MARKET NEUTRAL INVESTING: THE BASICS OF THEORY AND CONSTRUCTION

b y M a r s h a l l H u rd , C FA

In most traditional discussions of equity investing, the focus has always been on how to pick stocks that are going to beat the
market. This winner-only mentality is reflected in how analysts normally rate the stocks they are covering. There are few—if
any—sell ratings issued from Wall Street. In fact, of the entire Russell 3000, only 10 stocks have a median rating below a hold
(as of March 30, 2001). To be fair, there are many other reasons why analysts may be leery about placing a sell recommenda-
tion on a stock, including conflicts of interest in getting access to management and jeopardizing future potential revenue from
investment banking. Regardless, investors generally are much
Exhibit I
more interested in what to buy than what not to buy.
Long Portfolio
6
Concentrating on outperforming securities ignores the
5
fact that alpha can be generated by accurately predicting
4
underperforming securities. If picking winners to over-
weight in a portfolio can translate into outperformance, 3
then picking losers to underweight will have the same 2

% Weight
effect. In a long-only portfolio, a stock’s underweight is 1
limited to its weight in the benchmark. In other words, a
0
zero portfolio weight in a stock equates to an under-
-1
weight equal to the benchmark weight (e.g., if the weight
of a stock in the benchmark is 1% and a manager doesn’t -2
hold that stock, the relative weight of that stock would be -3
-1%). Whereas in a portfolio holding stock both long and -4
short, the underweight restriction is largely eliminated. Index Relative Bet
This opens an entire universe of research focused on
underperformers that has been largely untapped.
Long Portfolio: Passive Component
6

5
The Case for Market Neutral
4

Active returns in a long-only portfolio are derived from 3

the active positions taken versus the benchmark. A long- 2
% Weight

only portfolio can, in theory, be broken down into two 1

separate portfolios: a portfolio made up of the positive
0
and negative benchmark-relative weights, and a passive
portfolio made up of benchmark weights (see Exhibit I). -1

When portfolios are viewed in this manner, it becomes -2

clear that only one-third of the average portfolio is made -3
up of active weights. Alpha is generated only in the active -4
portion of the portfolio.
Index

A long/short portfolio allows buys to be purchased long

and sells to be sold short, regardless of any benchmark. Long Portfolio: Active Component
The shorted positions do not necessarily have to go down 6

in price to help the portfolio. They may have positive 5

returns as long as the long positions outperform them. 4
The key to market neutral investing is maintaining a posi- 3
tive performance spread between the securities held long
2
% Weight

and short. The construction and integration of the long

and short positions in the portfolio are also very impor- 1

tant. These two pieces need to be optimized to truly 0

neutralize market exposure and control risk. -1

-2

-3

-4
Relative Bet
Investing Mechanics: How Does It Work?

A review of short selling

Security lending and short selling of stock is a relatively complicated process and one with which traditional investors may not
be familiar. In order to short a stock, the stock must first be borrowed. Therefore, a prime broker must be hired to track down
and locate the required stock that will be borrowed and sold. The prime broker checks his own holdings or can tap into an
institutional network, which includes banks, index fund managers, and other large institutional holders of securities that have
discretionary lending programs. When the desired security is found, the cost to borrow it is determined based on the available
supply and the amount that is to be shorted.

When securities are borrowed and then sold, the cash proceeds are held by the stock lender as collateral and earn a set amount
of interest for the portfolio called the “short rebate” (usually the Fed Funds rate minus 25 to 60 basis points). A fee, common-
ly referred to as the “haircut,” is deducted from the short rebate and split between the short lender and prime broker based on
the difficulty of finding and shorting the desired stock. Typically, the short rebate earns more interest for “easy-to-lend” stocks
(because the haircut is less) and less interest for “harder-to-lend” stocks.

As a rule, short sales require collateral equal to 150% of the short sale amount. While the proceeds from the short sale cover
100% of the short initially, the long portfolio can be used to cover the remaining 50% of required collateral (long positions can
only be used as collateral up to 50% of their market value). In addition, a small variation margin account, usually 3% to 5% of
the total amount invested, must be set up and held at the custodian or prime broker. This variation margin is used as a liquidi-
ty buffer allowing the short positions to be marked to market on a daily basis to cover changes in collateral resulting from
price movements in the short positions.

