"Smart beta" is all the rage among the smart set. Recently, a French research firm presented in Chicago on the topic the same day that AQR, a money manager with University of Chicago Ph.D. connections, visited Morningstar to discuss the very same subject. Just one day before, BlackRock announced that it was launching a series of "smart beta" exchange-traded funds.
To translate: Beta is financial academese that means "risk factor," for which an investor is (allegedly) paid. The US stock market has a beta, as do Japanese bonds. "Smart" means that the beta, or risk factor, is not associated with a standard market, but rather from another source. It also implies that this beta is a particularly good one to own. The premium that comes from holding value stocks is an example of a smart beta. So, too, are the extra returns associated with owning illiquid stocks or from owning securities in less-developed countries.
I'm not crazy about the jargon; it's the sort of thing that makes my wife clap her hands over her ears and mutter, "Thank God I don't have your job." But the concept of smart beta is helpful for investors. Effectively, it means lower expense ratios. Because portfolio activity that once was regarded as active management, and which commanded the fees of active management, is increasingly being redefined by the notion of smart beta as a version of passive management. This means that costs for value strategies, or momentum strategies, or low-liquidity strategies, or perhaps value + momentum + low-liquidity strategies, are heading lower.
In summary, yes, smart beta is quite the smart idea. Any theory that leads to investments becoming cheaper has much to recommend it.
The Rekenthaler Report is published multiple times a week; see all Rekenthaler's missives here.