Objective research to aid investing decisions

Value Investing Strategy (Strategy Overview)

Allocations for October 2021 (Final)
Cash TLT LQD SPY

Momentum Investing Strategy (Strategy Overview)

Allocations for October 2021 (Final)
1st ETF 2nd ETF 3rd ETF

Strategic Allocation

Is there a best way to select and weight asset classes for long-term diversification benefits? These blog entries address this strategic allocation question.

Testing a Countercyclical Asset Allocation Strategy

“Countercyclical Asset Allocation Strategy” summarizes research on a simple countercyclical asset allocation strategy that systematically raises (lowers) the allocation to an asset class when its current aggregate allocation is relatively low (high). The underlying research is not specific on calculating portfolio allocations and returns. To corroborate findings, we use annual mutual fund and exchange-traded fund (ETF) allocations to stocks and bonds worldwide from the 2021 Investment Company Fact Book, Data Tables 3 and 11 to determine annual countercyclical allocations for stocks and bonds (ignoring allocations to money market funds). Specifically:

  • If actual aggregate mutual fund/ETF allocation to stocks in a given year is above (below) 60%, we set next-year portfolio allocation below (above) 60% by the same percentage.
  • If actual aggregate mutual fund/ETF allocation to bonds in a given year is above (below) 40%, we set next-year portfolio allocation below (above) 40% by the same percentage.

We then apply next-year allocations to stock (Fidelity Fund, FFIDX) and bond (Fidelity Investment Grade Bond Fund, FBNDX) mutual funds that have long histories. Based on Fact Book annual publication dates, we rebalance at the end of April each year. Using the specified actual fund allocations for 1984 through 2020 and FFIDX and FBNDX May through April total returns and end-of-April 1-year U.S. Treasury note (T-note) yields for 1985 through 2021, we find that: Keep Reading

Update of a Lumber/Gold Risk-on/Risk-off Strategy

A subscriber asked for an update of the performance comparison between 50% Simple Asset Class ETF Value Strategy (SACEVS) Best Value-50% Simple Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy (SACEMS) equal-weighted top two (EW Top 2), rebalanced monthly (SACEVS-SACEMS 50-50), and a strategy that is each week in stocks or bonds according to whether the return on lumber is greater than the return on gold over the past 13 weeks (L-G Strategy). To test the latter strategy we use the following exchanged-traded fund (ETF) proxies:

Using weekly dividend-adjusted prices for SPY, TLT, CUT and GLD during early February 2008 (limited by inception of CUT) through the beginning of October 2021 and roughly matched start and stop performance for monthly SACEVS-SACEMS 50-50 , we find that:

Keep Reading

SACEMS, SACEVS and Trading Calendar Updates

We have updated monthly allocations and performance data for the Simple Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy (SACEMS) and the Simple Asset Class ETF Value Strategy (SACEVS). We have also updated performance data for the Combined Value-Momentum Strategy.

We have updated the Trading Calendar to incorporate data for September 2021.

Preliminary SACEMS and SACEVS Allocation Updates

The home page, Simple Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy (SACEMS) and Simple Asset Class ETF Value Strategy (SACEVS) now show preliminary positions for October 2021. SACEVS allocations probably will not change by the close. However, the SACEMS competition is tight for ranks 2-4, and rankings could change by the close.

Testing a 2-12 Asset Class Absolute Momentum Strategy

A subscriber asked about the performance of a strategy that each month has five equal-weighted positions:

We designate this strategy 2-12 Absolute. As requested, we also consider two variations that substitute Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund (DBC) for either TLT or LQD, and we compare 2-12 Absolute performance to that of a portfolio that each month allocates 50% to Simple Asset Class ETF Value Strategy (SACEVS) Best Value and 50% to Simple Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy (SACEMS) equal-weighted (EW) Top 2. We begin tests at the end of March 2009, limited by inception of ACWI. We exclude monthly rebalancing/switching frictions for all strategies. Using monthly dividend-adjusted prices for GLD, ACWI, VNQ, TLT, LQD, DBC and SHY starting March 2009 and monthly gross returns for 50-50 SACEVS Best Value and SACEMS EW Top 2 starting April 2009, all through August 2021, we find that: Keep Reading

SACEVS Input Risk Premiums and EFFR

The “Simple Asset Class ETF Value Strategy” (SACEVS) seeks diversification across a small set of asset class exchanged-traded funds (ETF), plus a monthly tactical edge from potential undervaluation of three risk premiums:

  1. Term – monthly difference between the 10-year Constant Maturity U.S. Treasury note (T-note) yield and the 3-month Constant Maturity U.S. Treasury bill (T-bill) yield.
  2. Credit – monthly difference between the Moody’s Seasoned Baa Corporate Bonds yield and the T-note yield.
  3. Equity – monthly difference between S&P 500 operating earnings yield and the T-note yield.

