Predicting Anomalies with politics, weather, global warming, sunspots, and the stars

Predicting Anomalies with politics, weather, global warming, sunspots, and the stars

February 25, 2016 Research Insights
Print Friendly
(Last Updated On: January 18, 2017)

We’ve discussed the use of predictive regressions in the past. Here is an article to learn a bit more about the technique.

And while the idea sounds cool, and could even be relabeled a low-tier “machine-learning” technique if someone wanted to sell the idea, we can’t find anything exciting about the technique. Our mea culpa on trying to time the market is outlined in the first few paragraphs of our fairly detailed post on our downside protection system.

Having your cake and eating it too is a great way to go. It’s great to have the cake, and it’s also great to eat the cake. But you can’t have it both ways. This trend continues when we speak with fellow investors: “Give me high, after-tax, net of fee returns, but with limited risk and volatility.” Now, we certainly love high returns with low risk. We also love high reward with low effort and high calories with low weight gain. Unfortunately, this brings us to our first problem with the investing unicorn: Unicorns don’t exist, and neither do high returns with low risk. 

Novy-Marx has a fun paper — with a great title — that emphasize the futility of using predictive regression techniques to try and time the performance of various anomalies.  We actually highlighted this paper over 4 years ago, but here is the published edition.

Predicting anomaly performance with politics, the weather, global warming, sunspots, and the stars

Predictive regressions find that the party of the US president, the weather in Manhattan, global warming, the El Niño phenomenon, sunspots, and the conjunctions of the planets all have significant power predicting the performance of popular anomalies. The interpretation of these results has important implications for the asset pricing literature.

Here is a great table from the paper:

The results are hypothetical results and are NOT an indicator of future results and do NOT represent returns that any investor actually attained. Indexes are unmanaged, do not reflect management or trading fees, and one cannot invest directly in an index. Additional information regarding the construction of these results is available upon request.

Doing research can be incredibly humbling. Especially when someone highlights that we’re probably all full of bunk!

Note: This site provides no information on our value investing ETFs or our momentum investing ETFs. Please refer to this site.

Join thousands of other readers and subscribe to our blog.

Please remember that past performance is not an indicator of future results. Please read our full disclaimer. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Alpha Architect, its affiliates or its employees. This material has been provided to you solely for information and educational purposes and does not constitute an offer or solicitation of an offer or any advice or recommendation to purchase any securities or other financial instruments and may not be construed as such. The factual information set forth herein has been obtained or derived from sources believed by the author and Alpha Architect to be reliable but it is not necessarily all-inclusive and is not guaranteed as to its accuracy and is not to be regarded as a representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the information’s accuracy or completeness, nor should the attached information serve as the basis of any investment decision. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission from Alpha Architect.

About the Author

Wesley R. Gray, Ph.D.

After serving as a Captain in the United States Marine Corps, Dr. Gray received a PhD, and was a finance professor at Drexel University. Dr. Gray’s interest in entrepreneurship and behavioral finance led him to found Alpha Architect. Dr. Gray has published three books: EMBEDDED: A Marine Corps Adviser Inside the Iraqi Army, QUANTITATIVE VALUE: A Practitioner’s Guide to Automating Intelligent Investment and Eliminating Behavioral Errors, and DIY FINANCIAL ADVISOR: A Simple Solution to Build and Protect Your Wealth. His numerous published works has been highlighted on CBNC, CNN, NPR, Motley Fool, WSJ Market Watch, CFA Institute, Institutional Investor, and CBS News. Dr. Gray earned an MBA and a PhD in finance from the University of Chicago and graduated magna cum laude with a BS from The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

  • JAK78

    While it is foolish to accept ideas just because they fit past data, it may also be foolish to reject them just because we don’t understand them. Academics rejected value and momentum for many years because they weren’t believable under EMH. Maybe years of future out-of-sample validation will persuade us that some of these improbable looking ideas may be valid after all.

  • true. and they could be weird proxies for things we don’t quite understand. The great thing about a “scientific” mind is you can only reject a hypothesis but you can never “accept” something as the truth.

  • jimhsu

    One of my favorite “no way, really?” factors is the “Congress in session” factor – stocks do considerably worse when Congress is in session. SSRN: