Portfolio considerations
June 06, 2023
For most portfolios, it makes sense to rebalance at regularly scheduled intervals. Doing so usually strikes the right balance between maintaining your desired exposure to certain asset classes and minimizing transaction costs. But with factor portfolios, the more you can rebalance, the better, according to Vanguard’s Kevin Khang and Matt Jiannino.
“When it comes to factor investing, you have to strike while the iron’s hot, and the iron doesn’t get that hot very often,” said Khang, head of active and alternatives research in Vanguard Investment Strategy Group. “When a particular factor strategy is in action, there is a lot of dynamism in the underlying factor, and you want to make sure you are keeping pace. Otherwise, you will miss out on an opportunity that may not return for another decade.”
What changes so quickly about a factor, and when does it happen? This usually occurs when the market is shifting from a bear to bull market, or vice versa—periods with high, persistent volatility. In these periods, the composition of a factor—specifically, the degree to which certain companies continue to reflect the underlying theme of the factor—tends to change significantly faster than in normal times.
Jiannino, who serves as senior product director in Vanguard Portfolio Review Department, said the most recent three-year period, which included the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrates how factor exposures can change during periods of market uncertainty. Securities’ individual exposures to certain factors, such as momentum, value, and quality, can shift dramatically over time, and portfolio managers need to stay on top of these changes and respond by rebalancing their portfolios.
“Factor portfolio managers must think about what their portfolios should look like ideally and then determine how much they are deviating from that ideal portfolio,” Jiannino said. “They then should weigh the costs and benefits of rebalancing.”
Vanguard set out to determine the optimal rebalancing mechanism for long-only factor funds. Our research in this area culminated in Waiting for the Next Factor Wave: Daily Rebalancing Around Market Cycle Transitions, a research paper published in 2021 in The Journal of Portfolio Management.1
“Looking at the last 30 years of factor investing performance, factor funds that maintained a consistent factor exposure by rebalancing more frequently—on a daily basis, instead of monthly or biannually—achieved significantly higher factor premia, especially during bull-to-bear-to-bull market transitions, and effectively doubled the historically observed premia of many factors,” Khang said. “These findings indicate that to harvest factor premia to their maximum potential, portfolio managers must weigh the value of rebalancing to enhance the portfolio’s exposure to the targeted factors against the costs of doing so. Tools, experience, and understanding the environment all have a role to play in these decisions.”
In our research, we compared four portfolios, each tracking the same ideal portfolio of a different target factor but rebalancing at three different frequencies: daily, monthly, and biannually. In each case, the daily rebalanced portfolio maintained a consistent exposure to the target factor, while the portfolios rebalanced monthly and biannually did not always keep pace with the factor’s changing composition.
We found that daily rebalancing led to much higher excess returns compared with portfolios that rebalanced at less frequent intervals. We also found that the efficacy of daily rebalancing was highly time dependent, and a significant amount of the outperformance came during periods of changing market leadership—when a bull market transitioned to a bear, or vice versa. This does not necessarily mean that managers should always try to rebalance daily, but having the flexibility to do so at the right time can be a great advantage.
These results show up across four widely available types of factor portfolios in the industry: momentum, value, quality, and a multifactor portfolio that equally weights these three factors. For each of these factors, the figures below illustrate the additional return a daily rebalanced portfolio would have earned relative to the less frequently rebalanced portfolios. These returns also reflect netting out conservative transaction-cost assumptions that are doubled during high-volatility periods like the dot-com bubble and the 2008 global financial crisis (GFC).
For each portfolio, we looked at the entire sample from January 1990 through August 2019, as well as three subperiods: the dot-com bubble, the GFC, and all other years excluding the GFC and the dot-com bubble. By breaking down the returns this way, we can clearly see that maintaining a consistent factor exposure by having the flexibility to rebalance daily provided excess returns over nearly all periods when compared with a fixed monthly or biannual rebalancing. The most significant excess returns were created during the dot-com and GFC periods, when the markets transitioned from one market cycle to another.
“What’s most significant here is that the data overwhelmingly shows the improvement in returns in excess of the estimated trading costs from rebalancing more frequently,” Khang said.
Notes: These long-only factor portfolios were constructed using U.S. equity universe data underlying Axioma’s Risk Model AXUS4 (Axioma). This universe of securities largely overlaps with the Russell 3000 Index. The three single-factor portfolios equally weighted the top 30% of securities by factor score as defined by Axioma. The multifactor fund was constructed first by averaging the factor scores of momentum, value, and quality at the individual security level, which creates a cross-section of composite multifactor scores. Based on this composite score, we then selected the top 30% of securities and weighted them equally. The portfolios tracked the same ideal portfolio by rebalancing daily, monthly, and biannually. We assumed a one-way trading cost of 30 basis points (bps) per transaction volume for all trading. In addition, for extended periods with elevated volatility—notably around the dot-com bust (1999–2004) and the GFC (2008–2009)—we doubled the trading-cost assumption to 60 bps per transaction volume. Past performance is not a guarantee of future returns.
Source: Vanguard.
Khang and Jiannino said that allocators and advisors should be aware of the goals of a particular factor portfolio and make sure its portfolio manager is maintaining its factor exposures. Keeping up a factor exposure may be a slow-moving process in normal times, but during periods of heightened volatility like market-cycle transitions, maintaining desired factor exposures requires more agility.
Allocators and advisors also should be aware of the key decisions their factor portfolio managers have to make, including:
“A fixed rebalancing schedule doesn’t really work with factor strategies given the way these assets have performed in the market,” Jiannino said. “Making sure you are maintaining exposures to factors is likely worth the additional transaction costs.”
1 Journal access is required to view the entire research paper.
For more information about Vanguard funds and ETFs, visit vanguard.com to obtain a prospectus or, if available, a summary prospectus. Investment objectives, risks, charges, expenses, and other important information are contained in the prospectus; read and consider it carefully before investing.
Vanguard ETF Shares are not redeemable with the issuing Fund other than in very large aggregations worth millions of dollars. Instead, investors must buy and sell Vanguard ETF Shares in the secondary market and hold those shares in a brokerage account. In doing so, the investor may incur brokerage commissions and may pay more than net asset value when buying and receive less than net asset value when selling.
All investing is subject to risk, including the money you invest.
The Factor Funds are subject to investment style risk, which is the chance that returns from the types of stocks in which a Factor Fund invests will trail returns from U.S. stock markets. The Factor Funds are also subject to manager risk, which is the chance that poor security selection will cause a Factor Fund to underperform its relevant benchmark or other funds with a similar investment objective, and sector risk, which is the chance that significant problems will affect a particular sector in which a Factor Fund invests, or that returns from that sector will trail returns from the overall stock market.
Contributors
Matt Jiannino
Vanguard Information and Insights
Subscribe to Portfolio considerations.
Get Vanguard news, insights, and timely analysis on the market, delivered straight to your inbox.