ITA Wealth Management

  • Home
  • Blog
  • Guest Registration
  • Lifetime Member
  • Forum
  • Reset Password
  • Contact Me
  • About Me
You are here: Home / Beginning Investors / Asset Allocation Is Not Responsible For 90% of Portfolio Returns

Asset Allocation Is Not Responsible For 90% of Portfolio Returns

March 21, 2015 By Lowell Herr

One of the more misunderstood results to come out of the Brinson et al papers is the statement that 90% of a portfolio returns is a result of asset allocation.  This paper by Mitch Tuchman gets it wrong.  Check the first paragraph under Reducing Risk.  90% of a portfolio return is not tied to asset allocation.  What Gary Brinson and his co-authors actually stated in their 1986 paper is found in the following quote.

“Data from 91 large U.S. pension plans over the 1974-1983 period indicate that investment policy dominates investment strategy (market timing and security selection), explaining on average 93.6% per cent of the variation in total plan return.”

Note that critical word, “variation.”  Tuchman is not alone in misinterpreting the Brinson research results by leaving out a key word – variation.

(Visited 495 times, 1 visits today)
facebookShare on Facebook
TwitterTweet
FollowFollow us
PinterestSave

Filed Under: Beginning Investors, Critical Material Tagged With: Beginning Investors

Comments

  1. Antonio Lapicca says

    March 21, 2015 at 12:28 PM

    Great post Lowell,

    his is indeed critical material!

    Hope everybody on your blog read it!

  2. Antonio Lapicca says

    March 21, 2015 at 12:29 PM

    missed a “T”:

    “This is indeed critical material!”

  3. John Fitzgerald says

    March 29, 2015 at 6:06 AM

    Lowell, is there a list of factors that statistically have been shown to explain the variability in portfolio returns. I assume many regression analyses have been done in many different ways, just curious. The quote above that “investment policy” explains 93.6 of the variability or variance in plan returns does not tell me much.

    Thanks

    • Lowell Herr says

      March 29, 2015 at 8:28 AM

      John,

      In this post I was referring to the Brinson et al. papers (there are two studies) and how they are frequently misrepresented. Part of the problem lies in the title of the article published in 1986 where the title is, “Determinants of Portfolio Performance.” Immediately one is drawn to the article as the implication is – this article will identify what variables (determinants) dictate the returns of a portfolio. The article fails to answer this question, but many authors who site these papers continue to think it is strictly asset allocation that is the end all of portfolio construction. While I still believe asset allocation is extremely important, it is not the whole story.

      Brinson examined data from 91 large U.S. pension plans and broke the portfolios into Stocks, Bonds, and Cash. One of my criticisms of the papers is that this is an incomplete breakdown. We know that many of these pensions will hold international equities, real estate, and private equity. In fact, private equity is now a significant percentage in many large endowment funds.

      To answer your question, the factors were primarily how the assets were divided between stocks, bonds, and cash. Stock selection and market timing were also considered, but played a smaller role in portfolio variations.

      I’m not sure if one can transfer studies from large pension plans over to small investors like those who read this blog.

      BTW, Brinson found that active management cost these pension plans 1.2 per cent per year and in some cases added as much as 3.69% to the cost. They would have been better off to invest in large index funds, not a lot different than recommended on this blog. 😉

      Lowell

  4. Lowell Herr says

    March 29, 2015 at 8:50 AM

    Platinum readers:

    I have a file folder on asset allocation that is about 3″ thick. One article by Mike Clowes is titled, “Allocation Confusion.” A review of this article is too long to publish in Comments so I will reserve it for a blog post. There is a lot of interesting conclusions in one page article.

    Stapled to the Clowes article is another paper written by Roger Ibbotson and Paul Kaplan. Ibbotson research is highly respected and this article, “Does Asset Allocation Policy Explain 40, 90, or 100 Percent of Performance?” is worth a review. Stay tuned for a blog post on the importance of asset allocation sometime in the next week.

    Lowell

  5. John Fitzgerald says

    March 29, 2015 at 2:12 PM

    Thanks!

Meta Data

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Search

Recent Posts

  • Looking Ahead To The Second Half of 2022 July 1, 2022
  • Carson Trio Review: 30 June 2022 June 30, 2022
  • Galileo Portfolio Review: 29 June 2022 June 29, 2022
  • Huygens Portfolio Review: 27 June 2022 June 27, 2022
  • Rutherford Portfolio Review (Tranche 2): 24 June 2022 June 26, 2022
  • Bullish Percent Indicators: 24 June 2022 June 25, 2022
  • Pauling Portfolio Review: 24 June 2022 June 24, 2022

Recent Comments

  • Lowell Herr on Huygens Portfolio Review: 27 June 2022
  • Lowell Herr on Bullish Percent Indicators: 17 June 2022
  • Lowell Herr on Kepler Portfolio Review: 17 June 2022
  • Lowell Herr on Bullish Percent Indicators: 10 June 2022
  • Lowell Herr on Bullish Percent Indicators: 10 June 2022
  • Mark Holbrook on Bullish Percent Indicators: 10 June 2022
  • Lowell Herr on Bullish Percent Indicators: 10 June 2022
  • Mark Holbrook on Bullish Percent Indicators: 10 June 2022
  • Lowell Herr on Bullish Percent Indicators: 20 May 2022
  • Lowell Herr on McClintock Portfolio Review: 10 June 2022

Users Online

8 Users Online
Users: 1 Guest, 7 Bots

Popular Posts

  • Hawking Portfolio Review – 1 April 2022
  • Investment Policy Statement: February 2022
  • How To Handle This Selloff: 18 May 2022
  • Rutherford Portfolio Review (Tranche 1): 8 April 2022
  • 2022 Guidelines for Relative Strength Portfolios
  • Kepler Portfolio Review: 15 March 2022
  • Hawking Portfolio Review – 1 March 2022
  • Schrodinger Portfolio Review: 4 February 2022
  • Using Volatility as a Diversifier and a Portfolio Hedge
  • Schrodinger Portfolio Review: 10 March 2022

General Investment News

Portfolios coming up for review are:  Huygens, Galileo, Carson Trio, and Einstein.  Non-scheduled portfolios may be reviewed.  If you are a new user, check the posts you missed. Links to Random Posts are found in the lower right-hand footer or just to the right of what you are now reading.  Most popular posts are found in the lower left-hand footer.

Check the Forum for more detailed information.  If you wish to begin a financial discussion, use the Forum.

Contact me at itawealth@comcast.net if interested in a Lifetime Membership.  Long-time Platinum members are now Lifetime members and this blog is free to all who signup as a Guest.  A few blogs are reserved for Lifetime members.

Random Posts

  • Response to Comments made by ITA member (John Shelton)
  • Einstein Portfolio Review: 18 February 2022
  • Absolute and Relative Momentum Analysis Using the Pauling: 22 December 2021
  • McClintock Portfolio Review: 21 September 2021
  • Using Volatility as a Diversifier and a Portfolio Hedge
  • Kahneman-Tversky Portfolio Review: 31 January 2022
  • Kahneman-Tversky Portfolio Review: 30 November 2021
  • Huygens Portfolio Review: 23 May 2022
  • Forum: How To Use It Efficiently
  • Huygens Portfolio Review: 20 May 2021
  • Test Notification of New Blog Posts

Log in | Website Design by BOING