Equity Premium

Are preferred stock strategies, as implemented by exchange-traded funds (ETF), attractive? To investigate, we consider seven of the largest preferred stock ETFs, all currently available, in order of longest to shortest available histories:

• Invesco Financial Preferred (PGF) – generally invests at least 90% of assets in preferred securities of financial institutions.
• iShares Preferred and Income Securities (PFF) – tracks an index composed of U.S. dollar-denominated preferred and hybrid securities.
• Invesco Preferred (PGX) – tracks performance of fixed-rate preferred securities issued in the U.S.
• SPDR ICE Preferred Securities (PSK) – seeks exposure to non-convertible preferred securities with par $25 and aggregate minimum par value $250 million.
• VanEck Vectors Preferred Securities ex Financials (PFXF) – tracks performance of U.S. exchange-listed hybrid debt, preferred stock and convertible preferred stock issued by non-financial corporations.
• First Trust Preferred Securities and Income (FPE) – normally invests at least 80% of assets (including borrowings) in preferred securities and income-producing debt securities, including corporate bonds, high-yield securities and convertible securities.
• Global X U.S. Preferred (PFFD) – invests in a broad basket of U.S. preferred stocks.

We use a monthly rebalanced portfolio of 60% SPDR S&P 500 (SPY) and 40% iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond (LQD) (60-40) as a simple hybrid benchmark for all these funds except PGF, for which we use Financial Select Sector SPDR (XLF). We focus on monthly return statistics, along with compound annual growth rates (CAGR) and maximum drawdowns (MaxDD). Using monthly returns for the preferred stock ETFs and benchmarks as available through August 2023, we find that: Keep Reading

Are equity multifactor strategies, as implemented by exchange-traded funds (ETF), attractive? To investigate, we consider seven ETFs, all currently available:

• iShares Edge MSCI Multifactor USA (LRGF) – holds large and mid-cap U.S. stocks with focus on quality, value, size and momentum, while maintaining a level of risk similar to that of the market. The benchmark is iShares Russell 1000 (IWB).
• iShares Edge MSCI Multifactor International (INTF) – holds global developed market ex U.S. large and mid-cap stocks based on quality, value, size and momentum, while maintaining a level of risk similar to that of the market. The benchmark is iShares MSCI ACWI ex US (ACWX).
• Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta U.S. Large Cap Equity (GSLC) – holds large U.S. stocks based on good value, strong momentum, high quality and low volatility. The benchmark is SPDR S&P 500 (SPY).
• John Hancock Multifactor Large Cap (JHML) – holds large U.S. stocks based on smaller capitalization, lower relative price and higher profitability, which academic research links to higher expected returns. The benchmark is SPY.
• John Hancock Multifactor Mid Cap (JHMM) – holds mid-cap U.S. stocks based on smaller capitalization, lower relative price and higher profitability, which academic research links to higher expected returns. The benchmark is SPDR S&P MidCap 400 (MDY).
• JPMorgan Diversified Return U.S. Equity (JPUS) – holds U.S. stocks based on value, quality and momentum via a risk-weighting process that lowers exposure to historically volatile sectors and stocks. The benchmark is SPY.
• Xtrackers Russell 1000 Comprehensive Factor (DEUS) – seeks to track, before fees and expenses, the Russell 1000 Comprehensive Factor Index, which seeks exposure to quality, value, momentum, low volatility and size factors. The benchmark is IWB.

We focus on monthly return statistics, along with compound annual growth rates (CAGR) and maximum drawdowns (MaxDD). Using monthly returns for the seven equity multifactor ETFs and benchmarks as available through August 2023, we find that: Keep Reading

Are concentrated stock portfolios inherently disadvantaged by lack of diversification? In his June 2023 paper entitled “Underperformance of Concentrated Stock Positions”, Antti Petajisto analyzes rolling future returns for individual U.S. stocks relative to the broad U.S. stock market (market-adjusted) as a way to assess implications of concentrated stock portfolios. He focuses on median return as most representative of investor experience. He considers monthly rolling investment horizons of five, 10 and 20 years because concentrated stock positions are typically long-term holdings. He looks also at the relationship between 5-year past returns and future returns for individual stocks. Using monthly returns for individual U.S. common stocks from an evolving sample similar to the Russell 3000 (no microcaps) and for the overall capitalization-weighted U.S. stock market during January 1926 through December 2022, he finds that:

