Factor investing

An autonomous research agent replicated nine published US-equity anomalies on clean, survivorship-free data. The question is not only what it found (out-of-sample decay is the rule, and on a faithful build none survive — the lone apparent survivor turned out to be a construction error the discipline caught) but whether you can trust an agent to find it, and the checks that decide the answer.

What if a meaningful part of a usual trading strategy’s performance has nothing to do with your signal—but simply when you rebalance? A recent paper written by Carlo Zarattini & Alberto Pagani highlights a largely underestimated risk in systematic investing: rebalance timing luck (RTL). For practitioners running rotation or factor strategies, this is not noise—it’s a structural source of dispersion. Using a concentrated U.S. equity momentum strategy, the authors show that identical portfolios differing only by rebalance day can diverge by as much as ~350 bps in annual returns, compounding into dramatically different terminal wealth outcomes.

Carbon that has not yet been emitted should not be used to predict stock returns. While this sounds obvious, prior research papers have done exactly that. This critical observation forms the basis for the Robeco Institutional Asset Management research team’s re-examination of the relationship between climate risk and asset pricing. Investors and academics alike have sought to understand how environmental factors influence stock returns, often assuming that higher emitters command a risk premium. However, the timing of data availability is crucial in quantitative strategy formation, and misalignments here can lead to spurious conclusions about the pricing of carbon emissions.

Quantitative strategy research is rarely about discovering a single “perfect” trading rule. In practice, robust portfolios emerge from a structured research process that filters ideas, evaluates evidence, and combines complementary strategies.

To make the process concrete, we use value-based equity strategies as our working example. However, the goal of the article is not to identify the ultimate value strategy, but to illustrate how a systematic research workflow can be used to build a diversified portfolio of strategies around any investment hypothesis.

The goal of our article is to examine the long-term relationship between small value and large growth stocks using more than 100 years of data and test whether the spread between small value and large growth portfolios shows trends that could help investors switch between the two styles. Using the Fama and French 2×3 and 5×5 size and book-to-market portfolios, we construct the small value minus large growth (SV–LG) spread and apply simple trend-following signals based on moving averages and momentum with horizons ranging from 3 to 12 months. Our results show that trend-following strategies are able to capture part of the value outperformance on the long side. Timing periods when growth stocks dominate is much more difficult.

An interesting transaction-level study we take a closer look at today asks who takes the other side of trades when the most pro-cyclical players in markets — primarily asset managers — buy in booms and sell in busts. The paper uses comprehensive transaction data across major European equity and interest-rate cash and derivatives markets to classify counterparties by sector and to measure, at horizons from 15 minutes to one month, which sectors absorb net flows from pro-cyclical investors. Dealer banks emerge as the dominant liquidity providers across asset classes. At intraday and daily horizons, dealer banks absorb the vast majority of the net flow coming from asset managers. Other active liquidity sources, such as principal trading firms and hedge funds, play only minor roles.