Momentum Investing

A subscriber asked whether the optimal momentum ranking (lookback) interval for the “Simple Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy” (SACEMS) shrinks during bear markets for U.S. stocks. To investigate, we compare SACEMS monthly performance statistics when the S&P 500 Index at the previous monthly close is above (bull market) or below (bear market) its 10-month simple moving average. We consider Top 1, equal-weighted (EW) Top 2 and EW Top 3 portfolios of monthly winners for the baseline SACEMS lookback interval. We focus on monthly return, monthly volatility and compound annual growth rate (CAGR) as key performance metrics. In a robustness test for the EW Top 2 and EW Top 3 portfolios, we consider lookback intervals ranging from one to 12 months. Using monthly total (dividend-adjusted) returns for SACEMS assets since February 2006 and monthly S&P 500 Index level since September 2005, all through January 2022, we find that:

Keep Reading

In response to “Combining Defensive-in-May and Sector Reversion”, a subscriber requested testing of a strategy combining seasonal effects (cyclical sectors during November through April and defensive sectors during May through October) and sector momentum. Cyclical and defensive choices are:

• Cyclical:
  • Materials Select Sector SPDR (XLB)
  • Industrial Select Sector SPDR (XLI)
  • Technology Select Sector SPDR (XLK)
  • Consumer Discretionary Select SPDR (XLY)
  • Vanguard Small-Cap Value Index Fund (VBR)
• Defensive:
  • Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR (XLP)
  • Utilities Select Sector SPDR (XLU)
  • Health Care Select Sector SPDR (XLV)
  • Vanguard Dividend Appreciation Index Fund (VIG)
  • iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Bond (IEF)

At the end of each October, the strategy buys the one cyclical fund with the highest return over some past interval (betting on momentum). At the end of each April, the strategy sells the cyclic fund and buys the one defensive fund with the highest return over the past interval (again, betting on momentum). For convenience, we use a 6-month lookback interval to rank funds. We use buy-and-hold SPDR S&P 500 (SPY) as a benchmark. We focus on semiannual return statistics, along with compound annual growth rates (CAGR) and maximum drawdowns (MaxDD). Using semiannual dividend-adjusted prices for the selected funds during October 2006 (limited by availability of VIG) through October 2021 (defining the first and last available semiannual intervals), we find that: Keep Reading

Inspired by “The iM Seasonal ETF Switching Strategy”, a subscriber requested testing of a strategy combining seasonal effects (cyclical sectors during November through April and defensive sectors during May through October) and sector reversion. Cyclical and defensive choices are:

• Cyclical:
  • Materials Select Sector SPDR (XLB)
  • Industrial Select Sector SPDR (XLI)
  • Technology Select Sector SPDR (XLK)
  • Consumer Discretionary Select SPDR (XLY)
  • Vanguard Small-Cap Value Index Fund (VBR)
• Defensive:
  • Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR (XLP)
  • Utilities Select Sector SPDR (XLU)
  • Health Care Select Sector SPDR (XLV)
  • Vanguard Dividend Appreciation Index Fund (VIG)
  • iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Bond (IEF)

At the end of each October, the strategy buys the one cyclical fund with the lowest return over some past interval (betting on reversion). At the end of each April, the strategy sells the cyclic fund and buys the one defensive fund with the lowest return over the past interval (again, betting on reversion). For convenience, we use a 6-month lookback interval to rank funds. We use buy-and-hold SPDR S&P 500 (SPY) as a benchmark. We focus on semiannual return statistics, along with compound annual growth rates (CAGR) and maximum drawdowns (MaxDD). Using semiannual dividend-adjusted prices for the selected funds during October 2006 (limited by availability of VIG) through October 2021 (defining the first and last available semiannual intervals), we find that: Keep Reading

Do widely accepted equity factor premiums exist in data older than generally employed in academic studies? In their November 2021 paper entitled “The Cross-Section of Stock Returns before 1926 (And Beyond)”, Guido Baltussen, Bart van Vliet and Pim van Vliet look for some of the most widely accepted factor premiums in a newly assembled sample of U.S. stocks spanning January 1866 through December 1926 (61 years of additional and independent data). Specifically, they look at: size as measured by market capitalization; value as measured by dividend yield (strongly associated with earnings during the sample period); stock price momentum from 12 months ago to one month ago; short-term (1-month) return reversal; and, risk as measured by market beta. They use only those stocks which trade frequently and apply liquidity/data quality filters. To measure factor premiums, they each month for each factor:

• Regress next-month stock return versus stock factor value and compute slopes of the relationship.
• Reform a value-weighted hedge portfolio that is long (short) stocks with high (low) expected returns based on factor values to measure: (1) average factor portfolio gross return; and, (2) gross factor (CAPM) alphas and betas based on regression of factor portfolio excess return versus market excess return.

