Demystifying Risk Parity with RealVision
and 90 Years of History

Bank of America Brings the Risk Parity Debate to a Boil

Risk Parity is having a moment.

For us, the fuse was lit in August 2016 when Bank of America Merrill Lynch released a research note suggesting that Risk Parity investment strategies represented a substantial source of systemic risk in global markets.  The report began:

“…While the drawdowns in US Treasuries, US equities, and ultimately risk parity portfolios were small and short-lived, the latent risk remains worth monitoring, as (i) leverage is still near max levels across a variety of risk parity parametrizations, (ii) bond allocations are historically elevated, and (iii) markets continue to be skeptical of a 2016 Fed hike.”

In a single sweeping statement, BAML conjured three fundamental – but misguided – demons that have haunted the risk parity concept since Edward Qian coined the term over a decade ago. To paraphrase BAML’s fear-mongering:

  • Risk parity strategies often employ leverage to reach higher volatility targets, with commensurately higher expected returns;

  • Some strategies alter their leverage factor through time in response to changes in market conditions, such that the strategies are more highly levered during low volatility periods.

  • When these risk parity strategies move to de-lever in the face of rising volatility and cross-asset correlations, this will trigger a systemic market event.

  • Risk parity strategies typically hold a larger allocation to bonds than stocks, since bonds have lower volatility, so they are especially vulnerable to periods that are hostile to bonds, such as rising rate environments.

Why Historical Context Matters

These notions have persisted because of a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of risk parity. That’s why we founded a web portal devoted to the concept, and published a 2,500 word point-by-point refutation of BAML’s research note in August 2016.

The reality of risk parity is quite different from the perception.  Shall we count the ways?

  • Risk parity is about ensuring that diverse assets, which exhibit different natural risk characters, and respond in uncorrelated ways to inflation and growth shocks, have an equal opportunity to express their unique qualities in a portfolio.
  • Risk parity takes no position on the relative opportunity for returns across global assets, but expresses the simple view that investors should be rewarded with returns in proportion to risk.
  • Consistent with the concept of the Capital Market Line, leverage is used to amplify returns, by increasing exposure to the entire maximally diversified portfolio;
  • Risk parity strategies come in two broad formats, which broadly serve to offset one another’s systemic effects.
  • Risk parity has delivered highly competitive performance, across evolving combinations of growth and inflation, than other popular portfolios.

This last point may be difficult to believe, given that, with the benefit of hindsight, a U.S. 60/40 portfolio has been such a strong performer over the past century or more.  However, we took the time to examine the performance of a globally diversified risk parity strategy over the past nine decades. We discovered that risk parity produced higher returns than a U.S. 60/40 portfolio, with smaller maximum losses, when scaled to the same level of risk.

Many investors miss the significance of this point because their lifespans have been dominated by a period of U.S. exceptionalism. The fact is, U.S. stocks and bonds are the best performing financial assets over the past century. We know this to be true in hindsight, but we obviously can’t know it to be true in the future. A U.S. oriented 60/40 portfolio may be engineered to do well if the future looks exactly like the past. But for investors who are uncertain about how the future might unfold, their best option is to maximize the opportunity for diversification. And that’s what a global risk parity portfolio is all about.

Risk Parity Isn’t a Silver Bullet

This is not to say that Risk Parity is a silver bullet.  In rising rate environments, performance is worse than falling rate environments.  But the comparisons are important here: what investment strategy are you comparing Risk Parity against, over what time frame, and in what economic environments?  Even more to the point, given what we know about the importance of structural diversification, how confident are you that your current strategy optimally matches tomorrow’s yet-to-be-revealed growth and inflation climate?

This is not a rhetorical exercise.  Depending on your investment edge and level of confidence, it may well be appropriate to make some active wagers.  But for the remainder of your portfolio, you will be hard pressed to find an investment method better suited to navigate uncertainty than a global risk parity portfolio.


