Category: Mean Reversion

Posted on

Combining Momentum and Mean Reversion Strategies

The Fama-French World

For many years now the “gold standard” in factor models has been the 1996 Fama-French 3-factor model: Fig 1
Here r is the portfolio’s expected rate of return, Rf is the risk-free return rate, and Km is the return of the market portfolio. The “three factor” β is analogous to the classical β but not equal to it, since there are now two additional factors to do some of the work. SMB stands for “Small [market capitalization] Minus Big” and HML for “High [book-to-market ratio] Minus Low”; they measure the historic excess returns of small caps over big caps and of value stocks over growth stocks. These factors are calculated with combinations of portfolios composed by ranked stocks (BtM ranking, Cap ranking) and available historical market data. The Fama–French three-factor model explains over 90% of the diversified portfolios in-sample returns, compared with the average 70% given by the standard CAPM model.

The 3-factor model can also capture the reversal of long-term returns documented by DeBondt and Thaler (1985), who noted that extreme price movements over long formation periods were followed by movements in the opposite direction. (Alpha Architect has several interesting posts on the subject, including this one).

Fama and French say the 3-factor model can account for this. Long-term losers tend to have positive HML slopes and higher future average returns. Conversely, long-term winners tend to be strong stocks that have negative slopes on HML and low future returns. Fama and French argue that DeBondt and Thaler are just loading on the HML factor.

SSALGOTRADING AD

Enter Momentum

While many anomalies disappear under  tests, shorter term momentum effects (formation periods ~1 year) appear robust. Carhart (1997) constructs his 4-factor model by using FF 3-factor model plus an additional momentum factor. He shows that his 4-factor model with MOM substantially improves the average pricing errors of the CAPM and the 3-factor model. After his work, the standard factors of asset pricing model are now commonly recognized as Value, Size and Momentum.

 Combining Momentum and Mean Reversion

In a recent post, Alpha Architect looks as some possibilities for combining momentum and mean reversion strategies.  They examine all firms above the NYSE 40th percentile for market-cap (currently around $1.8 billion) to avoid weird empirical effects associated with micro/small cap stocks. The portfolios are formed at a monthly frequency with the following 2 variables:

  1. Momentum = Total return over the past twelve months (ignoring the last month)
  2. Value = EBIT/(Total Enterprise Value)

They form the simple Value and Momentum portfolios as follows:

  1. EBIT VW = Highest decile of firms ranked on Value (EBIT/TEV). Portfolio is value-weighted.
  2. MOM VW = Highest decile of firms ranked on Momentum. Portfolio is value-weighted.
  3. Universe VW = Value-weight returns to the universe of firms.
  4. SP500 = S&P 500 Total return

The results show that the top decile of Value and Momentum outperformed the index over the past 50 years.  The Momentum strategy has stronger returns than value, on average, but much higher volatility and drawdowns. On a risk-adjusted basis they perform similarly. Fig 2   The researchers then form the following four portfolios:

  1. EBIT VW = Highest decile of firms ranked on Value (EBIT/TEV). Portfolio is value-weighted.
  2. MOM VW = Highest decile of firms ranked on Momentum. Portfolio is value-weighted.
  3. COMBO VW = Rank firms independently on both Value and Momentum.  Add the two rankings together. Select the highest decile of firms ranked on the combined rankings. Portfolio is value-weighted.
  4. 50% EBIT/ 50% MOM VW = Each month, invest 50% in the EBIT VW portfolio, and 50% in the MOM VW portfolio. Portfolio is value-weighted.

With the following results:

Fig 3 The main takeaways are:

  • The combined ranked portfolio outperforms the index over the same time period.
  • However, the combination portfolio performs worse than a 50% allocation to Value and a 50% allocation to Momentum.

