| Asset
Allocation and Its Contribution to Returns: Evidence From
International Markets
By Larry Swedroe
April 4, 2003 |
|
Numerous studies on the performance of diversified U.S. equity
portfolios have demonstrated the central role that asset allocation
policy plays in determining variation of portfolio returns.
Likewise, reams of academic research have shown, in stark terms,
the damaging effects of the higher costs associated with active
management. Some have argued that these outcomes are the result
of the high efficiency of the U.S. equity markets. There is
an oft-heard claim that international markets are not as efficient
as domestic markets, so market timing and stock selection are
more likely to add value.
A study by Wolfgang Drobetz and Friederike Kohler, "The
Contribution of Asset Allocation Policy to Portfolio Performance,"
examined the performance of fifty-one German and Swiss balanced
mutual funds in order to determine what portion of the performance
of a fund can be attributed to policy (asset allocation), and
what portion to market timing and stock selection.(1) The
study required that funds have at least six years of monthly
data, with the sample period ending July 31, 2001.
The study concluded that:
-
Over 80 percent of the variability of returns
of a typical fund over time is explained by asset allocation
policy.
-
Roughly 60 percent of the variation among
funds is explained by policy.
-
Over 130 percent of the return level
(what investors ultimately care about) is explained, on average,
by the policy return level (asset allocation).
-
Actively managed German and Swiss mutual funds
produced alphas (the return not attributed to policy -
see
glossary
of this site) of negative 2.4 percent per annum.
The authors concluded that German and Swiss active
managers were not only unable to add value (produce a positive
alpha) by deviating from their benchmarks, but their market timing
and stock selection decisions were destroying the financial wealth
of their investors. What is also of interest is that when ranked
by performance, even the top 5 percent of funds destroyed about
1 percent of the return policy alone would have contributed. The
median firm destroyed about 24 percent of the returns explained
by policy. The bottom 5 percent destroyed over 44 percent of the
policy returns. The authors stated that these dismal results could
be partially, but not fully, explained by the relatively higher
(compared to U.S. mutual funds) expense ratios. The greater trading
costs incurred in international markets (another hurdle active
managers must overcome in order to add value) almost certainly
accounts for a significant portion of the negative alphas.
This study adds to the substantial body of work that has demonstrated
that active management is highly likely to be counterproductive
over time, regardless of whether the equity market is domestic,
international, or even emerging.