The recent quant equity crisis is commonly attributed to the underperformance of the value factor, which is a key pillar in many quantitative stock selection models. However, value is just one of the factors used by quantitative investors. Therefore, one can wonder why other factors apparently failed to offset, or provide more protection against the losses of the value factor.
In order to address this question, we conduct a detailed analysis of factor performance during the quant equity crisis, which we define as the period from June 2018 to August 2020. Figure 1 illustrates that value experienced a severe drawdown, while the size and investments factors also charted in negative territory. The latter result is not surprising, given that the investment and value effects are known to be closely related.1 On the other hand, the profitability and momentum factors fared relatively well during the period.
Figure 1 | Backtested cumulative factor performance, June 2018 to August 2020, global developed markets
Source: Data library of Professor Kenneth French. Next to the capitalization-weighted market portfolio we consider the standard academic factors, size (SMB), value (HML), investment (CMA), profitability (RMW), and momentum (WML), as described in Fama and French (1993, 2015). The HML, CMA, RMW, and WML factors are based on 2x3 portfolios sorted independently on size and the target factor. All portfolios are capitalization weighted, and all returns are compounded total returns in US dollars. These returns reflect hypothetical, backtested portfolios which ignore costs, fees and taxes. Past returns are no guarantee for the future.
To better understand the drivers behind this factor performance, we look at the market-relative returns of portfolios sorted according to the various factors within different market-cap groups. As exhibited in Table 1, we observe that almost all the outperformance stemmed from investing in the largest stocks with particular factor characteristics.
Our research also challenges the notion that there was more than one way to outperform in the mega-cap space. We find that mega-cap profitability and momentum were essentially mega-cap growth in disguise. In fact, mega-cap top momentum and mega-cap top profitability portfolios behaved very similarly to the mega-cap growth portfolio, with the correlations between the monthly market-relative returns amounting to 75% and 89%, respectively.
緊貼荷寶量化投資
獲取荷寶的電郵月報及最新觀點報告，構建最綠色的投資組合。
Table 1 | Backtested cumulative market-relative performance 5x5 sorted portfolios, June 2018 to August 2020, global developed markets
Source: Data library of Professor Kenneth French, Robeco. Next to the capitalization-weighted market portfolio we consider the standard academic factors, size (SMB), value (HML), investment (CMA), profitability (RMW), and momentum (WML), as described in Fama and French (1993, 2015). The factors are based on 5x5 independently sorted portfolios. All portfolios are capitalization weighted, and all returns are compounded total returns in US dollars. These returns reflect hypothetical, backtested portfolios which ignore costs, fees and taxes. Past returns are no guarantee for the future. Please note double-digit returns are highlighted in bold.
We conclude that there was basically only one way to outperform during this period, namely by investing in the largest and most expensive growth stocks. Indeed, our analysis shows that the mega-cap growth portfolio clearly had the strongest return as seen in Figure 2. This was the dominant phenomenon during the quant equity crisis, in which there were many ways to fail, but essentially only one way to succeed. This concentration of outperformance in one corner of the market and underperformance elsewhere is illustrated in Figure 2.
David Blitz
Chief Researcher
“
There were many ways to fail, but essentially only one way to succeed
Figure 2 | Visual illustration of backtested market-relative performance 5x5 size/value sorted portfolios, June 2018 to August 2020, global developed markets
Source: Data library of Professor Kenneth French. Next to the capitalization-weighted market portfolio we consider the standard academic factors, size (SMB), value (HML), investment (CMA), profitability (RMW), and momentum (WML), as described in Fama and French (1993, 2015). The factors are based on 5x5 independently sorted portfolios. All portfolios are capitalization weighted, and all returns are compounded total returns in US dollars. These returns reflect hypothetical, backtested portfolios which ignore costs, fees and taxes. Past returns are no guarantee for the future.
We also compare the 2018-2020 episode with past major drawdowns of the value factor and find some notable differences. Most importantly, previous value drawdowns are better characterized as momentum rallies, because the outperformance of the momentum factor overshadowed the underperformance of the value factor. As a result, past value drawdowns did not necessarily cause quant equity crises.
Another important difference was the sharp underperformance of small stocks compared to their large peers. During previous value drawdowns, there were still opportunities for outperformance in smaller size segments. However, during 2018-2020, even the best-performing pockets in the small- and mid-cap space could not keep up with large growth stocks.
Apart from 2018-2020, there is actually only one other true quant equity crisis in our sample, which occurred during the strong market rebound seen in the first half of 2009. What the two crises have in common is that the main cause can be traced to one particular factor. In 2009, however, it was not the value factor but the momentum factor that crashed, due to a sharp recovery of the stocks that had suffered the largest losses during the 2008 debt crisis. Another notable difference with 2018-2020 is that the 2009 quant equity crisis was relatively short-lived. Factors resumed their upward trend within six months.
Some wonder whether the 2018-2020 quant equity crisis means factor-based investing is permanently impaired. In our view, the large losses on one factor, which were not offset by gains on other factors, do not imply a structural break, nor that factor premiums which have existed for many decades have disappeared all of a sudden. Therefore, we would summarize this period as an unusual combination of circumstances that culminated in a perfect storm for multi-factor investors, but also as an episode from which quantitative investment strategies can be expected to recover again in due course.
Footnote
1See: Fama, E. F., and French, K. R., 2015. “A five-factor asset pricing model.” Journal of Financial Economics, 116(1), 1-22.
下載刊物
免責聲明
本文由荷宝海外投资基金管理(上海)有限公司(“荷宝上海”)编制, 本文内容仅供参考, 并不构成荷宝上海对任何人的购买或出售任何产品的建议、专业意见、要约、招揽或邀请。本文不应被视为对购买或出售任何投资产品的推荐或采用任何投资策略的建议。本文中的任何内容不得被视为有关法律、税务或投资方面的咨询, 也不表示任何投资或策略适合您的个人情况, 或以其他方式构成对您个人的推荐。 本文中所包含的信息和/或分析系根据荷宝上海所认为的可信渠道而获得的信息准备而成。荷宝上海不就其准确性、正确性、实用性或完整性作出任何陈述, 也不对因使用本文中的信息和/或分析而造成的损失承担任何责任。荷宝上海或其他任何关联机构及其董事、高级管理人员、员工均不对任何人因其依据本文所含信息而造成的任何直接或间接的损失或损害或任何其他后果承担责任或义务。 本文包含一些有关于未来业务、目标、管理纪律或其他方面的前瞻性陈述与预测, 这些陈述含有假设、风险和不确定性, 且是建立在截止到本文编写之日已有的信息之上。基于此, 我们不能保证这些前瞻性情况都会发生, 实际情况可能会与本文中的陈述具有一定的差别。我们不能保证本文中的统计信息在任何特定条件下都是准确、适当和完整的, 亦不能保证这些统计信息以及据以得出这些信息的假设能够反映荷宝上海可能遇到的市场条件或未来表现。本文中的信息是基于当前的市场情况, 这很有可能因随后的市场事件或其他原因而发生变化, 本文内容可能因此未反映最新情况,荷宝上海不负责更新本文, 或对本文中不准确或遗漏之信息进行纠正。