Would you like to see the performance of your portfolio 100 years back in history? Do you want to analyze the risk of your strategy under 100 years of real historical scenarios? All of these, and much more, will be soon (in a few days) available for Quantpedia Pro subscribers. How? We will explain today how we can model a 100-year history of your portfolio.
Over the past several decades, economists and quantitative scientists found a very large number of asset pricing anomalies and published numerous research papers about their findings, and this is known in the financial jargon as “factor zoo.” However, one strong underlying force might drive the performance of many of those anomalies. What’s that force? The level and trend in the interest rates, as in almost all parts of the developed world, there was a long-term steady decline in rates and inflation for nearly 40 years. We use the past tense as it seems that the situation changed at the beginning of this year…
Van Binsbergen, Jules H. and Ma, Liang and Schwert, Michael (Sep 2022) touched on this subject and made a careful examination of both past factor research and found that a significant part of published papers and developed models are sometimes unknowingly exposed to fitting to low or even zero interest rates.
If you follow Quantpedia’s blogs, you probably know that Quantpedia PRO already contains multiple risk management and portfolio construction tools for your quantitative investment strategies. The newest Quantpedia PRO tool (available in a few days) will analyze something completely different, though – how to manage multi-strategy portfolios. The newest Quantpedia PRO tool (available in a few days) will analyze something completely different, though – how to manage multi-strategy portfolios. You can easily apply these multi-strategy overlays to various types of underlying – ETFs, systematic strategies, multi-asset portfolios, or multi-strategy portfolios. This article again serves as a primer for the new report’s methodology.
Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) have been recently booming in popularity and enjoy great praise for their flexibility and accessibility in terms of liquidity. They allow investors convenient exposure to less liquid assets such as corporate bonds. But liquid ETF instrument based on illiquid assets is a recipe for a lot of hidden problems (and sometimes disasters), especially in such a turbulent period on fixed income markets as it’s now. There are various certain specifics which come with creation of new ETFs and problems for buying of underling prospects to match the fund’s NAV. Chris Reilly’s paper (2022) revolves around the point that ETF managers encourage Authorized Participants (APs) to more aggressively arbitrage tracking errors to the benefit of ETF investors while simultaneously allowing APs to interact strategically with ETF portfolios at the expense of ETF investors. Underlying asset liquidity is a first-order determinant of optimal security design for ETFs. While these ETFs do underperform their benchmark by greater than their stated net expense ratios (as much as claimed 48 bps p.a.), they still offer a liquid alternative for investors that do not have the resources to manage their own fixed income portfolio. This summary could be taken as a good reminder that investors’ expenses to obtain liquidity in the fixed income space are often quite substantial.
Investing has been a reliable way to compound one’s inheritance over ages known throughout human history. But different monetary and fiscal situations, especially during times of uncertainty and extreme stress, force both individuals and institutions to adjust their financial habits. A recent research paper written by Guido Baltussen, Laurens Swinkels, and Pim van Vliet analyzed large samples of data starting from the 19th century and brought unique perspectives on how various asset classes perform during “quiet, good” periods and, on the other side, economic turmoil. Research summarized very actual topics of investing during those different cycles and what inflation does to returns across equities, bonds, and cash.
Passive index funds are believed to offer low fees, nearly limitless liquidity, very low trading costs and (most of the time) they beat most active managers. Although not all of the above are accurate, there are still many arguments in favour of passive indexing. However, what is often left forgotten are avoidable travails linked to index funds. In general, after an index rebalances, traditional cap-weighted index funds buy high and sell low. Their tendency to add recent highfliers and drop unloved value stocks is what causes investors to lose. Arnott et al. (2022) target the stock selection problem around index rebalancing and propose several ideas on how to adjust index strategies in order to earn above-market returns. They present simple ways to construct an index, thanks to which it is possible to reduce both negative effects of buy-high/sell-low dynamic and the turnover costs of cap-weighted indices.
