Alternative risk premia (ARP) strategies have been in the spotlight lately due to performance headwinds, causing some allocators to re-examine the space. Investors’ understanding of these strategies also appears to be rapidly evolving. Many had viewed ARP strategies as a means of alternative beta capture but now consider them a form of systematic alpha potential, and recognize that managers have disparate approaches to strategy selection, design, and implementation. Similar to other alpha-oriented strategies, like hedge funds and private equity, performance dispersion across ARP managers has been extremely high and is likely to persist.

In this article, we share our perspective on key considerations related to systematic strategies, including ARP investing. We begin with a review of systematic strategies and their key attributes. Next, we recap the performance of major ARP factors this year and discuss our views of the landscape. We conclude by reviewing PIMCO’s offerings and detailing how they differ from traditional ARP products.

A recap of systematic strategies and their role in policy portfolios

Systematic strategies can be an efficient way to gain access to long-term diversified sources of alpha within portfolios. They aim to take advantage of structural risk premia and market inefficiencies through dynamic investment strategies. These exist in various forms:

  • Mainstream alternative risk premia, such as value, carry, and momentum, which have been extensively researched by academics
  • Unconventional risk premia, such as agency mortgage basis, or the merger arbitrage premium
  • Predictable patterns in market returns, captured through dynamic trading strategies such as statistical arbitrage or machine learning

Regardless of origin, we believe systematic strategies should be underpinned by extensive research and implemented via well-defined rules. Alpha from these strategies should be harvested in a highly disciplined manner, creating return streams that are more diversifying to traditional investment approaches, which are frequently subject to behavioral biases.

While systematic strategies have been familiar to investors for many decades – in the form of Commodity Trading Advisors (CTAs), equity funds, or multi-strategy quantitative hedge funds – the last seven years have witnessed the development and growth of a seemingly new area: alternative risk premia. ARP strategies seek to bring together a collection of scalable, liquid systematic strategies, often targeting anomalies well documented in academic research.

The degree of sophistication with which ARP products are constructed varies significantly. At their best, these portfolios can be liquid implementations of sophisticated quantitative hedge fund models, bringing decades of trading know-how, quantitative research experience, and portfolio management techniques to systematically exploit various anomalies. However, the apparent simplicity and familiarity of some now well-known quantitative strategies has suggested to some that these anomalies have in some sense become “beta.” That’s led investors to question the role of skill in these strategies, and providers to simply aim for scale over performance

At PIMCO, we strongly believe that irrespective of the nomenclature – liquid quant or ARP – these strategies can provide true, diversifying alpha. However, as wide dispersion in performance demonstrates, implementation matters (see Figure 1). While any systematic quantitative strategy should be replicable by backtest, ARP strategies cannot be betas because there is little consensus on how exactly to define the risk premia, nor a standard approach to accessing them.

Figure 1:  Alpha not beta: high performance dispersion among ARP managers

The large difference in performance within the same strategy (see Figure 2) emphasizes how ARP strategies are active investment strategies and that skill and experience matter in the implementation process. For this reason, instead of simply targeting the most scalable versions of well-known strategies, PIMCO focuses on continuously researching new sources of alpha, constantly refining our models, adding new and diversifying markets, and aiming to respond appropriately to changing market conditions.

Figure 2: YTD dispersion in ARP factors (3% volatility adjusted)

Putting year-to-date performance in context

All investment strategies experience periods of challenging performance, and 2020 clearly represents such a period for ARP strategies.

In the first quarter of this year, equity volatility surpassed levels last seen at the height of the global financial crisis. The COVID-19 crisis exacerbated structural changes in the equity market, rewarding high-growth technology companies and penalizing traditional value sectors in general. As high volatility wreaked havoc, certain strategies also experienced losses for idiosyncratic reasons, such as oil falling 24% over the weekend of March 6-9 due to escalation of the Russia-Saudi Arabia price war.

These events affected ARP strategies in a variety of ways. In the case of equity value, almost everyone exposed to the factor suffered. Other strategies – notably foreign exchange (FX) carry and volatility – which typically encapsulate a premium for bearing business cycle risk, also experienced losses. While it was not surprising that these strategies posted negative returns in the first quarter, the year-to-date performance across managers varied meaningfully due to vast differences in implementation.

