditized to beta in what would seem to be a healthy space for alpha oriented investors) has significantly increased. If that’s true then why is it that we’re only seeing the first international fixed income ETF coming to market now? Well, the shape of yield curves globally didn’t help as well as a nearly five year bull market whose growth rate looks steeper than what we saw in the 90’s (not including Nasdaq in the years before the top). So the commoditizing of alpha into beta is a concept which can not be gauged solely by monitoring the ETF marketplace. But it certainly does give a strong argument for the value and purpose of the many new entrants (and soon to be entrants) within the ETF community.
Thoughtful and significant exposures that have a real purpose within a portfolio construction process. If this is what new entrants in the ETF industry provide with their new product offerings, then I think it’s a good thing. As usual, the market will decide this.