Reverse Glide Paths: Re-Upping Equities in Retirement

(September 18, 2013) — Retirees should increase their equity allocations through the retirement time horizon to maximize their retirement income and reduce risk, according to research.

The study, “Reducing Retirement Risk with a Rising Equity Glidepath,” written by Wade Pfau from the American College and Michael Kitces of the Pinnacle Advisory Group, analyzed the sustainability of constant inflation-adjusted spending strategies from a portfolio of assets.

Their findings evaluated various withdrawal rates and outcome measures of failure rate, magnitude of failure, upside potential of the strategy, and the maximum sustainable withdrawal rate supported at the 10^th percentile of outcomes. The results revealed that equity exposure in the later years of retirement is beneficial.

In fact, portfolios that began with 20% to 40% in equities and increased to 60% to 80% in equities were found to be optimal. This strategy would reduce equity exposure during the years with the biggest portfolio size.

For more stories like this, sign up for the CIO Alert newsletter. 

The study found rising equity glide paths perform better than static asset allocations or declining equity glide paths.

This “Heads you win, tails you don’t lose,” outcome will be successful in sustaining retirement income under two varying scenarios.

If the equity returns are poor in the beginning of the retirement, Pfau and Kitces’ theory contended that increasing equity allocations would maximize exposure in time for the good returns. If the equity returns are strong in the early years, the retiree can rest easy since they would cushion a later bear market.

The authors also argued for the strategy in circumstances where equity risk premium is low. The optimal portfolio would utilize fewer stocks than in typical markets, but still maintain the rise throughout the retirement period.

The researchers’ results were consistent with shorter and longer time horizons: increasing equity exposures through retirement minimized the risk of failure.

The full paper can be found here.

(September 19, 2013) — If your hedge fund’s performance has taken a turn for the worse, it could just be part of a natural process, or it could be a sign the manager is not pulling his weight Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM) has warned.

Kent Clark, CIO for hedge fund strategies, alternative investment, and manager selection at GSAM, told an audience at the company’s annual London investor conference that his team has a novel way to check whether a manager has his eye on the right ball.

Clark’s team watches the golfing round-recording site run by the PGA to watch out for managers updating their handicaps, which can indicate they’ve been spending too much time on the fairway, and not enough time by their Bloomberg.

Aside from monitoring golf prowess, however, Kent has a more concrete numerical basis for evaluating why a manager may be misfiring.

Want the latest institutional investment industry news and insights? Sign up for CIO newsletters. 

“There is little persistence in manager performance,” said Kent. “We find that the funds that are in the top quartile one year are often in the bottom quartile the next.”

This is especially true in the extremes, with the very top often ending up as the very bottom performer a year later. “Often the highest performers are the biggest risk-takers,” said Kent.

As the diagram shows, almost a quarter of the top performing funds end up in the bottom drawer 12 months later.

In an earlier panel session, Barclays pension CIO Tony Broccado told attendees he had no qualms in dumping an outperforming manager as he and his team took the view that high returns could not be indefinitely sustained.

That managers might not be shooting the lights out across the board, however, may be no fault of their own, Clark said.

The slices making up the average hedge fund return profile have been altered by market conditions, which have hampered the overall performance.

Returns from varying beta have shrunk from earning an annual 1.6% in the 11 years to the end of December 2006 to losing 0.4% in the following six year period. The same loss was made by strategic beta in the six years to the end of December 2012, down from making a 3.3% return in the first period. The risk-free rate used to produce 3.8% for hedge fund managers, but over the last five years it has returned just 1%.

The alpha section has actually increased, but only marginally, from 3.6% to 3.7% (but only if the manager is not regularly hitting the 19^th hole).

Related content: Top Quartile but for How Long?

Kent Clark resized

Source: GSAM, HFR Database, Per Trac Indices Database