Indian Investment Data Shows 50:50 Equity-Debt Portfolios Offer Better Risk-Adjusted Returns over 100% Equity
In this article (6)
Indian investors seeking optimal portfolio strategies should look beyond absolute returns, as new data suggests a balanced approach offers better risk-adjusted performance. A 20-year analysis, using India’s Nifty 100 TRI for equity and the CRISIL Short Term Bond Fund Index for fixed income, indicates that while all-equity portfolios yielded higher overall gains, a 50:50 blend of equity and debt provided more stable returns relative to the volatility experienced.
The study, compiled from UTI Mutual Fund data, highlights that purely equity-focused portfolios, though delivering greater long-term returns (e.g., ₹1 lakh growing to ₹10.5 lakh over 20 years), also carried significantly higher risk. For instance, over a one-year period, a 100% equity portfolio saw a 3.6% loss, while a 50:50 balanced portfolio gained 1.1%, and fixed income returned 5.8%.
Volatility Versus Absolute Returns
When comparing absolute returns, the 100% equity portfolio consistently outperformed over longer durations. Over 20 years, it recorded a 12.5% Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR), compared to 10.9% for the 50:50 balanced portfolio and 7.2% for 100% fixed income. This trend held true for 10-year, 5-year, and 3-year periods as well, where equity maintained its lead.
“Over 20 years, it recorded a 12.5% Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR), compared to 10.9% for the 50:50 balanced portfolio and 7.2% for 100% fixed income.”
However, volatility tells a different story. Measured by standard deviation, the equity portfolio exhibited substantially greater fluctuations. Over two decades, its standard deviation was 20.9%, dwarfing the 10.3% of the 50:50 portfolio and the mere 3.2% of the fixed income portfolio. This indicates that while equity offered higher potential gains, it also came with considerable unpredictability.
Understanding Risk-Adjusted Performance
To provide a clearer picture for investors, the analysis introduced risk-adjusted returns, calculated by dividing the CAGR by the annualised standard deviation. This metric reveals how much return a portfolio generated for the level of risk it undertook. On this front, the 50:50 balanced and 100% fixed income portfolios consistently surpassed the 100% equity option across all timeframes.
For example, over 20 years, the 100% equity portfolio had a risk-adjusted return of 0.60, while the 50:50 balanced portfolio achieved 1.0, and fixed income reached 2.2. This signifies that for every unit of risk taken, the diversified and fixed income portfolios delivered more return. This insight is crucial for long-term investors, emphasising that a higher absolute return doesn’t necessarily equate to a more efficient or less volatile investment journey.
Questions & Answers
Q.What is the key finding regarding 100% equity portfolios in India?
What is the key finding regarding 100% equity portfolios in India?
The data shows that 100% equity portfolios delivered higher absolute returns over longer periods (up to 20 years) but also carried significantly higher volatility and lower risk-adjusted returns compared to balanced or fixed-income portfolios.
Q.How did a 50:50 balanced portfolio perform in terms of risk-adjusted returns?
How did a 50:50 balanced portfolio perform in terms of risk-adjusted returns?
A 50:50 balanced portfolio consistently showed higher risk-adjusted returns than a 100% equity portfolio across all periods, indicating that it generated more return relative to the volatility recorded.
Q.What indices were used to represent equity and fixed income in the analysis?
What indices were used to represent equity and fixed income in the analysis?
The Nifty 100 TRI was used to represent equity, and the CRISIL Short Term Bond Fund Index was used to represent fixed income or debt in the Indian market analysis.
Reader pulse
Is a 50:50 portfolio the best approach for long-term investors?
21,802 votes so far