Short Interest as a Factor

Readers of zerohedge.com will no doubt be impressed by this chart and the accompanying article:

Cumulative Returns of Most Shorted Stocks in 2013

Indeed, short interest (expressed as the number of shares shorted divided by the total number of shares outstanding) has long been thought to be a useful factor. To me, the counter-intuitive wisdom is that the more a stock is shorted, the better is its performance. You might explain that by saying this is a result of the "short squeeze", when there is jump in price perhaps due to news and stock lenders are eager to sell the stock they own. If you have borrowed this stock to short, your borrowed stock may be recalled and you will be forced to buy cover at this most inopportune time. But this is an unsatisfactory explanation, as this will result only in a short term (upward) momentum in price, not the sustained out-performance of the most shorted stocks. This long-term out-performance seems to suggest that short sellers are less informed than the average trader, which is odd.

Whatever the explanation, I am intrigued to find out if short interest really is a good factor to incorporate into a comprehensive factor model over the long term.

The result? Not particularly impressive. It turns out that 2013 was one of the best years for this factor (hence the impressive chart above). For that year, a daily-rebalanced long-short portfolio (long 50 most shorted stocks and short 50 least shorted stocks in the SPX) returned 6.9%, with a Sharpe ratio of 2 and a Calmar ratio of 2.9. However, if we extend our backtest to 2007, the APR is only 2.8%, with a Sharpe ratio of 0.5 and a Calmar ratio of 0.3. This backtest was done using survivorship-bias-free data from CRSP, with short interest data provided by Compustat.

Here is the cumulative returns chart from 2007-2013:

Cumulative Returns of LS Portfolio based on Short Interest: 2007-2013

Interesting, trying this on the SP600 small-cap universe yielded negative returns, possibly meaning that short-sellers of small caps do have superior information.

I promise, this will be the last time I talk about factors in a while!

===
Tech Update:

I was shocked to learn that Matlab now offers licenses for just $149 - the so-called Matlab Home  (h/t: Ken H.) In addition, its Trading Toolbox now offers API connection to Interactive Brokers, in addition to a few other brokerages. I am familiar with both Matlab and R, and while I am impressed by the large number of free, sophisticated statistical packages in R, I still stand by Matlab as the most productive platform for developing our own strategies. The Matlab development (debugging) environment is just that much more polished and easy-to-use. The difference is bigger than Microsoft Word vs. Google Docs.

A reader Ravi B. told me that there is a website called www.seasonalgo.com if you want to try out different seasonal futures strategies.

Finally, a startup at inovancetech.com offers machine learning algorithms to help you find the best combination of technical indicators for trading FX.

===
Workshops Update:

I am now offering the Millisecond Frequency Trading (MFT) Workshop as an online course on June 26- 27. Previously, I have only offered it live in London and to a few institutional investors. It has two main parts:

Part 1: introducing techniques for traders who want to avoid HFT predators.

Part 2: how to backtest a strategy that requires tick data with millisecond resolution using Matlab.

The example strategy used is based on order flow. For more details, please visit epchan.com/my-workshops.

Additionally, I will be teaching the Mean Reversion and Momentum (but not MFT) workshops in Hong Kong on June 17-20.

Update on the fundamentals factors: their effect on small cap stocks

In my last post, I reported that the fundamental factors used by Lyle and Wang seem to generate no returns on SP500 large cap stocks. These fundamental factors are the growth factor return-on-equity (ROE), and the value factor book-to-market ratio (BM).

I have since studied the effect of these factors on SP600 small cap stocks since 2004, using a survivorship-bias-free database combining information from both Compustat and CRSP. This time, the factors do produce an annualized average return of 4.7% and a Sharpe ratio of 0.8. Though these numbers are nowhere near the 26% return that Lyle and Wang found, they are still statistically significant. I have plotted the equity curve below.

