Would splitting U.S. large cap into value and growth reduce risk?

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Post Reply
Topic Author
LeoB
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:42 pm

Would splitting U.S. large cap into value and growth reduce risk?

Post by LeoB »

Would initially splitting a U.S. large-cap stock index fund like VV into its value and growth components, 50% VTV and 50% VUG, reduce sequence of returns risk for a retiree?

Year to date, the value index fund VTV has returned about -4%. In contrast, the growth index fund VUG has returned about -22%. My vague idea is that a retiree might be able to reduce their sequence of returns risk by (1) making withdrawals from whichever fund has performed better recently and (2) not otherwise rebalancing. I would imagine that over the course of time, value and growth components of the stock market perform differently but eventually revert to the mean. Additionally, by starting with 50% VTV and 50% VUG, one wouldn't stray too far from market-cap weighting the U.S. stock market.

I would just like some clarification on whether this idea makes sense or not. Thanks!
Last edited by LeoB on Fri May 13, 2022 6:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
alex_686
Posts: 10358
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 2:39 pm

Re: Would splitting U.S. large cap into value and growth reduce risk?

Post by alex_686 »

No. Lc = value + growth.

I am trying to think of a good answer to your simple question, but it is almost too simple. These are the hardest to answer.
Former brokerage operations & mutual fund accountant. I hate risk, which is why I study and embrace it.
Hyperchicken
Posts: 1079
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:33 pm

Re: Would splitting U.S. large cap into value and growth reduce risk?

Post by Hyperchicken »

It may however present extra opportunities for TLH.
rkhusky
Posts: 12564
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:09 pm

Re: Would splitting U.S. large cap into value and growth reduce risk?

Post by rkhusky »

No, but if you put the Growth piece in taxable and the Value piece in tax-advantaged, you would reduce taxes.
User avatar
burritoLover
Posts: 2037
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:13 pm

Re: Would splitting U.S. large cap into value and growth reduce risk?

Post by burritoLover »

That would give you a value tilt over a blended fund like the S&P 500 as the growth names dominate the index currently - even after their recent downfall. Some have argued that a value tilt would increase diversification but I would personally just do the large blend and then add the specific value tilt you want separately via a value ETF. I think a small value tilt would offer more diversification.

YTD returns are meaningless for portfolio construction, let alone 10, 20, 30 years.

EDIT: actually looking at it, it would be virtually the same as the S&P 500 currently (very slightly tilted more to value relative to S&P 500 alone) - oh the mighty growth has fallen enough recently.
secondopinion
Posts: 2966
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2020 1:18 pm

Re: Would splitting U.S. large cap into value and growth reduce risk?

Post by secondopinion »

rkhusky wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 2:48 pm No, but if you put the Growth piece in taxable and the Value piece in tax-advantaged, you would reduce taxes.
Right. This is probably the best reason to split the two. However, I certainly do not have enough room to do everything that is not tax-efficient in my IRA.
Passive investing: not about making big bucks but making profits. Active investing: not about beating the market but meeting goals. Speculation: not about timing the market but taking profitable risks.
KlangFool
Posts: 25005
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Would splitting U.S. large cap into value and growth reduce risk?

Post by KlangFool »

OP,

If you believe that this strategy would work, then, the logical conclusion would be

Larry portfolio.

A) 50% SmallCapValue -> Most Risky

B) 50% Intermediate Term Treasury -> Most Safe

And, use the volatility to your advantage.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/i ... rategy.asp

https://www.amazon.com/Reducing-Risk-Bl ... 074X&psc=1

KlangFool
40% VWENX | 12.5% VFWAX/VTIAX | 11.5% VTSAX | 16% VBTLX | 10% VSIAX/VTMSX/VSMAX | 10% VSIGX| 40% Wellington 40% 3-funds 20% Mini-Larry
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 46545
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: Would splitting U.S. large cap into value and growth reduce risk?

Post by nisiprius »

One way to answer this is pragmatically. It will take you about fifteen minutes to get the hang of PortfolioVisualizer's "Portfolio backtest" tool (click on the "source" link below).

It is my personal belief that past performance does not predict future performance, but that past similarity does, in fact, predict future similarity.

How are you going to judge risk? Since sequence-of-return risk involves sensitivity to portfolio drawdowns occurring in the vicinity of retirement age, "max drawdown" seems relevant.

