Many of the current articles that are critical of hedge funds may be giving good advice, but for the wrong reasons.
"Two-step" bets — where investors try to profit from macroeconomic events by anticipating which companies or currencies the events will most likely affect — are usually a bad idea, or at least much less likely to work out than the original macro insight. Here's why.
It seems that now everyone wants to time factors. Indeed, we’d love to as well if we thought it was a very useful endeavor. But, although tempting, in an editorial piece for a special upcoming Journal of Portfolio Management issue focused on quantitative investing — written at the kind request of long-time editor, Frank Fabozzi — I argue that this tempting siren song should be resisted, even if I know some will be disappointed with this view.
My colleagues have written a response to Thomas Hoenig’s recent WSJ op-ed “Why ‘Risk-Based’ Capital Is Far Too Risky.” Hoenig’s recommended approach to managing leverage risk using a “simple” notional leverage limit reminds us of Einstein’s famous purported comment to make things as simple as possible, but not simpler. The authors believe that Hoenig’s approach fails to meet the Einstein test. My colleagues explain why in their letter.
As always, I hope that you will share your feedback.
Cliff and his colleagues lay out some basic tenets that they think are often ignored but that they think any market-timing system — or any test of such a system — should follow.
The risk parity-versus-60/40 argument has always been about strategic long term — not tactical short term — asset allocation. Here I argue that, when viewed strategically, the empirical work on risk parity, including some of our own, understates its potential advantages. Moreover, all you need is basic finance theory to see it.
The role of leverage in risk parity is often misunderstood. The willingness to use modest leverage allows a risk parity investor to build a more diversified, more balanced, higher-return-for-the-risk-taken portfolio. In our view, this more than compensates risk parity investors for the necessity of employing some leverage.