More on Higher Order Asset Allocation

Consider the 60/40 – stock/bond asset allocation (AA) plan of my comments from March 6, 2009, “Fundamental Asset Class Definitions and Asset Allocation. First, it is important to understand that a simple 60/40 asset allocation plan is a very good plan that is very easy to implement. Historically, it will beat the performance of most other investors provided you use low fee investment instruments to construct the portfolio (ie low cost index funds or Exchange Traded Funds) and you consider a time frame of about a decade or more. Many investors would like to improve on the simple two asset class allocation by including a more sophisticated allocation analysis. There is no guarantee that consideration of additional asset classes will improve performance, so there is no optimum way to construct a more sophisticated asset allocation plan. But historical analysis can help to produce plans that would have performed better under certain economic conditions in the past. What follows are two examples of how to develop a more complex asset allocation plan.

An investor might start by observing that many broad stock market indexes are overweighted with large-cap and underweighted with small-cap stocks. That means that large companies are over-represented in the index as compared to smaller companies. By splitting the stock allocation in half, a second order allocation plan with three components is achieved. The new allocation includes 30% large cap stock, 30% small-cap index, and 40% bond. Introduction of small cap stocks in the allocation historically provides greater long-term returns but also introduces greater volatility (based on 130 years of US stock market history). If an investor is nervous and does not feel comfortable with increased volatility, the second order AA plan would not be advised. If the investor is more experienced and able to maintain the plan through small-cap downturns that may last several years, the second order plan is likely to result in greater long-term returns. Notice that additional appropriate funds must be identified and purchased for this more complex asset allocation plan. In fact, with each addition of a new asset class, additional funds must be used.

Another AA alternative would be to partially replace the small-cap fund with a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) investment. REIT returns have been weakly correlated to large cap stock returns in recent years, but tend to exhibit less volatility than small-cap funds during most periods of time.

Further sophistication of the allocation plan can be added by differentiating between value and growth funds. Both the large-cap and small-cap portions of the stock investment can be further split to include large-cap value and small-cap value funds to complement the general large-cap fund and general small-cap fund. The additional weighting of value stocks in the stock portion of the portfolio has historically both decreased volatility and increased long-term return (although not in every historical period). The resulting third order allocation plan includes as many as six components: 15% general large-cap stock, 15% large-cap value fund, 10% general small-cap stock, 10% small-cap value fund, 10% REIT, and 40% short-term bond.

Starting again with a first order 60/40 – stock/bond AA, an alternative asset allocation example can be developed. An investor might decide to split the general stock allocation into large-cap domestic stock, international stock, and small-cap domestic. Over some periods, international stocks have shown low correlation to US-based stocks. The inclusion of 15% to 25% international stock in a portfolio has helped produce both greater returns and reduced volatility during these periods. A second order asset allocation plan designed to address this might include 20% large-cap domestic stock, 20% international stock, 20% small-cap stock, 20% short-term bonds, and 20% intermediate term bonds. In this example, the bond asset allocation has also been sub-divided to provide stability over shorter periods of time.

Both of the above second order asset allocation plans can be rationalized and neither can be proven to be “optimal” for the future. Still other plans can be developed based on examination of alternative subdivisions of the general stock/bond asset classes and historical correlation and volatility data. Before subdividing the general stock/bond allocations and adding an asset class, you should understand what that asset is, the cost of owning it (fees), the risk it brings to your portfolio, and how it may correlate with the other assets in your plan. Adding asset classes without this basic understanding can hurt rather than help your investment portfolio. The number of assets in an investment plan is not an indication of sophistication. If you don’t understand an investment, don’t buy it. An investor that maintains the simple first order stock/bond allocation has historically outperformed most other investors. This is often done with as few as two market-tracking index funds. The simple stock/bond allocation plan, when coupled with a reasonable spending model and regular saving, will get you to a comfortable retirement.

More on Asset classes and Investment Options: http://www.golio.net/Chapter5.html

More on Asset Allocation (see Section 6.2): http://www.golio.net/Chapter6.html

Some material is from Golio, Engineering Your Retirement, Wiley, 2006. (see http://www.golio.net//)