1
00:00:02,480 --> 00:00:07,280
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio studios, podcasts, radio news.

2
00:00:11,800 --> 00:00:12,800
Speaker 2: Creations.

3
00:00:13,600 --> 00:00:46,479
Speaker 1: Big broad market cap weighted indexes like the S and

4
00:00:46,560 --> 00:00:52,160
Speaker 1: P five hundred have dominated investor inflows and performance really

5
00:00:52,200 --> 00:00:57,280
Speaker 1: since the Financial crisis, but lately critics of cap waiting

6
00:00:57,360 --> 00:01:01,560
Speaker 1: point out that increased market concentration of just a handful

7
00:01:01,640 --> 00:01:02,840
Speaker 1: of stocks.

8
00:01:02,400 --> 00:01:08,399
Speaker 3: Aka the Magnificent seven is increasing risks for investors. What

9
00:01:08,520 --> 00:01:12,360
Speaker 3: should a portfolio manager do about this? Well, to help

10
00:01:12,440 --> 00:01:14,399
Speaker 3: us unpack all of this and what it means for

11
00:01:14,560 --> 00:01:18,680
Speaker 3: your portfolio, let's bring in Rob are Not, founder of

12
00:01:18,720 --> 00:01:24,800
Speaker 3: Research Affiliates and a longstanding critic of market cap weighted indexes.

13
00:01:25,360 --> 00:01:29,840
Speaker 3: Raffie runs a variety of fundamental indexes that are based

14
00:01:29,880 --> 00:01:35,560
Speaker 3: on things outside of cap weighted. Let's jump right into it, so, Rob,

15
00:01:35,600 --> 00:01:40,840
Speaker 3: you've spent decades challenging cap weighted indexes. Is simply just

16
00:01:40,959 --> 00:01:43,919
Speaker 3: own more of what just went up. Frame the case

17
00:01:44,000 --> 00:01:47,920
Speaker 3: for alternative waiting, regardless of what it is, equal weight,

18
00:01:48,000 --> 00:01:52,480
Speaker 3: fundamental whatever versus traditional cap weighting indices.

19
00:01:53,720 --> 00:01:56,760
Speaker 2: Let's play a thought experiment. Suppose I came to you

20
00:01:56,800 --> 00:01:59,040
Speaker 2: and said, I have a brilliant strategy.

21
00:02:00,160 --> 00:02:00,480
Speaker 1: Love it.

22
00:02:01,320 --> 00:02:06,240
Speaker 2: This strategy involves watching companies and waiting until their market

23
00:02:06,320 --> 00:02:12,280
Speaker 2: value gets above a certain threshold and buying them on average,

24
00:02:12,320 --> 00:02:14,960
Speaker 2: I'm buying them when they're up seventy five percent relative

25
00:02:14,960 --> 00:02:17,519
Speaker 2: to the market in the last year and trading it

26
00:02:17,600 --> 00:02:20,120
Speaker 2: twice the market multiple. Some of these go on to

27
00:02:20,240 --> 00:02:25,799
Speaker 2: achieve great success, some don't. And our cell discipline is

28
00:02:25,919 --> 00:02:29,480
Speaker 2: very simple. When the market cap falls below a certain threshold,

29
00:02:30,040 --> 00:02:32,400
Speaker 2: we're going to sell them, and we'll sell them at

30
00:02:32,440 --> 00:02:35,680
Speaker 2: it on average half the market multiple, at a loss

31
00:02:35,720 --> 00:02:38,640
Speaker 2: of about seven thousand basis points relative to the market.

32
00:02:38,639 --> 00:02:42,520
Speaker 3: What do you think, well best hard past.

33
00:02:43,280 --> 00:02:45,919
Speaker 2: What I've just described is the active side of indexing.

