Objective research to aid investing decisions

Value Investing Strategy (Strategy Overview)

Allocations for October 2020 (Final)
Cash TLT LQD SPY

Momentum Investing Strategy (Strategy Overview)

Allocations for October 2020 (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.

SPY-TLT Allocation Momentum?

A subscriber suggested review of the “SPY-TLT Universal Investment Strategy”, which each day allocates 100% of funds to SPDR S&P 500 (SPY) and/or iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond (TLT) with SPY-TLT allocations equal to that with the best risk-adjusted daily performance over the past few months. There are 11 SPY-TLT allocation percentage choices: 100-0, 90-10, 80-20, 70-30, 60-40, 50-50, 40-60, 30-70, 20-80, 10-90 and 0-100. We test a simplified version of the strategy as follows:

  1. Each trading day, calculate dividend-adjusted close-to-close SPY and TLT returns.
  2. As soon as enough days are available, calculate the ratio of average daily return to standard deviation of daily returns over the past 63 trading days (about three months) for each of the 11 allocation choices. This lookback interval is common for such analyses and is within the lookback interval range of 50-80 days suggested by the author.
  3. For each day thereafter, maintain a portfolio with SPY-TLT allocations equal to those of the winning allocation choice over the specified lookback interval. We consider both same-close (requiring slight anticipation of the winning allocation choice) and next-open rebalancing executions (because such anticipation appears problematic).

We ignore small rebalancing frictions incurred daily when the allocation does not change. We initially ignore rebalancing frictions when the allocation does change, but then perform a frictions sensitivity test. Using daily dividend-adjusted opening and closing prices for SPY and TLT during July 30, 2002 (limited by TLT) through April 9, 2020, we find that: Keep Reading

Comparing Ivy 5 Allocation Strategy Variations

A subscriber requested comparison of four variations of an “Ivy 5” asset class allocation strategy, as follows:

  1. Ivy 5 EW: Assign equal weight (EW), meaning 20%, to each of the five positions and rebalance annually.
  2. Ivy 5 EW + SMA10: Same as Ivy 5 EW, but take to cash any position for which the asset is below its 10-month simple moving average (SMA10).
  3. Ivy 5 Volatility Cap: Allocate to each position a percentage up to 20% such that the position has an expected annualized volatility of no more than 10% based on daily volatility over the past month, recalculated monthly. If under 20%, allocate the balance of the position to cash.
  4. Ivy 5 Volatility Cap + SMA10: Same as Ivy 5 Volatility Cap, but take completely to cash any position for which the asset is below its SMA10.

To perform the tests, we employ the following five asset class proxies:

iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Bond (IEF)
SPDR S&P 500 (SPY)
Vanguard REIT ETF (VNQ)
iShares MSCI EAFE Index (EFA)
PowerShares DB Commodity Index Tracking (DBC)

We consider monthly performance statistics, annual performance statistics, and full-sample compound annual growth rate (CAGR) and maximum drawdown (MaxDD). Annual Sharpe ratio uses average monthly yield on 3-month U.S. Treasury bills (T-bills) as the risk-free rate. The DBC series in combination with the SMA10 rule are limiting with respect to sample start date and the first return calculations. Using daily and monthly dividend-adjusted closing prices for the five asset class proxies and T-bill yield as return on cash during February 2006 through March 2020, we find that:

Keep Reading

Testing Zweig’s Combined Super Model

A subscriber requested testing Martin Zweig’s Combined Super Model, which each month specifies an equity allocation based on a system that assigns up to eight points from his Monetary Model and 0 or 2 points from his Four Percent Model. We consider two versions of the Combined Super Model:

  1. Zweig-Cash – Allocate to Fidelity Fund (FFIDX) as equities, with the balance in cash earning the 3-month U.S. Treasury bill (T-bill) yield.
  2. Zweig-FGOVX – Allocate to FFIDX as equities, with the balance in Fidelity Government Income Fund (FGOVX)

The benchmark is buying and holding FFIDX. We focus on compound annual growth rate (CAGR), maximum drawdown (MaxDD) and annual Sharpe ratio, with average monthly T-bill yield during a year as the risk-free rate for that year. We ignore impediments to mutual fund trading and any issues regarding timeliness of allocation changes for end-of-month rebalancing. Using monthly Combined Super Model allocations and monthly fund returns/T-bill yield during December 1986 through March 2020, we find that: Keep Reading

Equity Factor Performance During the 2010s

Are equity factors used in leading models of stock returns reliable performers in practice? In his March 2020 paper entitled “Factor Performance 2010-2019: A Lost Decade?”, David Blitz measures performances of factors tracked in the Kenneth French data library and the q-factor model library during 2010-2019 and compares results to their performances in prior decades. Using data from these libraries for 32 U.S. equity factors and six global non-U.S. factors over available sample periods through 2019, he finds that:

Keep Reading

Very Simple Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy (VSACEMS)

A subscriber requested evaluation of a streamlined version of the Simple Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy (SACEMS) that considers only three exchange-traded funds (ETF):

  • SPDR S&P 500 (SPY)
  • iShares Barclays 20+ Year Treasury Bond (TLT)
  • iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond (LQD)

To evaluate, we test a strategy that each month picks the one of these ETFs with the highest total return over a set momentum ranking (lookback) interval. We call the strategy Very SACEMS (VSACEMS) Top 1. We consider lookback intervals of one to 12 months. We then select one of these lookback intervals and generate the same performance statistics as for SACEMS. We consider three benchmarks:

  1. SPY – buy and hold SPY.
  2. SPY:SMA10 Cash – Hold SPY (3-month U.S. Treasury bills) when SPY is above (below) its 10-month simple moving average (SMA10) at the end of the prior month.
  3. SPY:SMA10 TLT – Hold SPY (TLT) when SPY is above (below) its SMA10 at the end of the prior month.

