Search Product
showing 1 - 8 of 864 results






Global Market Perspective

The Art of Smart Beta Solutions. Interest in “smart beta” solutions is moving beyond equities, but implementation challenges can delay adoption. The key is to establish the proper framework for managing unintended portfolio risks. In our portfolios, we currently favor tactical exposure to emerging-market currency and commodity carry positions as well as relative growth in equities.

How We’re Positioned and Where the Opportunities Are

Reducing equity exposure, as we discussed last month, helped most of our products weather the broad market sell-off that resulted from the Greek crisis. Similarly, our decision to take advantage of depressed implied volatility in US equity call options proved favorable as volatility spiked and option prices rose (Current Positioning). As the crisis progressed, we largely followed a “typical” crisis playbook. This meant reducing risk exposures as we clarified the fundamental implications of Greece’s possible exit from the monetary union, monitoring the market for dislocations, and starting to build positions as risk and reward became asymmetric.

GMP Quarterly Video
Current Positioning
  • Interest has picked up in systemic risk premiums, or “smart beta,” since 2008.
  • Smart beta can improve diversification, lower cost and gain transparency, but implementation challenges have tempered adoption.
  • Smart beta providers differentiate themselves by designing implementations that balance liquidity, transparency, unintended risk exposures and effectiveness. Naive construction approaches have lagged since 2008.
  • Enhancing returns by tactically allocating among smart beta portfolios is controversial, but we think it’s valuable in implementing factor portfolios

This publication offers investors a systematic, comprehensive assessment of the global economy and the world’s capital markets. Using a short horizon, we analyze current and emerging trends, risks and opportunities across countries, regions and asset classes, providing perspective on the global investing landscape investors face today. These materials present the viewpoint of the Multi-Asset team and do not necessarily represent the views of other AB portfolio-management teams.

Vadim Zlotnikov

Chief Market Strategist &
Co-Head—Multi-Asset Solutions

Speak to an Expert

Our team of portfolio managers is available to discuss your needs.

'First Name' is required
'Last Name' is required
'Email' is required

Specifically, we shifted our equity exposure from a modest overweight to neutral across most of our services, while monitoring emerging opportunities in deep-value European equities and peripheral debt. Within equities, Japan is still our largest regional overweight, followed by select emerging countries. We remain underweight duration across most regions, which helped returns modestly as bonds, somewhat surprisingly, sold off. In response to the Greece-induced flight to safety, we have reduced our duration underweight in US and Germany.

In terms of equity styles, we’re positioned for modest economic growth and persistently low, although rising, interest rates. This calls for emphasizing relative growth as well as growth at a reasonable price for most regions, except in Europe, where we’re sourcing value exposure. As we discussed in prior reports, we continue to position the portfolios for a modest economic recovery, expecting an acceleration in wage growth and stronger US household and small-business formation.

June performance was defined by the response to the potential Greek default (Performance). After rising unabated through the second quarter, global equities gave back most of their gains in the final days of June, as the crisis escalated. Concerns rose over European stability: Greece edged closer to leaving the euro after the government pushed for a referendum on bailouts. Meanwhile, Treasury yields finished with their largest quarterly increase since December 2013, as the market anticipated the US Federal Reserve’s first interest-rate hike in nearly a decade as well as a spillover of rising euro-area interest rates.

There was relatively little differentiation among regions, as equity markets declined by between 2% and 6%. The depth of the loss was determined largely by a country’s exposure to commodities and China. Beyond Greece, sovereign bond yields haven’t spiked—even for weaker countries like Italy and Spain. This suggests that investors believe that the European Central Bank can contain the damage.

Oil declined in June but finished the second quarter significantly higher, while gold and industrial metals declined. However, downside pressure on oil started to build toward quarter-end, as inventories grew and the likelihood of a deal with Iran appeared to grow. In general, the turmoil had a modest negative impact on high yield, which declined in June but finished up for the quarter.

A year ago, we wrote about the importance of using nontraditional risk premiums to supplement traditional beta sources. We also discussed the complexity of the decision, given the underperformance of these strategies during the past decade and the implementation challenges associated with governance and leverage (July 2014 Global Market Perspective).

