Tim Alexander Kroencke

International Diversification Benefits with Foreign Exchange Investment Styles

This paper studies portfolio choice with popular foreign exchange (FX) investment styles such as carry trades, FX momentum and FX value strategies. We go beyond the benefits from hedging to shed more light on the speculative component of currency investments. In particular, we are interested in the magnitude of diversification benefits due to the style-based management of the currency component of well-diversified international portfolios. Our results suggest that FX investment styles generate significant improvements in the asset allocation. These findings hold after taking into account transaction costs and when controlling for the FX risk inherent in the benchmark assets. Importantly, these results are also confirmed in an extensive out-of-sample experiment mimicking investor decisions in real-time. The appendices for this paper are available at the following URL: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2189886

Downside Risk Optimization in Securitized Real Estate Markets

Optimization of international securitized real estate portfolios has been a key topic for several decades. However, most previous analysis has focused on regional diversification by applying the traditional mean-variance (MV) framework suggested by Markowitz (1952) even if the limitations of this approach are well-known. Thus, we focus on a more suitable and appealing downside risk (DR) framework suggested by Estrada (2008), which applies a similar optimization algorithm as the MV framework. The analysis covers the eight largest securitized real estate markets from January 1990 to December 2009 and thus captures a more global perspective. The main findings are as follows: first, the return distributions are non-normally distributed and negatively skewed. Second, optimal portfolio weights differ substantially between the MV and DR approach. Third, portfolio weights are shifted from the U.S. and Australian market to the Dutch and the French market when applying the DR framework instead of the MV framework. Fourth, the dominance of the DR framework is well-documented by comparing out-of-sample performance. The empirical results are remarkable and emphasize the practical merit of the presented DR framework for investors and portfolio managers.

GDP Mimicking Portfolios and the Cross-Section of Stock Returns

The components of GDP (residential investment, durables, nondurables, equipment and software, and business structures) display a pronounced lead-lag structure. We investigate the implications of this lead-lag structure for the cross-section of asset returns. We find that the leading GDP components perform well in explaining the returns of 25 size and book-to-market portfolios and do reasonably well in explaining the returns of 10 momentum portfolios. The lagging components do a poor job at explaining the returns of 25 size and book-to-market portfolios but explain the return of momentum portfolios very well. A three-factor model with the market risk premium, one leading and one lagging GDP component compares very favorably with the Carhart four-factor model in jointly explaining the returns on 25 size/book-to-market portfolios, 10 momentum portfolios and 30 industry portfolios.

Global Asset Allocation Shifts

We show that global asset reallocations of U.S. fund investors obey a strong factor structure, with two factors accounting for more than 90% of the overall variation. The first factor captures switches between U.S. bonds and equities. The second reflects reallocations from U.S. to international assets. Portfolio allocations respond to U.S. monetary policy, most prominently around FOMC events when institutional investors reallocate from basically all other asset classes to U.S. equities. Reallocations of both retail and institutional investors show return-chasing behavior. Institutional investors tend to reallocate toward riskier, high-yield fixed income segments, consistent with a search for yield.

Recessions and the Stock Market

Why do stock prices fall more sharply than dividends around recessions? One possible explanation is that stock prices fall in anticipation of low future cash flows. I find that prices and cash flows drop contemporaneously, which speaks against such a channel. Alternatively, prices drop because expected returns are rising. I find that price volatility increases substantially more than cash flow volatility during recessions, which suggests that changes in the price of risk play an important role. However, the magnitude necessary is difficult to reconcile by standard models. Studying the stock market around recessions allows for a fresh empirical assessment of competing asset pricing theories.

How Much Real Estate Is in Listed Real Estate

Market-wide, stock market specific, and real estate market specific risk – what kind of risk and to which extent drives the returns of listed real estate? Based on a structural asset pricing model calibrated to the empirical data in the U.S., we show that at least two thirds of the risk premium of listed real estate are driven by the same factors as direct real estate. Our results shed new light on the risk-characteristics of listed real estate returns and are of high interest for academics, regulators, and portfolio managers alike.