16 May noon study

DEALING WITH BEHAVIORAL BIASES IN ASSET ALLOCATION

Learning Outcome

identify behavioral biases that arise in asset allocation and recommend methods to overcome them

Although global capital markets are competitive pricing engines, human behavior can be less rational than most economic models assume. Behavioral finance—the hybrid study of financial economics and psychology—has documented a number of behavioral biases that commonly arise in investing. The biases most relevant in asset allocation include loss aversion, the illusion of control, mental accounting, representativeness bias, framing, and availability bias. An effective investment program will address these decision-making risks through a formal asset allocation process with its own objective framework, governance, and controls. An important first step toward mitigating the negative effects of behavioral biases is simply acknowledging that they exist; just being aware of them can reduce their influence on decision making. It is also possible to incorporate certain behavioral biases into the investment decision-making process to produce better outcomes. This is most commonly practiced in goals-based investing. We will discuss strategies that help deal with these common biases.

Loss Aversion

Loss-aversion bias is an emotional bias in which people tend to strongly prefer avoiding losses as opposed to achieving gains. A number of studies on loss aversion suggest that, psychologically, losses are significantly more powerful than gains. The utility derived from a gain is much lower than the utility given up with an equivalent loss. This behavior is related to the marginal utility of wealth, where each additional dollar of wealth is valued incrementally less with increasing levels of wealth.

A diversified multi-asset class portfolio is generally thought to offer an approximately symmetrical distribution of returns around a positive expected mean return. Financial market theory suggests that a rational investor would think about risk as the dispersion or uncertainty (variance) around the mean (expected) outcome. However, loss aversion suggests the investor assigns a greater weight to the negative outcomes than would be implied by the actual shape of the distribution. Looking at this another way, risk is not measured relative to the expected mean return but rather on an absolute basis, relative to a 0% return. The loss-aversion bias may interfere with an investor’s ability to maintain his chosen asset allocation through periods of negative returns.

In goals-based investing, loss-aversion bias can be mitigated by framing risk in terms of shortfall probability or by funding high-priority goals with low-risk assets.

Shortfall probability is the probability that a portfolio will not achieve the return required to meet a stated goal. Where there are well-defined, discrete goals, sub-portfolios can be established for each goal and the asset allocation for that sub-portfolio would use shortfall probability as the definition of risk.

Similarly, by segregating assets into sub-portfolios aligned to goals designated by the client as high-priority and investing those assets in risk-free or low risk assets of similar duration, the adviser mitigates the loss-aversion bias associated with this particular goal—freeing up other assets to take on a more appropriate level of risk. Riskier assets can then be used to fund lower-priority and aspirational goals.

In institutional investing, loss aversion can be seen in the herding behavior among plan sponsors. Adopting an asset allocation not too different from the allocation of one’s peers minimizes reputation risk.

Illusion of Control

The illusion of control is a cognitive bias—the tendency to overestimate one’s ability to control events. It can be exacerbated by overconfidence, an emotional bias. If investors believe they have more or better information than what is reflected in the market, they have (excessive) confidence in their ability to generate better outcomes. They may perceive information in what are random price movements, which may lead to more frequent trading, greater concentration of portfolio positions, or a greater willingness to employ tactical shifts in their asset allocation. The following investor behaviors might be attributed to this illusion of control:

Alpha-seeking behaviors, such as attempted market timing in the form of extreme tactical asset allocation shifts or all in/all out market calls—the investor who correctly anticipated a market reversal now believes he has superior insight on valuation levels.
Alpha-seeking behaviors based on a belief of superior resources—the institutional investor who believes her internal resources give her an edge over other investors in active security selection and/or the selection of active investment managers.
Excessive trading, use of leverage, or short selling—the long/short equity investor who moves from a normal exposure range of 65% long/20% short to 100% long/50% short.
Reducing, eliminating, or even shorting asset classes that are a significant part of the global market portfolio based on non-consensus return and risk forecasts—the chair of a foundation’s investment committee who calls for shortening the duration of the bond portfolio from six years to six months based on insights drawn from his position in the banking industry.
Retaining a large, concentrated legacy asset that contributes diversifiable risk—the employee who fails to diversify her holding of company stock.

