Why Does FINRA Have An Investment Portfolio?
By Roger Nusbaum, AdvisorShares ETF Strategist
So here’s a weird one involving FINRA that you might have picked up in the last few days. Apparently it has a large, $1.6 billion, investment portfolio and the returns have been weak, according to the Wall Street Journal, under performing a 50/50 equity/fixed income portfolio for quite a few years.
The WSJ article is woefully incomplete. It doesn’t say what the purpose of the portfolio is, it is unclear how they can even have a portfolio and there are no specifics as to what the portfolio is benchmarked to other than a reference to a custom benchmark. The origin goes back to 2004 and it came out of the blocks trying to emulate the college endowments which back then were revered. As a side note, the tide may have gone out some for quite a few of the endowments but there is still plenty to learn about asset allocation from them.
As the story goes, the FINRA portfolio decided to significantly reduce its equity exposure in, um….2009. The article provides no details on how much equity exposure it had back then, but the portfolio underperformed a 50/50 in 2008, or how much it has now but there is a quote from a spokeswoman about targeting a “much more conservative approach than a 50/50 benchmark.”
The particulars of the news story are pretty muddy but there are a couple of conclusions that I think stand up that can be learned from. Starting a fund designed to emulate endowments at the peak of that fad was clearly performance chasing and if it cut its equity exposure as an asset allocation decision in 2009, even if it went from 20% down to 10%, someone panicked.
I have been a huge fan of endowment-style investing going back to the 90’s not as something to emulate but to learn from, I have absolutely been influenced by them as far as using what are now referred to as alternatives, that I was calling diversifiers back when I started writing about them.
Moderation has been and always will be, IMO, key to endowment-style exposure in a retail sized account. The logic is simple. Over long periods of time, equities prove out as being the top performing asset class. That of course includes all the booms and busts. With that performance goes enough volatility than can be uncomfortable and so diversifiers, which tend to have low correlations to equities, offer the promise of lower returns but can help smooth out the ride. If you use something in this regard that you believe has a low or negative correlation to equities and equities are the thing that goes up the most, most of the time, how much then do you really want of the asset class that doesn’t go up most of the time?
Gold is a good example, and while I do believe it does a good job of not looking like equities thus smoothing out the ride, I have said repeatedly that if gold is your top performing position then chances are things are going so well. Another example would be managed futures. It has a decent track record for a low correlation to equities and during the bull market for equities, managed futures have done poorly. I have no idea if that strategy will go up during the next equity bear market but the track record suggests to me it has a good chance of doing so.
Again, the value here is smoothing out the ride for an equity based portfolio. With too much in diversifiers/alternatives, too much to endowment style assets, you’re using equities to hedge alternatives which one of the mistakes that FINRA apparently made.
The information, statements, views, and opinions included in this publication are based on sources (both internal and external sources) considered to be reliable, but no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to their accuracy, completeness or correctness. Such information, statements, views and opinions are expressed as of the date of publication, are subject to change without further notice and do not constitute a solicitation for the purchase or sale of any investment referenced in the publication.