Equity Premium

Governments are largely insulated from market forces. Companies are not. Investments in stocks therefore carry substantial risk in comparison with holdings of government bonds, notes or bills. The marketplace presumably rewards risk with extra return. How much of a return premium should investors in equities expect? These blog entries examine the equity risk premium as a return benchmark for equity investors.

Page 1 of 9123456789

Explaining Stock Return Anomalies with a Five-factor Model

Does the new Fama-French five-factor model of stock returns explain a wider range of anomalies than the workhorse Fama-French three-factor model. In the June 2015 update of their paper entitled “Dissecting Anomalies with a Five-Factor Model”, Eugene Fama and Kenneth French examine the power of their five-factor model of stock returns to explain five anomalies not explicitly related to the five factors model and known to cause problems for the three-factor model (market beta, net share issuance, volatility, accruals, momentum). The five-factor model adds profitability (robust minus weak, or RMW) and investment (conservative minus aggressive, or CMA) factors to the three-factor model (market, size and book-to-market factors). The size, book-to-market, profitability and investment factor portfolios are reformed annually using data that are at least six months old (in contrast, the momentum factor portfolio is reformed monthly). Using data for a broad sample of U.S. firms and associated stocks during July 1963 through December 2014, they find that: Keep Reading

Combining and Exploiting Stock Market Forecasting Variables

Does the set of variables that have the strongest correlations with subsequent U.S. stock market returns over the prior decade usefully predict market returns out-of-sample? In the July 2015 draft of their paper entitled “A Practitioner’s Defense of Return Predictability”, Blair Hull and Xiao Qiao apply this correlation screening approach to a set of 20 published stock market forecasting variables encompassing technical indicators, macroeconomic variables, return-based predictors, price ratios and commodity prices. Their horizon for historical daily correlation measurements and out-of-sample forecasts is 130 trading days (about six months). Every 20 days just before the market close, they employ regressions using the most recent ten years of data to: (1) determine the form of each forecasting variable (raw value, exponentially-weighted moving average or log value minus exponentially-weight moving average) that maximizes its daily correlation with 130-day returns; and, (2) estimate variable coefficients to predict the return for the next 130 days. For the next 20 days, they then use the estimated coefficients to generate expected returns and take a (market on close) position in SPDR S&P 500 (SPY) eight times the expected return in excess of the risk-free rate (capped at 150% long and 50% short). They consider three expected return models:

  1. Kitchen sink – employing regression coefficients for all 20 forecasting variables (but with four of the variables compressed into a composite).
  2. Correlation Screening – employing regression coefficients only for forecasting variables having absolute correlations with subsequent 130-day market returns at least 0.10 over the past ten years.
  3. Real-time Correlation Screening – same as Correlation Screening, but excluding any forecasting variables not yet discovered (published).

They assume: trading frictions of two cents per share of SPY bought or sold; daily return on cash of the three-month U.S. Treasury bill yield minus 0.3%; and, interest on borrowed shares of the Federal Funds Rate plus 0.3%. To limit trading frictions, they adjust positions only when changes in expected market return reach a threshold of 10%. They ignore tax implications of trading. Using daily total returns for SPY, the 3-month Treasury bill yield and vintage (as-released) values of the 20 forecast variables during 6/8/1990 through 5/4/2015, they find that: Keep Reading

Evaluating Country Investment Risk

How should global investors assess country risk? In his July 2015 paper entitled “Country Risk: Determinants, Measures and Implications – The 2015 Edition”, Aswath Damodaran examines country risk from multiple perspectives. He provides an overview of sources and measures of country risk, addressing both sovereign default risk and equity risk premiums. Based on a variety of sources and methods, he concludes that: Keep Reading

Preliminary Value Strategy Update

The home page and “Value Strategy” now show preliminary asset class ETF value strategy positions for August 2015. There may be small shifts in allocations based on final data, but the “Best Value” selection is very unlikely to change.

Effects of Execution Delay on SACEVS

“Effects of Execution Delay on Simple Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy” investigates how delaying signal execution affects strategy performance. How does execution delay affect the performance of the Best Value and Weighted versions of the “Simple Asset Class ETF Value Strategy” (SACEVS)? These strategies each month allocate funds to the following asset class exchange-traded funds (ETF) according to valuations of term, credit and equity risk premiums, or to cash if no premiums are undervalued:

3-month Treasury bills (Cash)
iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Bond (IEF)
iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond (LQD)
SPDR S&P 500 (SPY)

To investigate, we compare 21 variations of each strategy that all use end-of-month (EOM) to determine the asset allocations but shift execution from the baseline EOM+1 close to subsequent closes up to EOM+21. For example, an EOM+5 variation uses an EOM cycle to determine allocations but delays execution until the close five trading days after EOM. Using daily dividend-adjusted closes for the above ETFs and daily yields for Cash during August 2002 through June 2015 (154 months), we find that:

Keep Reading

SACEMS-SACEVS Mutual Diversification

Are the “Simple Asset Class ETF Value Strategy” (SACEVS) and the “Simple Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy” (SACEMS) mutually diversifying. To check, we relate monthly returns for the SACEVS Best Value and the SACEMS Top 1 exchange-traded fund (ETF) selections and look at the performance of an equally weighted portfolio of these two strategies, rebalanced monthly (50-50). Using monthly gross returns for SACEVS Best Value and SACEMS Top 1 during January 2003 through June 2015, we find that: Keep Reading

