The part of the attention of our own research from the last few months was a little skewed on the side of countries’ indices and their corresponding ETFs representing them, and we finally conclude our “trilogy” of investigation on the efficiency of these markets. Firstly, we analyzed price-based valuation measures, and then, in November, we investigated the impact of military expenditures on the performance of international stock markets. We will wrap up this mini-series by analyzing a few additional alternative datasets containing variables we thought might be of interest in meaningfully describing each country’s societal standing – the climate change awareness index, the happiness score, the corruption perception index, and the income inequality score.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum”, is an old Roman proverb translated to English as “If you want peace, prepare for war”, and it is the main idea behind the military policy of a lot of modern national states. In the current globally interconnected world, waging a real “hot war” has very often really negative trade and business repercussions (as the Russian Federation realized in 2022). Still, even though wars among developed nations are luckily not as popular as they used to be, modern states heavily invest in their own defense. Nobody wants to be caught military unprepared in case of a local or global geopolitical crisis. A strong military should bring a safe environment to do business, and trade should flourish uninterrupted. But are all those national military expenditures financially rewarded? Do stock markets of countries with a strong military outperform their peers? That’s the question we have decided to answer in the following analysis.

There are a few concepts in the world of finance that are taken for granted, and one of them is the free lunch of diversification. Investors like to mix stocks and bonds into a simple allocation portfolio and hope for better outcomes than investing in just one asset. But the favorable return-to-risk profile of those asset allocation strategies relies on the low correlation between those two asset classes, which, as we will see from today’s contribution, we can’t take for granted. We hope the recent study sheds more light on this topic.

In the ever-evolving world of finance, the quest for stable returns and risk mitigation remains paramount. Traditional asset classes, such as stocks and bonds, have long been the cornerstone of investment portfolios, but their inherent volatilities and susceptibilities to market fluctuations necessitate a more diversified approach. Enter the domain of alternative risk premia (ARP) – strategies designed to capture returns from diverse sources of risk, often orthogonal to traditional market risks. Our exploration in this blog post delves deep into this subject, shedding light on which ARP strategies can truly serve as robust diversifiers in the complex financial tapestry.

You may remember our blog post from the end of March, where we tested the current state-of-the-art LLM chatbot. Time flies fast. More than six months have passed since our last article, and half a year in a fast-developing field like Artificial intelligence feels like ten times more. So, we are here to revisit our article and try some new hacks! Has the OpenAI chatbot made any significant improvement? Can ChatGPT be used as a backtesting engine? We retake our risk parity asset allocation and test the limits of current AI development again!

In a game of poker, it is usually said that when you do not know who the patsy is, you’re the patsy. The world of finance is not different. It is good to know who your counterparties are and which investors/traders drive the return of anomalies you focus on. We discussed that a few months ago in a short blog article called “Which Investors Drive Factor Returns?“. Different sets of investors and their approaches drive different anomalies, and we have one more paper that helps uncover the motivation of investors and traders for trading and their impact on anomaly returns.