Key takeaways
- Factor investing can help drill through broad sector labels to help investors better understand past performance and expected returns.
- Investors taking factor views may be better able to capture the underlying exposure they seek and obtain complementary views compared to traditional sector labels.
- It’s not factors vs. sectors. It’s factors and sectors.
Sector classifications are useful for viewing companies in similar lines of business, but companies often have business lines that span multiple industries or sectors. For example, Amazon is one of the leading “FAANG” technology companies. It sells goods online, offers e-commerce services, streams music and video, produces media content, operates a cloud platform, has AI capabilities, sells consumer products like Kindle, Fire, Ring, and Echo, and offers medical services. According to the Global Industry Standard (GICS) sector definitions, Amazon is not in the technology sector. (It is defined as a Consumer Discretionary company.) While sectors can provide a high-level understanding of similar businesses, sometimes these definitions are too blunt an instrument.
At the same time, economic forces can make some stocks expensive or cheap, experience winning or losing trends, and be exposed to financial stress for more highly levered companies – simultaneously affecting stocks across different sectors. Factor investing drills through broad labels to highlight what investors may care about and to help understand past performance and expected returns. These characteristics include absolute and relative price (size and value), the quality of a company’s earnings, trends in company performance (momentum), and the absolute and relative risk of a company (minimum volatility).
Factor Returns
The five factors of value, quality, momentum, minimum volatility, and small size are all supported by empirical data and peer-reviewed research.1 These factors have not only shown positive excess returns or reduced risk in the initial research, but they have also survived out of sample. Historically, each of these five factors has outperformed its counterpart – large size, higher priced companies, less profitable firms, downward trending stocks, higher risk securities – over varying time periods.
Investors can contrast factors with sectors or industries, which have not exhibited significant long-term excess returns above the market.2
There is little evidence that constant, strategic allocations to sectors give a significant compensated return in portfolios in excess of the market. In contrast, factors can give a long-run strategic source of potential returns. In addition, time-varying factor positions can be used to dynamically generate returns in a complementary way to time-varying sector positions.
Factors premiums within sectors
Investors seeking to capture factor premiums can consider whether to take a sector-neutral or sector-unconstrained approach. For factors that rely on fundamental variables, like quality and value, it may be prudent to apply sector constraints. When using balance sheet and earnings statement data, sector-specific treatment of earnings or book value in constructing factors allows a more consistent comparison of companies within each sector. Investors may desire high-quality and lower-priced stocks across all sectors without unintended sector bets.
It’s important to highlight that sector neutral does not equate to industry neutral. A focus on quality can lead to overweights within industries while still remaining sector neutral to the broad market. For example, within the financials sector, banks have often scored poorly on quality metrics due to their levered business models.
The MSCI USA Sector Quality Index maintains a sector-neutral weight to its parent index3 at each rebalance. As the index methodology considers leverage as one of its three quality screens (the other two are earnings variability and return on equity), the index was able to largely avoid the banking crisis in 2023 by holding no banks, while still remaining sector neutral within the financials sector. This has meant that the quality factor has avoided the stresses in regional banks so far this year.
Factors express a complementary view
The sector-controlled or sector-neutral definitions of factors can allow investors (e.g., institutional, advisor, end investor) who dynamically allocate to factors access to a complementary source of returns compared to investors doing sector rotation.
Traditionally, many active managers, asset allocators, and individual investors have expressed tactical views by rotating across sectors in hopes of generating alpha. In some cases, they want companies perceived to be “safe havens” such as utilities or consumer staples if they believe we are headed toward an economic slowdown or recession. In many cases, what these investors are actually looking for is exposure to companies with defensive characteristics that may add resiliency to their portfolios. They want companies that are less volatile (minimum volatility) or have lower amounts of leverage and more stable earnings growth (quality).
Factors naturally align with how institutional class investors think about the market.
Investors that are able to evolve their views from traditional sector labels to factors may be able to express a complementary view in their portfolio – and more importantly, allow them to capture the underlying exposure they are seeking.
