Following the market crash of 2008 that hit virtually every asset class, asset allocation theory has taken a beating. Detractors claim that asset allocation – diversifying your investment dollars among a broad range of assets classes to limit exposure to big losses – no longer works because we are in different times. The Wall Street Journal recently published an article on the failure of asset allocation as a portfolio strategy.[1]
While it may seem like diversification did not work in 2008 and your entire portfolio went down with the market, we believe that diversification is still effective and that asset allocation remains the bedrock of successful long-term investing.
At the heart of asset allocation theory is the concept of correlation. Simply put, correlation is a statistical measure of how the returns of two different asset classes move relative to one another; they can move in the same direction, travel in opposite directions, or move independently (meaning there is no correlation). Historically, certain asset classes tend to move up while other classes tend to move down and vice versa. One example of a negative or inverse correlation would be the relationship between stocks and bonds: when stocks do well, bonds tend not to be in favor and when stocks are out of favor, bonds tend to do better. Investment correlations used to develop diversified portfolios are based on years of actual data and careful statistical analysis.
In 2008, nearly every asset class moved downward in tandem, defying long-standing historical correlations.[2] Does this mean asset allocation has been disproven as a reliable investment theory? We think not. Diversification allows investors to hedge their bets in the face of an unknown and unknowable future. Diversified investors trade some of the upside potential that might flow from a concentrated portfolio in exchange for downside protection that any one investment decision might be wrong. Diversified portfolios may have been hit hard during this unusually broad market correction, but unlike some, diversified investors were not wiped out.
The 2008 market crash was extraordinary in its speed, illiquidity, and systemic nature. Historical correlations fell by the wayside as nearly every sector experienced enormous hits. Generally, correlations rise sharply during a financial crisis but those deviations typically are not sustainable over long periods of time. Diversification works because correlations return to historical norms following market corrections. Fidelity Investments recently released a report to investors on asset allocation, concluding, “Diversification didn’t fail in the recent market downturn. It worked — just to a lesser degree.”[3]
Winston Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.” The same might be said of asset allocation theory. Detractors suggest that asset allocation theory is flawed because the historical correlation among various asset classes has changed in the last several decades. “The old strategies were mathematically correct and gave a sense of a lot of discipline, [but] they were too backward-looking.”[4] If that is so, we have yet to see the data and the analysis that would bear that out.
Before discarding a historically proven investment theory, investors would be wise to consider the alternatives are. Asset allocation, though imperfect, is based on historical data and statistical analysis that earned a Nobel Prize for the mathematician who developed it. It has been tested against a number of market conditions over long periods of time. Are the new strategies being touted based on similarly rigorous analysis?
Market timing has not worked consistently over an extended period. If we reject diversification, is concentration a viable alternative? A concentrated portfolio (one which places all your investment dollars on a limited number of bets) is appealing in that it can provide enormous rewards to investors – but concentration also has the potential to wipe out an investor’s portfolio (not to mention raising his or her anxiety level). Concentration remains a risky choice and one that can only be justified only when an investor has a very high conviction level that his or her bets will prove to be the right ones and has stop-loss strategies in place to protect against total loss on any one bet.
At GV Capital Management, we use a hybrid approach to investing. Using various tools we carefully assess our clients’ objectives and income needs. We first look at securing primary objectives such as safety of principal to a desired degree, liquidity and inflation-adjusted income by allocating investment dollars among a combination of money markets, CDs, municipal and government bonds. We then invest the remainder in a diversified portfolio that seeks to generate total return and reduce risk by investing in a combination of carefully chosen asset classes. We select excellent money managers who meet our exacting criteria for character, discipline, and investment acumen. We monitor each portfolio and each manager, tracking both quantitative and qualitative measures, rebalance your portfolio as necessary, and make periodic tactical adjustments to take advantage of current market opportunities.
To learn more about GV Financial Advisors’ asset allocation approach and investment strategies, please contact us by clicking here>
Return to GV Wealth Insights Home>
[1] Tom Lauricella, “Failure of a Fail-Safe Strategy Sends Investors Scrambling,” Wall Street Journal, July 10, 2009.
[2] Ibid. “The S&P 500 lost 37%, the MSCI index of major markets in Europe, Asia and Australia lost 45%. The MSCI emerging-markets index fell 55%. Real-estate investment trusts declined 37%, high-yield bonds lost 26% and commodities fell 37%.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.

