Today, we will look closer into the hood of life expectancy of investment strategies and try to answer the critical question on which many, in some sense, if not all, trading strategies are built: what happens with anomalies after their discovery? The paper’s authors, with the sweet, simple name Anomaly Discovery and Arbitrage Trading, analyze a stylized model of anomaly discovery, which has implications for both asset prices and arbitrageurs’ trading. Their original research produced an arbitrageur-based asset pricing model that shows that discovering an anomaly reduces the correlation between the returns of its long- and short-leg portfolios: HFs (professional arbitrageurs) use to increase (unwind) such trades when their wealth increases (decreases), further supporting the view that the discovery effects work through arbitrage trading. This effect is more substantial when arbitrageurs’ wealth is more volatile.

The topic of Smart-Beta is widely recognized, and we cover, monitor, and inform about its developments. The analyzed piece is about the importance of the correct rebalancing strategy and is kindly provided by Research Affiliates. According to a recent research article, investors should re-consider rebalancing with turnover constraint only those stocks that have the strongest signal. Prioritizing trades in stocks that are the farthest removed from the portfolio selection threshold is likely to minimize the expected need for additional trading.

Today, we will evaluate some specifics that are akin to the now second-largest market in the world – China. The abundance of “shell companies” creates a problem when researchers try to uncover sources of alpha in the Chinese market. We present recent research by Zhiyong Li and Xiao Rao (2022) that proposes a new alternative filter, which excludes the stocks with a high estimated shell probability when constructing equity factor models.

Factor investing and detailed allocation according to different sets of factors are lively researched topics with many unanswered and open questions. Many views are often conflicting and from both radical sides — on one, that only a few factors should be necessary to explain the cross-section of mean returns, which is attractive, especially because of its simplicity; on the other, that you can use complex (authors examine the 161 “clear predictors” and 44 “likely predictors”) combinations of factors from less known and unorthodox models, but falling into dangerous and often unexamined “factor zoo” with many undesirable, unexamined and non-controllable outcomes. A huge gap is often seen in finance between the theory of academia and practical applications (by PMs [portfolio managers]), and so is especially present in this one. Let’s take a look at what the complexity of factors does for various equities pricing models.

The problem of missing financial data is widespread yet often overlooked. An interesting insight into the structure of missing financial data provides a novel research paper by authors Bryzgalova et al. (2022). Firstly, examining the dataset of the 45 most popular characteristics in asset pricing, the authors found that missing data is frequent among almost any characteristic and affects all kinds of firms – small, large, young, mature, profitable, or in financial distress. The requirement of multiple characteristics simultaneously makes the problem even worse. Moreover, the data is not missing randomly; missing values clusters both cross-sectionally and over time. This may lead to a selection bias, making most famous ad-hoc approaches like the median invalid. Considering the abovementioned findings, the authors propose a novel imputation method based on Principal Component Analysis (PCA).

We have brought attention to the importance of evaluating factors models in different market regimes, and now, we will take a closer look at the size factor. Size [SMB (small minus big)] factor is a popular investment choice for asset investigation by many portfolio managers worldwide. The Size earned prominence in Fama and French’s three and five-factor models, and enjoy the continued discussion about its place in today’s portfolio construction. But it’s crucially important for investors seeking to capture the Size premium to realize that it is dependent on the monetary policy being pursued by the Federal Reserve, as the monetary easing seems to induce a Size premium.