In part 1 of this article, we looked at the costs and some factors of strategic beta ETPs. Here we will continue the discussion from other perspectives.
As I mentioned before, there are a host of other factors that have been discovered ranging from borderline silly to serious contenders. The latter include quality and low volatility. Both factors are relative newcomers, and neither has been as fully vetted as value and momentum. Of course, that hasn't prevented index and ETF providers from launching a raft of products aimed at delivering them in a readily investable form.
Quality is closely related to profitability, which, along with investment, is a component of the Fama-French five-factor model. Profitability passes the intuition test. After all, the present value of a stock is a factor of its future cash flows: The more profitable the firm, the greater its expected cash flows. From a behavioral point of view, it can be argued that investors tend to underestimate the sustainability of firms' current profitability or otherwise misprice profitable stocks. Quality and profitability have been put to work by the likes of Dimensional Fund Advisors and AQR in their fund lineups. Quality is in vogue in ETF-land, too, as demonstrated by the $10.8 billion in net new inflows into quality-focused U.S. large-cap ETPs over the past three years.
The low-volatility anomaly flips the traditional notion of the relationship of risk and reward on its head. Research has shown that less-volatile stocks have produced risk-adjusted returns superior to those of their more volatile counterparts. There are plenty of reasonable arguments as to why that might be. There is also research showing that this relationship might not be as clear-cut as it seems and may not persist. All told, low-volatility strategies have worked in the past, may or may not work in the future, and have yet to be enshrined the way value and momentum have.
Not all factor exposures are created equal. Nuanced differences in index-construction methodologies can yield meaningfully different performance profiles amongst similarly labeled strategies. Furthermore, there is a whole lot of messy reality (like costs) that exists between factor theory as it is documented in academia and the rubber-meets-road implementation of factors in practice. It is important to understand how efficiently these funds' underlying benchmarks are capturing their targeted factors and whether they might be missing the mark by virtue of being costly to implement or loading up on other, unintended exposures.
Northern Trust's quantitative research group elegantly distilled its analysis of this concept into a "factor efficiency ratio," or FER. The FER is a ratio of the active risk coming from intended factor bets to the total active risk of a strategic-beta benchmark--with active risk being calculated versus the index's market-cap-weighted parent benchmarks. The group found that strategic-beta indexes with higher FERs generate higher risk-adjusted returns.
The persistence of any factor is reliant on there being someone on the other side of the table willing to take the opposite side of your factor bet. In order for value to produce excess returns, there must be a cohort of investors shunning value. If everyone were to simultaneously bet on value, it would ultimately become the "market." Thus, it is important to understand the capacity of factor bets much the same way it is important to understand the capacity of an active strategy.
In May 2013, MSCI published an exhaustive analysis of the capacity of its various strategy benchmarks across a number of geographies on behalf of Norway's Ministry of Finance. The key takeaway as it pertains to capacity?
"…it should be noted that market capitalization weighted indexes are the only macro consistent indexes. All other index weighting schemes cannot be held by all investors. This puts natural bounds on the capacity of a risk premia allocation. As an index increasingly deviates from a market capitalization-based index, it becomes less and less investable, particularly for funds of very large size."
Where is there capacity? Generally speaking, look for the foundational factors (value and momentum) in broad, deep markets (U.S. stocks, developed ex U.S. stocks). This is where I personally believe these factors have the most staying power.
A Capable, Responsible Sponsor
Last, but certainly not least, it is important to partner with a capable, responsible sponsor. Morningstar research has shown that good stewards of shareholders' capital have tended to produce better long-term investor outcomes. Culture is a key factor in our assessment of fund sponsors' stewardship practices. We tend to frown upon firms that emphasize salesmanship over stewardship, product proliferation over useful and meaningful innovation. There is plenty of spaghetti being slung at the wall in the strategic-beta arena. Stay away from the slingers and focus on firms that take a measured approach to product development and offer their funds at reasonable prices. (Have I mentioned that costs matter?)
 Fama, E., & French, K. 2014. "A Five-Factor Asset Pricing Model." Fama-Miller Working Paper. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2287202
 Hunstad, M., & Dekhayser, J. 2015. "Evaluating the Efficiency of 'Smart Beta' Indexes." Journal of Index Investing, Vol. 6, No. 1, P. 111. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2510987
 Bambaci, J., Bender, J., Briand, R., et al. 2013. "Harvesting Risk Premia for Large Scale Portfolios." https://www.msci.com/resources/research/articles/2013/Harvesting_Risk_Premia_for_Large_Scale_Portfolios.pdf
 Hughes, B., Lutton, L., West, C., et al. 2015. "2015 Morningstar U.S. Mutual Fund Industry Stewardship Survey." https://corporate.morningstar.com/us/documents/ResearchPapers/US-MutualFundIndustryStewardshipSurvey2015.pdf