Portfolio construction choices also exacerbated the drawdowns experienced by some ARP managers. Notably, managers with outsize exposure to equity style premia, particularly value, struggled as these factors experienced coincident losses (see Figure 2). The consistent losses from equity value over nearly a decade have many allocators questioning whether the equity value factor is structurally impaired, with some considering lowering allocations to managers with significant exposure to it. While one should refrain from rushing to judgment and declaring the death of equity value – this factor has suffered significant drawdowns historically, such as in 2007, only to bounce back – concentrating risk in any factor is never a good idea.

To illustrate this point, Figure 3 shows the impact to overall volatility, Sharpe ratio, and drawdown of a hypothetical portfolio consisting of 10 diversifying strategies, each with a 0.4 Sharpe ratio, when allocation to a particular strategy is progressively increased. The result of increasing allocation to a single strategy at the expense of others is loss of portfolio diversification, leading to higher volatility, a lower Sharpe ratio, greater tail losses, and drawdowns that increase even more than the volatility increase. Said differently, managers running concentrated exposure to equity value were making an outsize bet – at the expense of portfolio diversification – that it had a significantly better risk/reward profile than all other strategies in their opportunity set and hence warranted a much higher risk allocation. In order to take a strong stand on value, one would need to strongly embrace factor timing, which we believe has limited efficacy. On the other hand, as we have advocated, achieving true risk diversification should be the primary goal of ARP portfolio construction. For some, this means that a reduced allocation to value may be warranted from a risk control standpoint, though this does not mean that investors should go to the other extreme and assign value an unrealistically low ex ante Sharpe ratio. Dramatic shifts in factor weights due to recent performance can be just as risky. Our view has been, and continues to be, that equity value is one of many alternative risk premia strategies that can provide returns and diversification within a well-constructed ARP portfolio.

Figure 3: Risks of a concentrated portfolio

In terms of key positive contributors to performance in the first quarter, ARP strategies that would logically be expected to do well under these stress circumstances generally fulfilled their purpose. Value and carry premia strategies in interest rate markets captured not only the large decline in yields, but also the long-predicted convergence between U.S. and European rates. These strategies also benefited on the backend of the crisis from dislocations across sovereign yield curves (see Figure 2).

As 2020 began to look like a rerun of 2008, trend-following strategies moved toward defensive positions: short equities, long interest rate duration, short energy, and long the U.S. dollar. These exposures helped to reduce losses, at least until markets turned sharply at the end of March. Had the market not bounced back so strongly, we believe performance of trend-following would most likely have mirrored 2008’s high double-digit returns. Faster trend-followers, which are designed to be more reactive, performed strongly on the way down and managed to lock in a good proportion of the profits through the rebound – behaving exactly as anticipated (see Figure 4). Slower trend-followers which had optimized to maximize capacity, turned more slowly, likely becoming short around the market bottom in March, and staying so through much of the second-quarter rebound.

Figure 4: Trend-following performance by lookback window

In summary, the events of the first quarter of 2020 affected ARP strategies in various ways. For strategies that sought to harvest procyclical risk premia, one may have reasonably expected losses during periods of market stress, though implementation details tend to have a huge impact on the outcome. On the other hand, countercyclical strategies can benefit from these episodes, and indeed can be constructed to do so at the cost of forgoing some performance in the good times. Other, more idiosyncratic strategies can be subject to spillover effects, and understanding the dynamically varying correlations of these strategies and making them as robust as possible to outcomes, perhaps even beyond the range of reasonable expectations, is essential to their viability going forward, in our view. Above all, diversification is key in making sure that one maintains a sensible blend of risk-on and risk-off strategies and ensuring that no single factor or strategy dominates portfolio risk. Importantly, although diversification does not preclude drawdowns, a diversified portfolio, on average, is more likely to outperform a concentrated portfolio and deliver higher risk-adjusted returns over the long run.