Simple Asset Class ETF Value Strategy

Does a simple relative value strategy applied to tradable asset class proxies produce attractive results? To investigate, we test a simple strategy on the following three asset class exchange-traded funds (ETF), plus cash:

3-month Treasury bills (Cash)
iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Bond (IEF)
iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond (LQD)
SPDR S&P 500 (SPY)

This set of ETFs relates to three factor risk premiums: (1) the difference in yields between Treasury bills and Treasury notes/bonds indicates the term risk premium; (2) the difference in yields between corporate bonds and Treasury notes/bonds indicates the credit (default) risk premium; and, (3) the difference in yields between equities and Treasury notes/bonds indicates the equity risk premium. We consider two alternative strategies for exploiting premium undervaluation: Best Value, which picks the most undervalued premium; and, Weighted, which weights all undervalued premiums according to degree of undervaluation. Based on the assets considered, the principal benchmark is a monthly rebalanced portfolio of 60% stocks and 40% U.S. Treasury notes (60-40 SPY-IEF). Using lagged quarterly S&P 500 earnings, end-of-month S&P 500 Index levels and end-of-month yields for the 3-month Constant Maturity U.S. Treasury bill (T-bill), the 10-year Constant Maturity U.S. Treasury note (T-note) and Moody’s Seasoned Baa Corporate Bonds during March 1989 through June 2015 (limited by availability of earnings data), and daily dividend-adjusted closing prices for the above three asset class ETFs during July 2002 through June 2015 (156 months, limited by availability of IEF and LQD), we find that: Keep Reading

SACEVS Modifications

We have made three changes to the “Simple Asset Class ETF Value Strategy” (SACEVS) based on results of  robustness tests and subscriber comments:

  1. To employ fresher data, we decrease the SACEVS S&P 500 Index level and bond/bill yield measurement interval from quarterly to monthly. S&P 500 Index operating earnings updates are still quarterly.
  2. To employ fresher data, we use end-of-measurement interval (end-of-month) bond/bill yields rather than average yields during the measurement interval.
  3. To account for a lag in availability of bill/bond yield data, we delay signal execution by one trading day.

These changes are logical, but introduce some additional noise. They result in somewhat higher risk-adjusted performance for SACEVS, at the expense of some additional trading. Effects on the Weighted version of the strategy are greater than those on the Best Value version.

We are updating “Value Strategy” and some related tests accordingly.

Update SACEVS with End-of-quarter Instead of Quarterly Average Yields?

“Simple Asset Class ETF Value Strategy” (SACEVS) tests a simple relative value strategy that each quarter allocates funds to one or more of the following three asset class exchange-traded funds (ETF), plus cash, based on degree of undervaluation of measures of the term risk, credit risk and equity risk premiums:

3-month Treasury bills (Cash)
iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Bond (IEF)
iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond (LQD)
SPDR S&P 500 (SPY)

One version of SACEVS (Best Value) picks the most undervalued premium. Another (Weighted) weights all undervalued premiums according to degree of undervaluation. Premium calculations and SACEVS portfolio allocations derive from quarterly average yields for 3-month Constant Maturity U.S. Treasury bills (T-bills), 10-year Constant Maturity U.S. Treasury notes (T-notes) and Moody’s Seasoned Baa Corporate Bonds (Baa). A subscriber asked whether fresh end-of-quarter yields might work better than quarterly average yields. Using monthly S&P 500 Index levelsquarterly S&P 500 earnings and daily T-note, T-bill and Baa yields during March 1989 through March 2015 (limited by availability of earnings data), and quarterly dividend-adjusted closing prices for the above three asset class ETFs during September 2002 through March 2015 (154 months, limited by availability of IEF and LQD), we find that: Keep Reading

CFOs Project the Equity Risk Premium

How do the corporate experts most responsible for assessing the cost of equity currently feel about future U.S stock market returns? In their May 2015 paper entitled “The Equity Risk Premium in 2015”, John Graham and Campbell Harvey update their report on the views of U.S. Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) and equivalent corporate officers on the prospective U.S. equity risk premium (ERP) relative to the 10-year U.S. Treasury note (T-note) yield, assuming a 10-year investment horizon. Based on 60 quarterly surveys over the period June 2000 through March 2015 (an average 350 responses per survey), they find that: Keep Reading

Page 1 of 9123456789
Current Momentum Winners

ETF Momentum Signal
for August 2015 (Final)

Winner ETF

Second Place ETF

Third Place ETF

Gross Compound Annual Growth Rates
(Since August 2006)
Top 1 ETF Top 2 ETFs
13.5% 14.0%
Top 3 ETFs SPY
14.0% 7.7%
Strategy Overview
Current Value Allocations

ETF Value Signal
for August 2015 (Final)





The asset with the highest allocation is the holding of the Best Value strategy.
Gross Compound Annual Growth Rates
(Since September 2002)
Best Value Weighted 60-40
13.0% 10.0% 8.1%
Strategy Overview
Recent Research
Popular Posts
Popular Subscriber-Only Posts