The article gives the pro side of the argument which is that the back testing is superior to the more popular indices and also noted the flaws of cap weighting of which there are several. On the negative is that back testing is not real world and there are some big gun quotes from Jack Bogle and Burton Malkiel that basically says that people have tried to invent better mousetraps before and they end up not working out.
The first ETF from Arnott is only about nine months old which is not a whole lot of time. I wrote about the fund for TheStreet.com last January and was impressed by the back test results but wondered whether or not PRF might quack like a small cap value duck. That comment motivated Arnott to call me on the phone to tell me why I was wrong.
This chart compares PRF, SPY and iShares S&P Small Cap 600 Fund (IJS) which is the small cap fund I compared it to in that TSCM article from January.While there have been some divergences along the way I don't think the small cap idea is the single dumbest thing I have ever written either.
Over the last three months the correlation between PRF and IJS has been 0.93 compared to a 0.953 correlation to SPY over the same time period.
PRF does target itself as a replacement for a cap weighted S&P 500 Index fund, at least that's my perception. Clearly PRF has outperformed SPY by a wide margin for such a short time. While that is nice I should note that the volatility has been similar to the S&P 500. PRF's standard deviation has been 11.03 while SPY's has been 11.18, according to PortfolioScience.com.
For now I am inclined to think there is value in these Fundamental Index funds. That does not have to mean they should be bought at the exclusion of everything else. My approach to portfolio construction to blend together holdings that respond to differently to market current events. No doubt in the context is constructing a diversified portfolio I, and you too, own stocks that meet the RAFI criteria as well as some names that meet the criteria of the dividend weighted funds from WisdomTree.
In that context do-it-your-selfers not wanting single stock exposure can now add a different type of ETF to their mix. I don't think the risk here is unreasonable but I wouldn't suggest you put half your money into one of these either.





1 comments:
If PRF is a proxy for small stocks, imagine what PRFZ is going to be!
I hope these fundamentally weighted ETFs work. That the backtesting is ok. Using quant analysis is after all....what many money managers use to pick stocks.
Bogle said that? Shame on him. Does he think he is the only person who should be allowed to come up with a new idea?
g
Post a Comment