• What We Do
    • Wealth Counseling
    • Investment Advisory Services
  • Who We Are
    • Our Team
    • Research Roundtable
  • How We Invest
    • Our Fiduciary Pledge
    • Investment Approach
    • Questions To Consider
    • Our Transparent Approach
  • Insights and Research

Insights and Research

Home  »  Peace of Mind • Private Investing • Simplicity   »   What Needs to Change?

What Needs to Change?

By Tommi Johnsen, PhD and Preston McSwain, December 15, 2020

Research Roundtable Publication

In the investment world, calls for change are common.

The latest talk is that 60/40 or 70/30 approaches, which allocate assets to traditional stocks and bonds, are past their prime.  More and more we hear that investors are missing out and “need to” act.

Messages to families are that “life can be better after… allocating 40% or more of their assets to private investments” or other types of alternative investments that are common in what many call an endowment model.

What Does Peer Reviewed Research Show?

Alternative fund and allocation presentations can be impressive.  If you are a family or individual investor that might have different goals, time frames, and tax profiles as compared to institutional investors, however, do you need to join the endowment investing club?

We’ve asked this question before and written about how bad inputs or ingredients might be incorrectly influencing some alternative recommendations.

Now, new independent research is also questioning the effectiveness of endowment style, alternative-heavy portfolios.

This time in a paper published by the academic peer reviewed Journal of Portfolio Management, researched and written by an institutional investment insider, Richard Ennis, who founded a large endowment and pension fund investment consulting firm, Ennis, Knupp & Associates.

After analyzing the results of approximately 100 large endowments and 46 pension funds over a recent 10 year period, this is what he observed:

Sizable Allocations to Alternatives

Investments in alternatives steadily increased over the past decade and accounted for approximately 28% of pension fund assets and 58% of endowments.

Analyzing how increases in allocations to alternatives affected fund diversification, Ennis then found this:

Alternatives Failed to Diversify

When allocations to alternatives were added to simple stock and bond portfolios, the characteristics or variability of returns did not change.  R2, a measure of diversification, stayed the same for both endowment and pension funds – allocations to alternative investments did not provide meaningful diversification benefits.

As Ennis said:

“These are noteworthy results.”

“The finding that the correlation between funds with significant alts. exposure and marketable securities benchmarks is near perfect, runs counter to the… oft-cited [diversification] reason for incorporating alternative investments in… portfolios.”

Looking at performance in more detail, the case for alternatives did not improve.

Detailed regression analysis of return streams found that traditional public securities, not alternative strategies, were the “essential drivers of… portfolio return.”

In addition…

Alternatives Decreased Returns

Ennis points out multiple examples of alternatives detracting and creating underperformance as compared to a best fit simple 70% equity and 30% fixed income index benchmark (70/30).

Among the pension funds and endowments analyzed, a reduction in total return of 0.36% per year was observed for every 10% increase in allocations to alternatives.

And, related to the impact of increasing alternative investments to the recommended 40% levels we mentioned at the start…

Negative Alpha

Analysis showed an annualized 2% reduction in alpha when allocations to alternative increased to the 40% level some institutional advisors promote.

Where does this all bring us – again?

Simple Outperformed

The total return of the pension and endowment funds studied underperformed a simple 70/30 index portfolio by 1.0 – 1.6% on average per year for over 10-years.

What is one reason why?

The Costs of Alternative Approaches Are High

The study documents that the costs of running the pension funds and endowments can exceed 1.50% per year, which approximates the level of endowment fund underperformance illustrated below.

In the end, Ennis makes these pleas:

“If experience tells us anything… it is that low cost trumps genius over the long run.

“The key… is to overcome the temptation to be clever.

“Capture broad market exposures at the lowest possible cost with minimal maintenance.”

“Keep it simple.”

One criticism of Ennis’s paper is that the time period might be too short (only one 10-year period).  Next, debate could be had that the allocations he used to non-US equities might be low (U.S. markets have substantially outperformed over the last 10 years).  Finally, he used indices versus investible, net of fees index funds (real life costs matter).

However…

Ennis’s research matches what we found when we analyzed the performance of a simple 70/30 portfolio of index funds as compared to top performing endowments over the past ten 10 year periods.

We assumed a 50% allocation to U.S. equities, which included small-cap, and 50% to non-U.S. equites, which included emerging markets.  In addition, we implemented allocations with investible, net of fees index funds.