34
00:02:45,960 --> 00:02:49,960
Speaker 2: I've got a monograph coming out shortly cfa Institute Research

35
00:02:50,000 --> 00:02:56,320
Speaker 2: Foundation monograph called the Active Side of Indexing, and indexing

36
00:02:56,400 --> 00:03:02,360
Speaker 2: is described as passive. But if it has turnover, the

37
00:03:02,440 --> 00:03:05,560
Speaker 2: ninety five percent is passive. It moves up and down

38
00:03:07,000 --> 00:03:11,520
Speaker 2: with the market movements, and it's blissfully ignorant and indifferent

39
00:03:11,560 --> 00:03:13,800
Speaker 2: to what's going on in the economy or the companies

40
00:03:13,880 --> 00:03:19,720
Speaker 2: or whatever. It is really passive. The five percent looks

41
00:03:20,000 --> 00:03:28,320
Speaker 2: like a hyper growth manager on crystal math. So, and

42
00:03:28,360 --> 00:03:31,200
Speaker 2: the waiting is also an issue. Why if I came

43
00:03:31,240 --> 00:03:33,519
Speaker 2: to you and said I've got a brilliant I'm gonna wait.

44
00:03:33,639 --> 00:03:38,240
Speaker 2: Stocks proportional to their price. So the more expensive they are,

45
00:03:38,600 --> 00:03:41,680
Speaker 2: the bigger it's weighting your portfolio. Don't you just love it?

46
00:03:43,000 --> 00:03:47,040
Speaker 3: So let's dive into that a little bit. I know

47
00:03:47,320 --> 00:03:52,240
Speaker 3: anybody who's in an index or watches in horror every

48
00:03:52,280 --> 00:03:55,760
Speaker 3: time something gets added to the index, and then there's

49
00:03:55,800 --> 00:03:59,880
Speaker 3: this grace period where the stock runs up and it's

50
00:04:00,040 --> 00:04:03,520
Speaker 3: even more expensive when it gets added. It's even worse

51
00:04:03,640 --> 00:04:08,360
Speaker 3: when there's a deletion. They announce a deletion and they plummet,

52
00:04:08,600 --> 00:04:12,040
Speaker 3: anticipating front running the sell.

53
00:04:13,560 --> 00:04:15,560
Speaker 2: Is this just a hidden goront running?

54
00:04:16,320 --> 00:04:17,920
Speaker 3: I mean, if you're going to tell me you're going

55
00:04:18,000 --> 00:04:21,919
Speaker 3: to sell, Hey, we have two trillion dollars in this index.

56
00:04:22,400 --> 00:04:25,080
Speaker 3: We're going to sell this position in a month, why

57
00:04:25,120 --> 00:04:27,560
Speaker 3: would you hold onto that exactly?

58
00:04:28,760 --> 00:04:31,039
Speaker 2: S and P is a beautiful example. S and P

59
00:04:31,640 --> 00:04:34,919
Speaker 2: is now big enough that the stocks held in S

60
00:04:34,960 --> 00:04:38,760
Speaker 2: and P index funds represent roughly twenty five percent of

61
00:04:38,800 --> 00:04:41,320
Speaker 2: the total market cap of every stock that's in the index,

62
00:04:42,040 --> 00:04:47,000
Speaker 2: not each individual ETF or index fund, but aggregated. And

63
00:04:47,040 --> 00:04:50,440
Speaker 2: that means that to the extent that indexers are obsessed

64
00:04:50,560 --> 00:04:55,440
Speaker 2: with having no tracking error with matching the index. They're

65
00:04:55,440 --> 00:04:58,080
Speaker 2: going to buy that stock at the same price that

66
00:04:58,120 --> 00:05:01,000
Speaker 2: it's added to the index, which means a market on

67
00:05:01,279 --> 00:05:05,840
Speaker 2: close price. I will pay whatever the price is at

68
00:05:06,200 --> 00:05:10,159
Speaker 2: the close on the day that it's added to the index. Now,

69
00:05:11,160 --> 00:05:13,840
Speaker 2: if you're a hedge fund, you're going to want to

70
00:05:13,880 --> 00:05:19,000
Speaker 2: accommodate that and help out by buying it early and

71
00:05:19,040 --> 00:05:22,000
Speaker 2: then flipping it to the indexers. And so that's been

72
00:05:22,040 --> 00:05:27,479
Speaker 2: going on for core a century or more. I documented

73
00:05:27,480 --> 00:05:32,520
Speaker 2: the pattern back in nineteen eighty six in a article