Equity curve of long-short small-cap portfolio based on regression on ROE and BM factors (2004-2013)

One may wonder whether ROE or BM is the more important factor. So I run a simpler model which uses one factor at a time to rank stocks every day. We buy stocks in top decile of ROE, and short the ones in the bottom decile. Ditto for BM. I found an annualized average return of 5% with a Sharpe ratio of 0.8 using ROE only, and only 0.8% with a Sharpe ratio of 0.09 using BM only. The value factor BM is almost completely useless! Indeed, if we were to first sort on ROE, pick the top and bottom deciles, and then sort on BM, and pick the top and bottom halves, the resulting average return is almost the same as sorting on ROE alone. I plotted the equity curve for sorting on ROE below.

Equity curve of long-short small-cap portfolio based on top and bottom deciles of ROE (2004-2013)

Notice the sharp drawdown from 2008-05-30 to 2008-11-04, and the almost perfect recovery since then. This mirrors the behavior of the equity market itself, which raises the question of why we bother to construct a long-short portfolio at all as it provides no hedge against the downturn. It is also interesting to note that this factor does not exhibit "momentum crash" as explained in a previous article: it does not suffer at all during the market recovery. This means we should not automatically think of a fundamental growth factor as similar to price momentum.

My conclusion was partly corroborated by I. Kaplan who has written a preprint on a similar topic. He found that a long-short portfolio created using the ratio EBITA/Enterprise Value on large caps generates a Sharpe ratio of about 0.6 but with very little drawdown unlike the ROE factor that I studied above as applied to small caps.

As Mr. Kaplan noted, these results are in some contradiction not only with Lyle and Wang's paper, but also with the widely circulated paper by Cliff Asness et al. These authors found the the BM factor works in practically every asset class. Of course, the timeframe of their research is much longer than my focus above. Furthermore, they have excluded financial and penny stocks, though I did not find such restrictions to have great impact in my study of large cap portfolios. In place of a fundamental growth factor, these authors simply used price momentum over an 11-month period (skipping the most recent month), and found that this is also predictive of future quarterly returns.

Finally, we should note that the ROE and BM factors here are quite similar to the Return-on-Capital and Earnings Yield factors used by Joel Greenblatt in his famous "Little Book That Still Beats The Market". One wonders if those factors suffer a similar drawdown during the financial crisis.

===

My online Momentum Workshop will be offered on May 5-7. Please visit epchan.com/my-workshops for registration details. Furthermore, I will be teaching my Mean Reversion, Momentum, and Millisecond Frequency Trading workshops in Hong Kong on June 17-20.

Fundamental factors revisited, with a technology update

Contrary to my tradition of alerting readers to new and fancypants factors for predicting stock returns (while not necessarily endorsing any of them),  I report that Lyle and Wang have recently published new research demonstrating the power of two very familiar factors: book-to-market ratio (BM) and return-on-equity (ROE).

The model is simple: at the end of each calendar quarter, compute the log of BM and ROE for every stock based on the most recent earnings announcement, and regress the next-quarter return against these two factors. One subtlety of this regression is that the factor loadings (log BM and ROE) and the future returns for stocks within an industry group are pooled together.  This makes for a cross-sectional factor model, since the factor loadings (log BM and ROE) vary by stock but the factor returns (the regression coefficients) are the same for all stocks within an industry group. (A clear elucidation of cross-sectional vs time-series factor models can be found in Section 17.5 of Ruppert.) If we long stocks within the top decile of expected returns and short the bottom decile and hold for a quarter, the expected annualized average returns of this model is an eye-popping 26% or so.

I have tried to replicate these results, but unfortunately I couldn't. (My program generated a measly, though positive, APR.) The data requirement and the program are both quite demanding. I am unable to obtain the 60 quarters of fundamental data that the authors recommended - I merely have 40. I used the 65 industry groups defined by the GIC industry classifications, while the authors used the 48 Fama-French industry groups. Finally, I am unsure how to deal with stocks which have negative book values or earnings, so I omit those quarterly data. If any of our readers are able to replicate these results, please do let us know.

The authors and I used Compustat database for the fundamental data. If you do not have subscription to this database, you can consider a new, free, website called Thinknum.com. This website makes available all data extracted from companies' SEC filings starting in 2009 (2011 for small caps). There is also a neat integration with R described here.

*** Update ***

I forgot to point out one essential difference between the method in the cited paper and my own effort: the paper used the entire stock universe except for stocks cheaper than $1, while I did my research only on SP500 stocks (Hat tip to Prof. Lyle who clarified this). This turns out to be of major importance:  a to-be-published paper by our reader I. Kaplan reached the conclusion that "Linear models based on value factors do not predict future returns for the S&P 500 universe for the past fifteen years (from 1998 to 2013)."


===

Speaking of new trading technology platforms that provide historical data for backtesting (other than Thinknum.com and the previously mentioned Quantopian.com), here is another interesting one: QuantGo.com. It provides institutional intraday historical data through its data partners from 1 minute bars to full depth of book in your own private cloud running on Amazon EC2 account for a low monthly rate. They give unlimited access to years of historical data for a monthly data access fee, for examples US equities Trades and Quotes (TAQ) for an unlimited number of years are $250 per month of account rental, OPRA TAQ $250 permonth and tagged news is $200. Subscribers control and manage their own computer instances, so can install and use whatever software they want on them to backtest or trade using the data. The only hitch is that you are not allowed to download the vendor data to your own computer, it has to stay in the private cloud.

===

Follow @chanep to receive my occasional tweets on interesting quant trading industry news and articles.

===

My online Mean Reversion Strategies Workshop will be offered on April 1-3. Please visit epchan.com/my-workshops for registration details. Furthermore, I will be teaching my Mean Reversion, Momentum, and Millisecond Frequency Trading workshops in London on March 17-21, and in Hong Kong on June 17-20.

Variance Risk Premium for Return Forecasting

Folklore has it that VIX is a reasonable leading indicator of risk. Presumably that means if VIX is high, then there is a good chance that the future return of the SP500 will be negative. While I have found some evidence that this is true when VIX is particularly elevated, say above 30, I don't know if anyone has established a negative correlation between VIX and future returns. (Contemporaneous VIX and SP500 levels do have a very nice linear relationship with negative slope.)

Interestingly, the situation is much clearer if we examine the Variance Risk Premium (VRP), which is defined as the difference between a model-free implied volatility (of which VIX is the most famous example) and the historical volatility over a recent period. The relationship between VRP and future returns is examined in a paper by Chevallier and Sevi in the context of OVX, which is the CBOE Crude Oil Volatility Index. They have found that there is a statistically significant negative linear relationship between VRP and future 1-month crude oil futures (CL) returns. The historical volatility is computed over 5-minute returns of the most recent trading day. (Why 5 minutes? Apparently this is long enough to avoid the artifactual volatility induced by bid-ask bounce, and short enough to truly sample intraday volatility.)  If you believe in the prescience of options traders, it should not surprise you that the regression coefficient is negative (i.e. a high VRP predicts a lower future return).

I have tested a simple trading strategy based on this linear relationship. Instead of using monthly returns, I use VRP to predict daily returns of CL. It is very similar to a mean-reverting Bollinger band strategy, except that here the "Bollinger bands" are constructed out of moving first and third quartiles of VRP with a 90-day lookback. Given that VRP is far from normally distributed, I thought it is more sensible to use quartiles rather than standard deviations to define the Bollinger bands. So we buy a front contract of CL and hold for just 1 day if VRP is below its moving first quartile, and short if VRP is above its moving third quartile. It gives a decent average annual return of 17%, but performance was poor in 2013.

Naturally, one can try this simple trading strategy on the E-mini SP500 future ES also. This time, VRP is VIX minus the historical volatility of ES.  Contrary to folklore, I find that if we regress the future 1 day ES return against VRP, the regression coefficient is positive. This means that an increase of VIX relative to historical volatility actually predicts an increase in ES! (Does this mean investors are overpaying for put options on SPX for portfolio protection?) Indeed, the opposite trading rules from the above give positive returns: we should buy ES if VRP is above its moving third quartile, and short ES if VRP is below its moving first quartile. The annualized return is 6%, but performance in 2013 was also poor.