Using monthly dividend-adjusted prices for the above three assets during July 2002 (limited by TLT and LQD) through February 2020, we find that: Keep Reading

SACEMS with SMA Filter

A subscriber asked whether applying a simple moving average (SMA) filter to “Simple Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy” (SACEMS) winners improves strategy performance. SACEMS each months picks winners from among the a set of eight asset class exchange-traded fund (ETF) proxies plus cash based on past returns over a specified interval. Since many technical traders use a 10-month SMA (SMA10), we test effectiveness of requiring that each winner pass an SMA10 filter by comparing performances for three scenarios:

  1. Baseline – SACEMS as presented at “Momentum Strategy”.
  2. With SMA10 Filter – Run Baseline SACEMS and then apply SMA10 filters to dividend-adjusted prices of winners. If a winner is above (below) its SMA10, hold the winner (Cash). This rule is inapplicable to Cash as a winner.
  3. With Half SMA10 Filter – Same as scenario 2, but, if a winner is above (below) its SMA10, hold the winner (half the winner and half cash).

We focus on compound annual growth rates (CAGR), annual Sharpe ratios and maximum drawdowns (MaxDD) of SACEMS Top 1, equally weighted (EW) Top 2 and EW Top 3 portfolios. To calculate Sharpe ratios, we use average monthly 3-month U.S. Treasury bill (T-bill) yield during a year as the risk-free rate for that year. Using monthly dividend-adjusted closing prices for the asset class proxies and the (T-bill) yield for Cash over the period February 2006 through February 2020, we find that: Keep Reading

COVID-19 Crash Questions

Subscribers are posing questions about the 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) as a driver of current market conditions that are difficult to address with evidence-based analyses. Here are some questions and thoughts: Keep Reading

Combining the Smart Money Indicator with SACEMS and SACEVS

“Verification Tests of the Smart Money Indicator” reports performance results for a specific version of the Smart Money Indicator (SMI) stocks-bonds timing strategy, which exploits differences in futures and options positions in the S&P 500 Index, U.S. Treasury bonds and 10-year U.S. Treasury notes between institutional investors (smart money) and retail investors (dumb money). Do these sentiment-based results diversify those for the Simple Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy (SACEMS) and the Simple Asset Class ETF Value Strategy (SACEVS)? To investigate, we look at correlations of annual returns between variations of SMI (no lag between signal and execution, 1-week lag and 2-week lag) and each of SACEMS equal-weighted (EW) Top 3 and SACEVS Best Value. We then look at average gross annual returns, standard deviations of annual returns and gross annual Sharpe ratios for the individual strategies and for equal-weighted, monthly rebalanced portfolios of the three strategies. Using gross annual returns for the strategies during 2008 through 2019, we find that: Keep Reading

SACEVS and SACEMS from a European Perspective

A European subscriber asked about the effect of the dollar-euro exchange rate on the Simple Asset Class ETF Value Strategy (SACEVS) and the Simple Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy (SACEMS). To investigate, we each month adjust the gross returns for these strategies for the change in the dollar-euro exchange rate that month. We consider all strategy variations: Best Value and Weighted for SACEVS; and, Top 1, equally weighted (EW) Top 2 and EW Top 3 for SACEVS. We focus on SACEVS Best Value and SACEMS EW Top 3. We consider effects on four gross performance metrics: average monthly return; standard deviation of monthly returns; compound annual growth rate (CAGR); and, maximum drawdown (MaxDD). Using monthly returns for the strategies and monthly changes in the dollar-euro exchange rate since August 2002 for SACEVS and since July 2006 for SACEMS, both through January 2020, we find that: Keep Reading

Effects of Execution Delay on SACEVS

How does execution delay affect the performance of the Best Value and Weighted versions of the “Simple Asset Class ETF Value Strategy” (SACEVS)? These strategies each month allocate funds to the following asset class exchange-traded funds (ETF) according to valuations of term, credit and equity risk premiums, or to cash if no premiums are undervalued:

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

To investigate, we compare 22 variations of each strategy with execution days ranging from end-of-month (EOM) per the baseline strategy to 21 trading days after EOM (EOM+21). For example, an EOM+5 variation computes allocations based on EOM but delays execution until the close five trading days after EOM. We include a benchmark that each month allocates 60% to SPY and 40% to TLT (60-40) to see whether variations are unique to SACEVS. We focus on gross compound annual growth rate (CAGR), maximum drawdown (MaxDD) and annual Sharpe ratio as key performance statistics. Using daily dividend-adjusted closes for the above ETFs from the end of July 2002 through January 2020, we find that:

Keep Reading

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