Could Increasing Volatility Under Trump 2.0 Drive Investors Away From Risk Assets?

A couple of weeks ago, I presented a blog post called “Trump Era Volatility: The Impact on Portfolio Allocations,” in which I pointed out that the effect of increasing volatility generally is to decrease the optimal portfolio allocations towards safer allocations.

It was one of those posts where you initially say ‘Well, duh’ but hopefully liked the fact that I ‘proved’ the intuition with the illustrations. While market volatility since then has been almost unbelievably low, it is hard for me to imagine that is sustained. It feels a little like a ‘deer in the headlights’ reaction from investors, as the Trump Train comes on so rapidly that all they can do is pull the shades.

I suspect that at some point, unless the Donald suddenly becomes a milquetoast business-as-usual kind of President, we will see those allocations shift.

But a few days ago I had another realization that called to mind the same old CFA-Level-I charts. I was explaining to someone who wanted me to leverage our really cool inflation-tracking strategy* that leveraging a mid-single-digits return makes a lot of sense when the cost of leverage is zero, but not so much sense when the cost of leverage was mid-single-digits. I’ve talked about this before – in October 2023

I published “Higher Rates’ Impact on Levered Strategies” I** showed a table, but there’s a really simple way to illustrate the same thing.

Hypothetical Efficient Frontier

I don’t really need the portfolio-efficient frontier here. Maybe the optimizer spits out some share of the optimal portfolio that represents an investment in some hedge fund strategy you really like. Maybe it doesn’t. More likely, you don’t even use an optimizer.

But if you really like that strategy, but want higher returns, you ask the manager ‘hey, can you lever that’?

The manager says sure. But the manager can’t give you twice the returns for twice the risk – the leverage math doesn’t work that way. If the cost of leverage is 3% – which you can tell it is in this chart because that’s where the line hits the axis, at a risk-free rate of 3% – then your return for twice the risk is (2 x 4% – 1 x 3%) = 5%. So you pick up only a 1% return for doubling the risk.

You can see that on the chart because that’s the point the red line goes through: 5% return, 15% risk. For 3x risk, you get (3 x 4% – 2 x 3%) = 6%. And so on. The slope of the line is such that 7.5% additional risk gets you 1% additional return, no matter how many times you lever it.

So why do people ask for leverage? Well, because since 2008 the overnight rate was mostly at 0%.

Hypothetical Efficient Frontier

If you can borrow at zero then levering simply multiplies risk and return simultaneously. At 2x leverage, your return is (2 x 4% – 1 x 0%) = 8%. You can see where this goes since 0 times anything drops out of the formula.

But this doesn’t work at higher costs of leverage. If the cost of leverage is equal to the expected return, then you just get more risk every turn of leverage you deploy. And if the cost of leverage is above the expected return, you make things worse every time you add leverage.

Hypothetical Efficient Frontier

So it doesn’t make any sense to leverage low-return strategies unless the cost of leverage is really low. And by the way, it doesn’t make much sense to leverage high-return strategies unless they happen to be low risk. Because this math doesn’t just work with expected returns but also (and more importantly) with actual returns.

Suppose you have a strategy that has a 6% expected return and a 15% risk. Say, an equity index. Now, you lever it 2x with the cost of leverage at 5% (by the way, if you use a levered ETF you’re not escaping the cost of leverage…but that’s for another day). Your expected return is now 7%, with 30% risk (check your understanding by doing the math).

Now, however, you get a 2-standard deviation outcome to the downside. Supposedly that happens only one year out of 40, but we know that there are fat tails in equity markets. But whatever the real probability, your unlevered return is now 6% – 2 x 15% = -24%. But now you’re riding the lightning and your return on the 2x leverage is (2 x -24% – 5%) = -53%. (Alternatively, you get to the same number if you just look at the new 7%ret/30%risk portfolio return as 7% – 2 x 30%).

Hedge fund managers understand this math…or should; if they don’t then get out…and it should change the numbers they report in forward-looking statements when interest rates are higher, for levered strategies. I will not comment on normal industry practice…

*To be clear, none of the red dots in this article represent the risk/return tradeoff for that strategy. I’m not trying to cagily present our fund’s performance because that would get me in trouble.

**This was a golden era for the blog. Right about the same time I also published one of my best posts in years, pointing out how the CME Bond Contract has shortened in duration and also has negative convexity again. “How Higher Rates Cause Big Changes in the Bond Contract”. How I loved that piece.

Original Post