Hello all,

What have we accomplished in the last month?

– A new Portfolio Clustering Quantpedia Pro report
– 13 new Quantpedia Premium strategies have been added to our database
– 10 new related research papers have been included in existing Premium strategies during the last month
– Additionally, we have produced 10 new backtests written in QuantConnect code
– And finally, 5+3 new blog posts that you may find interesting have been published on our Quantpedia blog in the previous month

This is the third and final article from the clustering series. If you’ve missed the previous parts, here you can find the first and second parts of the series. This section examines trading strategies based on previously introduced clustering methods. The complete Portfolio Clustering report will be available for our Quantpedia Pro clients next week.

The CAPM model was a breakthrough for asset pricing, but the times where the market factor was most widely used are long gone. Nowadays, if we exaggerate a bit, we have as many factors as we want. Therefore, it might not be straightforward which factor model should be used. 

Hanauer et al. (2021) provide several insights into factor models. The authors postulate that the factor models should be examined in the international samples since this can be understood as a test for asset pricing models. The domestic Chinese A-shares stock market seems to be an excellent “playground” for the factors models, given the size of the Chinese stock market, but mainly because of its uniqueness. The paper compares the models (and factors) based on various methods (performance, data-driven asset pricing framework, test assets, turnovers and even transaction costs). Apart from valuable insights into the several less-known factors, the key takeaway message could be that the “US classic” Fama-French factor models perform poorly in China. The modified Fama-French six-factor model or q-factor is better, but overall, it seems that factor models designed for China, such as the model of Liu, Stambaugh and Yuan (2019), are the best.

October’s is coming, and we continue our short series of introductory articles about portfolio clustering methods we will soon use in our new Quantpedia Pro report. In the previous blog, we introduced three clustering methods and discussed the pros and cons of each one. Additionally, we showed a few examples of clustering, and we presented various methods for picking an optimal number of clusters.

This section demonstrates the Partitioning Around Medoids (PAM) – a centroid-based clustering method, Hierarchical Clustering, which uses machine learning and Gaussian Mixture Model based on probability distribution and applies all three methods to an investment portfolio that consists of eight liquid ETFs.

This blog post is the continuation of series about Quantconnect’s Alpha market strategies. Part 1 is here and Part 2 can be found here. This part is related to the factor strategies notoriously known from the majority of asset classes. We continue in the examination of factor strategies built on top of social trading strategies, but in this part, the investment universe is reduced based on the insights of the last part. So, without further ado, we continue where we have left last time.

At the beginning of October, we plan to introduce for our Quantpedia Pro clients a new Quantpedia Pro report dedicated to clustering methods in portfolio management. The theory behind this report is more extensive; therefore, we have decided to split the introduction into our methodology into three parts. We will publish them in the next few weeks before we officially unveil our reporting tool. This first short blog post introduces three clustering methods as well as three methods that select the optimal number of clusters. The second blog will apply all three methods to model ETF portfolios, and the final blog will show how to use portfolio clustering to build multi-asset trading strategies.