U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is concerned about market volatility.
So concerned, in fact, that he said in a roundtable interview at Bloomberg’s Washington office on Tuesday that he plans to ask the Financial Stability Oversight Council, which he oversees, to look into what’s causing the turbulence. His working hypothesis is that high-speed traders and the Volcker Rule are to blame.
If Mnuchin was concerned on Tuesday, he must be spooked by now. The S&P 500 Index fell 1.5 percent on Wednesday and an additional 1.6 percent on Thursday. And the market expects more pain. The CBOE Volatility Index, or VIX, which measures expected volatility over the next 30 days, closed at 28.38 on Thursday, up 73 percent since Dec. 3 and 11 percent since Tuesday.
But here’s the reality: There’s nothing amiss about the recent volatility, and if anything, volatility has been lower than usual in recent years, not higher.
High-performing alternative investments are great if you can find them, but pension plans shouldn’t count on it.
The Pew Charitable Trusts recently published its latest report on the investment practices and performance of the 73 largest state public pension funds as of the 2016 fiscal year. The big development is that pension funds are moving their money from stocks to alternatives such as private assets and hedge funds. The average allocation to alternatives more than doubled to 26 percent in 2016 from 11 percent a decade earlier, with a roughly equal percentage leaving stocks.
In an accompanying blog post, Pew warned that the move to alternatives would result in more volatility and higher fees for pension funds. Writing for Bloomberg Opinion, investor Aaron Brown took the opposite view last week, arguing that alternatives dampen volatility and boost performance, even after accounting for fees.
Neither view is entirely right. And with an estimated $1 trillion in state and local public pension funds invested in alternatives, and the retirement of 19 million current and former state and local employees at stake, decision makers rushing into alternatives should be clear about what they’re buying.
Lots of people want to invest like elite university endowments, but securities laws don’t allow it. It’s time to remove those barriers.
But it’s worth asking whether investors should aspire to the so-called endowment model in the first place. According to numbers compiled by the National Association of College and University Business Officers, universities with the biggest endowments generated an average return of 9.7 percent annually over the last 30 years through June 2017 — the longest period for which annual returns are available — slightly edging out the S&P 500 Index’s return of 9.6 percent, including dividends.
Admirers of the endowment model are quick to point out that it’s less volatile than the stock market. The better comparison, they say, is a traditional 60/40 portfolio of stocks and bonds. That mix, as represented by the S&P 500 and the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, returned just 8.6 percent over those three decades, or 1.1 percentage points a year less than endowments.
Watch volatility spike, and then watch investors scatter for safety. Only this time, they don’t seem to know where to hide.
After years of calm, market turbulence has returned. The annualized daily standard deviation of the S&P 500 Index — a common measure of volatility — has been 18.6 percent from 1928 through March. But the market was much quieter from 2012 through January, with a standard deviation of 12 percent.
That quiet ended abruptly in February. The S&P 500 tumbled 8.5 percent in just five trading days from Feb. 2 to Feb. 8, and its standard deviation has spiked to 23.4 percent since February.