Premium valuations are relative to historical averages. How might this strategy react to changes in the Effective Federal Funds Rate (EFFR)? Using end-of-month values of the three risk premiums, EFFRtotal 12-month U.S. inflation and core 12-month U.S. inflation during March 1989 (limited by availability of operating earnings data) through August 2021, we find that: Keep Reading

SACEMS with Different Alternatives for “Cash”

Do alternative “Cash” (deemed risk-free) instruments materially affect performance of the “Simple Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy” (SACEMS)? Changing the proxy for Cash can affect how often the model selects Cash, as well as the return on Cash when selected. To investigate, we test separately each of the following yield and exchange-traded funds (ETF) as the risk-free asset:

3-month Treasury bills (Cash), a proxy for the money market as in base SACEMS
SPDR Bloomberg Barclays 1-3 Month T-Bill (BIL)
iShares 1-3 Year Treasury Bond (SHY)
iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Bond (IEF)
iShares TIPS Bond (TIP)

We focus on compound annual growth rate (CAGR) and maximum drawdown (MaxDD) as key performance metrics and consider Top 1, equally weighted (EW) EW Top 2 and EW Top 3 SACEMS portfolios. Using end-of-month total (dividend-adjusted) returns for the specified assets during February 2006 (except May 2007 for BIL) through July 2021, we find that:

Keep Reading

Simplest Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy Update

A subscriber asked about an update of “Simplest Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy?”, which each month holds SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) or iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond (TLT)  depending on which has the higher total return over the last three months, including a direct comparison to a portfolio that each month allocates 50% to Simple Asset Class ETF Value Strategy (SACEVS) Best Value and 50% to Simple Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy (SACEMS) equal-weighted (EW) Top 2. We begin the test at the end of June 2006, limited by SACEMS inputs. We ignore monthly rebalancing frictions for both strategies. Using monthly dividend-adjusted prices for SPY and TLT starting March 2006 and monthly gross returns for 50-50 SACEVS Best Value and SACEMS EW Top 2 starting July 2006 (limited by SACEMS inputs), all through July 2021, we find that: Keep Reading

Testing a Term Premium Asset Allocation Strategy

A subscriber asked about the performance of a strategy that each month allocates funds to pairs of exchange-traded fund (ETF) asset class proxies according to the term spread, as measured by the difference in yields between the 10-Year constant maturity U.S. Treasury note and the 3-Month U.S. Treasury bill (T-bill). Specifically:

Also, how does the performance of this strategy (Term Spread Strategy) compare to that of a portfolio that each month allocates 50% to Simple Asset Class ETF Value Strategy (SACEVS) Best Value and 50% to Simple Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy (SACEMS) equal-weighted (EW) Top 2. We begin the test at the end of June 2006, limited by SACEMS inputs. We ignore monthly rebalancing frictions for both strategies. Using monthly dividend-adjusted prices for the specified ETFs starting June 2006 and monthly gross returns for 50-50 SACEVS Best Value and SACEMS EW Top 2 starting July 2006, all through July 2021, we find that: Keep Reading

Are iShares Core Allocation ETFs Attractive?

The four iShares Core Asset Allocation exchange-traded funds (ETF) offer exposures to U.S. stocks, global stocks and bonds semiannually rebalanced to fixed weights, as follows.

  1. iShares Core Conservative Allocation (AOK) – 30% stocks and 70% bonds (30-70).
  2. iShares Core Moderate Allocation (AOM) – 40% stocks and 60%bonds (40-60).
  3. iShares Core Growth Allocation (AOR) – 60% stocks and 40% bonds (60-40).
  4. iShares Core Aggressive Allocation (AOA) – 80% stocks and 20% bonds (80-20).

Each fund holds a portfolio of seven iShares Core stocks and bonds ETFs, thereby compounding management costs and fees. Do these funds of funds offer attractive performance? To investigate, we compare performance statistics for these funds with those for comparably weighted and rebalanced combinations of SPDR S&P 500 Trust (SPY) and iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond (TLT), or SPY and iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond (LQD). We start tests at the end of December 2008 (about a month after inception of the asset allocation ETFs). We ignore semiannual rebalancing frictions for the SPY-TLT and SPY-LQD comparison strategies. Using semiannual dividend-adjusted prices for all specified funds during December 2008 through June 2021, we find that: Keep Reading

Login
Daily Email Updates
Filter Research
  • Research Categories (select one or more)