Fundamental Valuation

What are the roles of changes in earnings forecasts and the discount rate on stock valuation during the COVID-19 stock market crash? In the May 2020 update of their paper entitled “Earnings Expectations in the COVID Crisis”, Augustin Landier and David Thesmar investigate firm-level analyst earnings forecast revisions and discount rate changes as jointly reflected in stock market behavior during COVID-19 discovery and spread. They further decompose the effect of discount rate changes into impacts of: (1) change in interest rates, (2) change in equity risk premium and (3) the leverage effect (declining stock prices driving an increase in expected equity return). Using analyst earnings forecasts and prices for the top 1000 U.S. stocks by market capitalization as of year-end 2019, and contemporaneous interest rates, during January 2020 through mid-May 2020, they find that:

Keep Reading

Economic data arrive too slowly to help investors navigate crises such as the 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. Are there data that support quick reactions? In their March 2020 paper entitled “Coronavirus: Impact on Stock Prices and Growth Expectations”, Niels Gormsen and Ralph Koijen employ equity index dividend futures by maturity to understand the evolution of investor reactions to COVID-19 outbreak and subsequent policy actions. They argue that a stock market decline means that expected future dividends fall and/or the discount rate for future dividends rises, differently by maturity. These changes in expectations affect stock market valuation. Using daily dividend futures closing mid-quotes in the U.S. and settlement prices in the EU during January 2006 through March 25, 2020, they find that:

Keep Reading

Why does the coincident relationship between U.S. aggregate corporate earnings growth and stock market return change from negative in older research to positive in recent research? In their January 2020 paper entitled “Assessing the Structural Change in the Aggregate Earnings-Returns Relation”, Asher Curtis, Chang‐Jin Kim and Hyung Il Oh examine when the change in the aggregate earnings growth-market returns relationship occurs. They then examine factors explaining the change based on asset pricing theory (expected cash flow and expected discount rate). They calculate aggregate earnings growth as the value-weighted average of year-over-year change in firm quarterly earnings scaled by beginning-of-quarter stock price. They consider only U.S. firms with accounting years ending in March, June, September or December, and they exclude firms with stock prices less than $1 and firms in the top and bottom 0.5% of quarterly earnings growth. They calculate corresponding quarterly stock market returns from one month prior to two months after fiscal quarter ends to capture earnings announcement effects. Using quarterly earnings and returns data as specified for a broad sample of U.S. public firms from the first quarter of 1970 through the fourth quarter of 2016, they find that:

Keep Reading

Do investors systematically and exploitably underreact to deviations in firm fundamentals from recent averages? In their January 2020 paper entitled “Anchoring on Past Fundamentals”, Doron Avramov, Guy Kaplanski and Avanidhar Subrahmanyam investigate how deviations of quarterly firm accounting variables from averages over recent quarters relate to future returns across stocks. They first construct a stock performance deviation index (PDI) based on seven variables: (1) cash and short-term investments, (2) retained earnings, (3) operating income, (4) sales, (5) capital expenditures, (6) invested capital and (7) inventories. They then each month for each stock starting June 1977:

• Calculate the deviation for each variable as the difference between its most recent quarterly value and its average over the preceding three quarters, scaled by total assets.
• Rank each deviation (in percentiles) relative to deviations for the same variable for all stocks.
• Calculate PDI for a stock as the equally weighted average of percentile rankings across all seven variables.

They extend this approach to a more comprehensive fundamental-based deviation index (FDI) that considers deviations of all Compustat accounting variables plus 14 commonly used accounting ratios, with weights of deviation percentile rankings optimized via least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression starting January 1979. For all variables, if the exact release date is unavailable, they assume a 60-day delay in release. For portfolio tests, they calculate returns to hedge portfolios that are long (short) stocks in the top (bottom) tenth, or decile, of PDIs or FDIs, with holding intervals ranging from one to 24 months. Using monthly data needed to construct PDI, FDI and 30 style, technical, fundamental and liquidity control variables across a broad sample of reasonably liquid U.S. common stocks with positive book values and prices over $5 during January 1976 through October 2017, they find that: Keep Reading

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

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

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