PIMCO’S multi-asset alternative risk premia strategies

The PIMCO Multi-Asset Alternative Risk Premia Strategy (MAARS) and its defensive variant (MAARS ROVER) explicitly seek to limit equity and other key traditional beta exposures in order to boost defensive and diversification properties. For example, the FX carry strategy incorporates value factors (thus reducing exposure to high carry but overvalued currencies) and uses an optimization technique that constrains equity correlation. The two versions of our ARP strategy recognize the trade-off between defensiveness and long-term return potential. MAARS is a combination of systematic strategies that seeks to maximize estimated Sharpe ratio with near-zero long-term equity beta, while MAARS ROVER is a combination that adjusts underlying strategies to enhance defensiveness at the cost of some long-term return potential.

We believe our ARP strategies are differentiated from our peers’ because of their level of diversification, the range of assets traded, and the types of strategies implemented. Some of our strategies may resemble those targeting traditional ARP factors, such as carry, short volatility, or equity value. But many others are akin to the dynamic alpha opportunities pursued by hedge funds, which are conceptually different from static ARP strategies that most allocators are more familiar with.

Our portfolio construction is built around the importance of diversification. We avoid taking outsize risks in any individual factor or asset class. As a result, the portfolio has benefited from having more exposure to high conviction strategies outside of equities and from less exposure to mainstream equity factors that have underperformed. Diversification means these strategies also won’t maximize participation in an upside market for a specific factor or asset class, but correspondingly they mitigate the risk to the downside.

The MAARS investment process benefits from PIMCO’s expertise in accessing and trading a much wider range of instruments, such as swaps, emerging markets, mortgages and credit. We have extensive experience in fixed income, commodity, and currency strategies relative to some of our peers who generally focus on equities or trend-following. These capabilities and resources also allow us to supplement the more common ARP strategies with other proprietary systematic sources of returns.

Finally, we believe continuous innovation and development are crucial for quantitative strategies, both in terms of implementing new systematic strategies and improving existing ones. Our ARP portfolios have evolved over time and PIMCO continues to invest heavily in quantitative resources, technology, and innovation as a strategic priority.

Conclusion

Systematic quantitative strategies can be an efficient way to seek long-term diversified sources of alpha within portfolios. In search of these characteristics, many investors took on allocations to alternative risk premia strategies. Performance in 2020 affected ARP strategies in many different ways, but wide performance dispersion underscores the importance of portfolio construction and continuously researching new sources of alpha, constantly refining models, adding new and diversifying markets, and responding appropriately to changing market conditions.

Visit our alternative investments page for more information on PIMCO’s alternatives strategies.

The Author

Nick Granger

Portfolio Manager, Quantitative Analytics

Matt Dorsten

Portfolio Manager, Quantitative Strategy

Ashish Tiwari

Head of Client Solutions, Americas

Related

Understanding Alternative Investments

Understanding Alternative Investments

Alternative investments offer opportunities to diversify portfolios in times of market uncertainty. But among a range of options, investors must first understand the risks and benefits.

Disclosures

Sydney
PIMCO Australia Pty Ltd
ABN 54 084 280 508
AFS Licence 246862
Level 19, 5 Martin Place
Sydney, NSW 2000
Australia
612-9279-1771


PIMCO Australia Pty Ltd ABN 54 084 280 508, AFSL 246862. This publication has been prepared without taking into account the objectives, financial situation or needs of investors. Before making an investment decision, investors should obtain professional advice and consider whether the information contained herein is appropriate having regard to their objectives, financial situation and needs.

Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future results. Nothing herein should be deemed to be a prediction or projection of future performance.

The investment strategies discussed herein are speculative and involve a high degree of risk, including a loss of some or all capital. Investing in the bond market is subject to certain risks including market, interest-rate, issuer, credit, and inflation risk. Investing in foreign denominated and/or domiciled securities may involve heightened risk due to currency fluctuations, and economic and political risks, which may be enhanced in emerging markets. Commodities contain heightened risk, including market, political, regulatory and natural conditions, and may not be suitable for all investors.  Currency rates may fluctuate significantly over short periods of time and may reduce the returns of a portfolio. Mortgage and asset-backed securities may be sensitive to changes in interest rates, subject to early repayment risk, and while generally backed by a government, government agency or private guarantor there is no assurance that the guarantor will meet its obligations. Equities may decline in value due to both real and perceived general market, economic, and industry conditions. High-yield, lower-rated, securities involve greater risk than higher-rated securities; portfolios that invest in them may be subject to greater levels of credit and liquidity risk than portfolios that do not. Credit default swap (CDS) is an over-the-counter (OTC) agreement between two parties to transfer the credit exposure of fixed income securities; CDS is the most widely used credit derivative instrument. Derivatives and commodity-linked derivatives may involve certain costs and risks, such as liquidity, interest rate, market, credit, management and the risk that a position could not be closed when most advantageous. Commodity-linked derivative instruments may involve additional costs and risks such as changes in commodity index volatility or factors affecting a particular industry or commodity, such as drought, floods, weather, livestock disease, embargoes, tariffs and international economic, political and regulatory developments. Investing in derivatives could lose more than the amount invested.  Swaps are a type of derivative; swaps are increasingly subject to central clearing and exchange-trading. Swaps that are not centrally cleared and exchange-traded may be less liquid than exchange-traded instruments. Diversification does not ensure against loss.

