The Future of Advice Delivery: What Will Solutions Look Like?

This is a summary of a session from the FRA’s 11th Annual Managed Account and UMA Summit that was held in September 2013 in NYC.

Moderator: Walter Hartford, VP, Business Development, F-Squared Investments

Panelists:

Unified Managed Accounts (UMA’s) are not a silver bullet

What the managed accounts industry needs is new investment options, not new account types, Shkuda contented.  UMA’s are not a silver bullet that can solve all of a client’s investment needs.  What’s inside an account is more important than the account structure, she claimed.

Shkuda proposed that UMA growth has been flat for the past few years because the strategies being offered aren’t providing solutions for what clients perceive to be their needs.  Managed account providers must improve on their track record of innovation in order to increase market share, she suggested.

The following three rules were offered by Shkuda for the industry to be more innovative:

1) What has worked in the past, won’t work in the future – mainly due to increasing levels of competition
2) Firms must continually re-invent themselves – especially larger sponsors and wirehouses who are often afraid of cannibalizing their existing business
3) Think outside the box Continue reading

The Wizards of ETFs – Behind the Curtain (2/2)

This is a review of a session from the Money Management Institute’s 2012 Fall Solution Conference.  This is part two of a two-part series.  You can read part one here.

Moderator:

  • Benjamin T. Fulton, Managing Director of Global ETFs, Invesco Powershares Capital Management, LLC

Panelists:

  • Sam Turner, Director of Large Cap Portfolio Management at Riverfront Investment Group
  • Jill Iacono Mavro, Managing Director, Head of National Accounts, State Street Global Advisors – $337 billion in ETF assets globally, 94% in US, SPY launched in 1993
  • Dodd Kittsley, Senior Product Manager & Head of ETP Research, iShares

How much weight should advisors put on liquidity when evaluating an ETF?

There are two levels of liquidity: primary and secondary markets, Mavro said. On the primary market, an ETF is as liquid as the underlying index that it tracks. It depends on how easy is it for authorized market participants to trade the basket of securities that represent the index. On the secondary market, liquidity is defined by how often the ETF is traded. The more it is traded, the thinner the spread between the bid and ask prices. Advisors should look at both levels together, not just one or the other.

Turner disagreed and stated that primary market liquidity and fees are the two worst reasons to select ETFs.  Riverfront focuses primarily on exposure and have never had an issue getting out of an ETF due to lack of primary market liquidity, he said.

Secondary market liquidity can become an issue when investing ETFs according to Michael Jones, also from Riverfront Investments, who was in the audience.  He provided an example where Riverfront was the seed investor for an international ETF that was currency-hedged (The ETF happened to be DBX MSCI EAFE Hedged Equity Fund, symbol: DBEF). Primary market liquidity wasn’t a problem for them since they were working directly with the authorized participant and had great execution.  However the use of the currency hedge became more and more expensive to the point where they had to pull their investment due to the high marginal trading costs of bringing on each additional client, he said.

Should You Avoid ETFs with Low AUM?
An article in Barrons makes the case that low AUM is not a good liquidity indicator for ETFs:
“…asset levels aren’t always the best proxy for liquidity. Unlike a stock, an ETF can still have strong liquidity even if its trading volume is low or its assets are tiny. That’s because the underlying stocks’ or bonds’ liquidity is usually the best way to measure an ETF’s real ease of trading. Barron’s asked market-making firm Knight Capital to rate the liquidity of 30 small ETFs whose 2012 returns are about double those of the S&P 500 as of early November. If you judge ETF tradability by the way its components trade, as Knight does, you’ll find lots of low-asset ETFs with more-than-expected liquidity. “I wouldn’t shy away from ETFs that have low volume or low assets. You just have to be smart about how you trade it,” says Eric Lichtenstein, managing director of Knight’s ETF trading desk.”

Continue reading

Asset Allocation: Is Modern Portfolio Theory Dead? (2/2)

This is the second part of the summary of a session from the Money Management Institute’s 2012 Fall Solution Conference. You can read part 1 here.

Moderator:
  • Michael Jones, Chairman and Chief Investment Officer, Riverfront Investment Group
Panelists:
  • Colin Moore, Chief Investment Officer, Columbia Management, $339 billion AUM
  • Howard Present, President and Chief Executive Officer, F-Squared Investments
  • Steve Murray, Director of Asset Allocation Strategies, Russell Investment Group

How do fees affect your product decisions taking into consideration QE3 and a persistent low rate environment? Does paying 30-50 bps for bond allocations affect your product choices?

Murray said that fees do affect their product decisions, but that they always try to identify strong managers and the fees are a tradeoff versus the additional return that they’re expected to provide. Since Russell has a manager of managers structure allows them to move between managers with different fee levels as well as incorporate other products such as ETFs and mutual funds.

Fees have a higher impact when the product they’re attached to performs like Beta, Present ob served. Over the last decade, it was very difficult to extract value from equities as an asset class, while bonds appear that they will be difficult going forward. In 2008, the average target date fund was down 28%, so it didn’t matter if a manager was slightly above or slightly below that average. Relative performance in a down market is rarely appreciated by clients. You should be more aggressive with fees on beta products versus those that are designed to generate alpha, he said.

Does your philosophy of using low cost, transparent, liquid beta in the form of ETFs make it harder for your products to coexist on a sponsor platform alongside more traditional ones? — Randy Bullard

Jones proposed that their philosophy, which combines stocks, bonds and ETFs into dynamic allocation solutions is complementary to the more traditional solutions (like Russell). there is more than one way to create value besides picking stocks from a narrow slice of an asset allocation pie chart. They added another value dimension by adjusting the amounts allocated in each slice of the market based on the prices and momentum in each asset class. It’s not an either or decision to use their products or traditional. There’s a philosophical diversification that can be complimentary instead of competitive. Continue reading

Asset Allocation: Is Modern Portfolio Theory Dead? (1/2)

This is a summary of a session of the Money Management Institute’s 2012 Fall Solution Conference.

Moderator:
Michael Jones, Chairman and Chief Investment Officer, Riverfront Investment Group
Panelists:
Colin Moore, Chief Investment Officer, Columbia Management, $339 billion AUM
Howard Present, President and Chief Executive Officer, F-Squared Investments
Steve Murray, Director of Asset Allocation Strategies, Russell Investment Group

This was an interesting discussion since each of the panelists approach asset allocation from a different perspective.  Jones believes that modern portfolio theory (MPT) is dead and that asset allocation should be more fluid and dynamic so they shift the pie chart around.  Riverfront has a simple methodology, which states that the price you pay is the number one determinate of the upside potential and downside risk of an investment.  They feed the price into a proprietary optimization process to create a portfolio that tries to make money in a worst case scenario while still maximizing the upside potential.

Moore agrees that the standard process is deeply flawed and feels you shouldn’t maximize return for a given level of risk.  Instead you should figure out what is the maximum level of return that the client can accept.

F-Squared believes that downside risk management has a disproportionate impact on clients, according to Present, so they factor it into their portfolios at a higher level.  Standard deviation is used to represent investment risk and maximum drawdown to represent the client’s perception of portfolio risk, he said.

Murray disagrees with Jones and believes there is some value in modern portfolio theory but that it is just one data point.  It’s not enough to rely on by itself.  At Russell, they know that different asset classes follow different pattens in the market so they use using different asset classes to offset each other in a portfolio by combining long and short term market processes, he stressed. Continue reading