5 minute read
Correlations in equity markets have fallen dramatically since the beginning of 2017. We look at the drivers of this trend and the implications for investors.
For much of the past decade, markets frequently moved up or down in response to external
factors such as political risk or shifts in monetary policy, a phenomenon that has come to be known as “risk-on, risk-off.” Investors moored in safe havens when the macroeconomic environment worsened, then paddled back towards riskier assets when the clouds cleared.
But in equity markets at least, this dynamic has begun to change. Since the beginning of
2017, the correlation between stocks within major indices has dramatically broken down. Equity performance is increasingly a reflection of corporate strengths and weaknesses rather than extrinsic circumstances, a development that has big implications for investors.
“Equity correlations were strong for a number of years, favoring strategies based on simple market exposure. But the decline in correlation raises questions over the merit of such approaches,” says Ahmed Behdenna,* senior multi-asset strategist at Aviva Investors. “Fundamentals are becoming more important.”
As of October 11, 2017, the 10 major sectors in the S&P 500 were showing, on average, just a 41% correlation with the wider index, down from 75% a year ago, according to Datatrek, a research provider.¹ The implied correlation across the S&P 500 fell almost 70% between January and November 2, 2017 (see chart).
So what has caused the collapse in correlations? There is no definitive answer. Some analysts have cited the relatively benign macroeconomic environment. When global growth was anemic, external factors such as political events had an outsized effect on investor sentiment; now that growth has picked up, fund managers have renewed their focus on the prospects of individual companies.
Central banks' policy tightening may also be playing a role. The unprecedented monetary easing introduced to spur the economic recovery following the crisis drove interest rates to record lows and tended to push up stock prices regardless of fundamentals. Now that the Federal Reserve has started to withdraw stimulus and raise rates – albeit gradually – and other major central banks are preparing to follow suit, stocks are becoming more differentiated.
However, this monetary policy shift does not yet appear to have led to dispersion in credit –
which remains fairly well correlated – suggesting there are other, more market-specific factors at work.
Ben Maynard,* head of derivative strategy at Aviva Investors, points out that the fall in correlation across the S&P 500 accelerated during the so-called “Trump trade” toward the end of 2016. After Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election in November 2016, investors began to move into sectors they expected to benefit from tax reform, deregulation and greater infrastructure investment.
“Trump’s election caused a big move into inflation-dependent, pro-cyclical equity exposures,” says Maynard. “That in itself caused correlations to fall: when money flows from one group of stocks to another you get an increase in dispersion as a logical consequence.”
The president has so far failed to deliver on many of the policies that motivated the Trump trade, although the promise of tax reform – which could be passed later in 2017, pending legislative approval – continues to benefit sectors including technology and financials. Correlations briefly rose in early August, mostly due to heightened tensions on the Korean peninsula, but soon returned to multi-year lows.
Brexit and dispersion
Greater dispersion is also being observed in Europe and the UK. The decline in correlations in the FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 partly reflects the impact of Britain’s referendum on European Union membership, which led investors to take a more granular view of the market to try to sift the potential winners from the losers.
James Balfour*, UK equity fund manager at Aviva Investors, points to a divergence in performance within sectors such as financials after the Brexit vote. “As with very stock there is no exact peer, but when you compare different financial institutions there has been a clear split since the decision.”
For example, as of November 6, HSBC shares were up 64% since the referendum, according to London Stock Exchange data; by contrast Lloyds shares had risen only 19%. This divergence is partly a function of the fall in the value of the pound against the dollar, which benefited companies with international revenues (such as HSBC) over domestically-focused firms (such as Lloyds), creating greater dispersion across both indices.
Accounting firm KPMG has split FTSE companies among two new indices to illustrate this growing dispersion. The KPMG UK50 index, comprised of companies that derive most of their revenues from the UK, such as banks, telecommunications and utilities firms, fell 5.5% between the referendum and end-August 2017. The equivalent index of companies with mostly overseas revenues, notably energy and mining firms, rose more than 33% over the same period.²
Active versus passive
As broad index correlations begin to break down, investors are putting greater scrutiny on corporate fundamentals, becoming more attentive to company balance sheets and more responsive to results announcements.
Balfour points to sharp falls in the share prices of British companies such as BT Group, which
fell 22% on January 24 following a profit warning, and technology company Imagination Technologies, a chip maker whose shares fell more than 60% in April when it lost its contract as a supplier to US giant, Apple. Research from Ernst & Young shows poorly-performing companies are now being punished more quickly and severely than was the case earlier in the year, a trend that is further contributing to the breakdown in correlations.³
As fundamentals become a bigger driver of performance, beta-driven strategies may prove less lucrative. The data supports this point: research from Morningstar finds a positive relationship between equity market dispersion and benchmark-beating returns among active managers.⁴
Nevertheless, it would be somewhat simplistic to describe an uncorrelated market as necessarily a “stock-pickers’ nirvana,” as one commentator recently put it.⁵ After all, when markets are rising and falling in unison it is more likely that individual stocks are being mispriced. In theory, this should open up opportunities for active managers to notice discrepancies and take on contrarian bets, provided those fundamentals are reflected in the stock price further down the line, according to Giles Parkinson,* global equities fund manager at Aviva Investors.
