Once again, our favorite type of study – an out of sample research study based on data from 19th and beginning of 20th century.  Interesting research paper related to all equity momentum strategies …

Authors: Trigilia, Wang

Title: Momentum, Echo and Predictability: Evidence from the London Stock Exchange (1820-1930)

Link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3373164

Abstract:

We study momentum and its predictability within equities listed at the London Stock Exchange (1820-1930). At the time, this was the largest and most liquid stock market and it was thinly regulated, making for a good laboratory to perform out-of-sample tests. Cross-sectionally, we find that the size and market factors are highly profitable, while long-term reversals are not. Momentum is the most profitable and volatile factor. Its returns resemble an echo: they are high in long-term formation portfolios, and vanish in short-term ones. We uncover momentum in dividends as well. When controlling for dividend momentum, price momentum loses significance and profitability. In the time-series, despite the presence of a few momentum crashes, dynamically hedged portfolios do not improve the performance of static momentum. We conclude that momentum returns are not predictable in our sample, which casts some doubt on the success of dynamic hedging strategies.

Notable quotations from the academic research paper:

"This paper studies momentum and its predictability in the context of the rst modern stock market, the London Stock Exchange (LSE), from the 1820s to the 1920s.

Factors' performance. Compared to the U.S. post-1926, we find that the market has been less profitable – averaging 5% annually (but also less volatile). Its Sharpe ratio has been 0.34, not too far from the 0.43 of CRSP. The Small-Minus-Big (SMB) factor delivered a 4.85% average annual return, much higher than that found in U.S. post-1926. The risk-free rate, as proxied by the interest on British Government's consols, has been close to 3.3% throughout the period, despite the many large changes in supply (i.e., in the outstanding stock of public debt). As for momentum (UMD), consistent with the existing evidence it has been the most profitable factor – with an average annual return close to 9% – and the most volatile – with 20% annual standard deviation.

Dissecting momentum returns. Recent literature debates whether momentum is long or short term. In our sample, UMD profits strongly depend on the formation period: they average at 10.6% annually for long-term formation (12 to 7 months) and 3.8% for short-term formation (6 to 2 months). So, our out-of-sample test confirms that momentum is better described as a within-year echo.

To investigate the role of fundamentals as drivers of price momentum, we construct two sets of earnings momentum portfolio. The first earnings momentum portfolio is constructed based on the past dividend paid by the firm relative to its market cap. The portfolio buys stocks of the highest dividend-paying firms over a 12 to 2 months formation period, and shorts the stocks of the lowest ones. We find strong evidence that our dividend momentum (DIV) strategy is profitable across our sample: it yields a 5% average annual return with a standard deviation of 12%.

The second earnings momentum portfolio is constructed based on the dividend innovations. Specically, we look at the change of dividend year to year, and construct the DIV portfolio. The portfolio buys stocks with the highest change in dividend paid and shorts the stocks with the lowest ones. The
DIV portfolio yield an over 24% return with a standard deviation of only 13.2%.

To discern whether price momentum seems driven by dividend momentum, we also test whether the alpha of the static UMD portfolio remains significant and positive after we control for the Fama-French three factors plus the dividend momentum portfolio. In the EW sample, price momentum delivers excess returns of about 8.8% after controlling for the Fama-French three factors, significant at the 1%. However, introducing DIV momentum reduces the alpha to 2.9%, and the alpha is insignificantly different from zero. As for VW portfolios, they deliver higher alphas but are less precisely estimated. In this case, the annualized alpha of price momentum drops by half from 11.2% to 5.8% after controlling for
DIV momentum.

Momentum crashes. We find that the distribution of monthly momentum returns is left skewed and displays excess kurtosis. Within the five largest EW (VW) momentum crashes, investors lost 18% (26%) on average. The difference between the beta of the winners and that of the losers has been -2.4 (-3.5), on average, and the losses stemmed mostly from the performance of the losers, which averaged at 24% (21%) monthly return. We find little action in the winners portfolio, which returned on average 2% (-6%).

Predictability and dynamic hedging. Dynamic hedging consists in levering the portfolio when its realized volatility has been low and/or the market has been under-performing, and de-levering otherwise. We begin our analysis by looking at whether set of variables helps predicting momentum returns in our sample, and we find that it does not. Probably, this is because the crashes in our sample are more heterogeneous both in terms of origins and in terms of length. In particular, they do not necessarily occur when the market rebounds after a long downturn, and they tend to last for shorter periods of time. As a consequence, our out-of-sample test of the dynamic hedged UMD strategy shows that either it underperforms static momentum, or it does not improve its returns.

