Objective research to aid investing decisions
Value Allocations for Apr 2018 (Final)
Cash TLT LQD SPY
Momentum Allocations for Apr 2018 (Final)
1st ETF 2nd ETF 3rd ETF
CXO Advisory

Investing Research Articles

Page 10 of 247« First...6789101112131415...Last »

Do Any Sector ETFs Reliably Lead or Lag the Market?

Do any of the major U.S. stock market sectors systematically lead or lag the overall market, perhaps because of some underlying business/economic cycle? To investigate, we examine the behaviors of the nine sectors defined by the Select Sector Standard & Poor’s Depository Receipts (SPDR) exchange traded funds (ETF), all of which started trading in December 1998:

Materials Select Sector SPDR (XLB)
Energy Select Sector SPDR (XLE)
Financial Select Sector SPDR (XLF)
Industrial Select Sector SPDR (XLI)
Technology Select Sector SPDR (XLK)
Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR (XLP)
Utilities Select Sector SPDR (XLU)
Health Care Select Sector SPDR (XLV)
Consumer Discretionary Select SPDR (XLY)

Using monthly dividend-adjusted closing prices for these ETFs, along with contemporaneous data for SPDR S&P 500 (SPY) as a benchmark, during December 1998 through December 2017 (229 months), we find that: Keep Reading

Simple Sector ETF Momentum Strategy Update/Extension

“Simple Sector ETF Momentum Strategy” investigates performances of simple momentum trading strategies for the following nine sector exchange-traded funds (ETF) executed with Standard & Poor’s Depository Receipts (SPDR):

Materials Select Sector SPDR (XLB)
Energy Select Sector SPDR (XLE)
Financial Select Sector SPDR (XLF)
Industrial Select Sector SPDR (XLI)
Technology Select Sector SPDR (XLK)
Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR (XLP)
Utilities Select Sector SPDR (XLU)
Health Care Select Sector SPDR (XLV)
Consumer Discretionary Select SPDR (XLY)

Here, we update the principal strategy and extend it by adding equally weighted combinations of the top two and top three sector ETFs, along with corresponding robustness tests. We present findings in formats similar to those used for the Simple Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy and the Simple Asset Class ETF Value Strategy. Using monthly dividend-adjusted closing prices for the sector ETFs and SPDR S&P 500 (SPY) and 3-month U.S. Treasury bill (T-bill) yields since December 1998, and S&P 500 Index levels since September 1998, all through December 2017, we find that: Keep Reading

Managing Volatility to Suppress U.S. Stock Market Tail Risk

Do strategies that seek to exploit return volatility persistence by adjusting stock market exposure inversely with recent market volatility relative to some target (including exposures greater than 100%) produce obvious benefits for investors? In their November 2017 paper entitled “Tail Risk Mitigation with Managed Volatility Strategies”, Anna Dreyer and Stefan Hubrich examine usefulness of managing volatility in this way as applied to the S&P 500 Index over a long sample period and across a range of performance measurements. They use daily index returns in excess of the return on cash and rebalance stock index-cash test portfolios daily. Their target volatility is variable, set as the inception-to-date realized daily excess return volatility. They assess robustness across different sample subperiods, past volatility measurement intervals and portfolio holding intervals. They measure portfolio performance conventionally (Sharpe ratio), via effects on portfolio return distribution skewness and kurtosis (as an indicator of tail risk) and with investor utility metrics. Using daily excess returns for the S&P 500 Index during July 1926 through November 2016, they find that:

Keep Reading

Categorization of Risk Premiums

What is the best way to think about reliabilities and risks of various anomaly premiums commonly that investors believe to be available for exploitation? In their December 2017 paper entitled “A Framework for Risk Premia Investing”, Kari Vatanen and Antti Suhonen present a framework for categorizing widely accepted anomaly premiums to facilitate construction of balanced investment strategies. They first categorize each premium as fundamental, behavioral or structural based on its robustness as indicated by clarity, economic rationale and capacity. They then designate each premium in each category as either defensive or offensive depending on whether it is feasible as long-only or requires short-selling and leverage, and on its return skewness and tail risk. Based on expected robustness and riskiness of selected premiums as described in the body of research, they conclude that: Keep Reading

SACEVS-SACEMS Leverage Sensitivity Tests

“SACEVS with Margin” investigates the use of target 2X leverage via margin to boost the performance of the “Simple Asset Class ETF Value Strategy” (SACEVS). “SACEMS with Margin” investigates the use of target 2X leverage via margin to boost the performance of the “Simple Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy” (SACEMS). In response, a subscriber requested a sensitivity test of 1.25X, 1.50X and 1.75X leverage targets. To investigate effects of these leverage targets, we separately augment SACEVS Best Value, SACEMS EW Top 3 and the equally weighted combination of these two strategies by: (1) initially applying target leverage via margin; (2) for each month with a positive portfolio return, adding margin at the end of the month to restore target leverage; and, (3) for each month with a negative portfolio return, liquidating shares at the end of the month to pay down margin and restore target leverage. Margin rebalancings are concurrent with portfolio reformations. We focus on gross monthly Sharpe ratiocompound annual growth rate (CAGR) and maximum drawdown (MaxDD) for committed capital as key performance statistics. We use the 3-month Treasury bill (T-bill) yield as the risk-free rate. Using monthly total (dividend-adjusted) returns for the specified assets since July 2002 for SACEVS and since July 2006 for SACEMS, both through December 2017, we find that:

Keep Reading

Weekly Summary of Research Findings: 1/2/18 – 1/5/18

Below is a weekly summary of our research findings for 1/2/18 through 1/5/18. These summaries give you a quick snapshot of our content the past week so that you can quickly decide what’s relevant to your investing needs.

