How Leverage Constraints Effect Mutual Fund Risk Taking

//, Factor Investing, Larry Swedroe, Low Volatility Investing/How Leverage Constraints Effect Mutual Fund Risk Taking

How Leverage Constraints Effect Mutual Fund Risk Taking

By |2018-09-14T15:56:24+00:00September 13th, 2018|Research Insights, Factor Investing, Larry Swedroe, Low Volatility Investing|

The 2014 study by Andrea Frazzini and Lasse Heje Pedersen, “Betting Against Beta,” found strong support for low-beta strategies. I’ve previously written on low-beta strategies here. This paper finds that, for U.S. stocks, the betting against beta (BAB) factor (a portfolio that holds low-beta assets, leveraged to a beta of 1, and that shorts high-beta assets, de-leveraged to a beta of 1) realized a Sharpe ratio of 0.75 between 1926 and 2009. That is about twice the Sharpe ratio of the value effect and 40% higher than that of momentum over the same period.

The results are hypothetical results and are NOT an indicator of future results and do NOT represent returns that any investor actually attained. Indexes are unmanaged, do not reflect management or trading fees, and one cannot invest directly in an index. Additional information regarding the construction of these results is available upon request.

They also found that the BAB factor has highly significant risk-adjusted returns after accounting for its realized exposure to the market beta, value, size, momentum, and liquidity factors. In fact, BAB realized a significant positive return in each of the four 20-year subperiods between 1926 and 2009.

Additionally, their analysis of 19 international equity markets revealed similar results. The authors further found that BAB returns have been consistent across countries, across time, within deciles sorted by size, and within deciles sorted by idiosyncratic risk, as well as consistently robust to a number of specifications. These consistent results suggest that coincidence or data mining are unlikely explanations.

As further supporting evidence, Frazzini and Pedersen found that in each asset class they examined (stocks, U.S. Treasury bonds, credit markets, and futures markets for currencies and commodities), alphas and Sharpe ratios declined almost monotonically as beta increased. They concluded the following:

This finding provides broad evidence that the relative flatness of the security market line is not isolated to the U.S. stock market but that it is a pervasive global phenomenon. Hence, this pattern of required returns is likely driven by a common economic cause.

The Intuition for the BAB Anomaly

The intuition behind the BAB anomaly is that there are leverage-constrained investors who, instead of applying leverage to obtain an expected return higher than the market’s expected return, overweight high-beta stocks and underweight low-beta stocks in their portfolios. Their actions lower future risk-adjusted returns on high-beta stocks and increase future risk-adjusted returns on low-beta stocks.

Oliver Boguth and Mikhail Simutin contribute to the literature on the BAB anomaly with the study “Leverage Constraints and Asset Prices: Insights from Mutual Fund Risk Taking,” which appears in the February 2018 issue of the Journal of Financial Economics and can be found here. They studied the pricing implications of leverage constraints using a measure of revealed borrowing demand that relies on financial intermediaries unaffected by fluctuations in the lending market (mutual funds).

Boguth and Simutin write:

These investors face borrowing restrictions established by the Investment Company Act of 1940 and often self-impose stringent zero-leverage constraints. As a result, supply-based measures such as the cost of borrowing do not directly apply to them (only a small percentage of mutual funds use leverage). Because leverage restrictions shut down the supply channel, fluctuations in the demand for borrowing of mutual funds reveal the tightness of leverage constraints.

The authors “argue that the observable risk taken on by mutual funds reveals their demand for borrowing and hence the unobservable tightness of the constraint.” To estimate this risk, they “calculate the value-weighted average beta of the aggregate stock holdings of all actively managed equity funds.” Their data sample covers the period from 1981 through 2014.

The following is a summary of their findings:

  • The average beta of mutual funds correlates with existing measures of funding conditions, such as broker-dealer asset growth and stock and bond liquidity.
  • Their measure of leverage constraint tightness (LCT) strongly and significantly predicts returns of the BAB factor, which is long levered low-beta stocks and short de-levered high-beta stocks.

    The results are hypothetical results and are NOT an indicator of future results and do NOT represent returns that any investor actually attained. Indexes are unmanaged, do not reflect management or trading fees, and one cannot invest directly in an index. Additional information regarding the construction of these results is available upon request.

  • Growth firms have higher LCT exposures, as evidenced by the negative coefficient on book-to-market and the positive coefficient on asset growth. This is consistent with investors attempting to overcome their explicit leverage constraints by using the leverage embedded in growth options.
  • Exposure to changes in LCT strongly and negatively predicts fund performance in the cross-section of returns and the magnitude of the effect is economically large.
  • The decile of funds with the lowest LCT exposures generates monthly excess returns of 0.82%, while the highest decile earns just 0.31%. The difference, approximately 6% annually, is statistically significant at the 1% confidence level after controlling for standard risk factors. Furthermore, the effect is not confined to extreme deciles. Rather, fund returns decrease monotonically with LCT exposure.
  • The negative relation between LCT loadings and future fund performance remains large in gross-of-fees returns. It is robust to controlling for fund characteristics and determinants of mutual fund performance from prior literature as well as to alternative estimation approaches.
  • Following times of non- or weakly-binding constraints (low LCT), the future one-month BAB return is 0.71%. It is much larger, at 1.18%, after periods of tight leverage constraints. The relation is similar over horizons of up to 12 months.