Hindsight bias—the tendency to perceive past investment outcomes as having been predictable—exacerbates the illusion of control.

In the asset allocation process, an investor who believes he or she has better information than others may use estimates of return and risk that produce asset allocation choices that are materially different from the market portfolio. This can result in undiversified portfolios with outsized exposures to just one or two minor asset classes, called extreme corner portfolios. Using such biased risk and return estimates results in a biased asset allocation decision—precisely what an objective asset allocation process seeks to avoid.

The illusion of control can be mitigated by using the global market portfolio as the starting point in developing the asset allocation. Building on the basic principles of CAPM, Markowitz’s mean–variance theory, and efficient market theory, the global market portfolio offers a theoretically sound benchmark for asset allocation. Deviations from this baseline portfolio must be thoughtfully considered and rigorously vetted, ensuring the asset allocation process remains objective. A formal asset allocation process that employs long-term return and risk forecasts, optimization constraints anchored around asset class weights in the global market portfolio, and strict policy ranges will significantly mitigate the illusion of control bias in asset allocation.

Mental Accounting

Mental accounting is an information-processing bias in which people treat one sum of money differently from another sum based solely on the mental account the money is assigned to. Investors may separate assets or liabilities into buckets based on subjective criteria. For example, an investor may consider his retirement investment portfolio independent of the portfolio that funds his child’s education, even if the combined asset allocation of the two portfolios is sub-optimal. Or an employee with significant exposure to her employer’s stock through vested stock options may fail to consider this exposure alongside other assets when establishing a strategic asset allocation.

Goals-based investing incorporates mental accounting directly into the asset allocation solution. Each goal is aligned with a discrete sub-portfolio, and the investor can specify the acceptable level of risk for each goal. Provided each of the sub-portfolios lies along the same efficient frontier, the sum of the sub-portfolios will also be efficient.23

Concentrated stock positions also give rise to another common mental accounting issue that affects asset allocation. For example, the primary source of an entrepreneur’s wealth may be a concentrated equity position in the publicly traded company he founded. The entrepreneur may prefer to retain a relatively large exposure to this one security within his broader investment portfolio despite the inherent risk. Although there may be rational reasons for this preference—including ownership control, an information advantage, and tax considerations—the desire to retain this riskier exposure is more often the result of a psychological loyalty to the asset that generated his wealth. This mental accounting bias is further reinforced by the endowment effect—the tendency to ascribe more value to an asset already owned rather than another asset one might purchase to replace it.

The concentrated stock/mental accounting bias can be accommodated in goals-based asset allocation by assigning the concentrated stock position to an aspirational goal—one that the client would like to achieve but to which he or she is willing to assign a lower probability of success. Whereas lifetime consumption tends to be a high-priority goal requiring a well-diversified portfolio to fund it with confidence, an aspirational goal such as a charitable gift may be an important but much less highly valued goal. It can reasonably be funded with the concentrated stock position. (This could have the additional benefit of avoiding capital gains tax altogether!)

Representativeness Bias

Representativeness, or recency, bias is the tendency to overweight the importance of the most recent observations and information relative to a longer-dated or more comprehensive set of long-term observations and information. Tactical shifts in asset allocation, those undertaken in response to recent returns or news—perhaps shifting the asset allocation toward the highest or lowest allowable ends of the policy ranges—are particularly susceptible to recency bias. Return chasing is a common manifestation of recency bias, and it results in overweighting asset classes with good recent performance.

It is believed that asset prices largely follow a random walk; past prices cannot be used to predict future returns. If this is true, then shifting the asset allocation in response to recent returns, or allowing recent returns to unduly influence the asset class assumptions used in the asset allocation process, will likely lead to sub-optimal results. If, however, asset class returns exhibit trending behavior, the recent past may contain information relevant to tactical shifts in asset allocation. And if asset class returns are mean-reverting, comparing current valuations to historical norms may signal the potential for a reversal or for above-average future returns.