Sources of return
There are several sources of
return available for a market
Exhibit II
neutral investment. The main
Sources of Return for Long/Short Portfolios
source is the performance dif-
ference between the long and $100 million investment Returns
short portfolios, where the
manager’s stock-picking ability
has the most impact. In addition Long $95 million Short $95 million
to price movements, dividends l Stock appreciation = gain l Stock appreciation = loss Net Long/Short Spread
(Gains - Losses)
received on the long portfolio l Stock depreciation = loss l Stock depreciation = gain
contribute to performance while
dividends occurring in the short Dividends Dividends + Dividends received
portfolio must be reimbursed received reimbursed – Dividends reimbursed
and count against the overall
performance. The short rebate $95 million $5 million
+ Interest income
provides interest income from cash collateral variation margin
the short positions and finally, = Total return
interest income is earned on the
variation account.

How does a market neutral portfolio work?

For an example of how a market neutral portfolio would function, assume that a manager has $100 million to invest (see
Exhibit II). First, the $100 million would be used to purchase $95 million of securities for the long portfolio held at the prime
broker. Secondly, $95 million worth of shortable securities would be borrowed from stock lenders through the prime broker
and sold off. The $95 million in cash proceeds from that sale would then be held as collateral by the prime broker and would
begin earning the short rebate interest rate. Lastly, the remaining $5 million would be held in a variation margin account to
cover the daily mark-to-market of the short position.

2
 Exhibit III
Market Neutral Mathematics
Unequitized Portfolio Market Scenarios
Bull Market Bear Market

Assuming $100 million invested Performance $Gain/Loss Performance $Gain/Loss

Long $95 million Market +18% -10%
Short -$95 million
Short collateral $95 million Long performance +22% 20.9 million -6% -5.7 million
Margin $5 million Short performance +14% -13.3 million -14% 13.3 million
Total $100 million
Short rebate +5% 4.75 million +5% 4.75 million
Margin interest +5% 0.25 million +5% 0.25 million

Total +12.6% 12.6 million -12.6% -12.6 million

Equitized Portfolio Market Scenarios

Bull Market Bear Market

Assuming $100 million invested Performance $Gain/Loss Performance $Gain/Loss

Long $95 million Market +18% -10%
Short -$95 million
Short collateral $95 million Long performance +22% 20.9 million -6% -5.7 million
Margin $5 million Short performance +14% -13.3 million -14% 13.3 million
Total $100 million
Future exposures $100 million Short rebate +5% 4.75 million +5% 4.75 million
Margin interest +5% 0.25 million +5% 0.25 million

Futures return* +13% 13.0 million -15% -15.0 million

Total +25.6% 25.6 million -2.4% -2.4 million

*Futures return is equal to the market return minus the T-bill return (5% in this example).

Market Neutral Portfolio Construction Methods

There are several methods that can be used to integrate the long and short portions of a market neutral portfolio. The most
basic method is to make the long and short portfolios dollar neutral, i.e., the dollar amounts of the long and short portfolios
are equal. While this unsophisticated method works in theory, it leaves the portfolio exposed to various types of risk factors.
In a dollar-neutral market neutral portfolio, the long and short portfolios can essentially be created separately. While this
may be desirable from a pure stock-picking standpoint, as it does not restrict a manager at all, it leaves the portfolio exposed
to a huge amount of risk from unhedged exposure to various factors. Examples of possible risk factors would be unhedged
sector exposures, industry exposure, cap size exposure, a beta differential between the portfolios, value/growth exposure,
or other risk factors derived from multi-factor models (e.g., BARRA’s). While exposure to some other factors could be by
choice, the market neutrality of the portfolio is tainted because ideally, there should be no correlation to any individual
market attribute.

To utilize a more stringent level of risk control in portfolio construction, the long and short portions of a market neutral
strategy can be optimized to reduce risk by incorporating a risk modeling optimizer with the manager’s buy and sell lists.
Thus, the long and short positions can be constructed with the same aggregate risk characteristics and will counteract each
other when combined. While this process would again put constraints on the portfolio manager’s ability to invest the portfo-
lio, it is the most effective way to eliminate unwanted risks and generate a portfolio that is truly neutral to market effects.

