The Portfolio Personality Indicator
The Portfolio Personality Indicator (PPI) has two parts. One is a self-reported evaluation by way of a questionaire that identifies an investor's orientation. The second part is an evaluation of a portfolio's return history to assess the "personality" of the portfolio itself.
The PPI has four investment dichotomies that illuminate four characteristics of an investment personality: fundamental vs. technical, quick vs. measured, conservative vs. aggressive, and varied vs. stable.
The Four Dichotomies:
The purpose of this assessment is to assign both investors and their portfolios into one of four categories based on how they relate to investment opportunities, take action, and manage investment positions, enabling a better understanding of risk and the heuristics under various market environments and events. The four categories are: fundamental vs. technical, quick vs. measured, conservative vs. aggressive, and varied vs. stable. Each investor and each portfolio is assumed to tend toward one of the two poles in each of these categories, thus leading to 16 possible portfolio personality types.
Fundamental
Looks at economic conditions, spanning from macroeconomic conditions to company-specific research.
F
Technical
Looks at market action, such as momentum and trends, relative price movements, and market sentiment indicators.
T
Quick
Rapidly takes in information, makes decisions and, when opportune, turns them into trades.
Q
Measured
Slow in taking in information, deliberating on actions to take, and making trades.
M
Conservative
Having a low exposure to the benchmark versus cash and relying on diversification.
C
Aggressive
Being willing to lever and to have concentrated positions.
A
Varied
Changes investment strategies, information sources and style based on views of the market and economy.
V
Stable
Maintains a fixed investment process over time, looking at methods being applicable in a timeless and universal way.
S
Fundamental (F) vs. Technical (T)
- These are at the two poles of developing investment decisions. The fundamental approach focuses on the economic sphere, looking at earnings potential for companies, or at interest rate actions by the Fed, while the technical approach focuses on market action, such as momentum and market sentiment. Factor models are included in the technical type because they are price-focused, breaking returns into components.
- Macro investors and investors using company-specific research are in the fundamental camp, while relative value investing, high frequency trading, and indeed most all quantitive investment strategies are technical in nature.
Quick (Q) Vs. Measured (M)
- This dichotomy looks at the speed in taking investment action, extending from absorbing information, assessing its implications, and executing trades. It is determined not only by preferences, but by the type of investing they do, and the organizational structure where they reside. For example, a relative value investor who is looking at day to day prices will be quick by comparison to a fundamental-driven investor. An individual investor will have the ability to move more quickly than the CIO of a large pension fund.
- Liquidity is an essential part of this dichotomy; it is a necessary condition for Q.
- Concentration and position size will also be a consideration, because if this is high it can inhibit Q.
Conservative (C) Vs. Aggresive (A)
- The dichotomy between being conservative and aggressive is focused on risk, which has two parts, volatility and liquidity. It is the attitude toward risk once a benchmark is established, so it is possible one investor to be aggressive when holding Treasuries, and another to be conservative when managing a portfolio of technology stocks.
- And, based on position size, a portfolio can be in what is considered a liquid market and still have liquidity risk. The use of leverage can determine where one sits in this dichotomy, as will the ability to weather market dislocations without being forced to take action.
- Concentration also will be a component, with C tending to be less concentrated than A.
Varied (V) Vs. Stable (S)
- This dichotomy reflects flexibility in investment style. On the one side is a view there is an investment approach that is "timeless and universal", on the other is one that looks at the investment world as having an ever-changing landscape where opportunities come in many forms and rules don't apply.
- The questions that arise in the varied versus stable dichotomy go beyond variations in the methods used in looking for opportunities to turning from a liquidity supplier to demander, from a levered to unlettered exposure, putting on short term versus long term positions, and moving from an index focus to an alpha one.
The 16 Personality Types
FQCV
These portfolios are the regular Joes. They have a fundamental focus with many small positions in liquid markets, usually equities. They have well controlled leverage and scan the markets for opportunities on multiple fronts. Many multi-strategy mutual funds, ETFs, and alternative funds are this personality type. Even some hedge funds fit here. For example, Citadel's main portfolio. It is value-based, is C even though it employs leverage because it holds many positions based on differing themes, and is V because is goes with the winners at any given time among its many independent desks.
FQCS
These portfolios are a systematic version of FQCV, where the system is looking at fundamentals such as price to forward earnings. They tend to be reversion oriented. When prices have taken off, for example, these signal a deviation from fundamentals, (maybe call it irrational exuberance), and lighten positions.
FQAV
These portfolios come from scanning the world for market vulnerabilities or hidden opportunities and going after them aggressively, with leverage and size. A classic macro example is Soros. Pershing Square is an example for equities. These portfolios hold a small set of positions in big size, but nonetheless they need to be prepared to quickly get in and then out when the catalyst event occurs, or if it fails to materialize.
FQAS
These are the same as FQAV, but with a set rule of looking for opportunities, so usually have a quantitative flair, and when quantitative, will be A from leverage more than from concentration, because the edge that comes from quantitative methods is scanning for many opportunities. And the building of quantitative models requires more than a handful of big ideas for empirical tests.