Recency bias is not uniformly negative. Random walk, trending, and mean-reversion may be simultaneously relevant to the investment decision-making process, although their effect on asset prices will unfold over different time horizons. The strongest defenses against recency bias are an objective asset allocation process and a strong governance framework. It is important that the investor objectively evaluate the motivation underlying the response to recent market events. A formal asset allocation policy with pre-specified allowable ranges will constrain recency bias. A strong governance framework with the appropriate level of expertise and well-documented investment beliefs increases the likelihood that shifts in asset allocation are made objectively and in accordance with those beliefs.

Framing Bias

Framing bias is an information-processing bias in which a person may answer a question differently based solely on the way in which it is asked. One example of framing bias is common in committee-oriented decision-making processes. In instances where one individual frequently speaks first and speaks with great authority, the views of other committee members may be suppressed or biased toward this first position put on the table.

A more nuanced form of framing bias can be found in asset allocation. The investor’s choice of an asset allocation may be influenced merely by the manner in which the risk-to-return trade-off is presented.

Risk can mean different things to different investors: volatility, tail risk, the permanent loss of capital, or a failure to meet financial goals. These definitions are all closely related, but the relative importance of each of these aspects can influence the investor’s asset allocation choice. Further, the investor’s perception of each of these risks can be influenced by the manner in which they are presented—gain and loss potential framed in money terms versus percentages, for example.

Investors are often asked to evaluate portfolio choices using expected return, with standard deviation as the sole measure of risk. Standard deviation measures the dispersion or volatility around the mean (expected) return. Other measures of risk may also be used. Value at risk (VaR) is a loss threshold: “If I choose this asset mix, I can be pretty sure that my losses will not exceed X, most of the time.” More formally, VaR is the minimum loss that would be expected a certain percentage of the time over a certain period of time given the assumed market conditions. Conditional value at risk (CVaR) is the probability-weighted average of losses when the VaR threshold is breached. VaR and CVaR both measure downside or tail risk.

shows the expected return and risk for five portfolios that span an efficient frontier from P1 (lowest risk) to P100 (highest risk). A normal distribution of returns is assumed; therefore, the portfolio’s VaR and CVaR are a direct function of the portfolio’s expected return and standard deviation. In this case, standard deviation, VaR, and CVaR measure precisely the same risk but frame that risk differently. Standard deviation presents that risk as volatility, while VaR and CVaR present it as risk of loss. When dealing with a normal distribution, as this example presumes, the 5% VaR threshold is simply the point on the distribution 1.65 standard deviations below the expected mean return.

Exhibit 16:

There’s More Than One Way to Frame Risk

P25

P50

P75

P100

Return

3.2%

4.9%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

Std. Dev.

3.9%

7.8%

11.9%

15.9%

20.0%

VaR (5%)

−3.2%

−8.0%

−13.6%

−19.3%

−25.0%

CVaR (5%)

−4.8%

−11.2%

−18.5%

−25.8%

−33.2%

When viewing return and volatility alone, many investors may gravitate to P50 with its 6.0% expected return and 11.9% standard deviation. P50 represents the median risk portfolio that appeals to many investors in practice because it balances high-risk and low-risk choices with related diversification benefits. However, loss-aversion bias suggests that some investors who gravitate to the median choice might actually find the −18.5% CVaR of P50 indicative of a level of risk they find very uncomfortable. The CVaR frame intuitively communicates a different perspective of exactly the same risk that is already fully explained by standard deviation—namely, the downside or tail-risk aspects of the standard deviation and mean. With this example, you can see that how risk is framed and presented can affect the asset allocation decision.

The framing effect can be mitigated by presenting the possible asset allocation choices with multiple perspectives on the risk/reward trade-off. The most commonly used risk measure—standard deviation—can be supplemented with additional measures, such as shortfall probability (the probability of failing to meet a specific liability or goal)24 and tail-risk measures (e.g., VaR and CVaR). Historical stress tests and Monte Carlo simulations can also be used to capture and communicate risk in a tangible way. These multiple perspectives of the risk and reward trade-offs among a set of asset allocation choices compel the investor to consider more carefully what outcomes are acceptable or unacceptable.