74
00:05:32,560 --> 00:05:35,560
Speaker 2: called S and B Additions and Deletions of Market Anomaly,

75
00:05:36,279 --> 00:05:40,960
Speaker 2: and I heard anecdotally that that was used. That article

76
00:05:41,040 --> 00:05:45,359
Speaker 2: was used in part to lobby S and P to

77
00:05:45,480 --> 00:05:50,920
Speaker 2: pre announce so that index funds wouldn't get nailed by

78
00:05:51,600 --> 00:05:54,120
Speaker 2: the index changes. Now they're going to buy this and

79
00:05:54,200 --> 00:05:57,520
Speaker 2: sell that, and they're buying it higher and selling this lower,

80
00:05:57,600 --> 00:06:01,599
Speaker 2: and so they have an automatic drag. The magnitude of

81
00:06:01,600 --> 00:06:05,840
Speaker 2: that drag is actually very simple. If you could transact

82
00:06:06,920 --> 00:06:10,760
Speaker 2: at the price at which S and P announced the decision,

83
00:06:11,360 --> 00:06:14,200
Speaker 2: not the price at which it becomes effective, you would

84
00:06:14,240 --> 00:06:18,320
Speaker 2: add fifteen basis points per annum. So the indexes lose

85
00:06:18,360 --> 00:06:23,840
Speaker 2: fifteen basis points just from trading costs. With five percent

86
00:06:23,960 --> 00:06:27,120
Speaker 2: annual turnover or less three to five percent annual turnover,

87
00:06:29,160 --> 00:06:32,159
Speaker 2: that's equivalent to three to five hundred basis points per

88
00:06:32,200 --> 00:06:36,240
Speaker 2: stock per trade. That's a heavy trading cost. But it's

89
00:06:36,240 --> 00:06:38,719
Speaker 2: because it's crowded space. It's a herd of elephants trying

90
00:06:38,720 --> 00:06:40,560
Speaker 2: to go through a single revolving door.

91
00:06:41,520 --> 00:06:45,320
Speaker 3: Let's talk about the flip flop problem. Every time there's

92
00:06:45,320 --> 00:06:49,920
Speaker 3: an addition, something like twenty eight percent within a decade

93
00:06:50,000 --> 00:06:55,320
Speaker 3: get dropped. And similarly, after there's a deletion, almost half

94
00:06:55,360 --> 00:06:58,840
Speaker 3: of those deletions rejoin the S and P within a decade.

95
00:06:59,000 --> 00:07:01,080
Speaker 3: What is this flip flop due to performance?

96
00:07:01,800 --> 00:07:04,680
Speaker 2: Well, it does what you would expect. When I did

97
00:07:04,800 --> 00:07:09,960
Speaker 2: my little thought experiment describing a brilliant strategy, I was

98
00:07:10,000 --> 00:07:15,520
Speaker 2: actually citing statistics from our flip Flops paper. On average,

99
00:07:15,560 --> 00:07:19,440
Speaker 2: stocks that are added are added after seventy five percentage

100
00:07:19,440 --> 00:07:23,120
Speaker 2: points of outperformance. If they falter and are kicked back out,

101
00:07:23,760 --> 00:07:28,200
Speaker 2: they're removed at a seven thousand basis point loss. Now,

102
00:07:28,200 --> 00:07:31,200
Speaker 2: if you gain seventy five and lose seventy, you aren't

103
00:07:31,200 --> 00:07:35,800
Speaker 2: back where you started. You're down fifty, and it's worse

104
00:07:35,840 --> 00:07:38,440
Speaker 2: than that because you didn't participate in the seventy five.

105
00:07:38,560 --> 00:07:43,360
Speaker 2: You did participate in the down seventy. The deletion flip

106
00:07:43,360 --> 00:07:47,440
Speaker 2: flop stocks that are deleted and re added are even

107
00:07:47,480 --> 00:07:51,720
Speaker 2: more dramatic. They underperformed by thirty five hundred basis points,

108
00:07:51,720 --> 00:07:54,680
Speaker 2: give or take in the year before they're dropped, and

109
00:07:54,720 --> 00:07:58,080
Speaker 2: then they outperformed by one hundred and eighty percentage points.