What did we find?

Keeping It Simple Consistently Outperforms

If an investor kept it simple, they could have ranked in the top quartile of all endowments and foundations in the U.S. over 10 consecutive 10-year periods spanning 2000-2019, which includes multiple economic cycles and large up and down market periods such as the end of the dot-com bubble and the 2008-2009 financial crisis.

Back to our title:

What needs to change?

Maybe calls for families to invest like endowments.


 

Related Reading:

Perspectives of a Trillion Dollar Allocator – Charlie Henneman, CFA and Preston McSwain

Are Manager Selectors Good At Selecting? – Elisabetta Basilico, PhD, CFA

Do You Need to Join the Endowment Club? – Preston McSwain

Endowment Style Investing: A Critique – Journal of Portfolio Management – SSRN – Richard Ennis

Private Allocations: Are We Baking With Bad Ingredients? – Tommi Johnsen, PhD

Venture and Private Equity: Triumph of Hope Over Experience?  – Oliver Binette, CAIA

Are Hedge Funds Prudent for Taxable Investors? – Trust & Estates – Preston McSwain

Tommi Johnsen, PhD
Website | + posts
  • Tommi Johnsen, PhD
    https://fwpwealth.com/author/tommi/
    Are We Baking Portfolios with Bad Ingredients?
  • Tommi Johnsen, PhD
    https://fwpwealth.com/author/tommi/
    Waving Banners - Have Some ESG Managers Lost Their Way?
  • Tommi Johnsen, PhD
    https://fwpwealth.com/author/tommi/
    Questioning the Illiquidity Premium
  • Tommi Johnsen, PhD
    https://fwpwealth.com/author/tommi/
    Beware of Sharpe Objects
Preston McSwain
+ posts
  • Preston McSwain
    https://fwpwealth.com/author/preston/
    Transparency, Simplicity and Peace of Mind®
  • Preston McSwain
    https://fwpwealth.com/author/preston/
    Fiduciary Wealth Partners Reading List
  • Preston McSwain
    https://fwpwealth.com/author/preston/
    If We Had A Chief Economist We Would Have to Pay Them
  • Preston McSwain
    https://fwpwealth.com/author/preston/
    Is Trying to Pick Active Managers a Loser's Game?
SHARE
Tags:
Investing, Transparency, Wealth Management
RELATED ARTICLES
Emerging Markets – Is the Juice Worth the Squeeze?
Is potential to extract some EM juice worth it?
Staying Disciplined and Avoiding Unforced Errors
The track records of many successful professionals can be attributed to keeping it simple and avoiding unforced errors
Still Keeping A Steady Hand
Every year over the past 10 years we have written a similar letter.
All articles

Follow us on social media

Search Our Ideas

Subscribe to Our Posts


Important disclosures

Most Popular

  • The Simple Alternative
  • Say It Ain’t So, Joe
  • Are We Baking Portfolios with Bad Ingredients?
  • Crucial Elements in Wealth Management: Simplicity and Transparency
  • Questioning the Illiquidity Premium

Browse by Theme

  • Fees
  • Fiduciary Duty
  • Investment Philosophy
  • Managing The Market
  • Peace of Mind
  • Performance Measurement
  • Private Investing
  • Quarterly Letter
  • Simplicity
  • Taxes
  • Transparency
  • Uncategorized
  • Values

FWP Logo Dark

Fiduciary Wealth Partners is a 100% employee owned firm that serves clients in a transparent, fiduciary manner.

We do not have any fee sharing arrangements with managers and do not have any broker-dealer conflicts. In addition, you will never see an arbitration clause in our contracts.

Everything we do is focused on assisting trustees, institutions and families with investment consulting, management and overall asset planning strategies.

  • Disclosures
  • ADV
  • Privacy Policy
  • Form CRS

Useful Links

  • Investment Advisory Services
  • Wealth Counseling
  • Our Team
  • Research Roundtable
  • Our Values
  • Questions To Consider
  • Insights and Ideas
  • Contact Us

Contact us

Phone

(617) 602-1900

Email

info@fwpwealth.com

Address

2310 Washington Street
3rd Floor
Newton, MA 02462

 

View larger map

© 2020 FWP. All Rights Reserved. Fiduciary Wealth Partners Is An SEC Registered Investment Adviser.