You can learn more about ReSolve Global Risk Parity and our other adaptive strategies designed to thrive in changing environments at
ReSolve Online Advisor

And yet, the debate rages on.  Which is why we were honored to present our most recent Risk Parity research through RealVision Television, a leading research portal for institutional investors featuring exclusive content from some of the world’s most successful managers and leading research minds.

In our presentation, we expand our historical case study by examining Risk Parity relative to a US 60/40 portfolio from 1928-2016.

Discover our surprising revelations here.

(Editorial Note: This is a paid site for which we receive no compensation if you join.  You can get a free 7-day look by registering.)


Confidential and proprietary information. The contents hereof may not be reproduced or disseminated without the express written permission of ReSolve Asset Management Inc. (“ReSolve”). ReSolve is registered as an investment fund manager in Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador, and as a portfolio manager and exempt market dealer in Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia and Newfoundland and Labrador.
These materials do not purport to be exhaustive and although the particulars contained herein were obtained from sources ReSolve believes are reliable, ReSolve does not guarantee their accuracy or completeness. The contents hereof does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of interest to purchase any securities or investment advisory services in any jurisdiction in which such offer or solicitation is not authorized.

Forward-Looking Information. The contents hereof may contain “forward-looking information” within the meaning of the Securities Act (Ontario) and equivalent legislation in other provinces and territories. Because such forward-looking information involves risks and uncertainties, actual performance results may differ materially from any expectations, projections or predictions made or implicated in such forward-looking information. Prospective investors are therefore cautioned not to place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements. In addition, in considering any prior performance information contained herein, prospective investors should bear in mind that past results are not necessarily indicative of future results, and there can be no assurance that results comparable to those discussed herein will be achieved. The contents hereof speaks as of the date hereof and neither ReSolve nor any affiliate or representative thereof assumes any obligation to provide subsequent revisions or updates to any historical or forward-looking information contained herein to reflect the occurrence of events and/or changes in circumstances after the date hereof.

General information regarding returns. Performance data prior to August, 2015 reflects the performance of accounts managed by Dundee Securities Ltd., which used the same investment decision makers, processes, objectives and strategies as ReSolve has used since it became registered and commenced operations in August, 2015. Records that document and support this past performance are available upon request. Performance is expressed in CAD, net of applicable management fees. Indicated returns of one year or more are annualized. Past performance is not indicative of future performance.

General information regarding the use of benchmarks. The indices listed have been selected for purposes of comparing performance with widely-known, broad-based benchmarks. Performance may or may not correlate to any of these indices and should not be considered as a proxy for any of these indices. The S&P/TSX Composite Index (Net TR) (“S&P TSX TR”) is the headline index and the principal broad market measure for the Canadian equity markets. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Composite Stock Price Index (“S&P 500”) is a capitalization-weighted index of 500 stocks intended to be a representative sample of leading companies in leading industries within the U.S. economy.

General information regarding hypothetical performance and simulated results. These results are based on simulated or hypothetical performance results that have certain inherent limitations. Unlike the results in an actual performance record, these results do not represent actual trading. Also, because these trades have not actually been executed, these results may have under- or over-compensated for the impact, if any, of certain market factors, such as lack of liquidity. Simulated or hypothetical trading programs in general are also subject to the fact that they are designed with the benefit of hindsight. No representation is being made that any account or fund managed by ReSolve will or is likely to achieve profits or losses similar to those being shown. The results do not include other costs of managing a portfolio (such as custodial fees, legal, auditing, administrative or other professional fees). The contents hereof has not been reviewed or audited by an independent accountant or other independent testing firm. More detailed information regarding the manner in which the charts were calculated is available on request. Any actual fund or account that ReSolve manages will invest in different economic conditions, during periods with different volatility and in different securities than those incorporated in the hypothetical performance charts shown. There is no representation that any fund or account will perform as the hypothetical or other performance charts indicate.

General information regarding the simulation process. The systematic model used historical price data from Exchange Traded Funds (“ETFs”) representing the underlying asset classes in which it trades. Where ETF data was not available in earlier years, direct market data was used to create the trading signals. The hypothetical results shown are based on extensive models and calculations that are available for any potential investor to review before making a decision to invest.