Objective research to aid investing decisions
Value Allocations for July 2019 (Final)
Momentum Allocations for July 2019 (Final)
1st ETF 2nd ETF 3rd ETF

Search Results

Showing results 1 - 10 of 165 for the search term: anomalies.

  • Date Range

Academia Creating Anomalies?

Does widespread investor acceptance of the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) of stock returns drive undervaluation of stocks with low past alphas? In his February 2019 paper entitled “The Unintended Impact of Academic Research on Asset Returns: The CAPM Alpha”, Alex Horenstein examines whether such acceptance distorts the U.S. stock market. Specifically, he each year at the beginning of January reforms a betting against alpha (BAA) hedge portfolio that is long (short) stocks with alphas lower (higher) than the median based on monthly returns over the past five years. He then weights stocks according to their respective alpha ranks, rescales the long and short sides separately to have market beta 1.0 and holds for one year. He analyzes performance of this portfolio and eight widely accepted equity factors (size, value, momentum, profitability, investment, short-term reversal, long-term reversion and betting against beta) during three subperiods: (1) pre-CAPM era (1932-1964); (2) CAPM era (1965-1992); and, (3) smart beta era (1993-2015). Using total returns for a broad sample of U.S. common stocks and returns for eight accepted equity factors during January 1927 through December 2015, he finds that:

Keep Reading

Most Stock Anomalies Fake News?

How does a large sample of stock return anomalies fare in recent replication testing? In their October 2018 paper entitled “Replicating Anomalies”, Kewei Hou, Chen Xue and Lu Zhang attempt to replicate 452 published U.S. stock return anomalies, including 57, 69, 38, 79, 103, and 106 anomalies 57 momentum, 69 value-growth, 38 investment, 79 profitability, 103 intangibles and 106 trading frictions (trading volume, liquidity, market microstructure) anomalies. Compared to the original papers, they use the same sample populations, original (as early as January 1967) and extended (through 2016) sample periods and similar methods/variable definitions. They test limiting influence of microcaps (stocks in the lowest 20% of market capitalizations) by using NYSE (not NYSE-Amex-NASDAQ) size breakpoints and value-weighted returns. They consider an anomaly replication successful if average high-minus-low tenth (decile) return is significant at the 5% level, translating to t-statistic at least 1.96 for pure standalone tests and at least 2.78 assuming multiple testing (accounting for aggregate data snooping bias). Using required anomaly data and monthly returns for U.S. non-financial stocks during January 1967 through December 2016, they find that:

Keep Reading

Skewness Underlies Stock Market Anomalies?

Does retail investor preference for stocks with skewed return distributions explain stock return anomalies? In their April 2018 paper entitled “Skewness Preference and Market Anomalies”, Alok Kumar, Mehrshad Motahari and Richard Taffler investigate whether investor preference for positively-skewed payoffs is a common driver of mispricing as indicated by a wide range of market anomalies. They each month measure the skewness of each stock via four metrics: (1) jackpot probability (probability of a return greater than 100% the next 12 months); (2) lottery index (with high relating to low price, high volatility and high skewness; (3) maximum daily return the past month; and, (4) expected idiosyncratic skewness. They also each month measure aggregate mispricing of each stock as its average decile rank when sorting all stocks into tenths on each of 11 widely used anomaly variables. They assess the role of retail investors based on 1991-1996 portfolio holdings data from a large U.S. discount broker. Using a broad sample of U.S. common stocks (excluding financial stocks, firms with negative book value and stocks priced less than $1) during January 1963 through December 2015, they find that: Keep Reading

Exploitability of Stock Anomalies Worldwide

Are published stock return anomalies exploitable worldwide? In their January 2018 paper entitled “Does it Pay to Follow Anomalies Research? International Evidence”, Ondrej Tobek and Martin Hronec investigate out-of-sample and post-publication performances of 153 cross-sectional stock return anomalies documented in the academic literature, mostly in the top three finance and top three accounting journals. Of the 153 anomalies, 93 involve firm fundamentals, 11 involve firm earnings estimates and 49 involve market frictions. They calculate returns for each anomaly via a hedge portfolio that is long (short) the value-weighted fifth, or quintile, of stocks with the highest (lowest) expected returns for that anomaly. To ensure capacity, they focus on the universe of stocks in the top 90% of NYSE capitalizations. They first examine out-of-sample (after the sample used for discovery but before publication) and post-publication performances of anomalies among U.S. stocks for evidence of performance decay. They then look at anomaly performance outside the U.S. They further test whether strategies that work most widely should be of greatest interest to investors. Finally, they consider a multi-anomaly strategy that each year invests equally in all anomalies that are significant in the U.S. through June, starting in July 1990 for developed country markets and July 2000 for emerging country markets. Using required firm/stock data since July 1963 for the U.S., since January 1987 for Europe, Japan and developed Asia-Pacific and since January 2000 for China and emerging Asia-Pacific, all through December 2016, they find that: Keep Reading