110
00:07:58,120 --> 00:08:01,760
Speaker 2: They roughly triple relative to the market before they're added

111
00:08:01,800 --> 00:08:05,920
Speaker 2: back in. So flip flops are very, very costly. And

112
00:08:06,760 --> 00:08:11,280
Speaker 2: none of this is disrespect to the index providers. Is

113
00:08:12,680 --> 00:08:17,040
Speaker 2: this stuff has not been studied much until we took

114
00:08:17,080 --> 00:08:20,280
Speaker 2: a deep dive into it. If you don't know you

115
00:08:20,360 --> 00:08:22,000
Speaker 2: have a problem, how are you going to fix it?

116
00:08:22,200 --> 00:08:28,360
Speaker 2: And the problem is big, but it's on a very

117
00:08:28,360 --> 00:08:31,400
Speaker 2: small part of the portfolio. It's on the active side

118
00:08:31,440 --> 00:08:33,840
Speaker 2: of indexing, the little sliver of active trading.

119
00:08:34,160 --> 00:08:38,560
Speaker 3: Huh, really interesting, So let's talk about fixing it. You

120
00:08:38,720 --> 00:08:42,000
Speaker 3: have been discussing for as long as I know you,

121
00:08:42,080 --> 00:08:47,959
Speaker 3: which is decades, economy waiting in disease rather than cap

122
00:08:48,000 --> 00:08:53,160
Speaker 3: weighting or price waiting to find what a fundamental economic

123
00:08:53,240 --> 00:08:56,199
Speaker 3: waiting of an index is what goes into that.

124
00:08:57,520 --> 00:09:01,480
Speaker 2: Let's suppose you want an index that studiously mirrors the

125
00:09:01,520 --> 00:09:06,319
Speaker 2: economy instead of studiously mirroring the market. Well, you wouldn't

126
00:09:06,320 --> 00:09:09,400
Speaker 2: wait companies by market cap. You wouldn't choose them based

127
00:09:09,400 --> 00:09:11,640
Speaker 2: on market cap. Let's choose them based on how big

128
00:09:11,679 --> 00:09:15,200
Speaker 2: their business is. Well, how do you define that? How

129
00:09:15,240 --> 00:09:18,880
Speaker 2: bigger its sales, how bigger it's profits, How big is

130
00:09:18,920 --> 00:09:22,920
Speaker 2: it's net worth? Today we would go a step further

131
00:09:22,960 --> 00:09:27,000
Speaker 2: and say net worth adjusted for intangibles, how much does

132
00:09:27,040 --> 00:09:31,360
Speaker 2: it distribute to shareholders and dividends and buybacks? Four different measures.

133
00:09:31,520 --> 00:09:34,400
Speaker 2: You could argue endlessly about which is right, or you

134
00:09:34,440 --> 00:09:36,360
Speaker 2: could simply say, I'm going to take the average of

135
00:09:36,360 --> 00:09:41,040
Speaker 2: the four weights. So Nvidia is a decent slug of

136
00:09:41,440 --> 00:09:44,040
Speaker 2: total profits in the economy, but it's not seven or

137
00:09:44,080 --> 00:09:47,760
Speaker 2: eight percent, not its market weight. It's in the two

138
00:09:47,760 --> 00:09:51,000
Speaker 2: percent range in terms of sales, it's in the two

139
00:09:51,080 --> 00:09:56,839
Speaker 2: percent range in terms of dividends or net worth. It's

140
00:09:57,679 --> 00:10:01,160
Speaker 2: rounds to a very very small number. So you could argue,

141
00:10:01,280 --> 00:10:03,400
Speaker 2: is that half a percent or one percent or two

142
00:10:03,400 --> 00:10:07,600
Speaker 2: percent it's average those You're going to say it's about

143
00:10:07,600 --> 00:10:10,640
Speaker 2: one one and a half percent of the economy. Okay,

144
00:10:11,000 --> 00:10:13,079
Speaker 2: that's big enough to make the cut. We're going to

145
00:10:13,120 --> 00:10:15,480
Speaker 2: include it, and we'll include it at one one and

146
00:10:15,480 --> 00:10:18,520
Speaker 2: a half percent weight. Now, if you do that, what

