Factor allocation

In a game of poker, it is usually said that when you do not know who the patsy is, you’re the patsy. The world of finance is not different. It is good to know who your counterparties are and which investors/traders drive the return of anomalies you focus on. We discussed that a few months ago in a short blog article called “Which Investors Drive Factor Returns?“. Different sets of investors and their approaches drive different anomalies, and we have one more paper that helps uncover the motivation of investors and traders for trading and their impact on anomaly returns.

The motivation for this study comes from the idea of simplifying the concept of relative valuation among the countries. There exist several ideas for relative value approaches that compare the “visible price” (or market capitalization) of the stock market to some unseen “intrinsic value” of the market. The ideas of what we can use to measure the unseen “intrinsic value” of each individual country/market are numerous – it may be a number derived from GDP (like in a Buffet Indicator), total earnings of listed companies in the selected country (Shiller’s CAPE ratio), or ratios derived from yields, demographic, etc., etc. We asked ourselves – can we create a relative valuation model and use just the price data?

Low volatility investing is an appealing approach to compound wealth in the stock market for the long term. This particular factor investing style exploits the popular naive notion that lower (higher) risk must always equal lower (higher) overall returns. But in fact, this naive assumption is not true, as low-volatility investments often yield more than their high-volatility counterparts. While low-volatility investing has many advantages, it also results in some disadvantages. How to overcome them? Bernhard Breloer, Martin Kolrep, Thorsten Paarmann, and Viorel Roscovan, in their study Dissecting the Performance of Low Volatility Investing, propose a solution.

Today’s article focuses on investigating long-short anomaly portfolio return predictability in international stock markets, which often undergo mispricing due to investors’ sentiment. A paper by Jiang, Fuwei et al. (Apr 2023), suggests using the AAIG (Global Anomaly Index), and it examines the ability of the aggregate anomaly index to predict future returns in 33 stock markets. While previous research finds that a high aggregate anomaly measure predicts a low return in the U.S. market, this study further demonstrates that the global component of AAI (aggregate anomaly indices) is the key that drives international return predictability and reveals that the global anomaly index is a strong and robust predictor of equity risk premiums not just in the U.S. market but also in international markets, both in- and out-of-sample, consistently delivering significant economic values.

The latest paper by Sak, H. and Chang, M. T., and Huang, T. delves into the world of financial anomalies, exploring the rise and fall of characteristics in what researchers refer to as the “factor zoo.” While significant research effort is devoted to discovering new anomalies, the study highlights the lack of attention given to the evolution of these characteristics over time. By leveraging machine learning (ML) techniques, the paper conducts a comprehensive out-of-sample factor zoo analysis, seeking to uncover the underlying factors driving stock returns. The researchers train ML models on a vast database of firm and trading characteristics, generating a diverse range of linear and non-linear factor structures. The ML portfolio formed based on these findings outperforms entrenched factor models, presenting a novel approach to understanding financial anomalies. Notably, the paper identifies two subsets of dominant characteristics – one related to investor-level arbitrage constraint and the other to firm-level financial constraint – which alternately play a significant role in generating the ML portfolio return.

Cremers, Liu, B. Riley (Apr 2023) share their view on and try to answer the question: how well do factor investing funds perform? They conclude that, on average, factor-investing funds do not outperform. But using active characteristic share (ACS)—an adaption of Cremers and Petajisto’s (2009) original active share measure—, the authors demonstrate that the factor investing funds that match indexes the most have significantly better performance. An equal-weighted portfolio of factor investing funds in the lowest tercile of ACS outperforms an equal-weighted portfolio of funds in the highest tercile by 3.82% per year (t-stat = 3.89) using the CAPM and by 1.08% per year (t-stat = 2.01) using the CPZ6 model.