Quantifying Snooping Bias in Published Anomalies

Is data snooping bias a material issue for cross-sectional stock return anomalies published in leading journals? In the September 2017 update of their paper entitled “Publication Bias and the Cross-Section of Stock Returns”, Andrew Chen and Tom Zimmermann: (1) develop an estimator for anomaly data snooping bias based on noisiness of associated returns; (2) apply it to replications of 172 anomalies published in 15 highly selective journals; and, (3) compare results to post-publication anomaly returns to distinguish between in-sample bias and out-of-sample market response to publication. If predictability is due to bias, post-publication returns should be (immediately) poor because pre-publication performance is a statistical figment. If predictability is due to true mispricing, post-publication returns should degrade as investors exploit new anomalies. Their baseline tests employ hedge portfolios that are long (short) the equally weighted fifth, or quintile, of stocks with the highest (lowest) expected returns for each anomaly. Results are gross, ignoring the impact of periodic portfolio reformation frictions. Using data as specified in published articles for replication of 172 anomaly hedge portfolios, they find that:

Keep Reading

Testing Stock Anomalies in Practical Context

How do widely studied anomalies relate to representative stocks-bonds portfolio returns (rather than the risk-free rate)? In his March 2017 paper entitled “Understanding Anomalies”, Filip Bekjarovski proposes an approach to asset pricing wherein a representative portfolio of stocks and bonds is the benchmark and stock anomalies are a set of investment opportunities that may enhance the benchmark. He therefore employs benchmark-adjusted returns, rather than excess returns, to determine anomaly significance. Specifically, his benchmark portfolio captures the equity, term and default premiums. He considers 10 potentially enhancing anomalies: size, value, profitability, investment, momentum, idiosyncratic volatility, quality, betting against beta, accruals and net share issuance. He estimates each anomaly premium as returns to a portfolio that is each month long (short) the value-weighted tenth, or decile, of stocks with the highest (lowest) expected returns for that anomaly. He assesses the potential of each anomaly in three ways: (1) alphas from time series regressions that control for equity, term and default premiums; (2) performances during economic recessions; and, (3) crash proneness. He measures the attractiveness of adding anomaly premiums to the benchmark portfolio by comparing Sharpe ratios, Sortino ratios and performances during recessions of five portfolios: (1) a traditional portfolio (TP) that equally weights equity, term and default premiums; (2) an equal weighting of size, value and momentum premiums (SVM) as a basic anomaly portfolio; (3) a factor portfolio (FP) that equally weights all 10 anomaly premiums; (4) a mixed portfolio (MP) that equally weights all 13 premiums; and, (5) a balanced portfolio (BP) that equally weights TP and FP. Using monthly returns for the 13 premiums specified above from a broad sample of U.S. stocks and NBER recession dates during July 1963 through December 2014, he finds that: Keep Reading

Robustness of Accounting-based Stock Return Anomalies

Do accounting-based stock return anomalies exist in samples that precede and follow those in which researchers discover them? In their November 2016 paper entitled “The History of the Cross Section of Stock Returns”, Juhani Linnainmaa and Michael Roberts examine the robustness of 36 accounting-based stock return anomalies, with initial focus on profitability and investment factors. Anomalies tested consists of six profitability measures, four earnings quality measures, five valuation ratios, 10 growth and investment measures, five financing measures, three distress measures and three composite measures. For each anomaly, they compare pre-discovery, in-sample and post-discovery anomaly average returns, Sharpe ratios, 1-factor (market) and 3-factor (market, size, book-to-market) model alphas and information ratios. Key are previously uncollected pre-1963 data. They assume accounting data are available six months after the end of firm fiscal year and generally employ annual anomaly factor portfolio rebalancing. Using firm accounting data and stock returns for a broad sample of U.S. stocks during 1918 through December 2015, they find that: Keep Reading

Effects of In-sample Bias and Market Adaptation on Stock Anomalies

Do stock return anomalies weaken after discovery? If so, why? In the February 2016 update of their paper entitled “Does Academic Research Destroy Stock Return Predictability?”, David McLean and Jeffrey Pontiff examine out-of-sample and post-publication performance of 97 predictors of the cross section of stock returns published in peer-reviewed finance, accounting and economics journals. For each predictor, published confidence in predictive power is at least 95%, and replication is feasible with publicly available data. The publication date is year and month on the cover of the journal. Their goal is to determine the degrees to which any future degradation in predictive power derives from: (1) statistical biases (exposed out-of-sample but pre-publication); and, (2) market adaptation to strategies used by investors to exploit anomalies (exposed post-publication). For each predictor and interval, they employ a consistent test methodology based on average monthly return for a hedge portfolio that is long (short) the fifth of stocks with the highest (lowest) expected returns based on the original study. Portfolios are equally weighted unless the original study uses value weighting. Using extensions to 2013 of the exact or best available approximations of original data for the 97 predictive variables with samples starting as early as 1926 and ending as late as 2011, they find that: Keep Reading

Anomalies by Day of the Week

Are moody investors prone to avoid risk on Monday and accept it on Friday? In his January 2016 paper entitled “Day of the Week and the Cross-Section of Returns”, Justin Birru examines how long-short U.S. stock anomaly portfolio returns vary by day of the week. His hypothesis is that pessimistic (optimistic) mood on Monday (Friday) leads to relatively low (high) returns for speculative stocks. His analysis focuses on 14 anomalies arguably tied to investor sentiment, with one side (short or long) speculative and the other side non-speculative, based on idiosyncratic volatility, lottery-like, firm age, distress, profitability, payouts, size or illiquidity. He also tests anomalies arguably unrelated to investor sentiment based on momentum, book-to-market, and asset growth. Using anomaly variable and return data for a broad sample of U.S. common stocks during July 1963 through December 2013, he finds that: Keep Reading

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