FMAV
This personality type is focused on big ideas, big both in terms of size and in terms of large impact. Thus A because of concentration and possibly leverage. The ideas can come from many quarters, so these are not formulaic or systematic. Each investment has its own narrative.
FMAS
The A for this personality type leans more toward illiquidity, coming either from concentration by piling into the "big trade" or holding positions that are inherently illiquid, than it does from excessive leverage. Buffet is in this personality type. Bridgewater's alpha fund also has this personality because its large size and focus on a few themes forces it to hold concentrated positions that are slow to be put on and liquidate, and Dalio's adherence to what he calls timeless and universal principles is a hallmark of S.
FMCV
These portfolios are typical of an individual's buy-and-hold approach, investing for retirement. Holding for the long term, unlevered, and taking in ideas when they happen to fall onto their plate.
FMCS
Think of the tortoise -- slow and steady wins the race. These portfolios are pretty boring. Hold a long time, in a conservative way, based on set rules. One place you see this is with a pension portfolio. It is both C and S because, among other things, the rules are dictated by the board. And the board is not there to watch day to day, might not have a lot of expertise, and is on the hook if something goes wrong.
TQCS
Although it is common for T broadly, this personality is the main depository for momentum, for going with the trend, whether in terms of prices or volatility. Tactical asset management, risk parity, Bridgewater's all weather fund are examples. Rules based and focused on market technicals: Looking a market action in the case of TAA, looking at relative volatility in the case of risk parity. Although these portfolios might not change often, they are Q because they have to be quick on their feet in order to adjust positions, sometimes in a big way, when signals require it.
TQCV
During times of market dislocation, this portfolio will step into the breech to provide liquidity. Doing so requires being fast on the draw when the liquidity demand becomes manifest, and a liquid and low risk posture so as not to get drawn into the fray and become a liquidity demander itself. Also in this camp are disciplined market makers -- liquidity suppliers in the short term who buy or sell when they see an overhang on one side of the market. It is the discipline that makes for the C in this personality.
TQAS
If you are a quant looking for action, this is home base. Technical rules, operating with leverage and short time frames. At the extreme in that regard are high frequency shops. Also most CTAs. And relative value trading. Two Sigma fits here (although they also have a fundamental side), and the embryonic DE Shaw.
TQAV
These portfolios are the life of the party. Focused on the crowd, fast witted, ready with little surprises. Use market views in whatever works, and go with the winners. Millennium is the poster child here, and a V because it goes with the winners from many independent traders, each with their own models.
TMAS
Momentum and factor based with a longer term investment approach, AQR being a prime example. Convergence trading, a longer-term version of relative value trading fits into this type.
TMAV
This is the type for longer-term chartist, either explicitly or indirectly. The key differentiator between this and TMAS is a propensity toward story telling, looking at the market and coming up with a narrative on how things will unfold, as opposed to employing a cookiecutter regimen.
TMCS
This is the technical version of the tortoise's "slow and steady" in the FMCS personality. Decisions are made based on the effect of market moves rather than economic fundamentals, but the basic personality beyond that is similar to a pension fund. Actually, this is an alternative pension fund personality. Because it is following a benchmark, or staying close to the target. Maybe plus or minus 5% in this or that direction. close to target, making changes based on market deviations.
TMCV
This is a laid-back type, buy-and-hold, go with the flow, keep low risk. Yawn. Typically using momentum, looking for whatever stock stands out from the crowd based on price action or going into the market when there is talk of new highs.
Benefits
- Understand how the portfolio will fare in changing market environments and in the face of market events given the dynamics of how it will be managed. For example, in the face of a liquidity event, will the portfolio demand or supply liquidity; will it be able to stand on the sidelines.
- Provide a guide for the heuristics of decision making over time to better inform dynamic models, as, for example, for an agent-based model that can chart the effect of the investors as the environment changes -- and as their actions change the environment.
- Look at the potential for divergence between the portfolio and the investment guidelines in the face of a dynamic and ever-changing market.
- Determine the consistency of portfolio personality with that of the investor.
- Anticipate the market effects from concentrated market activity or the lack of strong market presence for any personality type.
Limitations
The concept of an investor and portfolio personality is new and untested. The types and their description are based on the market experience of its developer, Richard Bookstaber.
- The questionnaire employed here is similar to personality tests such as Myer-Briggs that are based on Jung's view of psychological types, but here with types developed by Bookstaber. Insofar as that analogy carries, this can be considered a tool for psychometric assessment, and there is limited scientific evidence for using dichotomies in that area.
- The dichotomy types are the poles of characteristics, but in reality, for both investors and portfolios there is a middle ground, not a polar, either/or distinction.
- The Investment Personality Indicator has not been subject to a controlled study or validation.
- The terminology for the types is not tightly defined, is not represented in quantitative terms, and is open to subjective interpretation.