Quantitative Value Research: Cyclically-adjusted B/M (CA-BM) Factor

Quantitative Value Research: Cyclically-adjusted B/M (CA-BM) Factor

October 15, 2014 Research Insights, Value Investing Research
Print Friendly
(Last Updated On: January 18, 2017)

On the Performance of Cyclically Adjusted Valuation Measures

Core Idea:

Gray and Vogel (2012) show that, with respect to stocks, Shiller’s CAPE is not the optimal way to implement a cyclically-adjusted value measure; instead, the paper finds that the Cyclically-adjusted book-to-market (CA-BM) is the best measure to predict returns based on sample from 1973 to 2012.

  • While CA-BM is the marginal top performer over the past 40 years, all cyclically-adjusted value measures have outperformed market benchmarks by large margins.
  • Paper also tests if integrating momentum into cyclically-adjusted measures and monthly rebalancing can enhance returns. Results show that both of these enhancements improve portfolio performance.

Alpha Highlight:

2014-10-03 17_45_42-0Value Reseach Recap.pptx - Microsoft PowerPoint (Product Activation Failed)
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.

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 disclosures. 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.

Definitions of common statistics used in our analysis are available here (towards the bottom)

About the Author

Wesley R. Gray, Ph.D.

After serving as a Captain in the United States Marine Corps, Dr. Gray earned a PhD, and worked as a finance professor at Drexel University. Dr. Gray’s interest in bridging the research gap between academia and industry led him to found Alpha Architect, an asset management that delivers affordable active exposures for tax-sensitive investors. Dr. Gray has published four books and a number of academic articles. Wes is a regular contributor to multiple industry outlets, to include the following: Wall Street Journal, Forbes, ETF.com, and the CFA Institute. 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.

  • sx

    16.6% VS 15.9% : is that significant ? any further stats test ?

  • Jack Vogel, PhD

    We did not formally test for significant out-performance of one valuation measure versus another. The idea was to document how each of the measures stack up against the others.

  • Chris Scott

    How does CA-BM compare with current year EBIT/TEV? Timeframes are little different in the paper vs. the book, but seems like they are similar in results. Since simpler is better, EBIT/TEV would be preferred if they are close.

    Monthly rebalancing always shows better performance gross of transactions/taxes. Net of transactions/taxes – not so much. Have you done any testing with overlapping portfolios formed monthly/quarterly, then held for 12 months? Seems like an overlapping portfolio approach would be much more tax efficient and might pick up some of the time diversification benefit that you get with monthly rebalancing.

    Interesting to see that adding momentum improves returns consistently irregardless of the value metric. A more interesting question is whether adding value to momentum improves momentum returns.

  • sx

    Thanks! I think if there are some robust tests, the results may be more compelling and interesting!

  • Jack Vogel, PhD

    We did not compare the CA-BM to current year EBIT/TEV, and we have not looked at overlapping portfolios. Both are good suggestions for future research, thanks for the ideas.

  • Doug01

    Is cyclically adjusted P/B getting close to Tobin’s Q? When I’ve seen comparisons of Tobin’s Q to CAPE over 10 year periods, Tobin’s Q seems to come out ahead.

  • Jack Vogel, PhD

    What study are you referencing that compares CAPE to Tobin’s Q?

  • Doug01
  • Jack Vogel, PhD

    Thanks for passing along.