The blue curve is VV.

The red curve is a 50/50 portfolio of VUG and VTV, rebalanced monthly.

The greatest dip was in 2008-2009, and it was
-50.39% for VV and
-50.56% for the fifty-fifty value/growth split.

My judgement is "50/50 VUG/VTV would not have reduced risk over this time period."

In fact, "50/50 VUG/VTV equals VV--as near as makes no difference."

But if you determined to see a difference, no matter how microscopic, it was actually in the wrong direction--VUG/VTV declined just a hair more than VV.

Source

Image
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
Topic Author
LeoB
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:42 pm

Re: Would splitting U.S. large cap into value and growth reduce risk?

Post by LeoB »

Thanks for pointing out Portfolio Visualizer and posting those back test results. That is very helpful. Based on your example, there appears to be no significant difference in maximum drawdown.

However, I am not sure if your posted example is the situation I was envisioning. For example, consider this Portfolio Visualizer graph.
Image

It appears that value outperformed growth between 2005-2008. What if a retiree took distributions from the value ETF (VTV) during this time period rather than from the growth ETF (VUG)?

Alternatively, from 2009-present, it appears that growth has outpaced value. What if a retiree took distributions from VUG during this time frame rather than from VTV?

Let's say someone started with a 50/50 portfolio of VTV and VUG, and then followed a strategy like this. How would they have fared during the great recession and the most recent downturn? I suspect that the drawdowns would have been less than that of VV. However, I am not sure how to evaluate this using Portfolio Visualizer. Admittedly, I am a novice with the tool, so perhaps someone else knows the answer better than I do.
nisiprius wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 4:51 pm
The blue curve is VV.

The red curve is a 50/50 portfolio of VUG and VTV, rebalanced monthly.

The greatest dip was in 2008-2009, and it was
-50.39% for VV and
-50.56% for the fifty-fifty value/growth split.

Source

Image
Last edited by LeoB on Fri May 13, 2022 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
rkhusky
Posts: 12564
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:09 pm

Re: Would splitting U.S. large cap into value and growth reduce risk?

Post by rkhusky »

LeoB wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 5:19 pm It appears that value outperformed growth between 2005-2008. What if a retiree took distributions from the value ETF (VTV) during this time period rather than from the growth ETF (VUG)?

Alternatively, from 2009-present, it appears that growth has outpaced value. What if a retiree took distributions from VUG during this time frame rather than from VTV?
If you keep the portfolio in balance it doesn't matter. If VTV is doing well, you should be selling VTV and buying VUG. And vice-versa. Whether you withdraw and then rebalance, or rebalance and then withdraw, the results will be the same.

If you don't care to keep the portfolio in balance and just let things ride, then withdrawing from the leading fund is also rebalancing, but maybe not a full rebalance every time.
Corvidae
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue May 10, 2022 1:11 am

Re: Would splitting U.S. large cap into value and growth reduce risk?

Post by Corvidae »

Not a simple question. OP is correct because they allow asset allocation to drift. (Ok, maybe 50/50 is not correct.) But we all do that unless we rebalance continuously. KlangFool's answer is most relevant consideration IMO. Lots of hairy conclusions follow from this premise.
Topic Author
LeoB
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:42 pm

Re: Would splitting U.S. large cap into value and growth reduce risk?

Post by LeoB »

Corvidae wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 5:29 pm Not a simple question. OP is correct because they allow asset allocation to drift. (Ok, maybe 50/50 is not correct.) But we all do that unless we rebalance continuously. KlangFool's answer is most relevant consideration IMO. Lots of hairy conclusions follow from this premise.
I guess I should have been more specific. Thanks for pointing this out! I’ve edited the original post accordingly.

In this thought experiment, I am allowing for some asset drift between growth/value. Just the starting point is 50% value, 50% growth. As you mention, many people do not rebalance very regularly.
vp89
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 1:29 pm

Re: Would splitting U.S. large cap into value and growth reduce risk?

Post by vp89 »

https://archives.ust.hk/dspace/bitstrea ... -06-28.pdf

This white paper shows how different value investing strategies crushed buying the whole market during Japan's lost decades, which were triggered by historically high valuations.
Post Reply