Parkinson cites the example of US retail, a sector that remains fairly well correlated due to the impact of broad themes on investor sentiment. Fearful of the disruptive effect of e-commerce, many investors are shorting baskets of brick-and-mortar retailers, giving active managers an opportunity to add to their exposure to individual firms that may be relatively insulated from the trend.
“Investors are shorting the US discretionary ETF [exchange traded fund], or bricks-and-mortar stores altogether, because they are worried about the impact of online retail. This means that the correlation between companies in this sector tends to increase. If you have conviction that a company is more resilient to the threat of online retail, this can present opportunities,” he says.
According to Parkinson, idiosyncratic factors are always likely to be the main drivers of stock performance over the long term. Over shorter time horizons, a less-correlated market should, on balance, be more likely to reward skillful stock pickers and punish those unable to distinguish the wheat from the chaff.
And with lower market correlation, it should be easier to build more diversified – and therefore more resilient – equity portfolios, especially as intra-sector correlations have also begun to fall as well.
So how long is the current uncorrelated environment going to last? The last time stocks were this dispersed was during the run-up to the financial crisis in 2005-07; in fact some figures show that correlation is now lower than at any time since 2001, during the dot-com bubble.⁶
Recent academic research suggests a fall in correlations often portends market downturns.⁷ Does this mean a market correction is in the offing?
Maynard believes the current bull market has some way further to run, although he suggests investors keep monitoring broader macroeconomic signals as they refocus their attention on the minutiae of corporate reports. If signs of ebbing growth translate into lower forward-earnings estimates, volatility and stock correlations could quickly rise again.
“We expect correlations to stay low as long as volatility stays low, and that will likely remain the case until there is some kind of exogenous shock to the system – perhaps some kind of “Black Swan” event – or expectations of global growth start to deteriorate, which would probably cause correlation and volatility to rise at the same time,” Maynard says.
CBOE⁸ S&P 500 Implied Correlation Index
* Investment professionals are members of AIA/AIC's Participating Affiliate, Aviva Investors Global Services Limited ("AIGSL").
 “The moment stock pickers have been waiting for has finally arrived,"CNBC, October 2017
 Diverging Fortunes: Analysis of Profit Warnings, EY, Q3 2017
 “The challenges active fund managers face,” Morningstar, September 2017. The analysis focused on the relationship between active equity managers’ performance and cross-market dispersion since 2005, finding that dispersion accounted for 85% of the variability in an individual manager’s success.
 “Correlation crash clears the way for stockpickers,” Financial Times, September 1, 2017
 ”Could the tide finally be turning for active vs passive?,” Charles Schwab, August 28, 2017
 Stock market dispersion, the business cycle and expected factor returns, EDHEC Business School, September 2015
 Chicago Board Options Exchange
Unless stated otherwise, any sources and opinions expressed are those of Aviva Investors Global Services Limited (Aviva Investors) as of November 9, 2017. Opinions, estimates, forecasts, and statements of financial market trends that are based on current market conditions constitute our judgment and are subject to change without notice. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but has not been independently verified by Aviva Investors and is not guaranteed to be accurate. References to specific securities, asset classes and financial markets are for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to be, and should not be interpreted as, recommendations. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
The name “Aviva Investors” as used in this presentation refers to the global organization of affiliated asset management businesses operating under the Aviva Investors name. Each
Aviva Investors’ affiliate is a subsidiary of Aviva plc, a publicly- traded multi-national financial services company headquartered in the United Kingdom.
For Use in Canada
Aviva Investors Canada, Inc (“AIC”) is located in Toronto and is based within the North American region of the global organization of affiliated asset management businesses operating under the Aviva Investors name. AIC is registered with the Ontario Securities Commission (“OSC”) as a Portfolio Manager, an Exempt Market Dealer, and a Commodity Trading Manager.
For Use in the United States
Aviva Investors Americas LLC is a federally registered investment advisor with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Aviva Investors Americas is also a commodity trading advisor (“CTA”) and commodity pool operator (“CPO”) registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), and is a member of the National Futures Association (“NFA”). In performing its services, AIA utilizes the services of investment professionals of affiliated investment advisory firms who are best positioned to provide the expertise required to manage a particular strategy or product. In keeping with applicable regulatory guidance, each such affiliate entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with AIA pursuant to which such affiliate is considered a “Participating Affiliate” of AIA as that term is used in relief granted by the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission allowing US registered investment advisers to use portfolio management and trading resources of advisory affiliates subject to the supervision of a registered adviser. Investment professionals from AIA’s Participating Affiliates render portfolio management, research or trading services to clients of AIA. Investment professionals from the Participating Affiliate also render substantially similar portfolio management research or trading services to clients of advisory affiliates which may result in performance better or worse than presented herein. This means that the employees of the Participating Affiliate who are involved in the management of
strategies and other products offered to US investors are supervised by AIA.
AIA’s Form ADV Part 2A, which provides background information about the firm and its business practices, is available upon written request to:
225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2250
Chicago, IL 60606