Fundamental Valuation

Is there a better stock value ratio than commonly used ones such as book-to-market, dividend-to-price, earnings-to-price and cash flow-to-price ratios? In the January 2020 revision of his paper entitled “A New Value Strategy”, Baolian Wang investigates the effectiveness of cash-based operating profitability-to-price (COP/P) as a value ratio. He computes COP as operating profitability minus accruals, with operating profitability defined as revenue minus cost of goods sold and reported selling, general and administrative expenses (not including expenditures on research and development). He each year at the end of June sorts stocks into tenths, or deciles, based on COP/P and then calculates next-month excess returns for a value-weighted or equal-weighted hedge portfolio that is long (short) the decile with the highest (lowest) values of COP/P. Using monthly returns and annual, 6-month lagged and groomed accounting data for non-financial U.S. common stocks during 1963 through 2018 period, he finds that: Keep Reading

In response to the U.S. stock market timing backtest in “Usefulness of P/E10 as Stock Market Return Predictor”, a subscriber suggested a modification for exploiting P/E10 (or Cyclically Adjusted Price-Earnings ratio, CAPE). Instead of binary signals that buy (sell) stocks when P/E10 crosses below (above) its historical average, employ a scaled allocation to stocks that considers how far P/E10 is from average. Specifically:

• If P/E10 is more than 2 standard deviations below its past average, allocate 100% to the S&P Composite Index.
• If P/E10 is more than 2 standard deviations above its past average, allocate 0% to the S&P Composite Index.
• If P/E10 is between these thresholds, allocate a percentage (ranging from 100% to 0%) to the S&P Composite Index, scaled linearly.

To investigate, we backtest this set of rules. Using monthly data from Robert Shiller, including S&P Composite Index level, associated dividends, 10-year government bond yields and values of P/E10 as available during January 1871 through December 2019, we find that:

Keep Reading

Does P/E10 (or Cyclically Adjusted Price-Earnings ratio, CAPE) usefully predict U.S. stock market returns? Per Robert Shiller’s data, P/E10 is inflation-adjusted S&P Composite Index level divided by average monthly inflation-adjusted 12-month trailing earnings of index companies over the last ten years. To investigate its usefulness, we consider in-sample regression/ranking tests and out-of-sample cumulative performance tests. Using monthly values of P/E10, S&P Composite Index levels (calculated as average of daily closes during the month), associated dividends (smoothed), 12-month trailing real earnings (smoothed) and interest rates as available during January 1871 through December 2019, we find that: Keep Reading

Are there any seasonal, technical or fundamental strategies that reliably time the U.S. stock market as proxied by the S&P 500 Total Return Index? In the February 2018 version of his paper entitled “Investing In The S&P 500 Index: Can Anything Beat the Buy-And-Hold Strategy?”, Hubert Dichtl compares excess returns (relative to the U.S. Treasury bill [T-bill] yield) and Sharpe ratios for investment strategies that time the S&P 500 Index monthly based on each of:

• 4,096 seasonality strategies.
• 24 technical strategies (10 slow-fast moving average crossover rules; 8 intrinsic [time series or absolute] momentum rules; and, 6 on-balance volume rules).
• 18 fundamental variable strategies based on a rolling 180-month regression, with 1950-1965 used to generate initial predictions.

In all cases, when not in stocks, the strategies hold T-bills as a proxy for cash. His main out-of-sample test period is 1966-2014, with emphasis on a “crisis” subsample of 2000-2014. He includes extended tests on seasonality and some technical strategies using 1931-2014. He assumes constant stock index-cash switching frictions of 0.25%. He addresses data snooping bias from testing multiple strategies on the same sample by applying Hansen’s test for superior predictive ability. Using monthly S&P 500 Index levels/total returns and U.S. Treasury bill yields since 1931 and values of fundamental variables since January 1950, all through December 2014, he finds that:

Keep Reading

To determine whether the stock market is expensive or cheap, some experts use aggregate valuation ratios, either trailing or forward-looking, such as earnings-price ratio (E/P) and dividend yield. Operating under a belief that such ratios are mean-reverting, most imminently due to movement of stock prices, these experts expect high (low) future stock market returns when these ratios are high (low). Where are the ratios now? Using recent actual and forecasted earnings and dividend data from Standard & Poor’s, we find that: Keep Reading

Does  applying a simple moving average (SMA) filter improve performance of the “Simple Asset Class ETF Value Strategy” (SACEVS), which seeks diversification across the following three asset class exchange-traded funds (ETF) plus cash according to the relative valuations of term, credit and equity risk premiums?

3-month Treasury bills (Cash)
iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond (TLT)
iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond (LQD)
SPDR S&P 500 (SPY)

Since many technical traders use a 10-month SMA (SMA10), we test effectiveness of requiring that each of the ETFs pass an SMA10 filter by comparing performances for three scenarios:

1. Baseline – SACEVS as currently tracked.
2. With SMA10 Filter – Run Baseline SACEVS and then apply SMA10 filters to dividend-adjusted prices of ETF allocations. If an allocated ETF is above (below) its SMA10, hold the allocation as specified (Cash). This rule is inapplicable to any Cash allocation.
3. With Half SMA10 Filter – Same as scenario 2, but, if an allocated ETF is above (below) its SMA10, hold the allocation as specified (half the specified allocation and half cash at the T-bill yield).