This month, we take a closer look at the recent performance of factor strategies, and we offer thoughts on which strategies we find most attractive given today’s investment setting. We believe that looking at risks and opportunities through the prism of risk premiums offers powerful insight into opportunities. We also use this approach to discuss and evaluate tactical investment choices.

Proliferation of Smart Beta: Embarrassment of Riches?

It’s hard to pin down a precise definition of “smart beta” strategies, but they probably account for at least $300 billion to $400 billion of the exchange traded fund (ETF) market (20%–25%, depending on the source). Another $400+ billion in institutional and mutual fund assets under management (AUM) falls into this category.

The basic logic behind these strategies has been well known for many decades, but investor interest has climbed since 2008, and AUM commitments grew sharply over the past two to three years. Norges Bank commissioned two massive studies that examined the validity of active management and laid the foundation for large-scale deployment of smart beta approaches.

As these studies were conducted, there was substantial growth in product offerings from many traditional and boutique money managers, as well as ETF and index providers. The term “smart beta” even started to enter the popular lexicon, as evidenced by the growth in the number of Google searches (Display 1).

Display 1

Frequency of Google Searches for “Smart Beta”

Through June 30, 2015

Source: Google and AB

Three Distinct Smart Beta Approaches

Given the vast material already published on smart beta strategies, we won’t rehash the many familiar arguments for deploying them. Instead, we’ll look at some of the challenges in deploying smart beta approaches and discuss some of the key considerations in managing a holistic portfolio that incorporates them.

Investors can access systemic risk premiums using three vehicles (Display 2). The first is a simple rules-based index construction that’s based on one of several index providers (such as MSCI). This approach is used as the basis for ETFs and the majority of passive strategies.

Display 2

Smart Beta Implementation Choice

As of June 30, 2015

SMA: separately managed account

*Higher numbers are for long-short.

Source: AB

The second approach is an actively managed portfolio that seeks to maximize specific systemic exposures while minimizing unintended risks. These strategies tend to rely on risk/return models to build optimal portfolios. They’re generally sold through commingled vehicles such as mutual funds and collective investment trusts (CITs), but are also available as separately managed accounts. They can include long-only or market neutral implementations, be multi-asset, and use tactical allocation among risk premiums.

The third category of smart beta is custom designed for a particular portfolio. Most often, these are a client-specific combination of risk premium strategies explicitly designed to complement the rest of the portfolio and/or meet specific fee targets. Less often, they can be a risk-completion overlay, which dynamically modifies exposures to complement changes in a core portfolio or to facilitate strategic transitions of managers or exposures.

Ideally, the implementation choice would be determined by balancing cost, liquidity, transparency, unintended risk exposures and efficacy. However, investors often lack the tools to make a detailed evaluation of products and/or the governance structure to monitor outcomes.

For example, it would be impossible to choose between passive and active smart beta implementations without a robust risk model that captures any amplification of common risks that might be introduced by either choice. In other words, could adding smart beta actually increase investors’ overall portfolio risk by adding to some exposures they already have?

How Effective Is the Pursuit of Factors?

Performance differences in the post-2008 period clearly demonstrated the need for both tactical allocation and sensitivity to the macro setting.

Outside of the traditional equity, credit and interest-rate term premiums, investors typically consider five alternative risk premiums that can be extracted across most asset classes: value, momentum, carry, defensive/quality and selling volatility. To make things simple, we’ll focus primarily on the first three factors, which are most common. Portfolios are built by taking long positions in securities or indices with favorable characteristics (such as better value, momentum and yield) while taking short positions in those with unattractive metrics.

Implementation choices impact the effectiveness of different strategies, but our work suggests that different construction algorithms can still deliver directionally similar results. So, when we examined historical returns, we chose to look at a “typical” risk-managed implementation. This approach combines high exposure to a specific premium, but sizes positions as the inverse of their volatility; this balances risk on the long and short sides of the trade. Later in this section, we’ll examine the impact of different implementation choices.