Keep Reading

Are new machine learning portfolio strategies practically better than old stock factor ways? In their August 2023 paper entitled “Predicting Returns with Machine Learning Across Horizons, Firms Size, and Time”, Nusret Cakici, Christian Fieberg, Daniel Metko and Adam Zaremba examine the ability of various machine learning models to predict stock returns for: (1) monthly and annual return forecast horizons; (2) three ranges of firm size; and, (3) two subperiods. They apply eight machine learning models (including simple and penalized linear regressions, dimension reduction techniques, regression trees and neural networks) to 153 firm/stock characteristics following approaches typical in the finance literature. For each model, they employ rolling 11-year intervals, with:

• Model training using the first seven years.
• Model validation using the next three years.
• Out-of-sample testing the last year using hedge portfolios that are long (short) the value-weighted fifth, or quintile, of stocks with the highest (lowest) predicted returns, reformed either monthly or annually depending forecast horizon.

They focus on gross 6-factor (market, size, book-to-market, profitability, investment, momentum) alpha to assess machine learning effectiveness. Using data for the selected 153 firm/stock characteristics and associated stock returns, measured monthly, for all listed U.S. stocks during January 1972 through December 2020, they find that: Keep Reading

The conventional approach to measuring equity factor returns is via hedge portfolios that are long (short) the equal-weighted or value-weighted extreme highest (lowest) fifth or tenth of stocks sorted by some firm/stock characteristic. Is there a better way? In their August 2023 paper entitled “Power Sorting”, Anastasios Kagkadis, Harald Lohre, Ingmar Nolte, Sandra Nolte and Nikolaos Vasilas construct equity factor portfolios based on power sorting, which: (1) models the firm characteristic-future stock return relationship using a power series; and, (2) uses the power series to set factor portfolio weights. This approach requires no arbitrary quantile break points, instead allocating some weight to all stocks and tilting toward/away stocks with extreme characteristics as a compromise between conventional sorts and machine learning methods. Power sorting employs separate parameters for the long and short sides of the factor portfolio. Higher parameter values generate portfolios that concentrate more in stocks with characteristic extremes, while lower values spread weights more evenly across stocks. Differences between the two parameters allow differently weighted long and short sides of a factor portfolio. Additionally, they set an upper limit on the allocation to any one stock (2% in their main analysis) to ensure factor portfolio diversification. Using monthly factor data and associated stock returns for 85 widely accepted factor characteristics during March 1980 through December 2021, they find that:

Keep Reading

Should investors trust artificial intelligence (AI) models such as ChatGPT to pick stocks? In their August 2023 paper entitled “ChatGPT-based Investment Portfolio Selection”, Oleksandr Romanko, Akhilesh Narayan and Roy Kwon explore use of ChatGPT to recommend 15, 30 or 45 S&P 500 stocks, with portfolio weights, based on textual sentiment as available to Chat GPT via web content up to September 2021. For robustness, they ask ChatGPT to repeat recommendations for each portfolios 30 times and select the 15, 30 or 45 most frequently recommended stocks for respective portfolios. They then test out-of-sample performance of the following five implementations of each portfolio during September 2021 to July 2023, mid-March 2023 to July 2023, and May 2023 to July 2023:

1. ChatGPT picks and ChatGPT weights.
2. ChatGPT picks weighted equally.
3. ChatGPT picks weighted based on minimum variance (Min Var) weights from a 5-year rolling weekly history.
4. ChatGPT picks weighted based on maximum return (Max Ret) weights from a 5-year rolling weekly history.
5. ChatGPT picks weighted based on maximum Sharpe ratio (Max Sharpe) weights from a 5-year rolling weekly history.

For benchmarking, they consider:

• Long-only portfolios that incorporate all possible combinations of 15, 30 or 45 S&P 500 stocks weighted as above for Min Var, Vax Ret or Max Sharpe.
• The S&P 500 Index, Dow Jones Industrial Average and the NASDAQ Index.
• Average performance of 13 popular equity funds.