We focus on gross compound annual growth rates (CAGR), maximum drawdowns (MaxDD) and annual Sharpe ratios (using average monthly T-bill yield during a year as the risk-free rate for that year) of SACEVS Best Value and SACEVS Weighted portfolios. We also look at how the SMA rule affects a 60%-40% SPY-TLT benchmark (60-40) portfolio. Using SACEVS historical data and monthly dividend-adjusted closing prices for the asset class proxies and yield for Cash during July 2002 (the earliest all ETFs are available) through November 2019, we find that: Keep Reading

A subscriber proposed an alternative to the strategy tested in “Using P/E10 Thresholds to Time the U.S. Stock Market”, which rebalances a stocks-bonds portfolio based on Shiller cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings ratio (P/E10 or CAPE) thresholds, as follows:

1. If P/E10 > 22, hold 40% stocks and 60% bonds.
2. If 14 < P/E10 < 22, hold 60% stocks and 40% bonds.
3. If P/E10 < 14, hold 80% stocks and 20% bonds.

The alternative strategy (P/E10 Variable Timing) uses linear scaling of the allocation to stocks from 40% to 80% as the P/E10 rises from 14 to 22. To test the alternative, we apply it to SPDR S&P 500 (SPY) since inception in 1993 as stocks and Vanguard Long-Term Treasury Investor Shares (VUSTX) as bonds, with monthly rebalancing/reallocation based on P/E10. We consider gross average monthly and annual returns, standard deviations of monthly and annual returns, compound annual growth rate (CAGR), maximum drawdown (MaxDD), and monthly and annual Sharpe ratio as strategy performance metrics. We use monthly and annual average monthly yield on 3-month U.S. Treasury bills (T-bill) to calculate Sharpe ratios. The benchmark is the original strategy (P/E10 Fixed Timing). Using the specified inputs, allowing a test of nearly 27 years, we find that: Keep Reading

Which equity factors from among those included in the most widely accepted factor models are really important? In their October 2019 paper entitled “Winners from Winners: A Tale of Risk Factors”, Siddhartha Chib, Lingxiao Zhao, Dashan Huang and Guofu Zhou examine what set of equity factors from among the 12 used in four models with wide acceptance best explain behaviors of U.S. stocks. Their starting point is therefore the following market, fundamental and behavioral factors:

They compare 4,095 subsets (models) of these 12 factors models based on: Bayesian posterior probability; out-of-sample return forecasting performance; gross Sharpe ratios of the optimal mean variance factor portfolio; and, ability to explain various stock return anomalies. Using monthly data for the selected factors during January 1974 through December 2018, with the first 10 (last 12) months reserved for Bayesian prior training (out-of-sample testing), they find that: Keep Reading

A subscriber requested verification of a fundamental U.S. stock market timing strategy with rebalancing/reallocation of a stocks-bonds portfolio based on Shiller cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings ratio (P/E10 or CAPE) thresholds, as follows:

1. If P/E10 > 22, hold 40% stocks and 60% bonds.
2. If 14 < P/E10 < 22, hold 60% stocks and 40% bonds.
3. If P/E10 < 14, hold 80% stocks and 20% bonds.

The benchmark is an annually rebalanced 60% stocks-40% bonds portfolio (60-40). To assess reasonableness of the P/E10 thresholds chosen, we use P/E10 monthly levels since 1881 and S&P 500 Index monthly returns since 1927. To verify and assess robustness of the specified strategy (P/E10 Timing), we apply it to SPDR S&P 500 (SPY) since inception in 1993 as stocks and Vanguard Long-Term Treasury Investor Shares (VUSTX) as bonds, with monthly rebalancing/reallocation based on P/E10. We consider gross average monthly and annual returns, standard deviations of monthly and annual returns, compound annual growth rate (CAGR), maximum drawdown (MaxDD), and monthly and annual Sharpe ratio as strategy performance metrics. We use monthly and annual average monthly yield on 3-month U.S. Treasury bills (T-bill) to calculate Sharpe ratios. As an additional benchmark, we include a simple technical strategy that is in SPY when prior-month S&P 500 Index is above its 10-month simple moving average and VUSTX when it is below (SPY SMA10). Using the specified inputs, allowing a P/E10 Timing test of nearly 27 years, we find that: Keep Reading

Does including a measure of asset valuation as a qualifier improve the performance of intrinsic (absolute or time series) momentum? In their October 2019 paper entitled “Carry and Time-Series Momentum: A Match Made in Heaven”, Marat Molyboga, Junkai Qian and Chaohua He investigate modification of an intrinsic momentum strategy as applied to futures using the sign of the basis (difference between nearest and next-nearest futures prices) for four asset classes: equity indexes (12 series), fixed income (18 series), currencies (7 series) and commodities (28 series). Their benchmark intrinsic momentum strategy is long (short) assets with positive (negative) returns over the last 12 months, with either: (1) equal allocations to assets, or (2) dynamic allocations that each month target 40% annualized volatility for each contract series. The modified strategy limits long (short) positions to assets with positive (negative) prior-month basis. They account for frictions due to portfolio rebalancing and rolling of contracts using cost estimates from a prior study. They focus on Sharpe ratio to assess strategy performance. Using monthly returns for 65 relatively liquid futures contract series during January 1975 through December 2016, they find that:

Keep Reading