The low volatility anomaly: why lower-risk assets have often outperformed
Standard finance theory predicts a positive relationship between risk and return: riskier assets should deliver higher returns as compensation for the risk borne. The low volatility anomaly contradicts this prediction. Lower-volatility assets have historically delivered returns close to—and sometimes in excess of—their higher-volatility counterparts, with substantially smaller drawdowns.
What the low volatility anomaly is
The anomaly was documented in equity markets as early as 1972, when Black, Jensen, and Scholes tested the capital asset pricing model and found that low-beta stocks outperformed CAPM predictions while high-beta stocks underperformed. Rather than risk and return increasing together linearly, the relationship was flatter than expected—and at the extremes, the highest-risk assets underperformed.
Baker, Bradley, and Wurgler (2011), in Benchmarks as Limits to Arbitrage: Understanding the Low-Volatility Anomaly, provided the most widely cited explanation: institutional fund managers are constrained to outperform benchmarks, not to maximise absolute risk-adjusted returns. This benchmark pressure leads them to overweight high-volatility, high-beta stocks—which offer the chance of outperforming a market-cap benchmark—and underweight low-volatility stocks. The systematic overpricing of high-volatility assets creates the anomaly.
A complementary behavioural explanation rests on lottery preference: investors overpay for assets with a small probability of a very large gain—the lottery-ticket characteristic of high-volatility stocks—just as they overpay for lottery tickets. Both mechanisms create the same structural mispricing.
How low volatility strategies work
A low volatility strategy ranks assets by their historical return variance or beta and overweights those in the lowest-volatility cohort. Rebalancing is typically monthly or quarterly. The strategy is often implemented as a long-only tilt within a diversified portfolio rather than a pure long-short approach.
Frazzini and Pedersen (2014), in Betting Against Beta, formalised this as the BAB factor and documented positive risk-adjusted returns across equities, bonds, credit, and futures markets from 1984 to 2012. Their mechanism—leverage-constrained investors bidding up high-beta assets—is consistent with Baker, Bradley, and Wurgler's institutional explanation.
What the evidence shows
Low volatility strategies do not typically outperform on raw return in most periods—they outperform on risk-adjusted return. A low-volatility portfolio captures a large share of market returns while incurring a fraction of the drawdown. Frazzini and Pedersen (2014) found positive BAB returns across 20 equity markets over nearly three decades; the premium was most pronounced during periods of market stress.
The outperformance is clearest on a drawdown-adjusted basis: lower-volatility portfolios lose less in bear markets, require less recovery to reach prior peaks, and spend less time underwater. These properties are particularly valuable for investors who need to maintain discipline through market cycles without being forced to sell at distressed prices.
Limitations and trade-offs
The anomaly may be self-limiting as it becomes widely known. Large capital inflows into low-volatility ETFs and strategies since the 2010s have reduced the valuation discount of low-volatility stocks, compressing the prospective premium. There is evidence that low-volatility stocks have become more expensive relative to history since the anomaly was widely published.
Low volatility strategies have a structural bias toward sectors with stable earnings and dividends—utilities, consumer staples, real estate—and away from high-growth sectors. This means they can underperform significantly during equity bull markets driven by technology and high-growth companies, as occurred across much of 2017–2021.
Factor overlap complicates attribution. Low volatility correlates with quality (stable-earnings companies tend to have lower return volatility) and can overlap with value depending on the period. Attributing outperformance to the volatility factor specifically, rather than incidental exposure to quality or value, requires careful analysis.
The low volatility anomaly in pfolio
pfolio measures and displays both volatility and downside volatility for every asset and portfolio across all time windows in pfolio Insights. These metrics allow investors to evaluate the volatility profile of their holdings explicitly. pfolio's systematic selection methodology does not implement an explicit low-volatility factor tilt, but the risk metrics visible in Insights allow investors to identify and monitor volatility exposure directly.
Related articles
Disclaimer
Get started now