Based on long-term historical performance, most strategies (except commodity value and fixed-income momentum) feature very attractive Sharpe ratios (Display 3). There’s a surprising similarity in Sharpe ratios when the three risk premiums are averaged across all assets. Also, the pairwise correlation among the strategies is extremely low, which highlights the benefit of combining different factors to form a single diversified portfolio. The effectiveness measures of most risk premiums have remained solidly positive since 2008, but declined substantially relative to long-term history (Display 4). As we discussed above, using risk-aware construction preserved a higher, but directionally similar, Sharpe ratio versus a more naive approach.

Display 3

Long-Term Sharpe Ratios for Common Alternative Strategies Using Risk-Aware Construction

As of June 30, 2015

Annualized based on monthly market-neutral returns

Source: Bloomberg and AB

Display 4

Sharpe Ratio for Alternative Risk Premiums: Risk-Aware vs. Naive Construction

Through June 30, 2015

Annualized monthly performance, three-year rolling average

Source: Bloomberg and AB

There are many possible explanations for the deterioration in the average effectiveness of a factor fund. One explanation could be tied to the persistence of low interest rates, low inflation expectations and high liquidity supplied by central banks. This could explain the relatively strong returns attributable to carry—driven by increased demand for income and yield.

Returns to the value factor were relatively good, due to the perception of a central bank “put” that would serve as a market backstop. Distressed valuations were quickly reversed, as investors pounced on relative-value opportunities; they assumed that bad news meant more liquidity would be on the way. This landscape could also explain the failure of momentum strategies, especially on the short side: underperformance was generally short-lived, as it drove buying by yield and value managers (Display 5).

Display 5

Deterioration in Sharpe Ratios for Common Alternative Strategies Using Risk-Aware Construction: 2009–June 2015 vs. Long-Term Average

As of June 30, 2015

Annualized based on monthly market-neutral returns

Source: Bloomberg and AB

Comparing Smart Beta Approaches: Naive, MSCI Style Index and Pure Factor

How did the current environment affect the performance of different factor implementations? Can results be improved through tactical allocation and better factor construction? We think the answer to the second question is “yes.”

We looked at three ways to capture excess returns from the MSCI World Index stock universe: “naive” implementation, MSCI style indices and “pure” factor portfolios. Each approach was built for the value and momentum premiums. The naive implementation simply takes the most attractive 20% of stocks based on value and momentum metrics. MSCI style indices use a proprietary framework to create style tilts to value and momentum.

Finally, pure factor exposures are tilted to the same exposures as the two other approaches, but use a risk model to minimize risk exposure to sectors, styles (size, for example), market betas and other characteristics. The correlation among the three different approaches to capture the same premium is fairly high, but the outcomes since 2008 have diverged (Display 6).

Display 6

Equity Value and Growth: Excess Returns and Information Ratios Using Different Factor Construction, 2009–June 2015

As of June 30, 2015

Source: Bloomberg, MSCI and AB

The reason for divergent outcomes for the value premium is sector biases. Both the MSCI Value Index and the naive portfolio are significantly overweight financials and underweight technology. These exposures currently account for more than two-thirds of the underperformance versus the pure value portfolio. Obviously, if technology underperforms while financials come back, the pure portfolio would likely underperform the rules-based construction.

Essentially, the pure portfolio sacrifices some intensity of exposure to value in order to reduce unintended systemic risks (Display 7). The choice of approach is driven primarily by investors’ tolerance for loading up on unintended exposures, which could change significantly over time. This was also the case for the rules-based momentum funds, which can be substantially underexposed to value and have very large sector and/or country biases. These biases change over time, requiring more governance and risk-management resources to avoid a buildup of common risk exposures.

Display 7

Comparison of Pure vs. Naive Approach for Equity Value Strategy: Price to Book

Through June 30, 2015

Source: Bloomberg, MSCI and AB

The construction challenge to reduce unintended risks is similar for a non-equity smart beta portfolio: it’s more difficult to address given the relatively small number of securities. As a result, the problem usually comes down to position sizing rather than security selection. In some cases, tone solution may lie in segmenting exposures on a region-neutral basis to avoid biases.

For example, a naive currency carry approach in emerging markets would result in significant exposure to Latin America and an underweight of other regions, which would capture the bulk of the risk budget (Display 8). In this case, the solution is to build region-neutral carry portfolios that have very low net exposure to any single region.