They further investigate economic explanations of factor premiums and test machine learning methods found successful with recent data. Using monthly prices, dividends and market capitalizations for 1,488 stocks in the new database, they find that:

Keep Reading

Does adding a position take-profit (stop-gain) rule improve the performance of the “Simple Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy” (SACEMS) by harvesting some upside volatility? 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. To investigate the value of stop-gains, we augment SACEMS with a simple rule that: (1) exits to Cash from any current winner ETF when its intra-month return rises above a specified threshold; and, (2) re-sets positions per winners at the end of the month. We focus on gross compound annual growth rate (CAGR) and gross maximum drawdown (MaxDD) as key performance statistics for the Top 1, equally weighted (EW) Top 2 and EW Top 3 portfolios of monthly winners. Using monthly total (dividend-adjusted) returns and intra-month maximum returns for the specified assets during February 2006 through September 2021, we find that: Keep Reading

Does adding a position stop-loss rule improve the performance of the “Simple Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy” (SACEMS) by avoiding some downside volatility? 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. To investigate the value of stop-losses, we augment SACEMS with a simple rule that: (1) exits to Cash from any current winner ETF when its intra-month return falls below a specified threshold; and, (2) re-sets positions per winners at the end of the month. We focus on gross compound annual growth rate (CAGR) and gross maximum drawdown (MaxDD) as key performance statistics for the Top 1, equally weighted (EW) Top 2 and EW Top 3 portfolios of monthly winners. Using monthly total (dividend-adjusted) returns and intra-month drawdowns for the specified assets during February 2006 through September 2021, we find that: Keep Reading

What is the best way to understand and anticipate variations in equity factor returns? Past research emphasizes factor return connections to business cycle variables or measures of investor sentiment (with little success). In his September 2021 paper entitled “The Quant Cycle”, David Blitz analyzes factor returns themselves to understand their variations, arguing that behavioral rather than economic forces drive them. He determines the quant cycle (bull and bear trends in factor returns) by qualitatively identifying peaks and troughs. He focuses on U.S. versions of four conventionally defined long-short factors frequently targeted by investors (value, quality, momentum and low-risk), emphasizing the most volatile (value and momentum). He also considers some alternative factors. Using monthly data for factors from the online data libraries of Kenneth French, Robeco and AQR spanning July 1963 through December 2020 (and for a reduced set of factors spanning January 1929 through June 1963), he finds that:

Keep Reading

Does bitcoin (BTC) price predictably exhibit momentum or reversion? To investigate, we try three tests:

1. Calculate autocorrelations (serial correlations) between daily, weekly and monthly (4-week) BTC returns and BTC returns for the next five respective intervals (for example, correlation of daily return with returns the next five days). Positive and negative correlations suggest momentum and reversion, respectively.
2. Calculate correlations between next-week BTC return and current BTC price relative to its high or low over the last 13 weeks. A positive correlation for closeness to the recent high (low) suggests momentum (reversion).
3. Calculate average next-week BTC returns by ranked fifth (quintile) of BTC price relative to its high or low over the last 13 weeks.

Using daily, weekly and monthly (4-week) BTC closing prices during September 14, 2014 (the earliest available from the source) through August 31, 2021, we find that:

Keep Reading

What drives 12-month (with skip-month) momentum and 1-month reversal effects among U.S. common stock returns?  In their July 2021 paper entitled “Mapping out Momentum”, Yimou Li and David Turkington decompose momentum and reversal effects into distinct industry/sector, factor (size, value, profitability, investment) and stock-specific contributions. In addition to full-sample results, they look at:

• High and low volatility states, as defined by a threshold of 25 for average daily CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) during the month of stock return measurement.
• Contributions of past winners versus past losers.
• Two subsamples with breakpoint December 2009.

They focus on S&P 500 stocks to avoid concerns that any anomalies are due to market frictions or are not exploitable on a large scale. They assume a 3-day implementation lag in computing next-month returns. They examine statistical significance (t-statistic) rather than magnitude of anomaly returns. Using S&P 500 stock, sector/industry and factor data and daily VIX levels during January 1995 through December 2020, they find that:

Keep Reading

Can investors detect when commodity futures momentum, value and carry (basis) strategies are crowded and therefore likely to generate relatively weak returns? In the March 2021 version of their paper entitled “Crowding and Factor Returns”, Wenjin Kang, Geert Rouwenhorst and Ke Tang examine how crowding by commodity futures traders affects expected returns for momentum, value and basis strategies. They define commodity-level crowding based on excess speculative pressure, measured for each commodity as the deviation of non-commercial trader net position (long minus short) from its 3-year average, scaled by open interest. They calculate crowding for a long-short strategy portfolio as the average of commodity-level crowding metrics of long positions minus the average of commodity-level crowding metrics for short positions, divided by two. They specify strategy portfolios as follows:

• Momentum – each week long (short) the equally weighted 13 commodities with the highest (lowest) past 1-year returns as of the prior week.
• Value – each week long (short) the equally weighted 13 commodities with the highest (lowest) ratios of last-week nearest futures price to nearest futures price three years ago.
• Basis – each week long (short) the equally weighted 13 commodities with the highest (lowest) basis, measured as percentage price difference between nearest and next maturity contracts as of the prior week.

For each strategy, they measure effects of crowding by measuring returns separately when strategy crowding is above or below its rolling 3-year average. Using weekly (Tuesday close) investor position data published by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) for 26 commodities traded on North American exchanges during January 1993 through December 2019, they find that:

Keep Reading