Strategic Allocation

Is leveraging with margin a good way to boost the performance of the “Simple Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy” (SACEMS)? To investigate effects of margin, we augment SACEMS by: (1) initially applying 2X leverage via margin (limited by Federal Reserve Regulation T); (2) for each month with a positive portfolio return, adding margin at the end of the month to restore 2X leverage; and, (3) for each month with a negative portfolio return, liquidating shares at the end of the month to pay down margin and restore 2X leverage. Margin rebalancings are concurrent with portfolio reformations. We focus on gross monthly Sharpe ratio, compound annual growth rate (CAGR) and maximum drawdown (MaxDD) for committed capital as key performance statistics for the Top 1, equally weighted (EW) Top 2 and EW Top 3 portfolios of monthly winners. We use the 3-month Treasury bill (T-bill) yield as the risk-free rate and consider a range of margin interest rates as increments to this yield. Using monthly gross total returns for SACEMS and monthly T-bill yields during July 2006 through October 2023, we find that:

Keep Reading

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 switching 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, all through October 2023, we find that: Keep Reading

A subscriber requested testing of a strategy that holds a combination of 50% Simple Asset Class ETF Value Strategy (SACEVS) Best Value and 50% Simple Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy (SACEMS) equal-weighted (EW) Top 2 strategies during November through April and idle cash during May through October. We consider three strategies:

1. Best Value – EW Top 2 – hold Best Value-EW Top 2 during all months.
2. Best Value – EW Top 2 Seasonal (Idle Cash) – hold Best Value-EW Top 2 during November through April and idle cash during May through October, as requested.
3. Best Value – EW Top 2 Seasonal (6-month T-bill) – hold Best Value-EW Top 2 during November through April and 6-month U.S. Treasury bills (T-bill) bought at the beginning May each year during May through October.

We run annual statistics for each variation as in “Combined Value-Momentum Strategy (SACEVS-SACEMS)”. Annualized returns are compound annual growth rates. Maximum drawdown is the deepest peak-to-trough drawdown for these strategies based on monthly measurements over the sample period. For Sharpe ratio, to calculate excess annual return, we use average monthly yield on 3-month Treasury bills during a year as the risk-free rate for that year. Using monthly returns for SACEVS Best Value and SACEMS EW Top 2 and the specified T-bill yield during July 2006 through October 2023, we find that: Keep Reading

Is the the conventional retirement portfolio glidepath as recommended by many financial advisors, away from stocks and toward bonds over time, really optimal? In their October 2023 paper entitled “Beyond the Status Quo: A Critical Assessment of Lifecycle Investment Advice”, Aizhan Anarkulova, Scott Cederburg and Michael O’Doherty present a lifecycle income/wealth model using stationary block bootstrap simulations (average block length 120 months to preserve long-term behaviors) with labor income uncertainty, Social Security income, longevity uncertainty and historical monthly returns for stock indexes, government bonds and government bills across developed countries. They apply this model to estimate outcomes for several age-dependent, monthly rebalanced portfolios of stocks and bonds, including a representative target-date fund (TDF), as well as some fixed-percentage allocation strategies. They focus on a U.S. couple (a female and a male) who save during working years starting at age 25 and consume Social Security income and savings starting at age 65 with constant real 4% annual withdrawals. They evaluate four outcomes: (1) wealth at retirement; (2) retirement income; (3) conservation of savings; and, (4) bequest at death. Using monthly (local) real returns for domestic stock indexes, international stock indexes, government bonds and government bills as available for 38 developed countries during 1890 through 2019, they find that:

Keep Reading

Do target retirement date funds, offering glidepaths that shift asset allocations away from equities and toward bonds as target dates approach, safely generate attractive returns? To investigate, we consider seven such mutual funds offered by Vanguard, as follows:

• • Vanguard Target Retirement 2020 Fund (VTWNX)
  • Vanguard Target Retirement 2025 Fund (VTTVX)
  • Vanguard Target Retirement 2030 Fund (VTHRX)
  • Vanguard Target Retirement 2035 Fund (VTTHX)
  • Vanguard Target Retirement 2040 Fund (VFORX)
  • Vanguard Target Retirement 2045 Fund (VTIVX)
  • Vanguard Target Retirement 2050 Fund (VFIFX)