Unintended style exposure (when the style exposure of the long and short portfolios are not properly matched) has caused
problems for market neutral managers recently, due to the huge performance spreads that have developed between value
and growth and large-caps and small-caps. The performance spread between value and growth exploded wildly in favor of
growth in the latter half of 1999 and first quarter of 2000, and then reversed itself through the end of that year. A similar
disparity occurred in large- and small-caps in 1998 and again in the beginning of 2000. If, for example, the short portfolio
had a slight growth tilt and the long portfolio had a slight value tilt in the latter half of 1999, the performance differential

3
 between growth and value would have hurt the portfolio. Any inadvertent style bets cause the portfolio’s neutrality to decrease.
Performance can then be affected by factors other than the manager’s stock-picking prowess.

Exhibit IV
Historical Market Cap Rotations
40 45
33.98 35.02 33.83

26 21.79 26
21.26 19.84
18.23 13.50 11.64
6.65
Total Return %

Total Return %
12 10.10 7 5.02
8.34

-2 -12 -8.46
-2.55 -5.10
-10.57
-16 -31
-19.67
-24.34 -41.27
-30 -50
1998 1999 1/1/00 3/10/00 3/11/00 3/31/01 1998 1999 1/1/00 3/10/00 3/11/00 3/31/01
Russell Top 200 Russell MidCap Russell 2000 Russell 3000 Growth Russell 3000 Value

Benefits of Market Neutral Investing

Benefits for the plan sponsor: Low correlation and portability of alpha
As the performance of a long/short market neutral portfolio is essentially the performance differential between the individual
long and short portfolios, the overall portfolio should exhibit zero correlation with the markets in which it is invested. Holding
both long and short positions achieves low correlation through the cancellation of systematic market performance.

Every stock has both systematic and non-systematic factors. Systematic factors are macro-economic market factors that cannot
be minimized through diversification; non-systematic factors are company-specific factors. Therefore, by integrating long and
short positions, the systematic market performance can be cancelled out. Performance is generated solely by firm-specific
factors, which creates a perfect environment for a manager with stock-picking prowess. While the level of market correlation
is low, it will be dependent on the degree of neutrality designed into the construction process. A properly constructed market
neutral portfolio should have very low correlation with every major asset class and would offer excellent diversification bene-
fits when viewed in the context of an entire asset allocation plan. Exhibit V illustrates these low correlations. All six market

Exhibit V
Eight-Year Correlations Ending December 31, 2000
Lehman SSB
Market Market Market Market Market Market NAREIT MSCI MSCI Brothers Merrill Lynch 3-Month
Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral S&P Russell Equity EAFE EMF Aggregate High Yield Treasury
Manager 1 Manager 2 Manager 3 Manager 4 Manager 5 Manager 6 500 2000 Only (Gross) (Gross) Bond Master II Bill

Market Neutral Manager 1 1.00

Market Neutral Manager 2 0.34 1.00
Market Neutral Manager 3 0.49 0.26 1.00
Market Neutral Manager 4 0.36 -0.09 0.29 1.00
Market Neutral Manager 5 0.05 -0.03 0.33 0.34 1.00
Market Neutral Manager 6 0.49 0.13 0.52 0.48 0.31 1.00
S&P 500 (Large Caps) -0.08 -0.36 -0.18 0.21 0.18 0.04 1.00
Russell 2000 (Small Caps) 0.07 -0.45 -0.21 0.19 0.04 -0.01 0.83 1.00
NAREIT Equity Only 0.44 0.15 -0.36 0.10 0.11 0.41 0.16 0.36 1.00
MSCI EAFE (Gross) 0.08 -0.36 -0.19 0.36 -0.04 -0.07 0.70 0.66 0.07 1.00
MSCI EMF (Gross) -0.29 -0.47 -0.36 -0.04 -0.25 -0.32 0.51 0.61 -0.01 0.56 1.00
Lehman Brothers Aggregate Bond 0.45 0.39 0.33 0.10 -0.10 0.36 0.03 -0.01 0.25 -0.18 -0.35 1.00
Merrill Lynch High Yield Master II 0.13 -0.05 0.15 0.19 0.26 0.39 0.67 0.56 0.36 0.40 0.31 0.36 1.00
SSB 3-Month Treasury Bill 0.15 0.16 0.11 -0.01 0.02 0.05 0.07 -0.02 0.03 -0.36 -0.43 0.37 -0.10 1.00

