Tag Archives: risk

Three ways to lower Risk in your portfolio with ETFs

Posted By |

Here are some of the ways ETFs can be used strategically to help you sleep better at night.

Image courtesy BMO ETFs/Getty Images

By Erin Allen, VP, Online Distribution, BMO ETFs

(Sponsor Blog)

Volatility is often seen as the price of admission for achieving investment returns, but too much of it can feel like paying a hefty fee for a ride on an intense roller coaster, only to find yourself feeling queasy by the end and unable to enjoy the rest of the amusement park.

If the recent stock market turbulence in early August has left you contemplating panic selling, take a moment to breathe. Market corrections are a normal and healthy aspect of investing, and your portfolio doesn’t have to experience such dramatic ups and downs.

Why? Well, various defensively oriented ETFs can offer strategic ways to manage and mitigate risk, helping you stay the course and remain invested through the market’s inevitable fluctuations. Here are some ideas featuring BMO ‘s ETFs lineup:

Low-volatility ETFs

Imagine the broad market, such as the S&P 500 index, as a vast sea where the waves represent market volatility, and your investment portfolio is your boat navigating these waters.

How your boat responds to these waves is dictated by its beta, a measure that indicates both the direction and magnitude of your portfolio’s fluctuations relative to the market.

To put it simply, if the market’s “waves” have a beta of 1, and your portfolio also has a beta of 1, this means your portfolio will typically move in sync with the market, rising and falling to the same degree.

Now, consider if your boat were lighter and more susceptible to the waves, symbolized by a beta of two. In this scenario, your portfolio would be expected to swing twice as much as the market: more pronounced highs and lows.

Conversely, imagine your boat is a sturdy cargo ship with a beta of 0.5. In this case, your portfolio would react more calmly to market waves, experiencing only half the ups and downs of the market. This stability is what low-beta stocks can offer, and they can be conveniently accessed through various ETFs.

One such example is the BMO Low Volatility Canadian Equity ETF (ZLB)1, which selects Canadian stocks for their low beta. Compared to the broad Canadian market, ZLB is overweight in defensive sectors like consumer staples and utilities, which are less sensitive to economic cycles.

Holding allocations are as of August 19, 2024; sourced here1.

This ETF not only offers reduced volatility and smaller peak-to-trough losses compared to the BMO S&P/TSX Composite ETF (ZCN)2 but has also managed to outperform it — demonstrating that it is very much possible to achieve more return for less risk2.

To diversify further, you can also consider low-volatility ETFs from other geographic regions. These include three; BMO Low Volatility International Equity ETF (ZLD)3, BMO Low Volatility Emerging Markets Equity ETF (ZLE)4, and the BMO Low Volatility US Equity ETF (ZLU)5.

Ultra-short-term bond ETFs

While ETFs like the ZLB1 are engineered for reduced volatility through low-beta stock selection, it’s important to remember that they still hold equities.

In extreme market downturns, such as the one experienced in March 2020 during the onset of COVID-19, these funds can still be susceptible to market risk. This is pervasive and unavoidable if you’re invested in stocks; it affects virtually all equities regardless of individual company performances.

To fortify a portfolio against such downturns, diversification into other asset classes, particularly bonds, is crucial. However, not just any bonds will do — specific types, like those held by the BMO Ultra Short-Term Bond ETF (ZST)6, are particularly beneficial in these scenarios.

ZST, which pays monthly distributions, primarily selects investment-grade corporate bonds6. The focus on high credit quality, predominantly A and BBB rated bonds, is critical for reducing risk as these ratings indicate a lower likelihood of default and thus, offer greater safety during economic uncertainties.

Moreover, ZST targets bonds with less than a year until maturity6. This short duration is pivotal for those looking to minimize interest rate risk. Short-term bonds are less sensitive to changes in interest rates compared to long-term bonds, which can experience significant price drops when rates rise.

Charts as of July 31st, 2024 6

This strategic combination of high credit quality and short maturity durations7 is why, as demonstrated in the chart below, ZST has been able to steadily appreciate in value without experiencing the same level of volatility as broader aggregate bond ETFs like the BMO Aggregate Bond ETF (ZAG)8.

Buffer ETFs

If you recall the days of using training wheels when learning to ride a bike, you’ll appreciate the concept of buffer ETFs. Just as training wheels keep you from tipping over while also limiting how fast and freely you can ride, buffer ETFs aim to moderate the range of investment outcomes — both up and down.

Buffer ETFs may sound complex, but the principle behind them is straightforward. These ETFs utilize options to limit your downside risk while also capping your potential upside returns.