147
00:10:18,559 --> 00:10:22,480
Speaker 2: you're doing is taking the frothy gross stocks, beloved and

148
00:10:22,600 --> 00:10:26,720
Speaker 2: expected to grow fabulously and downweighthing them to their current

149
00:10:26,880 --> 00:10:31,480
Speaker 2: economic footprint. You're taking the value stocks, the unloved outa

150
00:10:31,480 --> 00:10:35,280
Speaker 2: favor cheap stocks, and you're saying, let's reweight those up

151
00:10:35,480 --> 00:10:38,400
Speaker 2: to their economic footprint. So you wind up with a

152
00:10:38,559 --> 00:10:43,120
Speaker 2: stark value tilt. And that means the sensible way to

153
00:10:43,280 --> 00:10:48,440
Speaker 2: measure RAFFI the fundamental index is to measure it against

154
00:10:48,840 --> 00:10:52,280
Speaker 2: the value indexes. And that's where it gets really interesting.

155
00:10:52,800 --> 00:10:57,320
Speaker 2: Schwab and Invesco have ETF some mutual funds, Pimco has

156
00:10:57,320 --> 00:11:04,120
Speaker 2: some ETFs tied to the fundamental index, and collectively those

157
00:11:04,280 --> 00:11:09,079
Speaker 2: three organizations have over one hundred billion dollars in RAFFIE assets.

158
00:11:09,080 --> 00:11:11,920
Speaker 2: So this is not it's not new, it's not small.

159
00:11:11,960 --> 00:11:14,800
Speaker 2: We introduced the idea about twenty years ago. If you

160
00:11:14,960 --> 00:11:20,000
Speaker 2: compare it with the cap weighted value indexes, you get

161
00:11:20,040 --> 00:11:25,040
Speaker 2: an astonishing result. The on average RAFFI beats the cap

162
00:11:25,080 --> 00:11:27,920
Speaker 2: weighted value indexes by two to two and a half

163
00:11:27,960 --> 00:11:33,080
Speaker 2: percent per year compounded, and does so with variability.

164
00:11:34,480 --> 00:11:37,760
Speaker 3: How does that How does that compare to the cap

165
00:11:37,800 --> 00:11:39,200
Speaker 3: weighted growth indexes.

166
00:11:40,960 --> 00:11:46,720
Speaker 2: The growth indexes have outperformed hugely, but they've outperformed by

167
00:11:46,840 --> 00:11:50,479
Speaker 2: dint of becoming more and more expensive relative to fundamentals.

168
00:11:51,559 --> 00:11:55,200
Speaker 2: The underlying fundamentals, the value of the value indexes in

169
00:11:55,280 --> 00:12:00,559
Speaker 2: terms of sales, profits, book value dividends has have grown

170
00:12:00,679 --> 00:12:07,680
Speaker 2: roughly parapassu with growth portfolios this century today, which shocks

171
00:12:07,760 --> 00:12:11,040
Speaker 2: most people because the relative performance has been about two

172
00:12:11,120 --> 00:12:13,959
Speaker 2: to three percent per annum for a quarter century, and

173
00:12:14,600 --> 00:12:20,200
Speaker 2: the notion that wow, this has beat this now by

174
00:12:21,960 --> 00:12:24,080
Speaker 2: call it something on the order of two to one

175
00:12:25,200 --> 00:12:28,840
Speaker 2: ten thousand basis points out performance, but the underlying fundamentals

176
00:12:28,880 --> 00:12:29,920
Speaker 2: have grown in parallel.

177
00:12:30,880 --> 00:12:34,120
Speaker 3: Let me re ask that question in a different way,

178
00:12:34,880 --> 00:12:39,680
Speaker 3: which is, if we know there's a disadvantage to cap

179
00:12:39,880 --> 00:12:44,960
Speaker 3: weighted indexes, well, isn't the obvious and simple alternative just

180
00:12:45,240 --> 00:12:47,360
Speaker 3: equal weight? Why not just go equal weight?

181
00:12:48,600 --> 00:12:52,560
Speaker 2: Equal Weighting is a perfectly legitimate way to create a portfolio.