Source: Fidelity Management Trust Company

4
neutral managers shown are invested in U.S. domestic equi-
Exhibit VI
ties, yet their correlations to both small- and large-caps are
Adding Market Neutral Managers Reduces Overall Risk
extremely low.
(Unequitized Returns)
12
In addition to having low correlation to any specific asset
class, market neutral managers exhibit very low correlation 10
to each other. As each manager’s area of expertise in generat-

Risk (Standard Deviation %)

ing alpha is different, it is only natural that their portfolio 8
returns will be unrelated. Therefore, not only are market
neutral portfolios excellent for diversification purposes, but 6
combining several market neutral managers together can
result in an even better risk/return profile. Exhibit V also 4
includes a correlation matrix comparing the six market
neutral managers to each other. As expected, they are uncor- 2
related. Furthermore, as more market neutral managers are
added to a lineup, their low correlation causes the overall 0
risk of the combination to fall dramatically, as shown in 1 Market Equal Wt Equal Wt Equal Wt Equal Wt Equal Wt
Neutral 2 Market 3 Market 4 Market 5 Market 6 Market
Exhibit VI. Manager Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral
Managers Managers Managers Managers Managers
Alpha portability
A growing area of interest from an asset allocation perspective is the “portability” of market neutral alpha to other asset classes.
This allows performance that is generated in inefficient asset classes (like small-cap) to be “ported” to more efficient asset
classes, like investment-grade fixed income or large-cap equities. A market neutral portfolio is made up of three main pieces:
the long equity positions, the shorted equity positions, and a cash pool resulting from selling the short positions. Because the
long and short portions cancel each other out to a net zero equity exposure and the remaining exposure is cash, the portfolio
benchmark is the risk free rate (T-bills). By equitizing the cash pool with long derivatives, the market neutral alpha can be
ported to other markets, usually via futures or swaps.

The alpha portability process is best illustrated by a simple example (leaving out the variation margin). Let’s assume that
$100,000 is available for investing. First, $100,000 of equities are purchased. Then, $100,000 of equity securities are borrowed
and sold (shorted), thereby generating $100,000 in cash. This cash is then invested in T-bills. The net equity exposure is now
$0 since the $100,000 in equities held long and the $100,000 in equities shorted cancel each other out. If the two sets of secu-
rities move in tandem, the net return will be the T-bill rate on the cash pool. If there is a differential in performance, the return
will be the differential plus the T-bill rate. If this portfolio were then equitized with S&P 500 futures, $100,000 of futures
exposure would need to be purchased. Because cash equitized with S&P futures performs like the S&P 500, the resulting per-
formance would be the return on the S&P 500 plus the performance differential between the long and short positions, thus
porting the market neutral alpha onto the S&P 500. An example of this is shown in Exhibit III.

In addition to alpha, other portfolio characteristics can be ported as well. Both tracking error and information ratio can theo-
retically be ported from any asset class with a suitable derivative. Therefore, if a superior information ratio can be generated in
an inefficient asset class, it can be ported to more efficient asset classes, like large-cap equities, where high information ratios
have been difficult to achieve historically.

Benefits for the manager: Freedom from benchmark constraints

One of the biggest benefits for managers of market neutral portfolios is the elimination of the constraints imposed by having a
benchmark. If a manager has a negative outlook on a stock, the most that he or she can do in a long portfolio is underweight
that stock as much as possible. Since the median weight of a stock in the S&P 500 is 0.08% (and about 0.005% in the Russell
3000), underweighting a stock to a zero weight does not have a huge impact on the overall portfolio. In contrast, on the posi-
tive side, the same stock could be overweighted by several percent and could thereby have a huge effect on performance. This
is part of the reason that the majority of research on stock selection concentrates on winners only. Having a long/short portfo-
lio removes this non-negative restriction. By allowing negative weights of stocks to have an impact on the portfolio, a manager
that can accurately predict that underperformers will be rewarded.