"

Are you looking for more strategies to read about? Check http://quantpedia.com/Screener

Do you want to see performance of trading systems we described? Check http://quantpedia.com/Chart/Performance

Do you want to know more about us? Check http://quantpedia.com/Home/About

Follow us on:

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/quantpedia/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/quantpedia

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_YubnldxzNjLkIkEoL-FXg

Benjamin Franklin once said "… in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." and we completely agree with that quote. Traders and portfolio managers often strongly concentrate on a process of building the strategy which delivers the highest outperformance. But a lot of them forget to include taxes into that building process. And this can be a significant mistake as the following research paper shows:

Authors: Goldberg, Hand, Cai

Title: Tax-Managed Factor Strategies

Link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3309974

Abstract:

We examine the tax efficiency of an indexing strategy and six factor tilts. Between June 1995 and March 2018, average value added by tax management exceeded 1.4% per year at a 10- year horizon for all the strategies we considered. Tax-managed factor tilts that are beta 1 to the market generated average tax alpha between 1.6% and 1.9% per year, while average tax alpha for the tax-managed indexing strategy was 2.3% per year. These remarkable results depend on the availability of short-term capital gains to offset. To a great extent, they can be attributed to loss harvesting and the tax rate differential.

Notable quotations from the academic research paper:

"In 1993, Rob Jeffrey and Rob Arnott asked a provocative question: Is an investor’s alpha big enough to cover its taxes? Arnott and Jeffrey pointed out that alpha generation typically requires high turnover, which erodes pre-tax alpha by increasing taxes, but this important fact tended to be overlooked by investors and researchers. Twenty-five years later, the situation has not changed too much.

Some principles of tax-aware investing, such as locating high-tax investments in tax-deferred accounts or using tax-free municipal bonds (instead of their taxable counterparts) as investments and benchmarks, are no more than common sense. Other principles of taxaware investing may rely on more sophisticated mathematics and economics, as well as more detailed knowledge of the complex and ever-changing US tax code. An example of the latter would be loss harvesting, which is a tax-aware option that combines delayed realization of capital gains with immediate realization of capital losses. A second timing option, which depends on the tax rate differential, involves the realization of long-term gains in order to facilitate the harvesting of short-term losses.

In the present study, we document the performance of after-tax return and risk profiles of an indexing strategy and six factor tilts over the period June 1995 to March 2018.7 We focus on active return, and our results rely on a number of methodological innovations. We mitigate the substantial impact of period dependence on results by launching each strategy at regular intervals over a long horizon, generating ranges of outcomes obtained in different market climates. We construct each portfolio with a one-step optimization that balances the competing imperatives of constraining factor exposures, harvesting losses, and minimizing tracking error (TE) to a diversified benchmark. We develop an after-tax performance attribution scheme that decomposes estate/donation and liquidation active returns into factor alpha, tax alpha, and tracking return. We measure the impact of the tax rate differential that affects tax-managed factor tilts.

Our results span several dimensions. First, we compare after-tax performance of tax-managed versions to tax-indifferent versions of each strategy. In back-tests, average value added by tax management during the period studied exceeded 1.50% per year at 10-year horizon for all the strategies we considered. This finding illustrates the potential power of loss harvesting and lets us move on to the more nuanced topic of the loss-harvesting capacities of different strategies.

Figure 1 presents the average after-tax active return of the tax-managed versions of the strategies graphically. Overall, the best average performance was delivered by the Small Value strategy, but more than half the after-tax active return was due to factor alpha. On the basis of tax alpha, the strategies divide into the three groups. The highest average tax alpha was delivered by the indexing strategy. Each of the four beta-1 strategies captured at least 70% of the tax alpha in the indexing strategy, but the two lower-risk strategies captured less than 35%. The division is marked in the performance charts."

Are you looking for more strategies to read about? Check http://quantpedia.com/Screener

Do you want to see an overview of our database of trading strategies? Check https://quantpedia.com/Chart

Do you want to know how we are searching new strategies? Check https://quantpedia.com/Home/How

Do you want to know more about us? Check http://quantpedia.com/Home/About

Follow us on:

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/quantpedia/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/quantpedia