182
00:12:52,760 --> 00:12:56,720
Speaker 2: It's going to have a stark small cap tilt because

183
00:12:57,679 --> 00:13:00,120
Speaker 2: a tiny company will get the same weight as in

184
00:13:00,240 --> 00:13:07,040
Speaker 2: video as exon mobile. It will have a stark value

185
00:13:07,080 --> 00:13:11,280
Speaker 2: bias because companies that are trading at low multiples will

186
00:13:11,280 --> 00:13:13,640
Speaker 2: get the same way to stocks trading at high multiples.

187
00:13:14,360 --> 00:13:17,600
Speaker 2: It will have a rebalancing alpha. If it stock soars,

188
00:13:18,120 --> 00:13:20,360
Speaker 2: you're going to trim it. If it tumbles, you're going

189
00:13:20,400 --> 00:13:25,959
Speaker 2: to top it up. The only achilles heel that I

190
00:13:26,000 --> 00:13:31,120
Speaker 2: think matters for equal weighting is equal weighting what stocks.

191
00:13:32,240 --> 00:13:36,080
Speaker 2: Equal weighting the S and P. For instance, you're going

192
00:13:36,200 --> 00:13:40,360
Speaker 2: to be equal weighting a portfolio that includes companies that

193
00:13:40,440 --> 00:13:43,960
Speaker 2: have soared onto into being big enough to be added.

194
00:13:44,400 --> 00:13:47,000
Speaker 2: You're going to be leaving out companies that have performed

195
00:13:47,000 --> 00:13:50,600
Speaker 2: badly enough to be really cheap. And the result is

196
00:13:50,679 --> 00:13:54,080
Speaker 2: that you're going to have a portfolio that's biased towards

197
00:13:54,160 --> 00:14:02,760
Speaker 2: higher multiple stocks. So interestingly, equal weighting over long periods

198
00:14:02,760 --> 00:14:06,360
Speaker 2: of time performs about the same as fundamental index, which

199
00:14:06,480 --> 00:14:11,920
Speaker 2: we launched twenty years ago, and that but with much

200
00:14:11,920 --> 00:14:12,880
Speaker 2: more variability.

201
00:14:14,240 --> 00:14:16,880
Speaker 3: Got it that that makes a lot of sense. So

202
00:14:17,200 --> 00:14:21,520
Speaker 3: if you're if we're looking at a fundamental driven index

203
00:14:22,320 --> 00:14:26,280
Speaker 3: in a period where you know megacaps are dominating or

204
00:14:26,280 --> 00:14:30,280
Speaker 3: growth are dominating. How do you ride that out? Up

205
00:14:30,360 --> 00:14:33,960
Speaker 3: until last year, it felt like if you weren't overweight

206
00:14:34,120 --> 00:14:38,280
Speaker 3: the MAG seven, you were underperforming. Until we learned last

207
00:14:38,360 --> 00:14:43,200
Speaker 3: year five of the seven MAG seven underperformed in twenty

208
00:14:43,280 --> 00:14:43,840
Speaker 3: twenty five.

209
00:14:44,480 --> 00:14:51,280
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, shocking. The thing that I find interesting here

210
00:14:51,360 --> 00:14:55,840
Speaker 2: is we introduced Fundamental Index in two thousand and five,

211
00:14:57,120 --> 00:15:00,320
Speaker 2: and live strategies at Pimco go back to mid two

212
00:15:00,320 --> 00:15:03,360
Speaker 2: thousand and five. At Investo go back to late two

213
00:15:03,440 --> 00:15:06,480
Speaker 2: thousand and five, So it's live, it's been investable for

214
00:15:06,520 --> 00:15:11,800
Speaker 2: twenty years. The thing that's interesting is just two years later,

215
00:15:11,880 --> 00:15:19,360
Speaker 2: two thousand and seven, Value crested and it underperformed ferociously

216
00:15:19,840 --> 00:15:24,040
Speaker 2: until summer of twenty twenty. Since then, it's been bottom bouncing,

217
00:15:24,520 --> 00:15:30,200
Speaker 2: outperforming handily, then crashing, outperforming, then crashing, bottom balancing, and

218
00:15:30,240 --> 00:15:35,240
Speaker 2: so at the end of twenty twenty five, Value had

219
00:15:35,320 --> 00:15:40,320
Speaker 2: underperformed Russell. Value had underperformed the Russell one thousand peaked

220
00:15:40,320 --> 00:15:43,760
Speaker 2: to trough by thirty eight hundred basis points. You were

221
00:15:43,800 --> 00:15:47,320
Speaker 2: thirty eight percent poorer than a simplest Russell or SMP

222
00:15:47,400 --> 00:15:52,200
Speaker 2: index investor. That's a horrific headwind for anything with a

223
00:15:52,280 --> 00:15:59,000
Speaker 2: value tilt RAFI fundamental index has a rebalancing elpha stock

224
00:15:59,160 --> 00:16:03,160
Speaker 2: soares and it's fundamentals don't validate that, then you're going

225
00:16:03,200 --> 00:16:04,960
Speaker 2: to say, thanks for the nice high price, I'm going

226
00:16:04,960 --> 00:16:08,160
Speaker 2: to trim it. If it tanks and the fundamentals don't falter,

227
00:16:08,520 --> 00:16:10,160
Speaker 2: you're going to say, thanks for the bargain, I'm going

228
00:16:10,200 --> 00:16:10,800
Speaker 2: to top it up.

229
00:16:11,440 --> 00:16:15,400
Speaker 3: So let's talk a little more about that rebalancing strategy.

230
00:16:15,920 --> 00:16:18,400
Speaker 3: What sort of alpha does that create? How does that

231
00:16:18,520 --> 00:16:19,440
Speaker 3: drive returns.

232
00:16:20,440 --> 00:16:24,080
Speaker 2: The best way to measure the performance of RAFFIA is

233
00:16:24,120 --> 00:16:28,680
Speaker 2: against the cap weighted value indexes relative to the value indexes.

234
00:16:29,680 --> 00:16:34,280
Speaker 2: This is live. The RAFFI indexes have beat the cap

235
00:16:34,320 --> 00:16:38,240
Speaker 2: weighted value indexes by a little over two percent per

236
00:16:38,320 --> 00:16:44,760
Speaker 2: year compounded. Now with compounding, that's a big number. That

237
00:16:44,800 --> 00:16:47,320
Speaker 2: means that you're over fifty percent richer than you were

238
00:16:48,000 --> 00:16:51,600
Speaker 2: with a cap weighted value index after twenty years, So

239
00:16:52,960 --> 00:16:57,120
Speaker 2: that's important. Now, the other thing that's interesting is relative

240
00:16:57,160 --> 00:17:00,840
Speaker 2: to the value indexes. The tracking error is pretty it's

241
00:17:00,880 --> 00:17:03,760
Speaker 2: about two and a half percent variability in that two

242
00:17:03,760 --> 00:17:09,760
Speaker 2: percent value ad, which means that RAFFI has beat cap

243
00:17:09,800 --> 00:17:13,879
Speaker 2: weighted value in most years when value has been winning

244
00:17:14,600 --> 00:17:17,840
Speaker 2: and in most years when value has been losing, it

245
00:17:17,920 --> 00:17:22,080
Speaker 2: doesn't matter. RAFFI has been winning at about three out

246
00:17:22,080 --> 00:17:24,879
Speaker 2: of every four years, and this is live. This is

247
00:17:24,960 --> 00:17:25,840
Speaker 2: not a back test.

248
00:17:26,440 --> 00:17:31,720
Speaker 3: So to wrap up, investors who are concerned about market concentration,

249
00:17:32,320 --> 00:17:37,879
Speaker 3: concerned about valuation, but a little skittish on the underperformance

250
00:17:37,920 --> 00:17:42,720
Speaker 3: that value has created in a cap weighted format should

251
00:17:42,800 --> 00:17:48,359
Speaker 3: consider a fundamental index. It trades differently than both growth

252
00:17:48,480 --> 00:17:52,879
Speaker 3: and value and has a better risk profile and a

253
00:17:52,960 --> 00:17:57,560
Speaker 3: better evaluation profile. I'm Barry redults, you're listening to Bloombergs

254
00:17:57,800 --> 00:18:02,120
Speaker 3: at the money