Reward goes with risk, and volatility represents risk. Therefore, volatility means reward; investors/traders get paid for riding roller coasters. Right? These blog entries relate to volatility effects.
Can investors use leveraged exchange-traded funds (ETF) to construct attractive versions of simple 60%/40% (60/40) and 40%/60% (40/60) stocks-bonds portfolios? In their March 2020 presentation package entitled “Robust Leveraged ETF Portfolios Extending Classic 40/60 Portfolios and Portfolio Insurance”, flagged by a subscriber, Mikhail Smirnov and Alexander Smirnov consider several variations of classic stocks/bonds portfolios implemented with leveraged ETFs. They ultimately focus on a monthly rebalanced partially 3X-leveraged portfolio consisting of:
To validate findings, we consider this portfolio and several 60/40 and 40/60 stocks/bonds portfolios. We look at net monthly performance statistics, along with compound annual growth rate (CAGR), maximum drawdown (MaxDD) based on monthly data and annual Sharpe ratio. To estimate monthly rebalancing frictions, we use 0.5% of amount traded each month. We use average monthly 3-month U.S. Treasury bill yield during a year as the risk-free rate in Sharpe ratio calculations for that year. Using monthly adjusted prices for TQQQ, TMF, TLT and for SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) and Invesco QQQ Trust (QQQ) to construct benchmarks during February 2010 (limited by TQQQ inception) through January 2026, we find that:Keep Reading
How have different asset classes recently interacted with the CBOE Volatility Index (VIX)? To investigate, we look at lead-lag relationships between VIX and returns for each of the following 10 exchange-traded fund (ETF) asset class proxies:
We look also at average next-month performances of these ETFs across ranges of of a VIX 3-month simple moving average (SMA3). Using end-of-month levels of VIX since January 1990 and dividend-adjusted monthly closing prices for the asset class proxies as available since July 2002, all through January 2026, we find that:Keep Reading
Is there a way to amplify the MAX overpricing anomaly (measured as the average of the five highest daily returns for a stock over the past month), which is driven by the desire of some investors for a lottery-like payoff? In their January 2026 paper entitled “MAX on Steroids: A New Measure of Investor Attraction to Lottery Stocks”, Baris Ince, Turan Bali and Han Ozsoylev introduce MAXᵝ as a variable that distills lottery-seeking behavior by removing the systematic return component from MAX. Specifically, they each month:
Sort stocks into tenths (deciles) based on their market betas as measured by a rolling window of 252 daily returns.
Within each beta-sorted decile, sort stocks based on MAX.
They then focus on excess returns (relative to U.S. Treasury bills) and factor model alphas of the value-weighted extreme deciles of MAX aggregated across beta deciles, plus a hedge portfolio that is long (short) the stocks in the highest (lowest) decile. Using daily returns and ownership data for U.S. listed common stocks, excluding utility/financial stocks and stocks priced under $5, during January 1968 through December 2022, they find that:
One concern about simple momentum strategies is data snooping bias impounded in selection of the lookback interval(s) used to measure asset momentum. To circumvent this concern, we consider the following argument:
The CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) broadly indicates the level of financial markets distress and thereby the tendency of investors to act complacently (when VIX is low) or to act in panic (when VIX is high).
Complacency translates to resistance in changing market outlook (long memory and lookback intervals), while panic translates to rapid changes of mind (short memory and short lookback intervals).
The inverse of VIX is therefore indicative of the actual aggregate current lookback interval affecting investor actions.
We test this argument by:
Setting a range for VIX using monthly historical closes from January 1990 through December 2006, before the sample period used for most tests of the Simple Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy (SACEMS).
Applying buffer factors to the bottom (0.9) and top (1.1) of this actual inverse VIX range to recognize that it could break above or below the historical range in the future.
Segmenting the buffer-extended inverse VIX range into 12 equal increments and mapping these increments by rounding into momentum lookback intervals of 1 month (lowest segment) to 12 months (highest segment).
Applying this same method to future end-of-month inverse VIX levels to select the SACEMS lookback interval for the next month.
