If different investors share a common goal, why are there differences in strategy choices and portfolio characteristics across investor classes? Elsaify (2022) attempts to provide an answer. In his study, he documents heterogeneity in investors’ processing abilities, which is the key factor influencing investor’s strategy choice and finds that such heterogeneity stems from factor timing ability.

According to the results, hedge funds seem to have the highest attention capacity, the most precise information and excel at factor timing. On the other hand, long-term investors (insurance companies and pension funds), brokers, and short-sellers exhibit low attention capacity because of their timing inability. They spend relatively more attention on the fundamental, their portfolios have the least dispersion and variance and their impact on factor returns is limited.

The expected return on the “variance factor” known as variance risk premium (VRP) is nothing new to options markets. For any investor interested in benefitting from this phenomenon, we present the study of Dörries et al. (2021), which provides a clear overview of different VRP-earning strategies.

Passive index funds are believed to offer low fees, nearly limitless liquidity, very low trading costs and (most of the time) they beat most active managers. Although not all of the above are accurate, there are still many arguments in favour of passive indexing. However, what is often left forgotten are avoidable travails linked to index funds. In general, after an index rebalances, traditional cap-weighted index funds buy high and sell low. Their tendency to add recent highfliers and drop unloved value stocks is what causes investors to lose. Arnott et al. (2022) target the stock selection problem around index rebalancing and propose several ideas on how to adjust index strategies in order to earn above-market returns. They present simple ways to construct an index, thanks to which it is possible to reduce both negative effects of buy-high/sell-low dynamic and the turnover costs of cap-weighted indices.

The size effect assumes a negative relationship between average stock returns and firm size. In other words, it states that low capitalization stocks outperform stocks with large capitalization. Although generally accepted, the size effect keeps being challenged. Researchers have been asking how important the firm size characteristic actually is, and whether it is possible to replace the traditional size factor of Fama and French asset pricing model (1993) with more accurate factor. Recently, one potential challenger has emerged – so-called takeover factor, employed by Easterwood et al. (2022). In their study, they work on the assumption that small firms are often targets of takeovers, which gives us a different perspective on merger and acquisition news in regards to size effect. Their results show that M&A component of average returns explains the size premium entirely.