Three Keys For Advisors When Implementing Alternatives

November 3, 2015

by Sponsored Content from Invesco

PDF

For the better part of 25 years, I have worked closely with financial advisors regarding the use of alternative investments. I’ve found that the advisors who have the greatest success — i.e., satisfied clients who understand their investments and their results — utilize a thorough, thoughtful and regimented approach toward alternatives. Specifically, I see them do these three things:

They clearly define each client’s investment objectives and research whether alternatives can help meet those objectives.
If the answer is “yes,” they select alternatives they believe to be well suited to help meet those objectives.
Once they decide to use alternatives, they make them a consistent part of the asset allocation process for that client.

I believe this is the right approach for several reasons:

The advisor has a well-defined rationale for using alternatives that links their use to specific investment objectives.
The advisor gains a realistic understanding of what to expect from the different types of alternatives, especially with regard to performance. Given the unique nature of alternatives, it’s critical for advisors to understand what drives performance, and what to expect during different parts of the market cycle.
Once the decision is made to add alternatives, the advisor makes alternatives a core part of their long-term investment process for that client. As a result, the advisor avoids performance chasing. One of the biggest benefits of this approach is that it ensures that alternatives are included in the portfolio in anticipation of different parts of the market cycle, where they may be able to provide a diversified return stream when stocks and bonds may be under pressure.
Importantly, this process allows the advisor to have effective conversations with their clients in which they explain why they are using alternatives and how the use of alternatives can help meet the client’s investment objectives. The advisor can also set realistic expectations about what the client should expect from the alternatives selected.

The other side of the coin: The ‘dabbling’ approach

Just as advisors who successfully use alternatives share similar characteristics, I have found that advisors who struggle with alternatives tend to have similarities as well. Specifically, these advisors often lack a regimented approach and fall into the trap of dabbling. By “dabbling” I mean they often add alternatives based largely on recent performance and/or add alternatives in a random fashion that fails to link the use of alternatives to meeting specific investment objectives.

The dabbling approach often yields disappointing results for a few key reasons:

By not developing a well-defined rationale for using alternatives, the advisor tends to fall into the trap of allocating based on recent performance, which can pose the considerable risk of investing at unattractive levels where downside risk is greater than upside potential. This risk is especially pronounced for alternatives that have cyclical performance, such as managed futures, in which periods of strong performance are often followed by periods of decline. Furthermore, when investing based on a backward-looking view, the advisor runs the risk of “fighting a previous war” rather than preparing for future challenges.
Having failed to thoroughly research and understand the unique nature of the alternatives in which they are investing, advisors often fall into the trap of evaluating the investment based on short-term performance — perhaps even quarter by quarter. By doing so, the advisor ignores the various benefits that different kinds of alternatives may deliver over the longer term. Various alternatives may provide returns that are unique relative to traditional stocks and bonds, outperform during different parts of the market cycle, reduce portfolio volatility or provide important diversification.
From the client’s standpoint, the advisor does not provide a rationale that links the use of alternatives to the client’s investment objectives and does not provide the client with realistic expectations of how the various alternatives are expected to perform. As result, the client’s satisfaction with the alternative becomes based on short-term performance, often the relative performance vis-à-vis equities.

Clearly there is no one approach that guarantees success when implementing alternatives in investor portfolios. That said, in my view, the odds of success (satisfied clients who understand their investments and their results) increase dramatically when a thorough, thoughtful and regimented approach is taken, while the odds of success decline significantly when a dabbling approach is taken.

For more information about alternatives

To learn more about Invesco’s alternative strategies, please visit invesco.com/alternatives.
You can also read previous blogs from Walter Davis, and ask Walter your questions about alternatives with our Ask the Expert feature.
And, learn why it’s time to say goodbye 60/40 and to consider alternatives as more of your core.

Walter Davis

Alternatives Investment Strategist

As Alternatives Investment Strategist, Walter Davis serves as Invesco’s primary alternatives representative to retail, high net worth and institutional clients across the major broker dealers, wirehouses and RIAs. He is responsible for collaborating across Invesco’s alternative strategies to develop a cohesive alternatives education program for financial advisors and investors.

Prior to joining Invesco in 2014, Mr. Davis served as a managing director in Morgan Stanley’s Alternative Investments Department, and earlier as director of High Net Worth and Institutional Sales. Prior to Morgan Stanley, he worked at Chase Manhattan Bank in the Alternative Investments Department. He has worked in the industry since 1991.

Mr. Davis graduated cum laude with a BA in economics from the University of the South. He earned an MBA in finance and international business from Columbia Business School. He holds the Series 3, 7, 24 and 63 registrations.

Important Information

Alternative products typically hold more non-traditional investments and employ more complex trading strategies, including hedging and leveraging through derivatives, short selling and opportunistic strategies that change with market conditions. Investors considering alternatives should be aware of their unique characteristics and additional risks from the strategies they use. Like all investments, performance will fluctuate. You can lose money.

Asset allocation/diversification does not guarantee a profit or eliminate the risk of loss.

The information provided is for educational purposes only and does not constitute a recommendation of the suitability of any investment strategy for a particular investor. Invesco does not provide tax advice. The tax information contained herein is general and is not exhaustive by nature. Federal and state tax laws are complex and constantly changing. Investors should always consult their own legal or tax professional for information concerning their individual situation. The opinions expressed are those of the authors, are based on current market conditions and are subject to change without notice. These opinions may differ from those of other Invesco investment professionals.

All data provided by Invesco unless otherwise noted.

Invesco Distributors, Inc. is the US distributor for Invesco Ltd.’s retail products and collective trust funds. Invesco Advisers, Inc. and other affiliated investment advisers mentioned provide investment advisory services and do not sell securities. Invesco Unit Investment Trusts are distributed by the sponsor, Invesco Capital Markets, Inc., and broker-dealers including Invesco Distributors, Inc. PowerShares® is a registered trademark of Invesco PowerShares Capital Management LLC (Invesco PowerShares). Each entity is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Invesco Ltd.

Three keys for advisors when implementing alternatives by Invesco Blog

PDF