A new approach to a 60/40 portfolio
Let’s talk about the venerable 60/40 portfolio. For decades, this has been the conventional way to provide moderate-risk, long-term growth in a retirement portfolio.
The classic mix is 60% large-cap U.S. stocks and 40% U.S. bonds.
At the moment, I won’t mess with the 60% stock portion, but how about the 40% component? If you were building a 60/40 model from scratch, you might wonder about that 40% piece. Does it really have to be U.S. bonds, or is there another asset class that would work even better?
The chart “Potential Large-Cap Partners” shows the return and risk metrics for large-cap U.S. stocks and for 11 other major asset classes that could be considered as partners for large-cap U.S. stocks in a 60/40 portfolio. Included among the 11 are U.S. aggregate bonds (see "U.S. Bonds"), which is the typical 40% partner for large-cap U.S. stocks. In this analysis, the performance of large-cap U.S. stocks is represented by the S&P 500.
The 11 major asset classes are listed in the table in order of their 15-year correlation with large-cap U.S. stocks — from lowest to highest. The first potential partner for large-cap stocks is U.S. TIPS, with a 15-year correlation with large-cap stocks of 0.02; 15-year average annualized return of 5.3% from 2002-2016; a 15-year standard deviation of annual returns of 6.69%; and a 2017 YTD return of 1.94% through Oct. 31, 2017.
Recall that in most cases the desired correlation coefficient is zero (or close to it), indicating a completely random correlation. So, a correlation coefficient of 0.02 is a very low correlation.
The asset class with the next lowest correlation with large-cap U.S. stocks over the past 15 years was U.S. cash at minus 0.04.
Cash produced a 15-year return of 1.25% with very little volatility (the standard deviation was 1.64%). Next were non-U.S. bonds with a 15-year correlation of 0.06, then U.S. bonds with a 15-year correlation of minus 0.09, and finally commodities with a 15-year correlation of 0.32 and a 15-year return of 4.85%.
Unlike the fixed income asset classes (TIPS, cash, bonds, and non-U.S. bonds), commodities had a very large standard deviation of return at 21.68%. The commodities 2017 YTD return was 1.19% as of Oct. 31. These five asset classes represent the low-correlation potential partners for large-cap U.S. stock.
The remaining six asset classes in the chart all have higher correlation with large-cap U.S. stocks. Of the six, global real estate has the lowest 15-year correlation of 0.63, just a bit lower than natural resources with a 0.66 correlation.
All but one of the higher correlation asset classes outperformed large-cap U.S. stocks over the 15-year period 2002-2016. The exception was developed non-U.S. stocks (MSCI EAFE index). However, it is worth noting that as of Oct. 31, 2017, the year-to-date performance of the EAFE Index was 21.78% — well ahead of the 16.9% return of the S&P 500 Index. The 2017 YTD performance of emerging market stocks, however, was the clear winner at 32.64%.
The correlation of non-U.S. developed stocks and large-cap U.S. stocks over the past 15 years was 0.86 — only slightly lower than the 0.91 correlation between large-cap U.S. stocks and mid-cap U.S. stocks. This suggests that non-U.S. stocks — particularly in developed non-U.S. economies — are no longer a reliable diversifier for U.S. investors. In the 1970’s and 1980’s, developed non-U.S. stocks had much lower correlation with the U.S. equity market and, as such, were a useful diversifier for U.S. investors. However, the economic intertwining of the globe has synchronized markets to a high degree over the past 10 to 15 years.
WHICH IS BEST?
Now, on to the real issue: which of these 11 asset classes was the best partner when teamed with large-cap stocks over the past 15 years? The answer depends on your goal: do you want lower volatility or enhanced performance? A summary of the 15-year risk and return measurements for various 60/40 portfolio combinations is provided in the table “60/40 Combos.”
Which of these 11 asset classes was the best partner when teamed with large-cap stocks over the past 15 years? The answer depends on your goal: do you want lower volatility or enhanced performance?