A More Sophisticated Model

Yangru Wu of Rutgers has been doing interesting work in this area over the last 15 years, or more. His 2005 paper (with Ronald Balvers), Momentum and mean reversion across national equity markets, considers joint momentum and mean-reversion effects and allows for complex interactions between them. Their model is of the form Fig 4 where the excess return for country i (relative to the global equity portfolio) is represented by a combination of mean-reversion and autoregressive (momentum) terms. Balvers and Wu  find that combination momentum-contrarian strategies, used to select from among 18 developed equity markets at a monthly frequency, outperform both pure momentum and pure mean-reversion strategies. The results continue to hold after corrections for factor sensitivities and transaction costs. The researchers confirm that momentum and mean reversion occur in the same assets. So in establishing the strength and duration of the momentum and mean reversion effects it becomes important to control for each factor’s effect on the other. The momentum and mean reversion effects exhibit a strong negative correlation of 35%. Accordingly, controlling for momentum accelerates the mean reversion process, and controlling for mean reversion may extend the momentum effect.

 Momentum, Mean Reversion and Volatility

The presence of  strong momentum and mean reversion in volatility processes provides a rationale for the kind of volatility strategy that we trade at Systematic Strategies.  One  sophisticated model is the Range Based EGARCH model of  Alizadeh, Brandt, and Diebold (2002) .  The model posits a two-factor volatility process in which a short term, transient volatility process mean-reverts to a stochastic long term mean process, which may exhibit momentum, or long memory effects  (details here).

In our volatility strategy we model mean reversion and momentum effects derived from the level of short and long term volatility-of-volatility, as well as the forward volatility curve. These are applied to volatility ETFs, including levered ETF products, where convexity effects are also important.  Mean reversion is a well understood phenomenon in volatility, as, too, is the yield roll in volatility futures (which also impacts ETF products like VXX and XIV).

Momentum effects are perhaps less well researched in this context, but our research shows them to be extremely important.  By way of illustration, in the chart below I have isolated the (gross) returns generated by one of the momentum factors in our model.

Fig 6

 

Posted on

Developing Statistical Arbitrage Strategies Using Cointegration

In his latest book (Algorithmic Trading: Winning Strategies and their Rationale, Wiley, 2013) Ernie Chan does an excellent job of setting out the procedures for developing statistical arbitrage strategies using cointegration.  In such mean-reverting strategies, long positions are taken in under-performing stocks and short positions in stocks that have recently outperformed.

I will leave a detailed description of the procedure to Ernie (see pp 47 – 60), which in essence involves:

(i) estimating a cointegrating relationship between two or more stocks, using the Johansen procedure

(ii) computing the half-life of mean reversion of the cointegrated process, based on an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck  representation, using this as a basis for deciding the amount of recent historical data to be used for estimation in (iii)

(iii) Taking a position proportionate to the Z-score of the market value of the cointegrated portfolio (subtracting the recent mean and dividing by the recent standard deviation, where “recent” is defined with reference to the half-life of mean reversion)

Countless researchers have followed this well worn track, many of them reporting excellent results.  In this post I would like to discuss a few of many considerations  in the procedure and variations in its implementation.  We will follow Ernie’s example, using daily data for the EWF-EWG-ITG triplet of ETFs from April 2006 – April 2012. The analysis runs as follows (I am using an adapted version of the Matlab code provided with Ernie’s book):

Johansen test We reject the null hypothesis of fewer then three cointegrating relationships at the 95% level. The eigenvalues and eigenvectors are as follows:

Eigenvalues The eignevectors are sorted by the size of their eigenvalues, so we pick the first of them, which is expected to have the shortest half-life of mean reversion, and create a portfolio based on the eigenvector weights (-1.046, 0.76, 0.2233).  From there, it requires a simple linear regression to estimate the half-life of mean reversion:

Halflife From which we estimate the half-life of mean reversion to be 23 days.  This estimate gets used during the final, stage 3, of the process, when we choose a look-back period for estimating the running mean and standard deviation of the cointegrated portfolio.  The position in each stock (numUnits) is sized according to the standardized deviation from the mean (i.e. the greater the deviation the larger the allocation). Apply Ci The results appear very promising, with an annual APR of 12.6% and Sharpe ratio of 1.4:   Returns EWA-EWC-IGE

Ernie is at pains to point out that, in this and other examples in the book, he pays no attention to transaction costs, nor to the out-of-sample performance of the strategies he evaluates, which is fair enough.

The great majority of the academic studies that examine the cointegration approach to statistical arbitrage for a variety of investment universes do take account of transaction costs.  For the most part such studies report very impressive returns and Sharpe ratios that frequently exceed 3.  Furthermore, unlike Ernie’s example which is entirely in-sample, these studies typically report consistent out-of-sample performance results also.

But the single, most common failing of such studies is that they fail to consider the per share performance of the strategy.  If the net P&L per share is less than the average bid-offer spread of the securities in the investment portfolio, the theoretical performance of the strategy is unlikely to survive the transition to implementation.  It is not at all hard to achieve a theoretical Sharpe ratio of 3 or higher, if you are prepared to ignore the fact that the net P&L per share is lower than the average bid-offer spread.  In practice, however, any such profits are likely to be whittled away to zero in trading frictions – the costs incurred in entering, adjusting and exiting positions across multiple symbols in the portfolio.

Put another way, you would want to see a P&L per share of at least 1c, after transaction costs, before contemplating implementation of the strategy.  In the case of the EWA-EWC-IGC portfolio the P&L per share is around 3.5 cents.  Even after allowing, say, commissions of 0.5 cents per share and a bid-offer spread of 1c per share on both entry and exit, there remains a profit of around 2 cents per share – more than enough to meet this threshold test.

Let’s address the second concern regarding out-of-sample testing.   We’ll introduce a parameter to allow us to select the number of in-sample days, re-estimate the model parameters using only the in-sample data, and test the performance out of sample.  With a in-sample size of 1,000 days, for instance, we find that we can no longer reject the null hypothesis of fewer than 3 cointegrating relationships and the weights for the best linear portfolio differ significantly from those estimated using the entire data set.

Johansen 2

Repeating the regression analysis using the eigenvector weights of the maximum eigenvalue vector (-1.4308, 0.6558, 0.5806), we now estimate the half-life to be only 14 days.  The out-of-sample APR of the strategy over the remaining 500 days drops to around 5.15%, with a considerably less impressive Sharpe ratio of only 1.09.

osPerfOut-of-sample cumulative returns

One way to improve the strategy performance is to relax the assumption of strict proportionality between the portfolio holdings and the standardized deviation in the market value of the cointegrated portfolio.  Instead, we now require  the standardized deviation of the portfolio market value to exceed some chosen threshold level before we open a position (and we close any open positions when the deviation falls below the threshold).  If we choose a threshold level of 1, (i.e. we require the market value of the portfolio to deviate 1 standard deviation from its mean before opening a position), the out-of-sample performance improves considerably:

osPerf 2

The out-of-sample APR is now over 7%, with a Sharpe ratio of 1.45.

The strict proportionality requirement, while logical,  is rather unusual:  in practice, it is much more common to apply a threshold, as I have done here.  This addresses the need to ensure an adequate P&L per share, which will typically increase with higher thresholds.  A countervailing concern, however, is that as the threshold is increased the number of trades will decline, making the results less reliable statistically.  Balancing the two considerations, a threshold of around 1-2 standard deviations is a popular and sensible choice.

Of course, introducing thresholds opens up a new set of possibilities:  just because you decide to enter based on a 2x SD trigger level doesn’t mean that you have to exit a position at the same level.  You might consider the outcome of entering at 2x SD, while exiting at 1x SD, 0x SD, or even -2x SD.  The possible nuances are endless.

Unfortunately, the inconsistency in the estimates of the cointegrating relationships over different data samples is very common.  In fact, from my own research, it is often the case that cointegrating relationships break down entirely out-of-sample, just as do correlations.  A recent study by Matthew Clegg of over 860,000 pairs confirms this finding (On the Persistence of Cointegration in Pais Trading, 2014) that cointegration is not a persistent property.

I shall examine one approach to  addressing the shortcomings  of the cointegration methodology  in a future post.

 

Matlab code (adapted from Ernie Chan’s book):

Continue reading “Developing Statistical Arbitrage Strategies Using Cointegration”