Stress testing involves asset or portfolio modeling techniques that attempt to simulate possible performance outcomes using historical data and/or hypothetical performance modeling events. These methodologies can include among other things, use of historical data modeling, various factor or market change assumptions, different valuation models and subjective judgments.

PIMCO may utilize quantitative models as part of implementing its investment strategies. The models evaluate securities or securities markets based on certain assumptions concerning the interplay of market factors. Models used may not adequately take into account certain factors, may not perform as intended, and may result in a decline in the value of your investment, which could be substantial.

The PIMCO Multi-Asset Alternative Risk Premia Strategy model is constructed by combining underlying risk factor models across asset classes and scaling the overall portfolio to a target volatility and does not represent the portfolio characteristics or performance of an actual account. The model portfolio was created on March 31, 2016 and was created utilizing underlying risk factor models to target equal risk contributions and scaling the overall portfolio to target volatility.

This material does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy interests in a fund or any other PIMCO trading strategy or investment product. Pacific Investment Management Company LLC management and investment advisory fees are described in Part 2 of its Form ADV.

HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS HAVE MANY INHERENT LIMITATIONS, SOME OF WHICH ARE DESCRIBED BELOW. NO REPRESENTATION IS BEING MADE THAT ANY ACCOUNT WILL OR IS LIKELY TO ACHIEVE PROFITS OR LOSSES SIMILAR TO THOSE SHOWN. IN FACT, THERE ARE FREQUENTLY SHARP DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS AND THE ACTUAL RESULTS SUBSEQUENTLY ACHIEVED BY ANY PARTICULAR TRADING PROGRAM.

ONE OF THE LIMITATIONS OF HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS IS THAT THEY ARE GENERALLY PREPARED WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT. IN ADDITION, HYPOTHETICAL TRADING DOES NOT INVOLVE FINANCIAL RISK, AND NO HYPOTHETICAL TRADING RECORD CAN COMPLETELY ACCOUNT FOR THE IMPACT OF FINANCIAL RISK IN ACTUAL TRADING. FOR EXAMPLE, THE ABILITY TO WITHSTAND LOSSES OR TO ADHERE TO A PARTICULAR TRADING PROGRAM IN SPITE OF TRADING LOSSES ARE MATERIAL POINTS WHICH CAN ALSO ADVERSELY AFFECT ACTUAL TRADING RESULTS. THERE ARE NUMEROUS OTHER FACTORS RELATED TO THE MARKETS IN GENERAL OR TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY SPECIFIC TRADING PROGRAM WHICH CANNOT BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE PREPARATION OF HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS AND ALL OF WHICH CAN ADVERSELY AFFECT ACTUAL TRADING RESULTS.

There is no guarantee that these investment strategies will work under all market conditions or are appropriate for all investors and each investor should evaluate their ability to invest long-term, especially during periods of downturn in the market.

This material contains the current opinions of the manager and such opinions are subject to change without notice. This material is distributed for informational purposes only and should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed.

PIMCO as a general matter provides services to qualified institutions, financial intermediaries and institutional investors. Individual investors should contact their own financial professional to determine the most appropriate investment options for their financial situation. This material contains the opinions of the manager and such opinions are subject to change without notice. This material has been distributed for informational purposes only and should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission. PIMCO is a trademark of Allianz Asset Management of America L.P. in the United States and throughout the world. ©2020, PIMCO.

Commercial Real Estate: The Office Market in a Post-COVID World
XDismiss Next Article