If your goal was to reduce volatility below that of the S&P 500, the five low-correlation asset classes (US TIPS, cash, non-U.S. bonds, U.S. bonds and commodities) achieved that. For example, a portfolio that consisted of 60% large-cap U.S. stocks and 40% TIPS had a 15-year standard deviation of return of 10.92%, compared with 18.16% for large-cap U.S. stocks by themselves. Yet, the 15-year return dropped by only 4 basis points — from 6.69% to 6.65%.
Recall from the previous table that the 15-year return of TIPS by itself was 5.3%, so one might think that adding TIPS as the 40% component in a 60/40 portfolio would have degraded performance by far more than 4 bps. The magic of lowering volatility while maintaining performance is in the low correlation of TIPS to large-cap U.S. stocks (which was 0.02 over this 15-year period). TIPS and large-cap U.S. stocks do not march to the same drummer — and that’s a good thing. Thus, the performance of the teammate to large-cap stock can have a lower return than large-cap U.S. stock, but if it also has a low correlation to U.S. stocks, the net result can be a 60/40 portfolio that has nearly same return as large-cap stock by itself — but with far less volatility.
If your objective was to maximize return, the high correlation ingredients accomplished that goal — with the exception of developed non-U.S. stocks. In fact, let’s examine the impact of blending developed non-U.S. stocks with large-cap U.S. stocks in a 60/40 portfolio a bit more deeply. You will notice that developed non-U.S. stocks (specifically the MSCI EAFE Index) had a 15-year return by themselves of 5.28% — almost identical to the 15-year return of TIPS.
However, developed non-U.S. stocks had a high correlation of 0.86 with large-cap U.S. stocks. Thus, unlike TIPS, combining the MSCI EAFE Index with the S&P 500 resulted in a 15-year return of 6.23% — or 42 basis points below the return of a 60% U.S. large stock/40% TIPS portfolio.
Here is a key takeaway message: When building portfolios, we need to know if the fund we are considering will be a good teammate to the other funds already in the portfolio, rather than its performance as a stand-alone fund.
Blending low-correlation funds together is not a guarantee that performance will improve, but it almost always results in a reduction of volatility. And that alone makes it worth doing.
Calculating the correlation of a fund with the other funds already in a portfolio is one way to assess that particular fund’s potential to be a good teammate. Understandably, correlation in the past is not a perfect predictor of correlation in the future, but it is a logical starting point to evaluate when building multiasset portfolios.
Note that the Barclays U.S. Treasury U.S. TIPS Index and the MSCI EAFE Index had a nearly identical 15-year return in 2002-2016. But, the TIPS index was a better teammate for large-cap U.S. stocks because of its lower correlation to the S&P 500. Blending low-correlation funds together is not a guarantee that performance will improve, but it almost always results in a reduction of volatility. And that alone makes it worth doing.
As a final note, as shown in the last row of the chart, if all 12 asset classes (large-cap U.S. stock through midcap U.S. stock) were blended together in equal portions of 8.33% and rebalanced annually, the 15-year standard deviation of return was 13.22% (27% lower than the S&P 500 Index by itself), the 15-year return was 7.6% (91 bps higher than the S&P 500 by itself), and the performance in 2008 was minus 25.5% (31% better than the 37% loss experienced by the S&P 500.
A retiree living off her portfolio suffers hundreds of dollars a year in lost income for every added basis point of fund expense ratio and advisory fees.May 18
One of the major aims of asset allocation is to craft a portfolio with ingredients that don’t all behave in exactly the same way to protect against all assets heading south at the same time. But, of course, that downside protection can be a double-edged sword.January 5
Moreover, the 12-asset portfolio (which is a 65% growth/35% fixed income model) outperformed the traditional 60/40 model by 124 bps over the 15-year period 2002-2016, albeit with somewhat higher volatility (13.22% standard deviation versus 10.43% standard deviation).
Now, to return to my core question, is there a better partner for U.S. large-cap stocks in a 60/40 portfolio? Depending on your investment objectives, there are several that you might find better. But, beyond that, consider more than two asset classes.