MSCI: What do rising interest rates mean for minimum volatility strategies?

Mar 20th, 2017 | By | Category: Equities

ETF Strategy events are back! Please join us for breakfast briefings on Digital Assets & the Blockchain Economy on Thursday 2nd September 2021 (08:15-11:00) and Thematic Investing on Friday 3rd September 2021 (08:15-11:15) both at Yauatcha City, Broadgate Circle, London. Sponsors include First Trust, GHCO, MSCI, Rize ETF, VanEck and WisdomTree.


By Zhen Wei, Head of China Research, MSCI.

Zhen Wei, Head of China Research, MSCI

Zhen Wei, Head of China Research, MSCI.

Minimum volatility strategies have historically delivered above-average returns with below-average risk, especially in volatile market environments as have occurred in recent years. During this period, the world also has experienced low interest rates.

Now that the Federal Reserve is expected to increase rates as the US economy recovers, some institutional investors have asked whether it is time to retreat from min-vol strategies. This question stems from a view that lower-volatility stocks historically tended to behave more like bonds and could potentially underperform in a rising-rate environment.

Our finding: While not indicative of future performance, minimum volatility has not always underperformed during a rising-rate cycle but it has delivered a persistent risk-reduction benefit.

Let’s break up the return of a minimum volatility strategy into an equity premium, a bond premium, cash yield (risk free-rate) and other return components. To capture a full interest-rate cycle, we combine two series to represent a minimum volatility strategy: We use the MSCI USA Minimum Volatility Index from 1975 to 2017 and the lowest-volatility quintile portfolio from the Fama-French data library from 1963 to 1975. The equity premium is defined as the difference between cap-weighted benchmark return and the cash yield, and the bond premium is the difference between the total return of a US Treasury bond portfolio and the cash yield.

We found that the minimum volatility strategy’s exposure to the equity factor was generally stable: It remained around 0.77-0.78 across varying interest-rate regimes. Interestingly, its exposure to the bond factor when rates rose was less than half of the exposure when rates declined (0.16 vs. 0.37). This implies that the minimum volatility strategy was less sensitive to interest-rate changes in a rising rate environment.

EQUITY AND BOND EXPOSURES OF THE MINIMUM VOLATILITY STRATEGY

Source: MSCI.

Attributing returns to the various factors further illustrates that minimum volatility strategy responded differently during periods of declining and rising interest rates. We found that the bond factor contributed about 1.1% of positive performance to the minimum volatility strategy during a declining rate regime but caused only a negligible performance drag of -16 basis points per annum during a rising-rate regime.

ASYMMETRIC BOND EXPOSURE EXPLAINS PART OF MINIMUM VOLATILITY’S HISTORICAL RETURN PREMIUM

Source: MSCI.

Return decomposition of the MSCI USA Minimum Volatility Index

When we look at returns, the minimum volatility index outperformed the cap-weighted benchmark by 54 bps annually, while interest rates declined from 1982 – 2016.

However, the strategy did not systematically lag the market, even during the rising-rate environment: There were periods of under- and over-performance linked to market volatility. Overall, the strategy was largely in line with the market, returning a negligible -12 bps from 1963 – 1981 (when 10-year US Treasury yield rose by an average of 63 bps per year).

MARKET VOLATILITY AND ROLLING 1-YEAR ACTIVE RETURN OF MINIMUM VOLATILITY IN A RISING-RATE REGIME

Source: MSCI.

The existence of market volatility in both rate environments is a critical reminder for institutional investors who attempt to time the strategy. Investors who see the minimum volatility strategy as a long-term allocation may note that the risk-reduction benefit of the minimum volatility strategy has prevailed throughout the 54-year interest-rate history. It reduced risk in both interest-rate regimes by an average of 18%, versus the cap-weighted benchmark, fulfilling the primary investment objective for this strategy.

MINIMUM VOLATILITY: PERSISTENT RISK REDUCTION DURING RISING AND DECLINING RATE REGIMES

Source: MSCI.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment