Trading strategies based on past returns: evidence from Germany

Among the various strategies studied in this paper, only momentum investing appears to earn persistently nonzero returns: From 1965 to 2014, the classical momentum strategy based on performance over the previous 2–12 months earned an average return of 1.57% per month (excluding microcap stocks and value-weighted returns). In the most recent 10-year period, this return was even larger—2.27%—which is much larger than in the USA. However, profitability net of transaction costs is weak because the strategy involves trading in disproportionately small stocks with high transaction costs, something that is particularly true for the loser portfolio. A strategy that concentrates only on the winner portfolio and thus avoids potential problems associated with (short) selling the costly loser portfolio appears to earn strong and persistently abnormal profits, even after transaction costs.     

Do Mutual Funds Profit from the Accruals Anomaly?

Using data on both fund stockholdings and fund returns, we examine whether actively managed equity mutual funds trade on and profit from the accruals anomaly. We find that few, if any, mutual funds trade on the anomaly. The top 10% of mutual funds that have the highest portfolio weights in low‐accruals stocks have a greater, but still relatively small, exposure to low‐accruals stocks. Nonetheless, these funds make significant profit net of actual transaction costs, exhibiting an average Fama‐French three‐factor alpha of 2.83% per year. We also find that these funds are smaller, less diversified, and exhibit higher fund return volatility and higher fund flow volatility.     

Household portfolio optimization with XTFs? An empirical study using the SHS-base

XTFs are plain-vanilla Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) which replicate a broad, internationally diversified market index. We question, if XTFs can optimize the performance of households’ portfolios when taking multiple relevant asset classes into account, not only stocks. As opposed to most existing studies, we apply representative household portfolio data to estimate households’ portfolios. Households’ portfolios in our sample show similar compositions and can be grouped into one of three stylized portfolio compositions which exhibit asset class concentrations on cash/savings, mutual funds and individual stocks. For each stylized portfolio, we first investigate if an easily investable 60/40 stock/bond XTF portfolio which is risk-adjusted (including (de-)leverage costs) to the risk of the stylized portfolios, achieves higher returns than the stylized portfolios. This is the case for all stylized portfolios, even those with concentrations on cash/savings or mutual funds. Second, we examine risk/return-changes when replacing the entire risky assets of the stylized portfolios with the 60/40 stock/bond XTF portfolio including transaction costs. This leads to return enhancements in all stylized portfolios and particularly in the portfolio with high stock concentrations to risk reductions. Overall, we find that XTFs are generally suitable to optimize the performance of households’ portfolios under consideration of multiple relevant asset classes.     

Paper profits or real money? Trading costs and stock market anomalies in country ETFs

Are the quantitative equity strategies for country selection robust to implementation costs? To answer this question, we conduct a comprehensive examination of the country-level strategies so far. We review, classify, and replicate 120 equity anomalies within a sample of 42 country equity indices for the years 1996–2017. Next, using ETF price and spread data, we test the effect of real-life conditions and trading costs on the anomaly performance. We also examine three cost-mitigation strategies: infrequent rebalancing, capitalization-based weighting, and focus on low-cost securities. We find that 46% of the long-only monthly rebalanced anomaly portfolios display significant alphas, concentrated strongly among strategies based on value, momentum, and liquidity. The effect of transaction costs proves largely lethal to returns, leaving only a handful of anomalies profitable. Less frequent rebalancing (annually) helps to regain the effectiveness of the strategies, increasing the monthly alphas on the long-only anomaly portfolios to 0.44% on average.     

Who gains and who loses on stock markets? Risk preferences and timing matter

This paper uses an agent-based multi-asset model to examine the effect of risk preferences and optimal rebalancing frequency on performance measures while tracking profit and risk-adjusted return. We focus on the evolution of portfolios managed by heterogeneous mean-variance optimizers with a quadratic utility function under different market conditions. We show that patient and risk-averse agents are able to outperform aggressive risk-takers in the long-run. Our findings also suggest that the trading frequency determined by the optimal tolerance for the deviation from portfolio targets should be derived from a tradeoff between rebalancing benefits and rebalancing costs. In a relatively calm market, the absolute range of 6% to 8% and the complete-way back rebalancing technique outperforms others. During particular turbulent periods, however, none of the existing rebalancing techniques improves tax-adjusted profits and risk-adjusted returns simultaneously.     

Short term persistence in mutual fund market timing and stock selection abilities

Using daily return data from 448 actively managed mutual funds over a recent 9-year period, we look for persistence, over two consecutive quarters, in the ability of funds to select individual stocks and time the market. That is, we decompose overall fund performance into excess returns resulting from stock selection and timing abilities and we separately test for persistence in each ability. We find persistence in the ability to time the market only among well performing funds and in the ability to select stocks only among the very best and worst performers. The existing literature patterns appear only when funds are ranked by their overall performance, which includes stock selection, market timing and fees. With respect to overall performance, there is persistence among most poorly performing and only the top well performing funds. Furthermore, the profitability of a winner-picking strategy depends on the rebalancing frequency and potentially the size of the investment. Small investors cannot profit, whereas large investors can take advantage of the class-A share fee structure and realize positive abnormal returns by annually rebalancing their portfolios.     

Surprises,sentiments, and the expectations hypothesis of the term structure of interest rates

Between 2005 and 2009, we document evident time-varying credit risk price discovery between the equity and credit default swap (CDS) markets for 174 US non-financial investment-grade firms. We test the economic significance of a simple portfolio strategy that utilizes fluctuation in CDS spreads as a trading signal to set stock positions, conditional on the CDS price discovery status of the reference entities. We show that a conditional portfolio strategy which updates the list of CDS-influenced firms over time, yields a substantively larger realized return net of transaction cost over the unconditional strategy. Furthermore, the conditional strategy’s Sharpe ratio outperforms a series of benchmark portfolios over the same trading period, including buy-and-hold, momentum and dividend yield strategies.     

Tactical allocation in commodity futures markets: Combining momentum and term structure signals

This paper examines the combined role of momentum and term structure signals for the design of profitable trading strategies in commodity futures markets. With significant annualized alphas of 10.14% and 12.66%, respectively, the momentum and term structure strategies appear profitable when implemented individually. With an abnormal return of 21.02%, our double-sort strategy that exploits both momentum and term structure signals clearly outperforms the single-sort strategies. This double-sort strategy can additionally be utilized as a portfolio diversification tool. The abnormal performance of the combined portfolios cannot be explained by a lack of liquidity, data mining or transaction costs.     

Multi-asset portfolio optimization and out-of-sample performance: an evaluation of Black–Litterman,mean-variance,and naïve diversification approaches

The Black–Litterman model aims to enhance asset allocation decisions by overcoming the problems of mean-variance portfolio optimization. We propose a sample-based version of the Black–Litterman model and implement it on a multi-asset portfolio consisting of global stocks, bonds, and commodity indices, covering the period from January 1993 to December 2011. We test its out-of-sample performance relative to other asset allocation models and find that Black–Litterman optimized portfolios significantly outperform naïve-diversified portfolios (1/N rule and strategic weights), and consistently perform better than mean-variance, Bayes–Stein, and minimum-variance strategies in terms of out-of-sample Sharpe ratios, even after controlling for different levels of risk aversion, investment constraints, and transaction costs. The BL model generates portfolios with lower risk, less extreme asset allocations, and higher diversification across asset classes. Sensitivity analyses indicate that these advantages are due to more stable mixed return estimates that incorporate the reliability of return predictions, smaller estimation errors, and lower turnover.     

FILTER RULE TESTS OF THE ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF SERIAL DEPENDENCIES IN DAILY STOCK RETURNS

In this paper we examine the ability of filter rules to predict variation in expected daily returns for a sample of 120 Dow Jones and S&P 100 stocks from 1963 through 1989. Equally weighted portfolios of filter-rule-traded stocks consistently outperform a buy-and-hold portfolio of the same stocks before accounting for transaction costs. The difference in returns between filter rule and buy-and-hold portfolios is eliminated by one-way transaction costs of 12 basis points. The economic significance of daily stock return autocorrelations is estimated. A marginal 1 percent increase in a first-order autocorrelation increases filter rule returns by an estimated 3.84 percent.     

The effect of growth opportunities on the market reaction to dividend cuts: evidence from the 2008 financial crisis

We consider returns from rebalanced and buy and hold portfolios consisting of the same stocks. Theoretical properties are derived using Jensen’s inequality and the Hölder’s Defect Formula. Simulations are used to confirm theory and to investigate ambiguous cases where theory is silent. Rebalancing decreases total return volatility, while buy and hold produces greater expected return. Results are more opaque with respect to Sharpe Ratios and expected geometric means. Our empirical tests are based on portfolios composed of the risk-free asset, CRSP market value returns and returns from five Fama–French industries. While rebalancing reduces volatility and momentum effect, our tests largely favor the buy and hold strategy due to the high relative returns enjoyed by stocks vis-a-vis the risk-free asset. Transactions cost for rebalancing the portfolio are economically negligible.     

How smart is money? An investigation into investor behaviour in the Australian managed fund industry

Gruber [Gruber, M., 1996. Another puzzle: the growth in actively managed mutual funds. Journal of Finance 51, 783–810] and Zheng [Zheng, L., 1999. Is money smart? A study of mutual fund investors’ fund selection ability. Journal of Finance 54, 901–933] document that managed fund investors demonstrate fund selection ability as they invest in funds whose subsequent performance is greater than that of funds from which they divest. This phenomenon has been since been termed the ‘smart money effect’. In contrast, Sapp and Tiwari [Sapp, T., Tiwari, A., 2004. Does stock return momentum explain the ‘smart money’ effect? Journal of Finance 59, 2605–2622] find that after controlling for stock return momentum, there is no evidence of a smart money effect. In this paper, we investigate whether a smart money effect exists in the Australian managed funds industry. The key findings of our paper are that there is a smart money effect in Australia and that stock return momentum does not explain this effect. We also find that the effect is not conditional on fund size. Our cross-sectional analysis indicates that investors are chasing funds that have performed well in the past and that cash flows to funds are persistent. However, we do not find any evidence that investors are pursuing funds that employ momentum trading strategies.     

Can Investors Profit from the Prophets? Security Analyst Recommendations and Stock Returns

We document that purchasing (selling short) stocks with the most (least) favorable consensus recommendations, in conjunction with daily portfolio rebalancing and a timely response to recommendation changes, yield annual abnormal gross returns greater than four percent. Less frequent portfolio rebalancing or a delay in reacting to recommendation changes diminishes these returns; however, they remain significant for the least favorably rated stocks. We also show that high trading levels are required to capture the excess returns generated by the strategies analyzed, entailing substantial transactions costs and leading to abnormal net returns for these strategies that are not reliably greater than zero.     

Better than the original? The relative success of copycat funds

We construct hypothetical copycat funds to investigate the performance of free-riding strategies that duplicate the disclosed asset holdings of actively managed mutual funds. On average, copycat funds are able to generate performance that is comparable to their target mutual funds, taking into account transaction costs and expenses. However, their relative success increased significantly after 2004 when the SEC imposed quarterly disclosure regulations on all mutual funds. We also find substantial cross-sectional dispersion in the relative performance of copycat funds. Free-riding on the portfolios disclosed by past winning funds and funds that disclose representative holdings generates significantly better performance net of trading costs and expenses than the vast majority of mutual funds. The results indicate that free-riding on disclosed fund holdings is an attractive strategy and suggest that mutual funds can suffer from the information disclosure requirements.     

The Post‐Cost Profitability of Momentum Trading Strategies: Further Evidence from the UK

This paper examines the post‐cost profitability of momentum trading strategies in the UK over the period 1988–2003 and provides direct evidence on stock concentration, turnover and trading cost associated with the strategy. We find that after factoring out transaction costs the profitability of the momentum strategy disappears for shorter horizons but remains for longer horizons. Indeed, for ranking and holding periods up to 6‐months, profitable momentum returns would not be available to most average investors as the cost of implementation outweighs the possible returns. However, we find post‐cost profitability for ranking and/or holding periods beyond 6 months as portfolio turnover and its associated cost reduces. We find similar results for a sub‐sample of relatively large and liquid stocks.     

The high-volume return premium: evidence from the Chinese stock market

Extreme trading activity contains valuable information about the future evolution of stock prices in the Chinese stock market. Over the next 30 trading days after the initial volume shocks, a high-low volume portfolio earns a net average cumulate return of 2.08% and a high-low volume and size portfolio earns 3.37%, suggesting that there exists a high-volume return premium and that Chinese investors favor high-volume small-size stocks. However, a volume momentum portfolio earns a −1.65% net average cumulative return, indicating that Chinese stocks exhibit a short-run reversal. Portfolio construction, market risk, and firm size do not seem to explain the results.     

Is the Mean Return of Hotel Real Estate Stocks Apt to Overreact to Past Performance?

This study examines the return patterns of hotel real estate stocks in the U.S. during the period from 1990 to 2007.We find that the magnitude and persistence of future mean returns of hotel real estate stocks can be predicted based on past returns, past earnings surprise, trading volume, firm size, and holding period. The empirical evidence found from this paper confirms that short-horizon contrarian profits can be partially explained by the lead-lag effects, while in the intermediate-term price momentum profits and long-term contrarian profits can be partially attributed to the firms’ overreaction to past price changes. Our results support the contrarian/overreaction hypothesis, and they are inconsistent with the Fama-French risk-based hypothesis or the underreaction hypothesis. The study also confirms the earning underreaction hypothesis and finds the high volume stocks tend to earn high momentum profits in the intermediate-term. The study finds that the earning momentum effect for hotel stocks is more short-lived and smaller in magnitude than the market average. Price momentum portfolios (or contrarian portfolios) of big hotel firms underperform small hotel firms and the hotel price momentum portfolio (or contrarian portfolios) significantly underperform the overall market over the intermediate-term (or the long-term). These findings imply that the U.S. hotel industry, particularly the big hotel firms, have experienced relatively conservative growth in the sample period. It suggests that a conservative hotel growth strategy accompanied by an internal-oriented financing policy is proper in a period of prosperity.     

Industry momentum strategies and autocorrelations in stock returns

In this study, we examine the sources of profits to momentum strategies of buying past winner industry portfolios and selling short past loser industry portfolios. We decompose the profit into (1) own-autocovariances in industry portfolio returns, (2) cross-autocovariances among industry portfolio returns, and (3) cross-sectional dispersion in mean portfolio returns. Our empirical results show that the industry momentum effect is mainly driven by the own-autocorrelation in industry portfolio returns, not by return cross-autocorrelations or by cross-sectional differences in mean returns. Indeed, the industry momentum strategy generates statistically significant profits only when own-autocorrelations are positive and statistically significant. The evidence is consistent with several behavioral models (e.g. Journal of Financial Economics 45 (1998) 307; Journal of Finance 53 (1998) 1839; Journal of Finance 54 (1999) 2143) that suggest positive own-autocorrelations in stock returns and hence the price momentum.     

Cash, investments and asset returns

We use an investment-based asset pricing model to examine the effect of firms’ investments relative to cash holdings on stock returns, assuming holding cash lowers transaction costs. We find that mimicking portfolios based on investments relative to non-cash capital and based on investments relative to cash capital are priced for various testing portfolios. On average, momentum stocks and growth stocks are more sensitive to the factor constructed using investment relative to cash.     

Small-cap equity mutual fund managers as liquidity providers

This paper examines the relation between the performance of small-cap equity mutual funds and the liquidity characteristics of their asset holdings. We study the trading behavior of fund managers and show that on average, they tend to buy less liquid stocks and sell more liquid stocks. We introduce the notion of net “liquidity creation” by fund managers and examine its role in explaining the cross section of small-cap equity mutual fund returns. Our empirical results show that on average, small-cap mutual fund managers are able to earn an additional 1.5% return per year as compensation for providing such liquidity services to the market.