In this second installment in a series of three articles, we will continue with our goal to construct a market timing strategy that would sidestep the equity market during bear markets. A few days ago, we started with price-based market timing strategies. Today, we will focus on macroeconomic indicators and predictors derived from the movements in the commodity markets.

Arbitrage is a central concept in finance. It is defined as simultaneous long and short positions in similar assets to exploit mispricing. Hedge funds experienced fast growth over the past three decades, as real-world arbitrageurs as a group. As they increasingly influence the financial market, it is important to understand the economic drivers of hedge fund returns. Therefore we would like to present a paper dealing with the development of a parsimonious factor model, based on anomalies, to explain hedge fund returns.

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 theme of rebalancing in longer-term investing is neglected but important as it influences the overall portfolio’s performance and risk. Unfortunately, many investors are inconsistent in choosing dates for their rebalances of portfolios, resulting in hardly predictable results (whether positively or negatively affecting it), and not contributing to handling risk management properly. The following article presents our analysis of the impact of rebalancing on portfolio returns. It also serves as an introduction to the methodology for an upcoming Quantpedia Pro report that our users would be able to use to quickly assess the impact of the rebalancing period on any selected combination of trading strategies, custom equity curves, and ETFs.

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.

Today, we analyze how all the factors we use in our Multi-Factor Regression Model performed during various Market Cycles (in sample), including the Bull/ Bear market, the High/ Low inflation, and the Rising/ Falling interest rates. Further, we also examine the performance of a Balanced Portfolio ETF – AOR, over past 100 years. This is done by creating the Factor AOR, which we constructed using our Multi-Factor Regression Model from AOR ETF. In addition to a chart comparison of equity curves, we also compare the performance of factor AOR to that of all the factors by means of risk/return tables, i.e. quantitatively. All the tables are sorted based on the Sharpe ratio from the best (at the top) to the worst (at the bottom).