There is a better way to build investment portfolios than the methods presently employed by most investors and advisors.
Perhaps that is hard to imagine seeing as how well we have been served by Modern Portfolio Fallacies and the Efficient Market Hypocrisies, but if you have an open mind, there is a strong chance that these portfolio construction principles will resonate with you...particularly on the heels of what we have learned from the half dozen market meltdowns experienced since '87.
I know that the idea of a new asset-allocation model is intuitively tiresome...but if there was ever a time to revisit the prevailing conventional wisdom, it is now. This smarter portfolio approach places heavy emphasis on safety of principal, liquidity and income, yet simultaneously provides investors with compelling potential for capital appreciation.
I refer to it as Hybrid Portfolio Theory (NYSE:HPT) and could safely say that less than one percent of advisors have contemplated, let alone implemented such a methodology in their practice...despite its proven efficacy and how well it resonates with high-net-worth investors.
In HPT the investor allocates 100% of the assets into two distinct (hybrid) portfolios. The larger portfolio (NYSE:A) represents 75-90% of the assets and is invested with the primary objective of liquidity, safety of principal and income. This portfolio is benchmarked against a blend of risk-free and short-term yield rates and invests predominantly in money markets, CDs, short-term muni's and Treasuries.
The challenge of portfolio A is to maximize yield in bps and increase yield to the point that does not threaten the overall liquidity and safety of principal. With liquidity and safely of principal as primary objectives, that effectively eliminates allocations to high-yield corporate and junk bonds, REITs, MLPs, closed-end and utility stocks by the literal-minded HPT practitioner.
Why Bother with Stocks?
So, what is the source of return for capital appreciation in HPT? Not traditional equities. Stocks go up and stocks go down. That's a symmetrical outcome that we now know empirically to be a bad bet unless you have a multi-decade investment horizon. Rob Arnott's recent article "Bonds: Why Bother?" in the Journal of Indices emphatically settled the score.
Arnott proved that the 5% risk premium promoted by the financial services industry is at best unreliable and is probably little more than an urban legend. Starting at any time from 1980 up to 2008, an investor in 20-year treasuries, rolling them over every year, beats the S&P 500 through January 2009. Going back 40 years to 1969, the 20-year bond investor still outperforms by a marginal amount, even with the Carter-era inflation and traumatic bond market in the seventies.
It is not debatable. Equities have not delivered their risk premium and are simply not worthy of their risk. Rather than pursing the laughably unreliable risk premium of equities, Portfolio B is exclusively seeking higher risk--higher return positive asymmetric outcomes (NYSEARCA:PAO). The Portfolio B benchmark is in the 10-20% range.
A PAO is defined by its ability to generate high double-digit or multiples of return on investment, as can be achieved by successful investments in venture capital, private equity, direct (angel) private investment in start-ups, small business, private manufacturing business, private real-estate, private debt, franchises, operating cash-flow businesses, as well as, publicly-traded emerging growth companies and leveraged option strategies or highly-specialized investment strategies such as managed futures.
The PAO mandate is broad but should ultimately be defined by a positively skewed risk-reward ratio, as well as, the practitioner's sector expertise and due diligence resources.
The investor's overall hybrid portfolio benefits by assuring that the vast majority of assets are not exposed to a downright bad wager relative to risk-free or short-term assets, as well as, unpredictable (yet, frequent) black swan events that decimate investor portfolios.
HPT should be engaged and implemented as a theory, not as an absolute rigid asset-allocation model. If the portfolio manager, advisor or investor accepts that; 1) current asset-allocation frameworks cannot successfully mitigate significant market exposure and do little to protect investors from unpredictable negative black swans, 2) investors are generally over-exposed to equities in light of the proven absence of any sustainable risk premium, and, 3) investors benefit from limited but diversified exposure to investments and strategies characterized by the possibility of positive asymmetric outcomes...this is a portfolio theory that you can adapt into your other core asset-allocation principles and values.
When adapting HRT to your own biases, the allocator can exercise discretion with respect to;
- The A:B Portfolio ratio
- The constituent opportunity set for Portfolio A--from short-term high liquidity, lower-yielding, shorter-term instruments to Treasurys, TIPS and munis
- The consitutent opportunity set for Portfolio B--from private venture investments to publicly-traded emerging growth companies to specialized trading and option strategies
- The benchmarks applied to the A and B Portfolios
Today, investors more than ever appreciate and welcome the notions of safety and liquidity. They no longer believe in the buy-and-hope asset-allocation models and "stocks for the long run" mantras peddled by talking heads. Moreover, the coveted HNW-investor demographic that you either aspire to, or presently serve understands and accepts the risk and liquidity realities of private investment in venture and enterprise. In fact, in most cases, such investment or employment is how they generated their private wealth.
Assuming the proper resources, advisors that embrace Hybrid Portfolio Theory (for appropriate investor portfolios) your advisory practice would benefit by;
- Delivering the services, results and sensibility that desirable HNW investment clients are actually seeking from advisors,
- Protecting your client's assets and portfolios from incurring significant losses from exposure to unpredictable black swan events,
- Strengthening advisory-client relationships by developing a unique and connected client community within your practice, and,
- Competitively distancing your practice from the vast majority of investment advisory firms that can provide no evidence of a discernible value proposition.
I understand that this sounds provocative considering what investors and advisors have come to believe in after years of over-attentive care and feeding by the financial services industry. Yet, if you acknowledge the historical data, the frequent and unpredictable impact of negative black swans and the notion of investing for positive asymmetric outcomes ,you should not be questioning the virtues of HPT as much as the critical issues of; access to the opportunity sets, due diligence, implementation and execution of the strategy.
Stick with us as we intend to tackle those issues in coming posts.
A more detailed Powerpoint presentation and audio webinar on HPT is available here.