Subscribers: To receive these weekly digests via email, click here to sign up for our mailing list. Keep Reading

Stock Market Performance by Intra-year Phase

The full-year Trading Calendar indicates that the U.S. stock market has three phases over the calendar year, corresponding roughly to calendar year trading days 1-84 (January-April), 85-210 (May-October) and 211-252 (November-December). What are typical stock market returns and return variabilities for these phases? Using daily S&P 500 Index closes during 1950 through 2017 (68 years), we find that: Keep Reading

Volatility Scaling for Momentum Strategies?

What is the best way to implement futures momentum and manage its risk? In their November 2017 paper entitled “Risk Adjusted Momentum Strategies: A Comparison between Constant and Dynamic Volatility Scaling Approaches”, Minyou Fan, Youwei Li and Jiadong Liu compare performances of five futures momentum strategies and two benchmarks:

  1. Cross-sectional, or relative, momentum (XSMOM) – each month long (short) the equally weighted tenth of futures contract series with the highest (lowest) returns over the past six months.
  2. XSMOM with constant volatility scaling (CVS) – each month scales the XSMOM portfolio by the ratio of a 12% target volatility to annualized realized standard deviation of daily XSMOM portfolio returns over the past six months.
  3. XSMOM with dynamic volatility scaling (DVS) – each month scales the XSMOM portfolio by the the ratio of next-month expected market return (a function of realized portfolio volatility and whether MSCI return over the last 24 months is positive or negative) to realized variance of XSMOM portfolio daily returns over the past six months.
  4. Time-series, or intrinsic, momentum (TSMOM) – each month long (short) the equally weighted futures contract series with positive (negative) returns over the past six months.
  5. TSMOM with time-varying volatility scaling (TSMOM Scaled) – each month scales the TSMOM portfolio by the ratio of 22.6% (the volatility of an equally weighted portfolio of all future series) to annualized exponentially weighted variance of TSMOM returns over the past six months.
  6. Equally weighted, monthly rebalanced portfolio of all futures contract series (Buy-and-Hold).
  7. Buy-and-Hold with time-varying volatility scaling (Buy-and-Hold Scaled) – each month scales the Buy-and-Hold portfolio as for TSMOM Scaled.

They test these strategies on a multi-class universe of 55 global liquid futures contract series, starting when at least 45 series are available in November 1991. They focus on average annualized gross return, annualized volatility, annualized gross Sharpe ratio, cumulative return and maximum (peak-to-trough) drawdown (MaxDD) as comparison metrics. Using monthly prices for the 55 futures contract series (24 commodities, 13 government bonds, 9 currencies and 9 equity indexes) during June 1986 through May 2017, they find that:

Keep Reading

Sector Performance by Calendar Month

Trading Calendar presents full-year and monthly cumulative performance profiles for the overall U.S. stock market (proxied by the S&P 500 Index) based on its average daily behavior since 1950. Do monthly behaviors of U.S. stock market sectors deviate from the overall market profile? To investigate, we consider the nine Select Sector Standard & Poor’s Depository Receipts (SPDR) exchange-traded funds (ETF), all of which originate in December 1998:

Materials Select Sector SPDR (XLB)
Energy Select Sector SPDR (XLE)
Financial Select Sector SPDR (XLF)
Industrial Select Sector SPDR (XLI)
Technology Select Sector SPDR (XLK)
Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR (XLP)
Utilities Select Sector SPDR (XLU)
Health Care Select Sector SPDR (XLV)
Consumer Discretionary Select SPDR (XLY)

Using monthly dividend-adjusted closing prices for these ETFs, along with contemporaneous data for SPDR S&P 500 (SPY) as a benchmark, during December 1998 through December 2017 (229 months), we find that: Keep Reading

Combined Simple Value-Momentum Asset Class ETF Strategy

The Value Strategy tracks the performance of two versions of the “Simple Asset Class ETF Value Strategy”  (SACEVS), which seeks diversification across a small set of asset class exchange-traded funds (ETF) plus a monthly tactical edge from potential undervaluation of term, credit and equity risk premiums relative to historical averages. The two versions are: (1) most undervalued premium (Best Value); and, (2) weighting all undervalued premiums according to respective degree of undervaluation (Weighted).

The Momentum Strategy tracks the performance of three versions of the “Simple Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy” (SACEMS), which seeks strategic diversification across asset classes via ETFs plus a monthly tactical edge from intermediate-term momentum. The three versions, all based on total ETF returns over recent months, are: (1) top one of nine ETFs (Top 1); (2) equally weighted top two (EW Top 2); and, (3) equally weighted top three (EW Top 3).

As of today, we commence tracking performance of Combined Value-Momentum Strategy (SACEVS-SACEMS), seeking diversification across asset classes and two widely accepted anomalies. This strategy holds SACEVS Best Value and SACEMS EW Top 3 with equal weights and end-of-month rebalancing coincident with SACEVS and SACEMS portfolio reformations.

Page 10 of 247« First...6789101112131415...Last »
Daily Email Updates
Login
Research Categories
Recent Research
Popular Posts
Popular Subscriber-Only Posts