Display 8

Example: EM FX Carry Strategy Net Regional Exposure in Naive Construction

As of June 30, 2015

Source: Bloomberg and AB

The final step in enhancing the performance of factor portfolios comes down to tactical allocation. Given the relatively low correlation and somewhat similar risk-adjusted returns among different risk premiums, an investor could start with a risk-parity approach to overall portfolio construction, and then deviate from parity based on the attractiveness of a factor, based on the pricing of the securities that make up the factor and the stage of the business cycle.

For example, the amount of portfolio risk allocated to currency carry in emerging markets could vary depending on the size of the spread between the highest- and lowest-yielding currencies (Display 9). Being aware of factor performance under different macro regimes can help reduce the buildup of common risk exposures and reduce drawdown due to changes in the macro environment (Display 10).

Display 9

EM FX Carry Strategy Forward Performance by Carry Spread Quintile

As of June 30, 2015

*Performance ranked by carry spread

Source: Bloomberg and AB

Display 10

Factor Strategy Performance Correlation with Macro Environment

As of June 30, 2015

Based on t-statistics of performance vis-à-vis changes in volatility and yield. Shows strategies with absolute value of t-statistic greater than 0.35 only

Source: Bloomberg and AB

Most of the observations are intuitive. For example, declining yields and rising volatility would be consistent with a flight to safety amid economic turmoil. We’d expect that strategies tied to duration (fixed-income value), defensiveness (equity profitability) or rapid adaptability to changing market leadership (equity momentum) would perform well.

In this section, we focused on the challenges in designing and implementing factor portfolios, and offered some construction and tactical-allocation approaches for improving risk-adjusted returns. We didn’t discuss the benefits, which we believe justify the significant up-front investment required. We see three major advantages of using smart beta: low cost, improved transparency and access to return sources that complement the rest of the portfolio by design.

Capitalizing on Risk Premiums in Today’s Landscape

The foundation of our approach in Multi-Asset Solutions is the ability to identify and build multi-asset risk premiums, create a strategic allocation designed to meet a specific outcome, and manage the portfolio by adding value through tactical allocation among different risk premiums.

For example, we currently see opportunities to take advantage of European distress, which continued to drive a widening of valuation spreads (Displays 11 and 12). Admittedly, spreads have been increasing since 2009, so the key investment thesis is that quantitative easing and a willingness to promote credit creation will drive investors toward value stocks, given the elevated opportunity. It makes sense that most of the value is concentrated in riskier, smaller-cap stocks while highly profitable, defensive companies (such as consumer staples) trade at a premium.

Display 11

European Deep-Value Spreads (Q1–Q5)

Through June 30, 2015

Source: Bloomberg and AB

Display 12

Percentile of European Factor Valuation Spreads vs. 10-Year History (Q1–Market)

As of June 30, 2015

0%: expensive; 100%: attractively valued

*Dividend-per-share report

Source: Bloomberg and AB

Part of our framework is to evaluate the relative attractiveness of different factors. This includes a quantitative assessment of potential upside, the evaluation of the macro environment and, finally, judgment. The first component of the evaluation—potential upside—is shown in Display 13, for non-equity factors. Two areas stand out as particularly attractive: emerging-market currency carry/value and commodity-sector carry.

Display 13

Current Attractiveness of Alternative Strategies

As of June 30, 2015

As determined by spread in the most effective measuring in predicting performance for each factor. AUD: Australian dollar;

BRL: Brazilian real; CAD: Canadian dollar; CHF: Swiss franc;

CLP: Chilean peso; CNY: Chinese yuan renminbi;

COP: Colombian peso; CZK: Czech koruna; EUR: euro;

GBP: British pound; IDR: Indonesian rupiah; INR: Indian rupee;

JPY: yen; KRW: South Korean won; MXN: Mexican peso;

MYR: Malaysian ringgit; NOK: Norwegian krone;

NZD: New Zealand dollar; PEN: Peruvian nuevo sol;

PLN: Polish zloty; SEK: Swedish krona; THB: Thai baht;

