Tag Archives: month

Dumb Alpha: Accelerating Momentum

By Joachim Klement, CFA I used to consider momentum investing an insult to my intelligence. After all, why should prices go up just because they have gone up in the past? Maybe this is what happens to you if you are bullied once too often in high school, but I have always taken the most pride in my non-consensus views. Momentum investing is the exact opposite. You invest in the popular stocks of the day hoping that the views of the general investing herd are right. More appealing to me are value and contrarian investing because they seem so much more “intelligent.” And in both of these investing traditions, success originates from betting against “the wisdom of the crowds.” Seemingly Stupid, But It Works There is plenty of evidence that momentum investing works in the medium term. While winning investments of the last three to five years tend to underperform as mean reversion kicks in and winning investments of the last month tend to underperform as well, winning investments of the last three to 12 months tend to outperform in the subsequent months. As Cliff Asness and his associates at AQR summarize , this momentum effect has persisted for more than 200 years, exists across many different asset classes, and can be profitably exploited by almost every investor. Today, dozens of systematic anomalies in asset returns are known, but many of them seem to be artifacts of data mining, as Campbell R. Harvey of Duke University and his colleagues have shown . Two of the few anomalies that survive their scrutiny: value and momentum. Dealing with Momentum Crashes The problem with momentum investing is that a market full of momentum investors will likely end up in a bubble as prices deviate more and more from fundamentals. In these circumstances, momentum investing will become very risky and investors might suffer severe losses from sudden changes in momentum that lead to so-called “momentum crashes.” Predicting bubbles and crashes is extremely difficult, but at the forefront of the current research is Didier Sornette at ETH Zurich. His research into log-periodicity and hyperbolic growth may be quite complex, but recently he and his associates published a paper that shows how one can improve the results of traditional momentum investing by looking at momentum acceleration. They calculate a simple measure of past change in momentum – for example, the return over the last six months minus the return over the preceding six months – and show that this simple difference of momentums can predict future performance. Stocks with the highest acceleration (i.e., those that have increasing momentum) tend to have higher returns in the future than stocks with lower acceleration. The returns generated with a simple acceleration strategy tend to be higher than those generated by momentum strategies. Creating Smarter Momentum Strategies To me, this is like smart momentum investing because, effectively, this approach tries to identify trends right when they take off, before more and more investors jump on the bandwagon. As more investors follow a specific trend, the trend accelerates until the influx of fresh investors abates and the trend decelerates again. Acceleration may thus allow momentum investors to invest in a trend early and get out before it is too late. The research on the acceleration factor is still in its infancy and my optimism may well be premature. After all, I am a person who frequently gets on a scale hoping that my weight has dropped only to find that the momentum has in fact accelerated in the opposite direction. But recent research from Morningstar indicates that the acceleration factor may not only be used to improve the returns of traditional momentum strategies, but may predict future episodes of negative skewness (i.e., market declines or even crashes). What seems clear at this point is that acceleration is clearly a dumb alpha generator that is so simple it is hard to believe investors hadn’t discovered it earlier. Disclaimer: Please note that the content of this site should not be construed as investment advice, nor do the opinions expressed necessarily reflect the views of CFA Institute.

The Best And Worst Of January: Market-Neutral Funds

Market-neutral mutual funds and ETFs posted aggregated loses of 0.14% in January, bringing their one-year totals through January 31 to a near-flat +0.01%. Market-neutral funds, which seek a balance between long and short equity positions in pursuit of returns that are uncorrelated with the broad market, have had an ultra-low beta of 0.13, relative to the Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, for the year ending January 31, but have averaged just 0.04% of alpha over that time. Average volatility of the funds has been low, as the category has an aggregate one-year standard deviation of just 4.89%; but risk-adjusted returns have been unimpressive, with the average fund in the category sporting a one-year Sharpe ratio of -0.16. Top Performers in January The three best-performing market-neutral funds in January were: QuantShares U.S. Market Neutral Anti-Beta ETF (NYSEARCA: BTAL ) Hussman Strategic Growth Fund Inv (MUTF: HSGFX ) Cognios Market Neutral Large Cap Fund Inst (MUTF: COGIX ) The QuantShares U.S. Market Neutral Anti-Beta ETF ( BTAL ) was January’s top-performing market-neutral product, posting monthly gains of a whopping 9.48%! For the year ending January 31, the fund was up 6.24%, generating 9.81% of alpha with a beta of 3.96, relative to the Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index. That high beta may not be attractive to market-neutral investors despite the bullish returns, and the ETF’s 13.58% one-year standard deviation falls at the top of the rankings for the category. Among the 58 funds in the category with a 1-year track record, BTAL earned a one-year Sharpe ratio – a measure of risk-adjusted performance – of 0.66, outperforming all but 13 funds. The Hussman Strategic Growth Fund Inv ( HSGFX ) was among the top-performing market-neutral mutual funds in January, ranking second only to the above ETF in the category. The fund’s January returns of +5.01% weren’t enough to push it into the black for the year, though, as it was down 6.91% for the 12 months ending January 31. HSGFX produced a -6.25% alpha over the past year, with a beta of 1.53 and volatility of 11.94%. This yielded a one-year Sharpe ratio of -0.55 – not the worst in the category, but certainly worse than the category average. The Cognios Market Neutral Large Cap Fund Inst ( COGIX ) ranked third in January, with returns of +4.29%. For the year ending January 31, the fund’s gains of 10.16% ranked in the top 2% of the Morningstar Market Neutral category. Those gains break down into a 1.66 beta and 10.27% alpha, with a very nice 1.26 Sharpe ratio and 7.88% volatility. The fund, which launched on the last day of 2012, had annualized three-year gains of 7.87%, earning it a five-star rating from Morningstar . Bottom Performers in January The three worst-performing market-neutral funds in January were: Highland HFR Event-Driven Activist ETF (NYSEARCA: DRVN ) Schooner Hedged Alternative Income Fund Inst (MUTF: SHAIX ) Turner Titan Long/Short Fund Inst (MUTF: TSPEX ) An ETF was the top-performing market-neutral fund in January, and an ETF was the worst performer: The Highland HFR Event-Driven Activist ETF ( DRVN ) fell 8.50% for the month, making it the category’s worst by a wide margin. The fund only launched on May 29, 2015, and thus, doesn’t have longer-term performance numbers to analyze. The Schooner Hedged Alternative Income Fund Inst ( SHAIX ) lost 3.91% in January, but still held on to a +1.88% one-year return through January 31. The fund had a beta of -1.58 over the past year and generated an alpha of 1.67%. Its annualized volatility of 6.62% was the lowest of any fund reviewed this month. All of this adds up to a decent Sharpe ratio of 0.30. Finally, the Turner Titan Long/Short Fund Inst (TPSEX) had the third-worst performance of all market-neutral funds in January, with its shares falling 3.24% for the month. Nevertheless, the fund maintained one-year returns of +3.50% (an alpha of 3.36%) through January 31, with a beta of -1.22. TPSEX had annualized volatility of 7.27% through January 31, and a Sharpe ratio of 0.50. Past performance does not necessarily predict future results. Jason Seagraves contributed to this article.