We test the top one (Top 1), the equal-weighted top two (EW Top 2) and the equal-weighted top three (EW Top 3) SACEMS portfolios. We focus on compound annual growth rate (CAGR), maximum drawdown based on monthly measurements, annual returns and Sharpe ratio as key performance statistics. To calculate excess annual returns for the Sharpe ratio, we use average monthly yield on 3-month Treasury bills during a year as the risk-free rate for that year. Benchmarks are these same statistics for tracked (baseline) SACEMS. Using monthly levels of VIX since inception in January 1990 and monthly dividend-adjusted prices of SACEMS assets since February 2006 (initial availability of a commodities ETF), all through December 2025, we find that:Keep Reading
In response to our inquiry about Goldman Sachs Panic Index data, Grok responded that the data are proprietary and unavailable. However, Grok offered “several high-quality public proxies and near-replicas…built by traders and quants using only freely available data. These reconstructions correlate extremely closely (often 0.90–0.98) with the snippets Goldman has shown clients over the years.” For one of these proxies, the percentile rank of VIX within its trailing 2-year window (0-100 scale), Grok provided a Python script to generate an historical daily series. Is it predictive of U.S. stock market returns? To investigate, we run the script to generate daily Panic Index Proxy data from the end of 2015 through November 2025 and relate the series to contemporaneous daily S&P 500 Index (SP500) returns. Using these two series, we find that:Keep Reading
How can investors and fund managers best exploit premiums associated with value, momentum, profitability, investment and low volatility factors, either to generate absolute return or to beat a market benchmark? In his September 2025 paper entitled “Strategic Style Allocation: Absolute or Relative?”, Pim van Vliet examines strategic allocation across long-only, value-weighted versions of these equity factors, depending on objective: absolute return or benchmark outperformance. To assess absolute return, he evaluates Sharpe ratios of factor allocations. To assess benchmark outperformance, he evaluates information ratios of factor allocations. He also investigates dynamic allocation between low volatility and the other factors, with portfolio adjustment frictions. Using long-only U.S. value-weighted factor returns during July 1963 through May 2025 and global factor index returns during January 1999 through March 2025, he finds that:Keep Reading
Does the ICE BofAML MOVE Index, the implied volatility of U.S. Treasuries as derived from options on U.S. Treasuries with maturities 2, 5, 10 and 30 years, usefully predict U.S. stock market and U.S. Treasury bond returns? To investigate, we perform two sets of calculations using SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY) as a proxy for the U.S. stock market and iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (TLT) as a proxy for U.S. Treasury bonds:
Lead-lag analyses using correlations between end-of-month MOVE Index or change in MOVE Index and monthly SPY or TLT returns.
Average next-month SPY or TLT returns by ranked fifth (quintile) of end-of-month MOVE Index or change in MOVE Index.
Using end-month MOVE Index levels and monthly dividend-adjusted SPY and TLT data during November 2002 (limited by MOVE Index data) through August 2025, we find that:Keep Reading
Can investors exploit the uneven playing field of leveraged and inverse exchange-traded fund (LETF) share creation and redemption? In his August 2025 paper entitled “Leveraged ETF Issuance During Market Stress and the Mechanics of Profit: Who’s the Dog, Who’s the Tail?”, Rob Bezdjian focuses on daily share creation and redemption for ProShares UltraPro QQQ (TQQQ), the largest LETF with more than $25 billion in assets. He determines whether these activities benefit the LETF offeror or investors. Using TQQQ price and share issuance data for January 2010 through mid-August 2025, he finds that:Keep Reading
Are equity multifactor strategies, as implemented by exchange-traded funds (ETF), attractive? To investigate, we consider eight multifactor 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).
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.
Vanguard U.S. Multifactor (VFMF) – uses a rules-based quantitative model to evaluate U.S. common stocks and construct a U.S. equity portfolio that seeks to achieve exposure to multiple factors across market capitalizations (large, mid and small). The benchmark is iShares Russell 3000 (IWV).
Can investors profitably trade the effects of leveraged and inverse exchange-traded funds (LETF) share creation and redemption on prices? In his July 2025 paper entitled “Am I the Patsy? LETF Issuance is Signal, Not Noise: How Trading LETFs a Day Late can make you a Dollar Richer”, Rob Bezdjian introduces the “Day Late-Dollar Richer” (DLDR) strategy, which exploits LETF share creation and redemption behaviors. Issuers of LETFs must, in aggregate, overprice created shares and underprice redeemed shares to remain solvent. DLDR therefore uses LETF share data (typically released by 8:00PM ET) to trade opposite issuers at the next close, as follows:
If the number of shares increases, sell or short at the next close.
If the number of shares decreases, buy or close short at the next close.
If the number of shares is unchanged, do not trade.
Testing assumes trades occur at net asset values (NAV) with opening trade sizes equal to changes in number of shares. Applying DLDR as modeled to four volatility and eight commodities ProShares LETFs during January 2015 (or inception) through mid-July 2025, he finds that:
