How Smart is ‘Smart Beta’? 

February 22, 2013 
Page 4 of 6
We also observe some significant differences in the composition of different lowvolatility index portfolios. The S&P 500 Low Volatility index does not constrain sector weights, resulting in a huge sector concentration. For example, at the time of writing around 60 percent of this index invested in only two sectors (utilities and consumer staples). The MSCI Minimum Volatility index, on the other hand, does not allow sector weights to deviate more than 5 percent from their weight in the regular, capitalisationweighted index. In our view, both approaches are too extreme. The MSCI Minimum Volatility index is overly constrained, while the S&P 500 Low Volatility index is overly concentrated. Our assessment is that the optimum lies somewhere between these two approaches. Russell recently launched its socalled “defensive” equity indices, which can be regarded as a “lowvolatility light” alternative. This is because the weight of lowvolatility factors in these indices amounts to only 50 percent. The other 50 percent is based on “quality” factors, such as earnings stability, profitability and leverage. The reason for blending in these other factors is not entirely clear. The backtested index returns indicate that these factors increase, rather than reduce volatility. So if volatility does not improve, the benefit should probably come from improved returns. Thus, investors should be convinced that the incremental return from tilting towards quality more than offsets the higher volatility induced by these factors. Maximum Sharpe ratio indices The Maximum Diversification and Risk Efficient indices are often regarded as alternative lowvolatility approaches. To understand this, note that lowering portfolio volatility helps to maximize the Sharpe ratio, which has volatility in the denominator. However, the indices actually go against the lowvolatility premium by assuming that expected returns are proportional to (downside) volatility, which makes highrisk stocks more attractive in the numerator of the Sharpe ratio. These two opposing forces, i.e. a preference for lowvolatility stocks from a risk perspective versus a preference for highvolatility stocks from a return perspective, can cause the indices to have either a lowvolatility or a highvolatility profile. In the longterm, the highvolatility profile actually dominates.^{13} Compared to the capitalisationweighted index, the indices also appear to load on the smallcap and value factor premia.^{14} To sum up, classic factor premia fully explain the added value of the Maximum Diversification and Risk Efficient indices. Unlike fundamental and minimumvolatility indices, however, the tilt towards factor premia is less direct and more dynamic in nature. Momentum indices
Comment Using: 
JOURNAL OF INDEXES EUROPE
Browse Archives
 Annual Issue
 November/December
 September/October
 July/August
 May/June
 March/April
 January/February