Objective research to aid investing decisions
Menu
Value Allocations for August 2019 (Final)
Cash TLT LQD SPY
Momentum Allocations for August 2019 (Final)
1st ETF 2nd ETF 3rd ETF

Sentiment Indicators

Investors/traders track a range of sentiments (consumer, investor, analyst, forecaster, management), searching for indications of the next swing of the psychological pendulum that paces financial markets. Usually, they view sentiment as a contrarian indicator for market turns (bad means good — it’s darkest before the dawn). These blog entries relate to relationships between human sentiment and the stock market.

Testing Sentdex Sentiment Trading Signals

A subscriber suggested evaluating Sentdex Sentiment Trading Signals. These signals attempt to derive the emotion of a current body of text (over 20 sources, mainly Reuters, Bloomberg, WSJ, LA Times, CNBC, Forbes, Business Insider and Yahoo Finance) regarding financial assets such as individual stocks and stock indexes. Signal values are 24-hour averages, ranging from -3 (strongest negative) to +6 (strongest positive), available daily (if there is any relevant news) 30 minutes before market open. The offeror’s backtest buys when sentiment is +6 and sells when it turns negative, with a -0.5% stop-loss. To evaluate, we extract from offered sample data Sentdex sentiment series for Apple (AAPL) and Bank of America (BAC). We apply the backtest rules, except the stop-loss, to these series using daily opening prices for these stocks, adjusted for dividends and splits. We do not use the stop-loss rule because: (1) it may obscure sentiment informativeness; and, (2) research on stop-losses is at best equivocal on their effectiveness. When considering strategy frictions, we use a 0.1% stock-cash switching fee and a $10 monthly data fee. We ignore return on cash, which is practically zero over the sample periods. We use buy-and-hold as a benchmark. Using the specified Sentdex sentiment series and contemporaneous daily adjusted opening prices for AAPL (mid-October 2012 through mid-June 2015) and BAC (mid-November 2012 through mid-June 2015), we find that: Keep Reading

In Search of the Bear?

Does intensity of public interest in a “bear market” mean that the bear is already here, as implied by ZeroHedge commentary on Google Trends search intensity? To investigate, we download weekly global Google Trends search intensity data for “bear market” and (for corroboration) “bull market” and relate these data to future weekly S&P 500 Index returns. “Google Trends analyzes a percentage of Google web searches to figure out how many searches were done over a certain period of time. Google Trends adjusts search data to make comparisons between terms easier….To do this, each data point is divided by the total searches of the geography and time range it represents, to compare relative popularity. The resulting numbers are then scaled to a range of 0 to 100.” Using the specified data from the earliest available time on Google Trends (January 2004) through January 2016, we 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

High-frequency Investor Sentiment and Stock Returns

Are high-frequency sentiment feeds useful in predicting stock market behavior? In the November 2015 version of their paper entitled “Stock Return Predictability and Investor Sentiment: A High-Frequency Perspective”, Licheng Sun, Mohammad Najand and Jiancheng Shen measure the predictive power of half-hour changes in investor sentiment for subsequent half-hour U.S. stock market returns during the trading day. Their intraday sentiment is based on the Thomson Reuters MarketPsych Indices (TRMI), which provide textual analysis of news wires, internet news sources and social media. They test exploitability via a strategy that buys (sells) SPDR S&P 500 (SPY) during each of the last four half-hours of the trading day when the preceding change in sentiment predicts a positive (negative) return. Using intraday TRMI data aggregated in half-hours and intraday half-hour returns for SPY during 1998 to 2011, they find that: Keep Reading

Mark Hulbert’s Nasdaq Newsletter Sentiment Index

“Mark Hulbert’s NASDAQ Newsletter Sentiment Index” reviews the usefulness of the Hulbert Stock Newsletter Sentiment Index (HSNSI), which “reflects the average recommended stock market exposure among a subset of short-term market timers tracked by the Hulbert Financial Digest.” Mark Hulbert presents HSNSI as a contrarian signal for future stock returns; when HSNSI is high (low), he views the outlook for stocks as materially bearish (bullish). In recent years, he has shifted emphasis in his MarketWatch columns from HSNSI to the Hulbert Nasdaq Newsletter Sentiment Index (HNNSI), stating that: “Since the Nasdaq responds especially quickly to changes in investor mood, and because those timers are themselves quick to shift their recommended exposure levels, the HNNSI is the Hulbert Financial Digest’s most sensitive barometer of investor sentiment.” Is HNNSI useful? Using a small sample of 38 values of HNNSI over the period April 2010 through September 2015 (generated by searching MarketWatch.com for “HNNSI”) and contemporaneous daily closes of the S&P 500 Index, we find that: Keep Reading

