.svg)
Investor Bias Seen In Data
Alpha Theory’s Analytics Department identified patterns that point to certain investor biases. Biases occur when managers size positions different than what the risk-reward would suggest. Read more to see specific examples.
By Cameron Hight and Justin Harris
Alpha Theory’s Analytics Department studies clients’ historical data to provide useful insights. Over time, we have identified patterns that point to certain investor biases. Typically, biases are highlighted by deviations between actual and optimal position sizes. Said another way, biases occur when managers size positions different than what the risk-reward would suggest.
Here are a few examples:
1. NOT ADJUSTING POSITION SIZE AFTER A BIG PRICE MOVE: One of the most common biases we see in the data, is that after large positive price changes, managers are less likely to cut exposure, even though the probability-weighted return has diminished due to the move. The potential damage from this willful ignorance is compounded by a much larger position with a lower expected return. The typical behavior of investors is to let winners run, however, we’ve found that to be sub-optimal for fundamental funds.
The first step to alleviating this bias is to force re-underwriting names when they reach an unacceptable PWR. If the new assumptions justify the size, then all is good. If not, then the manager knows there is some bias that is causing them to stay in the position. Forcing re-underwriting at critical levels ensures that checks and balances are in place so that profits are kept and not lost on reversals.
2. NOT SIZING UP GOOD PROBABILITY-WEIGHTED RETURN WHEN INITIATING A POSITION: When analysts input price targets into Alpha Theory, and a manager decides to act on that information, what we’ve seen in the data is a tendency to build a position over time. We’ve found, on average, this is detrimental to returns. Slowly scaling into a high conviction and high probability weighted return name causes investors to miss some of the return potential.
3. UNDISCIPLINED APPROACH: Our data has shown that managers who are more disciplined (i.e. have more of their portfolio with price target coverage and size closer to optimal position sizing) tend to outperform those who don’t. Unfortunately, running complex sizing algorithms through our heads is not something we do well. What we see in the data is that positions without explicit price targets underperform. Be it hubris or any other number of reasons, it’s almost always detrimental to returns.
4. DIVERSIFYING: Our research shows that the largest positions in client portfolios outperform smaller names by a big margin, mostly because the batting average on top holdings is high. Most clients nullify this benefit by taking on many more names in the portfolio at much lower probability-weighted returns. We’ve done research which shows that concentrated portfolios outperform diversified portfolios by 2.2% on an alpha basis (run as a Monte Carlo study using batting averages calculated for various portions of client portfolios 2011-2016). The cost of diversification is a loss of alpha without a commensurate improvement in risk protection.
For 2016 returns, if clients sized using the suggested Optimal Position Size, they would have been better off by 5.1%. Clearly we recognize that not every position was able to be sized optimally, but even if half of that difference could have been captured, there was a lot of money left on the table. The biases above highlight why some of the difference occurs. It’s hard to beat an unemotional version of yourself, especially when we’re not psychologically built for the game.