TRY: Turkish lira; TWD: Taiwanese new dollar; USD: US dollar;

ZAR: South African rand

*100%: highest; 0%: lowest

†Low dispersion in performance

‡All three t-statistics less than one in absolute value

Source: AB

The emerging-market carry consists of long positions in currencies with high short-term interest rates and short positions in those with low interest rates. Currently, this strategy is capturing a yield carry (or net interest rate) of 7% (Display 14). In other words, investors have a sizable cushion to compensate for potential depreciation of the riskier long currency basket or appreciation of the safer short currency basket. History suggests that this trade has a positive expected return, especially in the current environment with wide intercountry spreads.

Display 14

EM FX Carry Strategy: Interest-Rate Differential* for Largest Long and Short Holdings (Percent)

As of June 30, 2015

*Based on forward contracts

Source: Bloomberg and AB

Similarly, commodity carry has a positive expected return based on shorting commodities with a steep futures slope (negative roll) while taking long exposure in those with less steep slopes or in backwardation (positive roll). Today, this basket would consist of long positions in petroleum and precious metals while shorting soft commodities, grains, livestock and industrial metals (Display 15). In an actual implementation, investors would size these positions to avoid net exposures to commodity beta.

Display 15

Roll Yield by Commodity Sector (Percent)

As of June 30, 2015

Source: Bloomberg and AB

Current Strategy Recommendations

We’ve modestly reduced exposure to risk assets, while implementing some of the equity exposure using call options. This will serve to automatically reduce our risk exposure if the market declines. Likewise, we used put options to buy downside protection on oil prices.

Beyond those changes, we recommend maintaining a modestly procyclical stance, based on the assumption of a rebound in US small-business and household formation. Globally, we see relatively few deep-value opportunities, but the Greek crisis is starting to cause valuation spreads in Europe to widen; this is the region in which we have the large value exposure. The key macro variable to monitor is the continuation of credit creation, which is needed to sustain the economic recovery.


