A previous study found that a dynamic asset allocation strategy with Vanguard index funds produced better returns than models with static asset allocations. Changing asset allocation according to stock-market climate produced much higher returns with less risk. TIAA-CREF’s variable annuity accounts can similarly be used to improve returns for participants. Results for three models with dynamic asset allocation are provided whose performance and risk measurements are all better than those of the variable annuity accounts alone, or static combinations of those accounts.
Read more >
Blog Archives
Getting the Most from TIAA-CREF’s Variable Annuity Accounts
The Unemployment Rate: A Coincident Recession Indicator
For what is considered to be a lagging indicator of the economy, the unemployment rate provides surprisingly good signals for the beginnings and ends of recessions. We have developed a model that uses unemployment figures to produce these signals and to determine the probability of when a recession may start. We conclude, based on the historic evidence of our unemployment-derived indicators, that there will be no recession in the near future.
Minimum Volatility Stocks: iM’s Best12(USMV)-Trader
Since end of June 2014 we provided updates of our Best12(USMV) at iM, a tax efficient model which holds positions normally for at least one year. Concurrently we were testing the Best12(USMV)-Trader model. The only difference between the two models is that the Trader is not restricted to hold stocks for a 1-year minimum period and has an additional sell rule based on rank. We backtested the Trader for various periods and found its returns to be to be marginally higher than that of the tax efficient Best12(USMV) model. However, returns were more consistent.
Minimum Volatility Stocks: Out-Of-Sample Performance of iM-Best12(USMV)
Three months ago we introduced the iM-Best12(USMV) model, which still holds the then twelve best ranked stocks selected from the holdings of USMV, the iShares MSCI USA Minimum Volatility ETF. So far this portfolio has gained 8.2%, while USMV is up a mere 2.2%, confirming the results of the backtest performed over a relative short period. The out-of-sample test will be expanded by the launch of the second of three sister models quarterly displaced, the Best12(USMV)-Oct-2014, which again will consist of the 12 highest ranked stocks of the then point-in-time holdings of USMV.
Vanguard Funds With Dynamic Asset Allocation: Which is the Asset Allocation “that’s right for your situation”?
Performance and risk measures are given for six iM(MAC-Vang) models with various asset allocations which use a combination of Vanguard bond- and stock-funds, and switch assets according to stock-market climate.
Vanguard’s Actively Managed Funds With Dynamic Asset Allocation: The Best Bet For High Returns
In continuation of our previous article “How Good are Vanguard’s LifeStrategy Funds? Much Better Returns From Vanguard Funds with iM’s (MAC-Vang)20/80” we show that exceptionally high returns can be obtained from Vanguard funds, when a dynamic asset allocation strategy is employed, and actively managed funds instead of index funds are used. Using a combination of bond-, stock-, and sector-funds in the model, and switching asset allocation according to stock-market climate, provided an annualized average return of over 15% for the backtest period Jan-2000 to Jul-2014.
How Good are Vanguard’s LifeStrategy Funds? Much Better Returns From Vanguard Funds with iM’s (MAC-Vang)20/80
“Studies have shown that your asset allocation has a bigger impact on your long-term returns than any specific fund you pick. So why not pick a Vanguard LifeStrategy Fund that has asset allocation built in?” This is the opening statement on a Vanguard web-page, which also lists other potential benefits of investing in such a fund. The historic performance of the LifeStrategy Moderate Growth Fund was analyzed from Jan-2000 onward, and it is very clear from the analysis that this was a high risk investment with low returns. An alternative investment model with Vanguard funds is proposed which would have produced much higher returns with less risk.
iM’s Improved Floor-Leverage Rule with Put Option Insurance: A Low-Risk Investment Strategy with a 5.7% Safe Withdrawal Rate
iM’s Improved Floor-Leverage Rule, a low-risk investment strategy for retirement with a high 5.7% withdrawal rate, uses market timing to avoid large losses of the Surplus Portfolio, and additionally uses a strategy to guard the Surplus Portfolio against black swan events, e.g. the 1987 stock market crash, by buying put options.
More Retirement Income with iM’s Improved Floor-Leverage Rule: 6.5% Safe Withdrawal Rate
The original Floor-Leverage Rule for Retirement, as proposed by Scott and Watson, calls for two parallel investments. The first one is to establish a low risk Spending Floor Portfolio with 85% of one’s funds. The second, the Surplus Portfolio, is an investment of the remaining 15% in equities with 3× leverage. If the Surplus Portfolio exceeds 15% of the total portfolio value at annual rebalancing when withdrawals are made, it is adjusted to 15% of the total portfolio value with the excess being transferred to the Spending Floor Portfolio. The problem is that 3× leveraged stock portfolios can lose most of their value. For example, they lost 94% from 2000 to 2008, which would have wiped out almost 15% of retirement capital if one had followed the Original Floor-Leverage Rule. A better approach, and one that could avoid such losses, is to time one’s exposure to equities as put forward by our Improved Floor-Leverage Rule, which is a low-risk spending and investment strategy for retirees.
Read more >
Estimating Stock Market Returns to 2020 and Beyond: Update July 2014
July 7, 2014 About two years ago evidence was presented that a major bull market may have commenced in 2009. Additionally, a statistical analysis of the historic data of the S&P Composite presented in an Aug-2012 article and Jan-2014 update thereto supported this finding. Since August 2012 the S&P500 has now gained a real 40% to the end of June 2014. So what further gains can we expect, if any?
With reference to Section 202(a)(11)(D) of the Investment Advisers Act:
We are Engineers and not Investment Advisers,
read more ...
By the mere act of reading this page and navigating this site you acknowledge, agree to, and abide by the
Terms of Use / Disclaimer