5
An additional constraint that benchmarks impose on
long portfolios is caused by the containment of Exhibit VI
Active and Passive Components of a Long Only Portfolio
residual risk. This risk can be defined as bench-
6
mark-relative risk that is commonly quantified
through tracking error. If a particular stock is 5
Active weights only make up a
overweighted or underweighted, the size of the 4
small portion of the portfolio.
The majority is passive.
weighting difference versus the benchmark increases
3 Positive active weight
the level of residual risk in the portfolio. As a result,
a manager who is trying to control residual risk 2

% Weight
would have fewer weighting differences from the 1
benchmark. Managers are accused of “hugging” the
benchmark if they go overboard with this process 0

and end up creating an index fund. If a portfolio -1

manager has no opinion on a stock that has a large In a long-only portfolio, no
-2
weighting in his or her benchmark, like a Cisco or a stock can have a negative
Negative active weight relative weight of more than
GE, and the manager wants to minimize residual -3 its benchmark weight
risk in the portfolio, something close to a bench- -4
mark weighting in that issue must be held. That
Active Weight Index Weight Short Constraint
portion of the portfolio is essentially passive. In fact,
the only true active positions in a portfolio are those
that have deviations from benchmark weights. The effort
to contain residual risk often limits the ability of a manager to generate alpha.

By removing the need to converge on a security’s index weights to contain risk, a manager is able to concentrate solely on the
area of the market where he or she can add the most value. For example, assume that a manager who has a lot of insight into
the banking industry purchases a bank stock he likes and shorts an equal proportion of a bank stock he thinks will do poorly. If
his predictions are right and the stock he bought outperforms the stock he shorted, he gains positive alpha regardless of how
bank stocks, or the market in general, perform. His performance is based solely on his stock-picking ability. Along the same
lines, if a manager doesn’t have any opinion or insight into bank stocks, they need not be included in the portfolio at all. In fact,
there is no need to have any representation in a sector where the manager has no expertise. Whenever a manager sees an oppor-
tunity, he or she is able to exploit it because there is no benchmark constraint. In doing so, information and analysis is used
much more efficiently and portfolio assets can be applied to generating alpha instead of being soaked up replicating the bench-
mark.

Challenges of Market Neutral Investing

Although there are many benefits to market neutral investing, there are drawbacks as well. These include issues associated with
shorting securities, higher levels of portfolio turnover, and management expenses.

Short-selling constraints
Operational implications related to selling securities short increase the complexity of market neutral investing. Not all stocks
will be available for shorting. Even if they are available, less liquid issues are expensive to short due to the opportunity and
trading costs associated with the securing and administering of the shorts. Even then, it is not always possible for the manager
to short the specific stocks he or she wants in the volume that they are needed. Many of these problems can be alleviated by
covering a large enough universe of stocks and generating enough depth in shorting ideas that liquidity problems and trading
costs can be avoided so as to not hinder the short side of the portfolio.

Short positions are perceived as being more risky than long positions due to their potential for unlimited losses. Since share
prices can only fall to zero, but can rise infinitely, theoretically there is no limit on the downside losses for a short position. In
practice, however, this risk is minimized through the integration of the short and long positions.

There are some legal requirements that have the potential to interfere with the use of short positions. In the United States, SEC

6
Rule 10a-1 allows exchange-traded shares to be shorted only at a price higher than the last trading price or equal to it if that
last trading price was higher than the previous trading price. This can, however, be circumvented through the use of basket
trades. Other countries, like Denmark and Germany, outlaw the short selling of equities altogether, although there are synthet-
ic products that can be used in their place. Also, many institutional pension plans have restrictions on the use of leverage and
short selling in their investment policy statements. These would have to be amended to allow for their investment in this type
of strategy.

