Ryan Dressel, Investment Analyst, Brinker Capital
Have you ever noticed how many commercials on TV use blind comparison tests to prove that their products are better than their competitors? Soft drinks, washing detergents, tablets, air fresheners, fast food chains, and even web sites all use this marketing tool on a fairly regular basis. One reason companies do this is to try to change your perception about their product. It’s human nature to associate a good or bad feeling about a product, brand, or company based on personal experiences. If you got sick from food at a restaurant for example, chances are you won’t return to that restaurant again, even if it changes the staff, menu, and décor. A blind comparison test is an attempt to convince you that a product isn’t as bad as you might think.
How can this be applied to your investments? You’ll hear dozens of mutual fund companies advertise that they are beating an index, benchmark, or peer group (such as Lipper) over a specific time frame. You could also open the Wall Street Journal and read about a mutual fund manager boasting smart decisions with regard to short-term news, such as the S&P 500 rising or falling in any given week. If you try to interpret headline news or those T.V. commercials without any context, there’s a good chance you could misjudge your portfolio and even worse, make an irrational decision! What you will rarely hear on T.V. or read in the papers is an advertisement for a portfolio that provides steady and consistent returns by managing volatility.
Why does volatility matter? To demonstrate the value of volatility, we’ll do a blind comparison using two hypothetical portfolios (you saw that coming right?). Both Portfolio A and Portfolio B started with an initial investment of $100,000 and have a sum of returns of 65% over a 10-year time period. The portfolios have the following annual returns over that time frame:
|Year 1||Year 2||Year 3||Year 4||Year 5||Year 6||Year 7||Year 8||Year 9||Year 10|
Which portfolio would you predict to have a higher balance at the end of the 10-year time frame? Looking at the returns we can observe a few things that jump out. Portfolio B managed to achieve extremely high gains in years 2, 4 and 9. Conversely, it also had a couple of really bad years in year 5, and year 7. It also finished the last two years with a combined +44%. Looking at Portfolio A, we can see that it never topped 20% in a given year, and never lost more than 7% in a year. It also finished seven out of the 10 years with a return of +7% or less.
If you chose Portfolio A, you would be correct!
As demonstrated in the charts above and below, Portfolio A has a much lower level of volatility. Through the power of compounding, this allowed Portfolio A to finish with a higher balance despite the fact that both portfolios have identical sum of returns. In reality, this is typically achieved by constructing a well-diversified portfolio using a wide array of asset classes. This is also a good reminder of how fixed income and absolute return strategies are beneficial to your portfolio in any market environment.
If these were actual investment products, there is no doubt that you would hear Portfolio B being advertised as an outperformer during a time frame that captures those years of strong performance. In the end however, the only thing that matters is the balance of your portfolio and that you are on track towards achieving your investment goals. Be sure to review your portfolio in the right context, especially during times of market “noise.”
Source: The data used and shown above is hypothetical in nature and shown for illustrative purposes. Not intended as investment advice.
The views expressed are those of Brinker Capital and are for informational purposes only. Holdings are subject to change.