Using weekly data as specified up to September 2021 for training and subsequent weekly data through June 2023 for out-of-sample testing, they find that:

Keep Reading

While prior research indicates that analyst forecasts of future stock returns are substantially biased upward, might the relative rankings of return forecasts be informative? In their June 2023 paper entitled “Analysts Are Good at Ranking Stocks”, Adam Farago, Erik Hjalmarsson and Ming Zeng apply within-analyst 12-month stock price targets to rank stocks in two ways:

1. Average Demeaned Return – each month, demean the returns implied by target prices from an analyst by subtracting from each return the average forecasted return for that analyst. Then, average the demeaned returns for a given stock across all analysts.
2. Average Ranking – each month, rank stocks by forecasted return for each analyst. Then, average the rankings for a given stock across all analysts covering that stock.

Both approaches remove the upward biases observed in raw target prices. To test analyst forecast informativeness, they then form hedge portfolios that are each month long (short) the equal-weighted or value-weighted fifths, or quintiles, of stocks with the highest (lowest) demeaned returns or rankings that month. Using 12-month target prices for each analyst who issues targets for at least three stocks during a month and associated monthly firm characteristics and stock prices during March 1999 through December 2021, they find that:

Keep Reading

Are the “Simple Asset Class ETF Value Strategy” (SACEVS) and the “Simple Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy” (SACEMS) mutually diversifying. To check, based on feedback from subscribers about combinations of interest, we look at three equal-weighted (50-50) combinations of the two strategies, rebalanced monthly:

1. 50-50 Best Value – EW Top 2: SACEVS Best Value paired with SACEMS Equally Weighted (EW) Top 2 (aggressive value and somewhat aggressive momentum).
2. 50-50 Best Value – EW Top 3: SACEVS Best Value paired with SACEMS EW Top 3 (aggressive value and diversified momentum).
3. 50-50 Weighted – EW Top 3: SACEVS Weighted paired with SACEMS EW Top 3 (diversified value and diversified momentum).

We consider as a benchmark a simple technical strategy (SPY:SMA10) that holds SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) when the S&P 500 Index is above its 10-month simple moving average and 3-month U.S. Treasury bills (Cash, or T-bills) when below. We also test sensitivity of results to deviating from equal SACEVS-SACEMS weights. Using monthly gross returns for SACEVS, SACEMS, SPY and T-bills during July 2006 through July 2023, we find that: Keep Reading

Do exchange-traded funds (ETF) that hold convertible corporate bonds offer attractive performance? To investigate, we compare performance statistics for the following four convertible bond ETFs, all currently available, to those for a monthly rebalanced 60%-40% combination of SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) and iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD):

1. SPDR Bloomberg Convertible Securities ETF (CWB)
2. iShares Convertible Bond ETF (ICVT)
3. First Trust SSI Strategic Convertible Securities ETF (FCVT)
4. American Century Quality Convertible Securities ETF (QCON)

We focus on average return, standard deviation of returns, reward/risk (average return divided by standard deviation of returns), compound annual growth rate (CAGR) and maximum drawdown (MaxDD), all based on monthly data. Using monthly dividend-adjusted returns for all specified ETFs since inceptions and for SPY and LQD over matched sample periods, all through July 2023, we find that: Keep Reading

How do returns of different asset classes recently interact with inflation as measured by monthly change in the not seasonally adjusted, all-items consumer price index (CPI) from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics? To investigate, we look at lead-lag relationships between change in CPI and returns for each of the following 10 exchange-traded fund (ETF) asset class proxies:

• Equities:
  • SPDR S&P 500 (SPY)
  • iShares Russell 2000 Index (IWM)
  • iShares MSCI EAFE Index (EFA)
  • iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index (EEM)
• Bonds:
  • iShares Barclays 20+ Year Treasury Bond (TLT)
  • iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond (LQD)
  • iShares JPMorgan Emerging Markets Bond Fund (EMB)
• Real assets:
  • Vanguard REIT ETF (VNQ)
  • SPDR Gold Shares (GLD)
  • Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking (DBC)

Using monthly total CPI values and monthly dividend-adjusted prices for the 10 specified ETFs during December 2007 (limited by EMB) through June 2023, we find that: Keep Reading