The wealth of information contained in daily stock returns has been hiding in plain sight—and when properly extracted, it generates remarkable predictive power for future performance.
Trend following is finally moving while U.S. stocks are flat. And so—like with most assets or strategies that post strong returns—investors may be eyeing this particular strategy and asking: Is it time to get in? The answer, while not surprising, is definitely nuanced.
After years in what can be now called one of the worst (if not the worst) period for value investing, many investors have packed their bags and called it quits. We’ve heard this be said over and over again; and yet, many of their arguments look extremely compelling. So are they in the right? Let's examine.
"Buy the dip" (BTD) has become one of the most popular investment mantras of recent years, especially since the COVID-19 market recovery in 2020. The strategy seems intuitive: when markets fall, buy at a discount and wait for the inevitable rebound. However, BTD is not foolproof. By design, it performs well when market declines are brief, but poorly when declines mark the beginning of a prolonged drawdown. A new paper from AQR Capital Management, “Hold the Dip,” examines the empirical evidence and puts this popular strategy to the test.
Gold has jumped from sleepy sideshow to dominant market narrative in a short span of time. For years, owning gold did not move the needle, and only introduced unnecessary noise to investors' portfolios. Then, in 2023, things started silently shifting in the background. Today, after a parabolic mid-summer move followed by a short correction, investors are now asking themselves: is it too late to buy gold?
Historically, the finance community (both academics and investment firms) has divided stocks into two categories: cheap and expensive. Initially, the book-to-price ratio was used to [...]
We're going to examine the market’s current concentration and valuation to better understand return expectations going forward. But reader beware; this isn’t some bold macro prediction to scare you away from sensible investing. It’s a reminder that markets move in cycles, valuations eventually matter, and history has a way of humbling even the most confident forecasts.
Over 75% of the cross-sectional variation in P/E ratios is driven by future return differences, not growth expectations. This challenges many common asset pricing models and changes how investors should think about value, growth, and long-term return forecasting.
Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) has long served as a foundational framework for asset allocation and portfolio construction. This concept remains influential in both academic finance and practical investment management. But the question investors face today is not whether MPT was revolutionary—it clearly was—but whether its insights still hold up under real-world conditions, decades later.
This article explores how researchers forecast market returns by aggregating expected returns from individual stocks.
Since 2010, the S&P 500 has beaten the International Developed market in all but three years. This led the U.S. market to outperform International Developed by an astounding 8.14% compounded per year. Wowza! Talk about pain if you’re a global investor.
What matters is not the expectation of future growth, but the deviation between projected growth and realized growth, which, by definition is a surprise, and, thus, is not forecastable.
The hurdles to adding alpha for active managers are getting higher—investment practitioners make use of it as soon as or shortly after it is available.
Without question the topic of greatest debate among investors, including investment professionals, and financial economists, is whether or not the market, and the technology sector in particular, is overvalued. There are two very strong conflicting views regarding not only the current valuation of technology stocks, but also the valuation of the entire asset class of large-cap growth stocks. One side, I’ll call the “new paradigm” or “it’s different this time” school. The other side, I’ll call “the been there, done that” school. Its theme is those that don’t learn from the past are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. No two sides could have more different viewpoints. To understand each side, let’s imagine a dialogue between the two schools.
Making a bet on biotech/pharma firms that have not yet achieved significant revenue is the equivalent of buying a lottery ticket—with the same poor risk/return relationship.
For many benchmark predictor variables, short-horizon return predictability in the U.S. stock market is local in time as short periods with significant predictability (“pockets”) are interspersed with long periods with no return predictability.
Investment predicts returns because, given expected profitability, high costs of capital imply low net present value of new capital and low investment, and low costs of capital imply high net present value of new capital and high investment.
Consumer demand drives the cash flows of consumer-oriented companies. Thus, they should serve as a reliable source of information to predict future fundamentals above and beyond the information contained in financial statements and readily available market data.
Jack Bogle, the founder of Vanguard, created a simple explanation for predicting future stock returns. The so-called “Occam's razor” (law of parsimony) approach is an [...]
© Copyright 2025 alpha architect | All Rights Reserved | Home | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Disclosures | Subscribe | Contact Us