The finding of time-varying returns to BAB is consistent with the findings from Esben Hedegaard’s June 2018 study, “Time-Varying Leverage Demand and Predictability of Betting-Against-Beta.” Hedegaard found that high (low) past returns on the market forecast high (low) future returns on the BAB factor—realized BAB returns are higher (lower) following high (low) past market returns.

The results are hypothetical results and are NOT an indicator of future results and do NOT represent returns that any investor actually attained. Indexes are unmanaged, do not reflect management or trading fees, and one cannot invest directly in an index. Additional information regarding the construction of these results is available upon request.

Because expected returns move opposite to prices, high (low) market returns lead to contemporaneously low (high) returns on the BAB factor. His results held for both U.S. BAB returns and 23 international country BAB returns, as well as for BAB factors formed from country indices. He also found that the economic magnitude is large, with a coefficient of 0.41 on the past 12-month average BAB return. A 10% return over the past 12 months predicts an abnormal 4% annualized return on the BAB factor over the next month.

Boguth and Simutin hypothesized that what drives the inverse relation between LCT exposures and future mutual fund returns is that “an asset that pays off when constraints tighten provides capital when it is most valuable and should carry a negative risk premium.”


The strong pattern in the time-series and cross-country variation of expected returns shows that while low-beta stocks outperform high-beta stocks on average, on a risk-adjusted basis, the outperformance is stronger when and where past liquidity funding constraints are high. It’s also stronger when past market returns are high.

These findings have important implications for investors. When past returns are high, the risks of owning high-beta stocks significantly increase. Investors in actively managed mutual funds should make sure they fully understand their fund’s time-varying level of exposure to market beta and know how it changes during periods of strong performance.

Forewarned is forearmed.

  • The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Alpha Architect, its affiliates or its employees. Our full disclosures are available here. Definitions of common statistics used in our analysis are available here (towards the bottom).
  • Join thousands of other readers and subscribe to our blog.
  • This site provides NO information on our value ETFs or our momentum ETFs. Please refer to this site.

About the Author:

Larry Swedroe
As Director of Research for Buckingham and The BAM ALLIANCE, Larry Swedroe spends his time, talent and energy educating investors on the benefits of evidence-based investing with enthusiasm few can match.Larry was among the first authors to publish a book that explained the science of investing in layman’s terms, “The Only Guide to a Winning Investment Strategy You’ll Ever Need.” He has since authored seven more books: “What Wall Street Doesn’t Want You to Know” (2001), “Rational Investing in Irrational Times” (2002), “The Successful Investor Today” (2003), “Wise Investing Made Simple” (2007), “Wise Investing Made Simpler” (2010), “The Quest for Alpha” (2011) and “Think, Act, and Invest Like Warren Buffett” (2012).He has also co-authored seven books about investing. His latest work, “Your Complete Guide to Factor-Based Investing: The Way Smart Money Invests Today,” was co-authored with Andrew Berkin and published in October 2016.In his role as director of research and as a member of Buckingham’s Investment Policy Committee and Board of Managers, Larry, who joined the firm in 1996, regularly reviews the findings published in dozens of peer-reviewed financial journals, evaluates the outcomes and uses the result to inform the organization’s formal investment strategy recommendations. He has had his own articles published in the Journal of Accountancy, Journal of Investing, AAII Journal, Personal Financial Planning Monthly and Journal of Indexing.Larry’s dedication to helping others has made him a sought-after national speaker. He has made appearances on national television shows airing on NBC, CNBC, CNN and Bloomberg Personal Finance. Larry is a prolific writer and contributes regularly to multiple outlets, including Advisor Perspectives and joining Buckingham and The BAM ALLIANCE, Larry was vice chairman of Prudential Home Mortgage. He has held positions at Citicorp as senior vice president and regional treasurer, responsible for treasury, foreign exchange and investment banking activities, including risk management strategies.Larry holds an MBA in finance and investment from New York University and a bachelor’s degree in finance from Baruch College in New York.
Yes No
This website uses cookies and third party services. Settings Ok


We use “cookies” on this site. A cookie is a piece of data stored on a site visitor’s hard drive to help us improve your access to our site and identify repeat visitors to our site. For instance, when we use a cookie to identify you, you would not have to log in a password more than once, thereby saving time while on our site. Cookies can also enable us to track and target the interests of our users to enhance the experience on our site. Usage of a cookie is in no way linked to any personally identifiable information on our site. Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies.

Embedded Content

Articles on this Site may include embedded content (e.g. videos, images, articles, etc.). Embedded content from other websites behaves in the exact same way as if the visitor has visited the other website.These websites may collect data about you, use cookies, embed additional third-party tracking, and monitor your interaction with that embedded content, including tracking your interaction with the embedded content if you have an account and are logged in to that website.