Availability Bias

Availability bias is an information-processing bias in which people take a mental shortcut when estimating the probability of an outcome based on how easily the outcome comes to mind. Easily recalled outcomes are often perceived as being more likely than those that are harder to recall or understand. For example, more recent events or events in which the investor has personally been affected are likely to be assigned a higher probability of occurring again, regardless of the objective odds of the event actually occurring. Availability bias in this context is termed the recency effect and is a subset of recency, or representativeness, bias.

As an example, many private equity investors experienced a liquidity squeeze during the financial crisis that began in 2008. Their equity portfolios had suffered large losses, and their private equity investments were illiquid. Worse yet, they were contractually committed to additional capital contributions to those private equity funds. At the same time, their financial obligations continued at the same or an even higher pace. Investors who personally experienced this confluence of negative events are likely to express a strong preference for liquid investments, assigning a higher probability to such an event occurring again than would an investor who had cash available to acquire the private equity interests that were sold at distressed prices.

Familiarity bias stems from availability bias: People tend to favor the familiar over the new or different because of the ease of recalling the familiar. In asset allocation, familiarity bias most commonly results in a home bias—a preference for securities listed on the exchanges of one’s home country. However, concentrating portfolio exposure in home country securities, particularly if the home country capital markets are small, results in a less diversified, less efficient portfolio. Familiarity bias can be mitigated by using the global market portfolio as the starting point in developing the asset allocation, where deviations from this baseline portfolio must be thoughtfully considered and rigorously vetted.

Familiarity bias may also cause investors to fall into the trap of comparing their investment decisions (and performance) to others’, without regard for the appropriateness of those decisions for their own specific facts and circumstances. By avoiding comparison of investment returns or asset allocation decisions with others, an organization is more capable of identifying the asset allocation that is best tailored to their needs.

Investment decision making is subject to a wide range of potential behavioral biases. This is true in both private wealth and institutional investing. Employing a formal asset allocation process using the global market portfolio as the starting point for asset allocation modeling is a key component of ensuring the asset allocation decision is as objective as possible.

A strong governance structure, such as that discussed in the overview reading on asset allocation, is a necessary first step to mitigating the effect that these behavioral biases may have on the long-term success of the investment program. Bringing a diverse set of views to the deliberation process brings more tools to the table to solve any problem and leads to better and more informed decision making. A clearly stated mission—a common goal—and a commitment from committee members and other stakeholders to that mission are critically important in constraining the influence of these biases on investment decisions.

Effective Investment Governance

Six critical elements of effective investment governance are

clearly articulated long- and short-term investment objectives of the investment program;
allocation of decision rights and responsibilities among the functional units in the governance hierarchy, taking account of their knowledge, capacity, time, and position in the governance hierarchy;
established processes for developing and approving the investment policy statement that will govern the day-to-day operation of the investment program;
specified processes for developing and approving the program’s strategic asset allocation;
a reporting framework to monitor the program’s progress toward the agreed-upon goals and objectives; and
periodic governance audits.

EXAMPLE 8

Mitigating Behavioral Biases in Asset Allocation

Ivy Lee, the retired founder of a publicly traded company, has two primary goals for her investment assets. The first goal is to fund lifetime consumption expenditures of US$1 million per year for herself and her husband; this is a goal the Lees want to achieve with a high degree of certainty. The second goal is to provide an end-of-life gift to Auldberg University. Ivy has a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds totaling US$5 million and a sizable position in the stock of the company she founded. The following table summarizes the facts.

Investor Profile

Annual consumption needs

US$1,000,000

Remaining years of life expectancy

Diversified stock holdings

US$3,000,000

Diversified bond holdings

US$2,000,000

Concentrated stock holdings

US$15,000,000

Total portfolio

US$20,000,000

Assume that a 60% equity/40% fixed-income portfolio represents the level of risk Ivy is willing to assume with respect to her consumption goal. This 60/40 portfolio offers an expected return of 6.0%. (For simplicity, this illustration ignores inflation and taxes.)