Exploiting Crowdsourced Earnings Estimates and Stock Sentiments

Are readily available crowdsourced firm earnings estimates and stock sentiment measurements exploitable? In the September 2015 revision of their paper entitled “Tweet Sentiments and Crowd-Sourced Earnings Estimates as Valuable Sources of Information Around Earnings Releases”, Jim Kyung-Soo Liew,  Shenghan Guo and Tongli Zhang investigate whether earnings estimates from Estimize and sentiment measurements from iSentium usefully predict stock behavior after earnings announcements. Estimize aggregates inputs from students, independent researchers, private investors, sell-side professionals and buy-side analysts to generate earnings estimates. iSentium derives sentiment scores (ranging from -30 to +30) from real-time natural language processing of Twitter texts about stocks, market indexes and exchange-traded funds. The authors relate pre-announcement earnings estimates and sentiment to post-earnings announcement stock returns. Using Estimize and iSentium data as available, Wall Street consensus earnings estimates, actual firm quarterly earnings and associated stock returns for 16,840 earnings announcements during November 2011 through December 2014, they find that: Keep Reading

Interaction of Firm News and Stock Return Anomalies

Does firm news reliably interact with stock return anomalies? In their July 2015 paper entitled “Anomalies and News”, Joseph Engelberg, David McLean and Jeffrey Pontiff compare anomaly returns on days with and without firm-specific news releases. They consider 97 anomalies published in 80 academic papers. For some analyses, they segregate these anomalies into four categories: (1) firm event-related (such as stock issuance); (2) market (such as momentum); (3) valuation (such as earnings-price ratio); and, (4) fundamental (such as acruals). They measure each anomaly using the extreme fifths (quintiles) of monthly stock sorts to specify a long side and short side. They calculate returns in three-day intervals around news days. Using stock and firm data required to construct anomaly portfolios, 489,996 earnings announcements and 6,223,007 Dow Jones news items during 1979 through 2013, they find that: Keep Reading

Testing the Equity Mutual Fund Liquidity Ratio

A reader requested evaluation of the Fosback Index and its Ned Davis variant. The creators of these indicators argue that a high (low) ratio of cash equivalents to assets among equity mutual funds indicates strong (weak) potential demand for stocks. The Investment Company Institute (ICI) surveys mutual fund managers monthly (with a lag of about a month) to measure the aggregate equity mutual fund liquidity ratio (LR). Only past year-end values of LR are readily available. Norman Fosback adjusts raw LR based on current interest rates, reasoning that mutual fund managers have more (less) incentive to hold cash when interest rates are high (low). We adjust the effect of interest rates via linear regression of annual LR against year-end yield of the 3-month U.S. Treasury bill (T-bill). We then define the difference between raw and adjusted values as Excess LR and relate this variable to annual returns of the Fidelity Fund (FFIDX) as a proxy for U.S. stock market total performance. Using year-end values of aggregate equity mutual fund LR from the 2015 Investment Company Fact Book, Table 15, year-end T-bill yield and annual returns for FFIDX during December 1984 through December 2014 ( 30 years), we find that: Keep Reading

Interaction of Sentiment and Liquidity with Stock Return Anomalies

Are stock return anomalies strongest when investor sentiment is highest or liquidity lowest? In the January 2015 draft version of his paper entitled “What Explains the Dynamics of 100 Anomalies?”, Heiko Jacobs  addresses these questions. He first identifies, categorizes and replicates 100 well-known or recently discovered long-short stock return anomalies related to: violations of the law of one price, momentum, technical analysis, short-term and long-term reversal, calendar effects, lead-lag effects among economically linked firms, pairs trading, beta, financial distress, skewness, differences of opinion, industry effects, fundamental analysis, net stock issuance, capital investment and firm growth, innovation, accruals, dividend payments and earnings surprises. He measures the gross magnitude and direction of these anomalies via long-short extreme decile (stocks in top and bottom tenths as ranked by a specific variable) portfolios. He then examines how gross three-factor (market, size, book-to-market) alphas for these anomalies vary with:

Using monthly data as available for a broad sample of U.S. stocks, excluding those that are relatively small and illiquid, as available during August 1965 through December 2011 (many tests start much later and end January 2011), he finds that: Keep Reading

Testing the Rydex 2X/-2X Mutual Fund Asset Ratio

A reader suggested looking at Rydex asset ratios as stock market sentiment indicators. The reasoning for these indicators is that a high (low) ratio of assets in bullish funds to assets in bearish funds indicates an overbought (oversold) market. Are these indicators useful? The most timing-intensive traders arguably use leveraged funds, suggesting that a bull-bear asset ratio for such funds may be especially informative and timely. We therefore use the ratio of daily closing asset level for the S&P 500 2x Strategy – H Class (RYTNX) mutual fund to daily closing asset level of the Inverse S&P 500 2x Strategy – H Class (RYTPX) mutual fund (Rydex 2X/-2X). Using daily asset levels for these funds from inception on 5/19/00 through January 2015, along with contemporaneous daily opens of the S&P 500 index (since fund assets are available only after the close), we find that: Keep Reading

Daily Email Updates
Login
Research Categories
Recent Research
Popular Posts