Trading
Long/short market neutral portfolios generally have higher levels of trading than long-only portfolios of similar size. This is
because there is trading going on in both the long and short portfolios. Additional trading activity may be generated through
the rebalancing process needed to maintain the neutrality of the entire portfolio. If the long positions appreciate and the short
positions fall in value, some trading is necessary to realign the market exposures of the portfolio.

Fees
Due to the complexity of market neutral portfolios, management fees for these portfolios are generally higher than those for
standard long-only portfolios. However, market neutral portfolios are considered more “fee efficient” than long portfolios since
they lack the passive component that typically accounts for two-thirds of a portfolio. If 40 basis points were charged for a nor-
mal long-only portfolio, an equivalent market neutral manager could manage one-third of the assets and charge 120 basis
points for an equivalent “active-management-per-fee” basis.

Market liquidity
There are also some challenges associated with equitizing market neutral portfolios that vary based on market liquidity. For
example, small-caps generally cost about twice as much as large-caps to equitize. Equitizing using international futures is even
more expensive and may involve the hedging of currency exposure, which adds additional costs. Any exposure mismatch that
occurs when the futures and portfolio exposures are not properly synchronized—this is commonly called basis risk—can also
add additional opportunity costs and will affect tracking error. While these costs can add up, they can be minimized through
diligent portfolio supervision.

Other Types of Market Neutral Investing

While this paper mainly concentrates on long/short equity market neutral investing, there are many other types of market
neutral investing. There are a number of hedge funds and trading desks that utilize certain methods, mainly through arbitrage
arrangements, to exploit pricing inefficiencies in the market. Several examples of other market neutral strategies are:

l Convertible Arbitrage where convertible bonds, stocks, and warrants are hedged against the underlying
stock of each security.

l Fixed Income Arbitrage where mispriced securities are purchased and hedged with other securities to
capitalize on pricing anomalies while minimizing interest rate and other systemic market risks.

l Merger Arbitrage where pricing differences are exploited between two companies that are merging or where
one is acquiring the other.

Market Neutral: Worth Investigating

Market neutral investing can be of great strategic value for plan sponsors. Its low correlation to other asset classes and distinc-
tive risk/return profile make it extremely helpful for diversifying risk in the traditional sense. From a manager’s perspective,
alpha generating ideas are easier to implement due to market neutral’s lack of benchmark constraints and its shorting ability.
From a plan sponsor’s standpoint, market neutral’s alpha portability allows for the separation of the asset allocation decision
from the alpha generation decision. Managers can be hired for their ability to generate alpha regardless of their field, because
their alpha can be simply “ported” to the area where it is needed. While some of these ideas may seem radical, the flexibility
and utility market neutral investing offers make this type of strategy well worth investigating.
7
 Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Bob Swanson, CFA charterholder, Derek Young, CFA charterholder, Heather Graf, and Kristie Ward for their contributions to
this paper.

Additional Sources

Bruce I. Jacobs, “Controlled Risk Strategies,” Alternative Investing, AIMR Conference Proceedings, August 1998.

Bruce I. Jacobs, Kenneth N. Levy, and David Starer, “Long-Short Portfolio Management: An Integrated Approach,” The Journal of Portfolio Management, Winter 1999.

Joseph G. Nicholas, George Benson, Market-Neutral Investing: Long/Short Hedge Fund Strategies, Bloomberg Printing, September 2000.

Sheena Spear and Steve Wiltshire, “The Long and Short of Market Neutral Investing,” Frank Russell Company Research Commentary, July 2000.

David Steyn, “Market Neutral: Engineering Return and Risk,” Alternative Investing, AIMR Conference Proceedings, August 1998.

Lee R. Thomas III, “The Effect of Portable Alpha on Fixed Income Management,” Core-Plus Bond Management, AIMR Conference Proceedings, March 2001.

Biography

Marshall Hurd is a Senior Investment Analyst in Strategic Services at Fidelity Management Trust Company. In this role, he is
responsible for performing asset allocation studies and conducting portfolio construction analysis. Marshall earned his B.A. in
Engineering from Dartmouth College and his B.E. in Electrical Engineering from the Thayer School of Engineering at
Dartmouth. He is a CFA charterholder and is a member of the Boston Security Analysts Society.

D136 8
301762.001