As the authors of the paper noted, whether or not VRP is a strong enough stand-alone predictor of returns, it is probably useful as an additional factor in a multi-factor model for CL and ES. If any reader know of other volatility index like VIX and OVX, please do share with us in the comments section!

===

My online Backtesting Workshop will be offered on February 18-19. Please visit epchan.com/my-workshops for registration details. Furthermore, I will be teaching my Mean Reversion, Momentum, and Millisecond Frequency Trading workshops in London on March 17-21, and in Hong Kong on June 17-20.

A stock factor based on option volatility smirk

A reader pointed out an interesting paper that suggests using option volatility smirk as a factor to rank stocks. Volatility smirk is the difference between the implied volatilities of the OTM put option and the ATM call option. (Of course, there are numerous OTM and ATM put and call options. You can refer to the original paper for a precise definition.) The idea is that informed traders (i.e. those traders who have a superior ability in predicting the next earnings numbers for the stock) will predominately buy OTM puts when they think the future earnings reports will be bad, thus driving up the price of those puts and their corresponding implied volatilities relative to the more liquid ATM calls. If we use this volatility smirk as a factor to rank stocks, we can form a long portfolio consisting of stocks in the bottom quintile, and a short portfolio with stocks in the top quintile. If we update this long-short portfolio weekly with the latest volatility smirk numbers, it is reported that we will enjoy an annualized excess return of 9.2%.

As a standalone factor, this 9.2% return may not seem terribly exciting, especially since transaction costs have not been accounted for. However, the beauty of factor models is that you can combine an arbitrary number of factors, and though each factor may be weak, the combined model could be highly predictive. A search of the keyword "factor" on my blog will reveal that I have talked about many different factors applicable to different asset classes in the past. For stocks in particular, there is a short term factor as simple as the previous 1-day return that worked wonders. Joel Greenblatt's famous "Little Book that Beats the Market" used 2 factors to rank stocks (return-on-capital and earnings yield) and generated an APR of 30.8%.

The question, however, is how we should combine all these different factors. Some factor model aficionados will no doubt propose a linear regression fit, with future return as the dependent variable and all these factors as independent variables. However, my experience with this method has been unrelentingly poor: I have witnessed millions of dollars lost by various banks and funds using this method. In fact, I think the only sensible way to combine them is to simply add them together with equal weights. That is, if you have 10 factors, simply form 10 long-short portfolios each based on one factor, and combine these portfolios with equal capital. As Daniel Kahneman said, "Formulas that assign equal weights to all the predictors are often superior, because they are not affected by accidents of sampling".

An update on why quantitative funds are losing money recently

A story just came through Dow Jones newswire ("How Black Boxes Became Pandora's Boxes" by Spencer Jakab) suggesting that recent losses are due to factor models gone bad. Given my expressed distaste for such models, that should have been my first guess instead of blaming the "exotic" models!

A factor model that I can believe in

Some of you may remember that I preached about the uselessness of factor models in predicting short term return, and the unreliability of many exotic factors even for the long term. In particular, factor models are especially inaccurate in valuing growth stocks (i.e. stocks with low book-to-market ratio), as evidenced by such models' poor performance during the internet bubble. This is not surprising because most commonly used factors rely on historical sales or earnings measures to judge companies, while many growth stocks have very short history and little or no earnings to report. However, as pointed out recently by Barry Rehfeld in the New York Times, Professor Mohanram of Columbia University has devised a simple factor model that rely on 8 very convincing factors to score growth stocks. These factors are:

1. Normalized return on assets.
2. Normalized return on assets based on cash flow.
3. Cash flow minus net income. (i.e. negative of accrual.)
4. Normalized earnings variability.
5. Normalized sale growth variability.
6. Normalized R&D expenses.
7. Normalized capital spending.
8. Normalized advertising expenses.

By "normalized", I mean we need to standardize the numbers with respect to the industry median. To Prof. Mohanram's credit, he claims only that these factors will generate returns after 1 or 2 years, not the short-term returns that many traders expect factor models to deliver. The excess annual return based on buying the group of stocks with the highest score and shorting the group with the lowest score is a good 21.4%. Not only does the combined score generate good returns, but each individual factor also delivers good correlation with future returns, proving that the performance is not due to some questionable alchemy of mixing the factors. For example, it makes good intuitive sense that extra spending on R&D and advertising will boost future earnings for growth stocks.