The present value of the expected consumption expenditures is US$15,949,075. This is the amount needed on hand today, which, if invested in a portfolio of 60% equities and 40% fixed income, would fully fund 40 annual cash distributions of US$1,000,000 each.25

The concentrated stock has a highly uncertain expected return and comes with significant idiosyncratic (stock-specific) risk. A preliminary mean–variance optimization using three “asset classes”—stocks, bonds, and the concentrated stock—results in a zero allocation to the concentrated stock position. But Ivy prefers to retain as much concentrated stock as possible because it represents her legacy and she has a strong psychological loyalty to it.

Describe the behavioral biases most relevant to developing an asset allocation recommendation for Ivy.
Solution to 1:
Two behavioral biases that the adviser must be aware of in developing an asset allocation recommendation for Ivy are illusion of control and mental accounting. Because Ivy was the founder of the company whose stock comprises 75% of her investment portfolio, she may believe she has more or better information about the return prospects for this portion of the portfolio. The belief that she has superior information may lead to a risk assessment that is not reflective of the true risk in the holding. Using a goals-based approach to asset allocation may help Ivy more fully understand the risks inherent in the concentrated stock position. The riskier, concentrated stock position can be assigned to a lower-priority goal, such as the gift to Auldberg University.
Recommend and justify an asset allocation for Ivy given the facts presented above.
Solution to 2:
Beginning Asset Allocation
Recommended Asset Allocation
Diversified stocks
US$3,000,000
US$9,600,000
Diversified bonds
US$2,000,000
US$6,400,000
Funding of lifestyle goal
US$16,000,000
Concentrated stock
US$15,000,000
US$4,000,000
Total portfolio
US$20,000,000
US$20,000,000
It is recommended that Ivy fully fund her high-priority lifestyle consumption needs (US$15,949,075) with US$16 million in a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds. To achieve this, US$11 million of the concentrated stock position should be sold and the proceeds added to the diversified portfolio that supports lifestyle consumption needs. The remaining US$4 million of concentrated stock can be retained to fund the aspirational goal of an end-of-life gift to Auldberg University. In this example, the adviser has employed the mental accounting bias to achieve a suitable outcome: By illustrating the dollar value needed to fund the high-priority lifetime consumption needs goal, the adviser was able to clarify for Ivy the risks in retaining the concentrated stock position. The adviser might also simulate portfolio returns and the associated probability of achieving Ivy’s goals using a range of scenarios for the performance of the concentrated stock position. Framing the effect this one holding may have on the likelihood of achieving her goals may help Ivy agree to reduce the position size. Consideration of certain behavioral biases like mental accounting can improve investor outcomes when they are incorporated in an objective decision-making framework.

