Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 253

How to use factors to tailor your investing

Factor-based investing has gained greater attention in recent years, in part because of the rise of alternatively-weighted indexes and ‘smart-beta’ products.

However, investing in factors is nothing new. Benjamin Graham and David Dodd published ideas on what we now call value investing in their book Security Analysis published in 1934.

Portfolios might tilt towards or away from certain factors. What is new about factor-based investing is using the factor lens to evaluate portfolios, crediting factors for their impact on risk and return.

Today, value investing is considered one type of factor strategy - with minimum volatility, quality, momentum and liquidity being other common factor strategies.

We think of factors as the DNA of an investment – the underlying attributes that explain and influence how an investment behaves. Factor strategies leverage the positive effects of factor exposures through systematic, diversified, and disciplined tilts.

With an increasing array of factor funds on offer, deciding what’s right for your portfolio can be difficult. By keeping some fundamentals in mind, investors can work out what might genuinely assist in reaching their financial goals.

Align your goals with your investment choices

How you use factors when constructing a portfolio depends on your goals. Rather than targeting pure outperformance with factor funds, you might be better off considering the kind of characteristics a certain factor can add to your portfolio. Your goals may involve specific time-horizon constraints, or varying risk profiles.

For example, those in pension phase with concerns about volatile markets may see the benefit in using a factor fund focused on minimising volatility in part of their equity exposure. This might apply especially when reallocating too large a sum to fixed interest could jeopardise the capital growth required to protect against outliving assets.

Historically, an investor may have looked towards equity funds that emphasised ‘defensive’ sectors or those with higher dividend yields for volatility reduction. However, while lower volatility can be, at times, a by-product of these types of strategies, it is not the objective. Additionally, products like these may lack proper diversification and not provide the downside protection when needed the most.

A minimum volatility strategy is optimised to provide equity returns with lower volatility than the broad markets in a diversified portfolio.

Alternatively, a growth-oriented investor might conclude that the style characteristics of their total global equities portfolio are not appropriate for the level of desired risk. If the investor wishes to maintain the outperformance potential of their existing funds while reducing the active risk, they could allocate a portion of their global equities portfolio to a value fund providing a value equity factor tilt.

Active or index?

Historically, investors may have accessed factor exposure through non-market capitalisation, index-weighted strategies. However, we view any portfolio that uses a non-cap-weighted scheme as an active portfolio. Factor-based investing uses factors like value, minimum volatility or a tilt to a certain sector to outperform the broader markets.

Using an active approach to factor implementation can provide greater control over factor exposure and reduce factor drift in the portfolio, with the flexibility to change portfolio holdings as needed. This is because positions can be adjusted as needed in order to maintain continual dynamic exposure to targeted factors.

Adopting lower cost active management to replace higher cost traditional active funds can remove one of the most persistent headwinds to active outperformance.

Consider the risks

Using factor products can help you employ a transparent, controlled active approach towards meeting your goals, but factor investing is not without risks. Similar to many forms of active management, factors can perform inconsistently and experience sustained periods of underperformance.

Factor-timing is difficult, in fact like any active tilt, factors carry higher risk relative to the broad market, and demand patience and conviction from investors. They must have the ability to resist the urge to sell down underperforming active positions which may recover and provide outperformance over the longer term.

Rather than trying to identify a sure-fire solution for outperformance in all market cycles, factor strategies should match your investment objectives and be sure you have the patience needed to stick with the strategy over the long term.

 

Michael Roach is Head of Quantitative Equity Group at Vanguard Australia, a sponsor of Cuffelinks. This article is in the nature of general information and does not consider the circumstances of any investor.


 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

The best opportunities in fixed income right now

Finding your investment niche

Is currency exposure an unwanted risk or source of returns?

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Are franking credits hurting Australia’s economy?

Business investment and per capita GDP have languished over the past decade and the Labor Government is conducting inquiries to find out why. Franking credits should be part of the debate about our stalling economy.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

Here's what should replace the $3 million super tax

With Div. 296 looming, is there a smarter way to tax superannuation? This proposes a fairer, income-linked alternative that respects compounding, ensures predictability, and avoids taxing unrealised capital gains. 

Superannuation

Less than 1% of wealthy families will struggle to pay super tax: study

An ANU study has found that families with at least one super balance over $3 million have average wealth exceeding $19 million - suggesting most are well placed to absorb taxes on unrealised capital gains.   

Superannuation

Are SMSFs getting too much of a free ride?

SMSFs have managed to match, or even outperform, larger super funds despite adopting more conservative investment strategies. This looks at how they've done it - and the potential policy implications.  

Property

A developer's take on Australia's housing issues

Stockland’s development chief discusses supply constraints, government initiatives and the impact of Japanese-owned homebuilders on the industry. He also talks of green shoots in a troubled property market.

Economy

Lessons from 100 years of growing US debt

As the US debt ceiling looms, the usual warnings about a potential crash in bond and equity markets have started to appear. Investors can take confidence from history but should keep an eye on two main indicators.

Investment strategies

Investors might be paying too much for familiarity

US mega-cap tech stocks have dominated recent returns - but is familiarity distorting judgement? Like the Monty Hall problem, investing success often comes from switching when it feels hardest to do so.

Latest from Morningstar

A winning investment strategy sitting right under your nose

How does a strategy built around systematically buying-and-holding a basket of the market's biggest losers perform? It turns out pretty well, so why don't more investors do it?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.