We consider as benchmarks SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY), iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) and both 80-20 and 60-40 monthly rebalanced SPY-LQD combinations. We look at monthly and annual return statistics, including compound annual growth rate (CAGR) and maximum drawdown (MaxDD). Using monthly total returns for SPY, LQD, three target retirement date funds since October 2003 and four target retirement date funds since June 2006 (limited by Vanguard inception dates), all through September 2023, we find that:

Keep Reading

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, EFFR, total 12-month U.S. inflation and core 12-month U.S. inflation during March 1989 (limited by availability of operating earnings data) through September 2023, we find that: Keep Reading

Does machine learning reliably offer better risk-adjusted portfolio performance than traditional modern portfolio theory (MPT)? In their August 2023 paper entitled “Comparing Deep RL and Traditional Financial Portfolio Methods”, Eric Benhamou, Jean-Jacques Ohana, Beatrice Guez, David Saltiel, Rida Laraki and Jamal Atif compare principles, methodologies and risk-adjusted performances of dynamic deep reinforcement learning (DRL) and MPT. The DRL approach seeks long-only allocations that maximize Sharpe ratio (calculated assuming a zero risk-free rate). DRL training data includes individual asset returns, portfolio drawdown and contextual variables including U.S. and European interest rates, the CBOE volatility index (VIX), credit default swap prices, currency rates (U.S. dollar index), GDP and CPI forecasts, crude oil/gold/copper inventories and global, U.S., European, Japanese and emerging markets economic surprise indexes. DRL training employs an expanding window, each year training on available historical data and testing on the next year. They consider three MPT portfolios also using expanding window of historical data to estimate inputs: (1) full MPT (Markowitz); (2) minimum variance; and, (3) risk parity. Their global test data consists of daily returns of 11 futures contract series for four major equity indexes, four major bond indexes and three major commodity indexes. They assume trading frictions of 0.02% of value traded. Using the specified (groomed) data during 2000 through mid-2023, they find that: Keep Reading

Can investors use leveraged exchange-traded funds (ETF) to construct attractive versions of simple 60%/40% (60/40) and 40%/60% (40/60) stocks-bonds portfolios? In their March 2020 presentation package entitled “Robust Leveraged ETF Portfolios Extending Classic 40/60 Portfolios and Portfolio Insurance”, flagged by a subscriber, Mikhail Smirnov and Alexander Smirnov consider several variations of classic stocks/bonds portfolios implemented with leveraged ETFs. They ultimately focus on a monthly rebalanced partially 3X-leveraged portfolio consisting of:

• 40% ProShares UltraPro QQQ (TQQQ)
• 20% Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X Shares (TMF)
• 40% iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (TLT)

To validate findings, we consider this portfolio and several 60/40 and 40/60 stocks/bonds portfolios. We look at net monthly performance statistics, along with compound annual growth rate (CAGR), maximum drawdown (MaxDD) based on monthly data and annual Sharpe ratio. To estimate monthly rebalancing frictions, we use 0.5% of amount traded each month. We use average monthly 3-month U.S. Treasury bill yield during a year as the risk-free rate in Sharpe ratio calculations for that year. Using monthly adjusted prices for TQQQ, TMF, TLT and for SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) and Invesco QQQ Trust (QQQ) to construct benchmarks during February 2010 (limited by TQQQ inception) through September 2023, we find that: Keep Reading

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)
• Vanguard Short-Term Inflation-Protected Securities Index Fund (VTIP)
• 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 August 2023, we find that:

Keep Reading

Homes typically represent a substantial fraction of investor wealth. Are there reliable relationships between U.S. home prices and the U.S. stock market? For example, does a rising stock market stimulate home prices? Do falling home prices point to offsetting liquidation of equity positions. Do homes effectively diversify equity holdings? Measurements are:

• Monthly levels of the non-seasonally adjusted S&P/Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price Index (Home Price Index) during January 1987 through June 2023 (36.5 years), with release lag about two months.
• Annual median sales prices for existing homes pieced from from RealEstateABC.com [no longer available], National Association of Realtors and Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis during 1968 through 2022 (55 years).
• Annual median sales prices for new homes during 1963 through 2022 (60 years).

Using these sources and contemporaneous monthly levels of the S&P 500 Index during January 1963 through July 2023, we find that:

Keep Reading