SUMMARY

The primary constraints on an asset allocation decision are asset size, liquidity, time horizon, and other external considerations, such as taxes and regulation.
The size of an asset owner’s portfolio may limit the asset classes accessible to the asset owner. An asset owner’s portfolio may be too small—or too large—to capture the returns of certain asset classes or strategies efficiently.
Complex asset classes and investment vehicles require sufficient governance capacity.
Large-scale asset owners may achieve operating efficiencies, but they may find it difficult to deploy capital effectively in certain active investment strategies given liquidity conditions and trading costs.
Smaller portfolios may also be constrained by size. They may be too small to adequately diversify across the range of asset classes and investment managers, or they may have staffing constraints that prevent them from monitoring a complex investment program.
Investors with smaller portfolios may be constrained in their ability to access private equity, private real estate, hedge funds, and infrastructure investments because of the high required minimum investments and regulatory restrictions associated with those asset classes. Wealthy families may pool assets to meet the required minimums.
The liquidity needs of the asset owner and the liquidity characteristics of the asset classes each influence the available opportunity set.
Liquidity needs must also take into consideration the financial strength of the investor and resources beyond those held in the investment portfolio.
When assessing the appropriateness of any given asset class for a given investor, it is important to evaluate potential liquidity needs in the context of an extreme market stress event.
An investor’s time horizon must be considered in any asset allocation exercise. Changes in human capital and the changing character of liabilities are two important time-related constraints of asset allocation.
External considerations—such as regulations, tax rules, funding, and financing needs—are also likely to influence the asset allocation decision.
Taxes alter the distribution of returns by both reducing the expected mean return and muting the dispersion of returns. Asset values and asset risk and return inputs to asset allocation should be modified to reflect the tax status of the investor. Correlation assumptions do not need to be adjusted, but taxes do affect the return and the standard deviation assumptions for each asset class.
Periodic portfolio rebalancing to return the portfolio to its target strategic asset allocation is an integral part of sound portfolio management. Taxable investors must consider the tax implications of rebalancing.
Rebalancing thresholds may be wider for taxable portfolios because it takes larger asset class movements to materially alter the risk profile of the taxable portfolio.
Strategic asset location is the placement of less tax-efficient assets in accounts with more-favorable tax treatment.
An asset owner’s strategic asset allocation should be re-examined periodically, even in the absence of a change in the asset owner’s circumstances.
A special review of the asset allocation policy may be triggered by a change in goals, constraints, or beliefs.
In some situations, a change to an asset allocation strategy may be implemented without a formal asset allocation study. Anticipating key milestones that would alter the asset owner’s risk appetite, and implementing pre-established changes to the asset allocation in response, is often referred to as a “glide path.”
Tactical asset allocation (TAA) allows short-term deviations from the strategic asset allocation (SAA) targets and are expected to increase risk-adjusted return. Using either short-term views or signals, the investor actively re-weights broad asset classes, sectors, or risk-factor premiums. The sizes of these deviations from the SAA are often constrained by the Investment Policy Statement.
The success of TAA decisions is measured against the performance of the SAA policy portfolio by comparing Sharpe ratios, evaluating the information ratio or the t-statistic of the average excess return of the TAA portfolio relative to the SAA portfolio, or plotting outcomes versus the efficient frontier.
TAA incurs trading and tax costs. Tactical trades can also increase the concentration of risk.
Discretionary TAA relies on a qualitative interpretation of political, economic, and financial market conditions and is predicated on a belief of persistent manager skill in predicting and timing short-term market moves.
Systematic TAA relies on quantitative signals to capture documented return anomalies that may be inconsistent with market efficiency.
The behavioral biases most relevant in asset allocation include loss aversion, the illusion of control, mental accounting, recency bias, framing, and availability bias.
An effective investment program will address behavioral biases through a formal asset allocation process with its own objective framework, governance, and controls.
In goals-based investing, loss-aversion bias can be mitigated by framing risk in terms of shortfall probability or by funding high-priority goals with low-risk assets.
The cognitive bias, illusion of control, and hindsight bias can all be mitigated by using a formal asset allocation process that uses long-term return and risk forecasts, optimization constraints anchored around asset class weights in the global market portfolio, and strict policy ranges.
Goals-based investing incorporates the mental accounting bias directly into the asset allocation solution by aligning each goal with a discrete sub-portfolio.
A formal asset allocation policy with pre-specified allowable ranges may constrain recency bias.
The framing bias effect can be mitigated by presenting the possible asset allocation choices with multiple perspectives on the risk/reward trade-off.
Familiarity bias, a form of availability bias, most commonly results in an overweight in home country securities and may also cause investors to inappropriately compare their investment decisions (and performance) to other organizations. Familiarity bias can be mitigated by using the global market portfolio as the starting point in developing the asset allocation and by carefully evaluating any potential deviations from this baseline portfolio.
A strong governance framework with the appropriate level of expertise and well-documented investment beliefs increases the likelihood that shifts in asset allocation are made objectively and in accordance with those beliefs. This will help to mitigate the effect that behavioral biases may have on the long-term success of the investment program.

Previous16 May 12am study Next16 May midnight study

Last updated 11 months ago