Search Past Commentary

  1. First, I must issue a disclaimer. This is for wonks already immersed in the factor literature. There's lots of inside baseball, assumed terminology, etc., in this one. I explain what I’m doing along the way, but rarely from scratch. If this stuff is brand new to you and you still understand it all you are way smarter than me (you are allowed to find that to be faint praise). There’s nothing more mathematical here than a regression model but there is lots of shop talk. So, if "factor wonk" doesn't describe you, you probably have friends and a social life, so that’s nice, but this piece won't make much sense (consider it even).

  2. In its normal form the small firm effect is, on a host of dimensions, weak to possibly nonexistent. Once adjusted for quality exposure it is real and spectacular.

  3. Here is a link to my latest on the ongoing issue of style timing and the very legitimacy of some of the factor strategies. To whet your appetite, below is the abstract of the paper:

    Arnott, Beck, Kalesnik, and West (2016) (ABKW) study smart beta or factor-based strategies and come to the following conclusions: (1) Aside from value, most popular factor strategies currently look expensive. (2) These expensive factor valuations portend lower future returns and a strong possibility of a future “factor crash” in which they go “horribly wrong.” And (3) many of these non-value factors were never real to start with because their historical performance was due to factor richening. That is, researchers mistook the one-time returns from factor richening for truly repeatable “structural alpha.” ABKW’s implied bottom line (their many protestations to only making modest recommendations aside): stick with value, dump the other factors. This essay elaborates on my response in Asness (2016). In summary: (1) I find non-value factor valuations moderately expensive, but not as expensive as ABKW. (2) I argue that ABKW exaggerate the power of factor timing by improperly using long-horizon regression techniques. More proper short-horizon regressions suggest some weak factor timing ability and given this predictability, I construct value-based tactical factor timing strategies to test them. Unfortunately, these strategies add little to portfolios that are already invested in the value factor. It turns out that this “newly” discovered timing tool is, yet again, mostly just a version of regular old value investing. And (3) I examine ABKW’s claim that factor richening drives much of non-value long-term factor performance and find that this very serious allegation about other researchers’ work is totally without merit. Overall, these results suggest that one should be wary of aggressive factor timing. Instead, investors are better off identifying factors they believe in, and staying diversified across them, unless we see far more extreme pricing than we do today.

  4. It seems that now everyone wants to time factors. Indeed, we’d love to as well if we thought it was a very useful endeavor. But, although tempting, in an editorial piece for a special upcoming Journal of Portfolio Management issue focused on quantitative investing — written at the kind request of long-time editor, Frank Fabozzi — I argue that this tempting siren song should be resisted, even if I know some will be disappointed with this view.

  5. Cliff argues that certain well-known classic strategies that have worked over the long term will continue to work going forward, though perhaps not at the same level and with different risks than in the past. He focuses on classic “factor”-type strategies, things like value, momentum, carry and quality/defensive.