For example, a buffer ETF might offer to limit your exposure to a maximum 10% price return of a reference asset (like the S&P 500 index) over a year while absorbing the first -15% of any losses during the same period.

If the reference asset rises, your investment increases alongside it, up to a 10% cap. However, if the reference asset declines, the ETF absorbs the first 15% of any loss. Only after this “downside buffer” is exhausted would you start to experience losses.

BMO offers four such buffer ETFs, each named according to the start month of their outcome period when the initial upside cap and buffer limits are set. These include: Continue Reading…

Risk, Return & the Essence of Adding Value

Posted By |
Image courtesy Outcome/Shutterstock

By Noah Solomon

Special to Financial Independence Hub

This month, I explore how the relationship between risk and return forms the bedrock of sound (or poor) investment results. I will also demonstrate why the management of these two elements constitutes the essence of adding or destroying value for investors. Lastly, (reader beware), I include a rant about investor complacency and the detrimental effects it can have on one’s wealth.

Good is Not the Enemy of Great: It is Great

David VanBenschoten was the head of the General Mills pension fund. In each of his 14 years in this role, the fund’s return had never ranked above the 27th percentile or below the 47th percentile.

Using simple math, one might assume that over the entire period the fund would have stood in the 37th percentile, which is the midpoint of its lowest and highest ranks. However, despite never knocking the lights out in any given year, VanBenschoten managed to achieve top-tier results over the entire period. By consistently attaining 2nd quartile performance in each and every year, over the 14-year period the fund achieved an enviable 4th percentile ranking.

The Hippocratic Oath and Investing

The seemingly irreconcilable difference between the average of VanBenschoten’s rankings and his overall rank over the whole 14-year period stems as much from the performance of other funds as from his own results.

To achieve outstanding performance, one must deviate from the crowd. However, doing so is a proverbial double-edged sword, as it can lead to vastly superior or inferior results. The preceding rankings indicate that most of the managers who were at the top of the pack in some years also had a commensurate tendency to be near the bottom in others, thereby tarnishing their overall rankings over the entire period.

In contrast, the General Mills pension fund, by being consistently warm rather than intermittently hot or cold, managed to outperform most of its peers. Managers who aim for top decile performance often end up shooting themselves in the foot. The moral of the story is that when it comes to producing superior results over the long term, consistently avoiding underperformance tends to be more important than occasionally achieving outperformance. In this vein, managers should take the physicians’ Hippocratic Oath and pledge to “first do no harm.”

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: The Bright and Dark Sides of Asymmetry

The Latin term Sine Que Non describes an action that is essential and indispensable. In the world of investing, the ability to produce asymmetrical results meets this definition. It is the ultimate determinant of skill.

A manager who delivers twice the returns of their benchmark but has also experienced twice the volatility neither creates nor destroys value. They have simply robbed Peter (higher volatility) to pay Paul (commensurately higher returns). Since markets tend to go up over time, clients may marvel at the manager’s superior long-term returns. However, this does not change the fact that no value has been created – clients have merely paid in full for higher returns in the form of higher volatility.

If this same manager delivered 1.5 times the benchmark returns while experiencing twice the volatility, not only would they have failed to add value but would have destroyed it – they would have simply robbed Peter by exposing him to higher volatility while paying Paul less in the form of excess returns. In contrast, if the manager had produced twice the returns of the benchmark while experiencing only 1.5 times its volatility, then they deserve a firm pat on the back. They would have achieved asymmetrically positive results by paying Paul far more in outperformance than what they stole from Peter in higher volatility.

The Efficient Market Hypothesis: Why bother?

The efficient-market hypothesis (EMH) states that asset prices reflect all available information, causing securities to always be priced correctly and making markets efficient. By extension, the EMH asserts that you cannot achieve higher returns without assuming a commensurate amount of incremental risk, nor can you reduce risk without sacrificing a commensurate amount of return. It argues that it is impossible to consistently “beat the market” on a risk-adjusted basis. When applied to the decision to hire an active manager rather than a passive index fund, the EMH can be neatly summarized as “why bother?”

Continue Reading…

Should you have 100% of your portfolio in stocks?

Posted By |
The 100% equity ETFs from iShares and Vanguard/Canadian Portfolio Manager

By Mark Seed, myownadvisor

Special to Financial Independence Hub

A reader recently asked me the following based on reading a few pages on my site:

Mark, does it make sense to have 100% of your portfolio in stocks? If so, at what age would you personally dial-back to own more cash or GICs or bonds? Thanks for your answer.

Great question. Love it. Let’s unpack that for us. 

References:

My Dividends page.

My ETFs page.

Should you have 100% of your portfolio in stocks?

Maybe as a younger investor, you should.

Let me explain.

Members of Gen Z, which now includes the youngest adults able to invest (born in the late-1990s and early-2000s), represent a cohort that could be investing in the stock market for another 60 more years. 

According to a chart I found on Ben Carlson’s site about stuff that might happen in 2023, over 60+ investing years in the S&P 500 (as an example) historical indexing performance would suggest you’d have a better chance of earning 20% returns or more in any given year than suffering an indexing loss. Pretty wild.

S&P 500 - 100 stocks

Source: A Wealth of Common Sense. 

Shown another way as of early 2023:

S&P 500 Returns Updated

Source: https://www.slickcharts.com

This implies younger investors, in my opinion, should at least consider going all-in on equities to take advantage of long-term stock market return power when they are younger given:

  1. As you age, your human capital diminishes – your portfolio (beyond your home?) can become your greatest asset.
  2. Younger investors can also benefit from asset accumulation from periodic price corrections – adding more assets in a bear market; allowing assets to further compound at lower prices when corrections or crashes occur (i.e., buying stocks on sale).

Consider in this post on my site:

In the U.S.:

  • a market correction occurs at least once every 2 years, of 10% or more
  • a bear market at least every 7 years, where market value is down 20% or more
  • a major market crash at least every decade.

And in Canada for additional context:

The C.D. Howe Institute’s Business Cycle Council has created a classification system for recessions, grouping them together by category.

According to the council: Continue Reading…

Now is a good time to decide whether your portfolio is too risky

Posted By |

By Michael J. Wiener

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

Back in March 2020 after stock markets had crashed, I expressed my disgust with the chorus of voices saying that this was the time to re-evaluate your risk tolerance.  That advice was essentially telling people to sell stocks while they were low, which makes little sense.  After the crash it was too late to re-evaluate your risk tolerance.

I suggested “we should record videos of ourselves saying how we feel after stocks crashed” and watch this video after the stock market recovers.  Well, the stock market has long since recovered.  Now is a great time to recall how you felt back in March 2020.  Did you have any sleepless nights?

Now that markets are near record levels, it’s time to consider whether permanently lowering your allocation to stocks would be best for you in anticipation of future stock market crashes.  Unfortunately, this isn’t how people tend to think.  It’s while stock prices are low that they want to end the pain and sell, and it’s while stock prices are high that they feel most comfortable.

Michael J. Wiener runs the web site Michael James on Money, where he looks for the right answers to personal finance and investing questions. He’s retired from work as a “math guy in high tech” and has been running his website since 2007.  He’s a former mutual fund investor, former stock picker, now index investor. This blog originally appeared on his site on Jan. 19, 2022 and is republished on the Hub with his permission.  

ESG and evaluating Risk in Fixed Income

Posted By |
Franklin Templeton/Getty Images

By Ahmed Farooq, CFP, CIMA, Franklin Templeton Canada

(Sponsor Content)

ESG (environmental, governance and social) has become a hot topic in investment circles.

Sustainable investing is a key consideration for most asset managers nowadays, reflecting changing attitudes among investors.

Responsible or sustainable investing was once a very niche part of the market, but now accounts for US$35.3 trillion worldwide, according to recent data from The Global Sustainable Investment Alliance (GSIA).

This rise of ESG is most closely associated with equities, but this approach to investing can also be applied in the fixed income space too. Being able to minimize downside risk is a key objective for fixed income investors, and this certainly aligns with the characteristics of ESG investing.

Green Bonds evidence of ESG’s growing significance

ESG’s growing significance was displayed further earlier this year when the federal government’s 2021 budget included a plan to issue $5 billion in green bonds to support environmental infrastructure development in Canada.

Speaking at the recent Exchange Traded Forum, Brandywine Global Investment Specialist Katie Klingensmith discussed the firm’s investment philosophy and how ESG has become an important element of its strategies in recent years.

One of the specialist investment managers brought under the Franklin Templeton umbrella after its acquisition of Legg Mason in 2020, Brandywine Global has US$67 billion in assets under management globally.1

Of that total AUM, US$53 billion is in fixed income, where the investment team combines a global macro perspective with a disciplined value approach to select suitable holdings for the Brandywine  funds.

A signatory of the UN-supported Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) since 2016, approximately 99% of the firm’s assets under management now feature ESG integration.

Brandywine has built its own proprietary ESG portfolio management dashboard as a result, and will publish its first Annual Stewardship Report in 2021. Continue Reading…