Interestingly, Prof. Mohanram pointed out that most of the out-performance of the high-score stocks occur around earnings announcements. Hence for those investors who don't like holding a long-short portfolio for a full year, they can just trade during earnings season.

One caveat of this research is that it was based on 1979-99 data (at least for the preprint version that I read). As many traders have found out, strategies that work spectacularly in the 90's don't necessarily work in the last few years. At the very least, the returns are usually greatly diminished. In the future, I hope to perform my own research to see whether this strategy is still holding up with the latest data.

Seven factors that capture most of hedge funds' returns

The Economist magazine just published an article that talked about "synthetic" hedge funds, or replicating hedge fund returns using factor models. The original research cited can be found here. (For those of you who want a primer on factor models, I have written an article on this topic previously.) The seven factors are (are you ready?):

1) excess return on the S&P 500 index;
2) a small minus big factor constructed as the difference of the Wilshire small and large
capitalization stock indices;
3) excess returns on portfolios of lookback straddle options on currencies;
4) excess returns on portfolios of lookback straddle options on commodities;
5) excess returns on portfolios of lookback straddle options on bonds;
6) the yield spread of the US ten year treasury bond over the three month T-bill, adjusted for the duration of the ten year bond;
7) the change in the credit spread of the Moody's BAA bond over the 10 year treasury bond, also appropriately adjusted for duration.

According to the researchers, factors 3)-5) are constructed to replicate the maximum possible return to trend-following strategies on their respective underlying assets.

See, it is not that difficult to run a hedge fund after all!

Do Factor Models Work in the Short Term?

Besides pair-trading, “factor model” is the most popular workhorse of the statistical arbitrageur. In a previous article, I discussed the most well-known factor model – the Fama-French Three-Factor model, with the general market index returns, the market-cap of the stock, and the book-to-price ratio as the only three factors driving returns. However, as I explained earlier, this factor model has a very long horizon. For the quantitative trader who needs to make money every month, the natural instinct is to look for a more “sophisticated” factor that works in the short term, or even to develop some kind of model that use different factors every month in response to “market condition”. Alas, other than hearsays and second-hand gossips, I have never witnessed an actual success of this approach in a hedge fund or proprietary trading group – at least a success that lasts for more than a year.

I am of course not privy to the current performance numbers of factor models run by some of the most successful hedge funds today. However, there is a class of ETF (called “XTF”) marketed by PowerShares Capital Management that uses a similar factor approach for its stock selection criteria. According to media reports, each stock in these XTF’s is scored by 25 variables such as cash flow, earnings growth, price momentum, etc. This sounds like a classic factor model to me. This model is reportedly designed by the quantitative unit at American Stock Exchange. To find out if they have indeed discovered the holy grail of factor models, I looked at the performance of these XTF compared to their benchmarks.

Here I tabulate the XTF’s for each market cap and value category, their corresponding benchmark market index ETF’s, and finally the YTD differential returns up to December 13, 2006. (PJG and PJM have too short a history for this comparison.)

	Value	Blend	Growth
Large cap	PWV-IVE=4.8%	PWC-IVV=-3.6%	PWB-IVW=-5.0%
Mid cap	PWP-IJJ=0.1%	PJG-IJH=N/A	PWJ-IJK=3.1%
Small cap	PWY-IJS=-0.7%	PJM-IJR=N/A	PWT-IJT=-4.9%

The differential returns are all over the place: some positive, others negative. To me, this is symptomatic of a factor model that does not have predictive power. (After all, if the differential returns are consistently negative, we could have long the ETF, short the XTF, and make consistent profits!) At the very least, this factor model may have a horizon much longer than what most traders would be interested in – in which case, why not just use the simple Fama-French model?

This is not to say that exotic, proprietary factor models have no use: they tend to be pretty useful for risk management, as volatilities and correlations are often easier to predict than returns. But beware every time your risk management software vendor tries to sell you an alpha generator!