Few Assets Were Spared by June Sell-Off

Equity Returns by Region
1 Mo. 3 Mo. 1 Yr. 3 Yr. 3-Yr. Percentile
Canada -2.9% -2.3% -0.8% 10.8% 58%
US -1.9 0.2 7.0 16.8 90
Japan -3.1 5.2 30.8 30.7 93
UK -6.4 -2.8 -0.2 9.0 33
Australia -5.0 -6.8 5.4 15.3 74
Global -2.9 -0.5 8.2 16.0 86
DM -2.9 -0.7 8.4 17.0 80
Asia-Pac ex Japan -4.0 -3.0 7.0 14.4 77
EU ex UK -4.3 -4.4 10.4 18.3 83
EM -2.3 0.7 6.2 8.6 50
LatAm 0.5 3.2 0.3 2.4 19
EU & MidEast 0.3 2.9 -0.6 3.9 46
Asia -3.6 0.1 8.4 10.3 53
Far East -4.1 0.4 8.3 9.6 53
Equity Global Sector Returns
1 Mo. 3 Mo. 1 Yr. 3 Yr. 3-Yr. Percentile
Energy -4.1% -2.1% -22.4% 0.4% 41%
Materials -5.0 -2.6 -3.3 3.2 56
Industrials -3.7 -2.2 4.8 14.9 80
Consumer Discretionary -1.8 -0.3 14.8 21.0 96
Consumer Staples -2.9 -2.6 7.4 10.8 67
Healthcare -1.8 0.0 21.2 23.7 96
Financials -2.3 -0.2 9.0 16.3 93
Technology -4.4 -1.4 10.3 15.7 90
Telecom -1.8 0.5 7.4 9.1 80
Utilities -6.3 -4.8 -4.2 4.6 69
Equity Risk Premium Returns
1 Mo. 3 Mo. 1 Yr. 3 Yr. 3-Yr. Percentile
Value 0.3% 1.4% -0.5% 3.2% 18%
Growth 1.5 1.7 1.8 2.8 21
Income -0.3 0.1 0.8 0.4 6
High Risk -0.4 0.2 1.8 3.5 76
High Beta -0.6 -1.1 -2.5 0.5 19
MN Quant -0.2 0.1 0.2 1.9 3
Bond Returns by Region
1 Mo. 3 Mo. 1 Yr. 3 Yr. 3-Yr. Percentile
Canada 0.1% 0.0% 9.6% 7.2% 3%
US -0.9 -1.6 2.3 0.9 3
Japan 0.0 0.7 4.3 4.8 0
UK -0.1 0.1 18.8 10.1 16
Australia -0.2 -0.6 10.1 6.2 0
DM -1.0 -1.9 3.1 1.9 0
Asia-Pac ex Japan -0.9 -2.2 2.9 0.9 1
Eurozone -2.0 -4.0 3.8 5.3 24
EU ex UK -2.0 -3.8 4.4 4.8 17
EM -0.5 -1.4 3.3 2.6 4
Global Treasury -1.2 -2.5 3.6 3.2 6
Bond Strategy Returns
1 Mo. 3 Mo. 1 Yr. 3 Yr. 3-Yr. Percentile
Global Inv. Grade -1.2% -1.6% -4.7% 2.4% 6%
Global High Yield -1.1 1.3 -3.9 6.7 27
EM Inv. Grade -1.5 -0.9 1.1 3.4 4
EM High Yield -1.2 3.6 -3.5 6.0 10
Global Asset Backed 0.2 0.9 -1.8 3.0 13
Duration -1.4 -2.8 3.0 3.1 68
FI Carry -0.9 -0.9 1.7 0.7
Commodities Spot Returns
1 Mo. 3 Mo. 1 Yr. 3 Yr. 3-Yr. Percentile
Dow Jones–UBS 1.7% 4.7% -23.7% -8.8% 4%
Natural Gas 5.9 1.8 -44.5 -14.0 52
Industrial Metals -4.8 -5.3 -19.4 -9.0 19
Agriculture 12.8 8.3 -14.6 -8.9 18
WTI Crude -2.1 17.5 -47.7 -13.2 14
Brent Crude -3.7 10.7 -49.4 -13.4 5
Gold Spot -1.5 -0.9 -11.7 -9.8 5
Spot Currency Returns
1 Mo. 3 Mo. 1 Yr. 3 Yr. 3-Yr. Percentile
JPY 1.3% -1.9% -17.3% -13.3% 2%
EUR 1.5 3.9 -18.6 -4.2 27
GBP 2.8 6.0 -8.1 0.0 53
CAD -0.3 1.5 -14.6 -6.6 1
AUD 0.8 1.3 -18.3 -9.0 9
CHF 0.5 3.9 -5.2 0.5 33
NOK -1.1 2.6 -21.9 -8.8 8
CNY -0.2 -0.1 -0.1 0.8 68
USD -0.5 -1.0 11.5 3.6 83

Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Please refer to Glossary for a description of return calculations and sources.
As of June 30, 2015
Source: AB


Highest Conviction: Overweight Japan Equities, Underweight JGBs


Past performance is no guarantee of future results.


Macro Is Positive, but Expectations Are Already High


Past performance is no guarantee of future results.


Unit Labor Cost Acceleration


Past performance is no guarantee of future results.


Broad Loan Growth Acceleration; Risk-Seeking Behavior Persists


Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Valuation (Equities/Bonds)

Few Deep-Value Opportunities


Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Valuation (Currencies/Commodities)

Collapse in Commodities; Few Clear Signals on Currency Appreciation


Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Risk and Correlation

Correlations Average; Volatility Low


Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

© 2015 AllianceBernstein L.P.

Note to All Readers: The information contained here reflects the views of AllianceBernstein L.P. or its affiliates and sources it believes are reliable as of the date of this publication. AllianceBernstein L.P. makes no representations or warranties concerning the accuracy of any data. There is no guarantee that any projection, forecast or opinion in this material will be realized. Past performance does not guarantee future results. The views expressed here may change at any time after the date of this publication. This document is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. AllianceBernstein L.P. does not provide tax, legal or accounting advice. It does not take an investor’s personal investment objectives or financial situation into account; investors should discuss their individual circumstances with appropriate professionals before making any decisions. This information should not be construed as sales or marketing material or an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument, product or service sponsored by AllianceBernstein or its affiliates.

