Machine Learning will quite certainly continue to be a hot topic in 2024, and we are committed to bringing you new developments and keeping you in the loop. Today, we will review original research from Demirbaga and Xu (2023) that highlights the critical role of machine learning model execution time (combination of time for ML training and prediction) in empirical asset pricing. The temporal efficiency of machine learning algorithms becomes more pivotal, given the necessity for swift investment decision-making based on the predictions generated from a lot of real-time data. Their study comprehensively evaluates execution time across various models and introduces two time-saving strategies: feature reduction and a reduction in time observations. Notably, XGBoost emerges as a top-performing model, combining high accuracy with relatively low execution time compared to other nonlinear models.

Machine learning models have been successfully employed to cross-sectionally predict stock returns using lagged stock characteristics as inputs. The analyzed paper challenges the conventional wisdom that more training data leads to superior machine learning models for stock return predictions. Instead, the research demonstrates that training market capitalization group-specific machine learning models can yield superior results for stock-level return predictions and long-short portfolios. The paper showcases the impact of model regularization and highlights the importance of careful model design choices.

Traditional asset pricing literature has yielded numerous anomaly variables for predicting stock returns, but real-world outcomes often disappoint. Many of these predictors work best in small-cap stocks, and their profitability tends to decline over time, particularly in the United States. As market efficiency improves, exploiting these anomalies becomes harder. The fusion of machine learning with finance research offers promise. Machine learning can handle extensive data, identify reliable predictors, and model complex relationships. The question is whether these promises can deliver more accurate stock return predictions…

You may remember our blog post from the end of March, where we tested the current state-of-the-art LLM chatbot. Time flies fast. More than six months have passed since our last article, and half a year in a fast-developing field like Artificial intelligence feels like ten times more. So, we are here to revisit our article and try some new hacks! Has the OpenAI chatbot made any significant improvement? Can ChatGPT be used as a backtesting engine? We retake our risk parity asset allocation and test the limits of current AI development again!

Following the recent release of the popular large language model ChatGPT, the topic of machine learning and AI seems to have skyrocketed in popularity. The concept of machine learning is, however, a much older one and has been the topic of various research and technology projects over the last decade and even longer. In this article, we would like to discuss what machine learning is, how it can be used in quantitative trading, and how has the popularity of ML strategies increased over the years.

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.