Conclusion
It’s not factors versus sectors. It’s factors and sectors.
Sector-neutral implementation of Factors, like value and quality, can allow investors to harvest a long-run rewarded factor return that is different from the returns of sectors. Likewise, factor rotation strategies can be used alongside sector rotation strategies as differentiating sources of returns.
In a post “Great Moderation” world, inflation has been persistent and is still well above 2% across most global markets, real rates are significantly positive, geopolitical tensions are flaring, and government deficit to GDP ratios are at the same level as during World War II – investors could use all possible sources of diversification and return drivers in their portfolios. Using factors alongside traditional sector strategies can help provide additional diversification.
1 Fama and French, 1992, "The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, vol. 47(2), pp. 427-465. Novy-Marx, 2013, “The Other Side of Value: The Gross Profitability Premium,” Journal of Financial Economics, 108(1), pp. 1-28. Jegadeesh and Titman, 1993, “Returns to Buying Winners and Selling Losers: Implications for Stock Market Efficiency”, Journal of Finance, vol. 48(1), pp. 65-91. Ang, Hodrick, Xing, and Zhang, 2006, “The Cross Section of Volatility and Expected Returns, Journal of Finance, vol. 61(1), pp. 259-299.
2 Fama and French, 1997, “Industry Costs of Equity”, Journal of Financial Economics, vol. 43(2), pp. 153-193.
3 The parent index is the MSCI USA Index.
Specific companies or issuers are mentioned for educational purposes only and should not be deemed as a recommendation to buy or sell any securities. Any companies mentioned do not necessarily represent the current or future holdings of any BlackRock products. For actual ETF holdings, please visit a fund’s profile page on www.ishares.com.
Carefully consider the Funds' investment objectives, risk factors, and charges and expenses before investing. This and other information can be found in the Funds' prospectuses or, if available, the summary prospectuses which may be obtained by visiting www.iShares.com or www.blackrock.com. Read the prospectus carefully before investing.
Investing involves risks, including possible loss of principal.
This material represents an assessment of the market environment as of the date indicated; is subject to change; and is not intended to be a forecast of future events or a guarantee of future results. This information should not be relied upon by the reader as research or investment advice regarding the funds or any issuer or security in particular.
This material contains general information only and does not take into account an individual's financial circumstances. This information should not be relied upon as a primary basis for an investment decision. Rather, an assessment should be made as to whether the information is appropriate in individual circumstances and consideration should be given to talking to a financial professional before making an investment decision.
There can be no assurance that performance will be enhanced or risk will be reduced for funds that seek to provide exposure to certain quantitative investment characteristics ("factors"). Exposure to such investment factors may detract from performance in some market environments, perhaps for extended periods. In such circumstances, a fund may seek to maintain exposure to the targeted investment factors and not adjust to target different factors, which could result in losses. The iShares Minimum Volatility Funds may experience more than minimum volatility as there is no guarantee that the underlying index's strategy of seeking to lower volatility will be successful.
A basis point (bps) is one-hundredth of one percent (e.g. one basis point = 0.01%).
Fixed income risks include interest rate and credit risk. Typically, when interest rates rise, there is a corresponding decline in bond values. Credit risk refers to the possibility that the bond issuer will not be able to make principal and interest payments.
International investing involves risks, including risks related to foreign currency, limited liquidity, less government regulation, and the possibility of substantial volatility due to adverse political, economic, or other developments. These risks often are heightened for investments in emerging/ developing markets or in concentrations of single countries.
This information should not be relied upon as research, investment advice, or a recommendation regarding any products, strategies, or any security in particular. This material is strictly for illustrative, educational, or informational purposes and is subject to change.
The iShares and BlackRock Funds are distributed by BlackRock Investments, LLC (together with its affiliates, “BlackRock”).
© 2023 BlackRock, Inc. or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved. BLACKROCK and iSHARES are trademarks of BlackRock, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks are those of their respective owners.
A message from Advisor Perspectives and VettaFi: To learn more on this and other topics, check out our white papers.
© BlackRock
Read more commentaries by BlackRock