Note to Canadian Readers: This publication has been provided by AllianceBernstein Canada, Inc. or Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC and is for general information purposes only. It should not be construed as advice as to the investing in or the buying or selling of securities, or as an activity in furtherance of a trade in securities. Neither AllianceBernstein Institutional Investments nor AllianceBernstein L.P. provides investment advice or deals in securities in Canada.

Note to European Readers: This information is issued by AllianceBernstein Limited, a company registered in England under company number 2551144. AllianceBernstein Limited is authorised and regulated in the UK by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA – Reference Number 147956). This information is directed at Professional Clients only.

Note to Readers in Japan: This document has been provided by AllianceBernstein Japan Ltd. AllianceBernstein Japan Ltd. is a registered investment management company (registration number: Kanto Local Financial Bureau no. 303). It is also a member of the Japan Investment Advisers Association; the Investment Trusts Association, Japan; and the Type II Financial Instruments Firms Association. The product/service may not be offered or sold in Japan; this document is not made to solicit investment.

Note to Australian Readers: This document has been issued by AllianceBernstein Australia Limited (ABN 53 095 022 718 and AFSL 230698). Information in this document is intended only for persons who qualify as “wholesale clients,” as defined in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth of Australia), and should not be construed as advice.

Note to New Zealand Readers: This document has been issued by AllianceBernstein New Zealand Limited (AK 980088, FSP17141). Information in this document is intended only for persons who qualify as “wholesale clients,” as defined by the Financial Advisers Act 2008 (New Zealand), and should not be construed as advice.

Note to Singapore Readers: This document has been issued by AllianceBernstein (Singapore) Ltd. (“ABSL”, Company Registration No. 199703364C). ABSL is a holder of a Capital Markets Services Licence issued by the Monetary Authority of Singapore to conduct regulated activity in fund management and dealing in securities. AllianceBernstein (Luxembourg) S.à r.l. is the management company of the portfolio and has appointed ABSL as its agent for service of process and as its Singapore representative.

Note to Hong Kong Readers: This document is issued in Hong Kong by AllianceBernstein Hong Kong Limited (聯博香港有限公司), a licensed entity regulated by the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission. This document has not been reviewed by the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission.

Note to Readers in Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei, Thailand, Indonesia, China, Taiwan and India: This document is provided solely for the informational purposes of institutional investors and is not investment advice, nor is it intended to be an offer or solicitation, and does not pertain to the specific investment objectives, financial situation or particular needs of any person to whom it is sent. This document is not an advertisement and is not intended for public use or additional distribution. AllianceBernstein is not licensed to, and does not purport to, conduct any business or offer any services in any of the above countries.

Note to Readers in Malaysia: Nothing in this document should be construed as an invitation or offer to subscribe to or purchase any securities, nor is it an offering of fund-management services, advice, analysis or a report concerning securities. AllianceBernstein is not licensed to, and does not purport to, conduct any business or offer any services in Malaysia. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, AllianceBernstein does not hold a capital-markets services license under the Capital Markets & Services Act 2007 of Malaysia, and does not, nor does it purport to, deal in securities, trade in futures contracts, manage funds, offer corporate finance or investment advice, or provide financial-planning services in Malaysia.

MSCI Note: MSCI makes no express or implied warranties or representations and shall have no liability whatsoever with respect to any MSCI data contained herein. The MSCI data may not be further redistributed or used as a basis for other indices or any securities or financial products. This report is not approved, reviewed or produced by MSCI.

Terms and Conditions

Please read these conditions carefully before using this site. By using this site, you signify your assent to the following terms and conditions of use without limitation or qualification. In particular, you consent to the use of all cookies on this website for the purposes described in the terms of use. If you do not agree to these terms or to the use of cookies as described below, do not use this site. AllianceBernstein may at any time revise these terms of use. You are bound by any such revisions and should therefore periodically visit this page to review the then current terms of use to which you are bound. This site is for informational purposes and does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any security which may be referenced herein.

Terms of Use

This site is solely intended for use by professional/institutional investors and institutional-investment industry consultants.

Do you wish to continue?