Displaying items by tag: factors

The bond market boom has been bad for many fixed income investors, and debt is coming to term in a higher inflationary environment which is eating up all the return. However, bond market investors are turning to factor based investing to earn excess returns. Factor investing is a $700 billion market in equities, and it dwarfs the $25 billion dollar fixed income factor market. Factor investing modifies indices based on factors they think can give an edge over traditional indices. Active bond factor investing can outperform traditional indices in rising yield environments, but factor investing is looking to rival these active funds with systemic decisions. A ‘smart beta’ approach will look to outperform in high yield and emerging market debt.

FINSUM: The extensive literature on systemic fixed income is relatively small, and that's why smart beta strategies have failed to take off in the bond market like they have in equities.

(New York)

ETFs have dominated the investment world for the last decade as investors seek to minimize risk while getting particular market exposure, but…see the full story on our partner Magnifi’s site.

(New York)

Any investor in ETFs will have noticed the marked rise of “factors” over the last few years. These are technical or conceptual overlays that managers use to create a theme for a fund. They are generally predicated on some type of data, like “quality” or “momentum”, both of which are well-studied. However, lately there has been an explosion of new factors which are being employed in funds. The problem is that many of these are not being observed on a long enough timeline to see if they are relevant. In practice, this means that a lot of funds are predicated around strategies that do not have any proof of concept.

FINSUM: So we have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, some factors seem clearly frivolous, while others which may also be quite new, seem to be a good angle on the current market environment. The key is to be very discerning in choosing these types of funds.

(New York)

There is a big development happening in fund management. That is change is that fundamental and quantitative approaches are merging. Often, funds are no longer purely fundamental or quantitative, but instead merge the two, creating a whole new category which is starting to be referred to as “quantamental”. In its most simple form, quantamental often looks like a multi-factor ETF that also includes some continuous “human” intervention, such as reducing statistical quirks. However, more sophisticated approaches truly blend the two, using human skill to analyze stocks which are sending promising technical signals.

FINSUM: We are pretty fond of the principles which underpin quantamental approaches as they seem to take the best aspects of both philosophies. Time will tell if the approach is a winner in a broad sense.

(New York)

Quantitative ETFs are growing in popularity. Using rules-based approaches to stock-picking is cost effective and has proven successful in many cases, making quantitative methods a good fit for ETFs. With that in mind, here are seven of the best quantitative ETFs: QuantX Dynamic Beta US Equity ETF (XUSA, 0.59% fee), Hull Tactical US ETF (HTUS, 0.92% fee), Cambria Global Momentum ETF (GMOM, 1.03% fee), U.S. Quantitative Value ETF (QVAL, 0.49% fee), IQ Chaikin U.S. Small Cap ETF (CSML, 0.35% fee), Vesper US Large Cap Short-Term Reversal Strategy ETF (UTRN, 0.75%), and the SPDR MFS Systematic Growth Equity ETF (SYG, 0.61% fee).

FINSUM: CSML was the most interesting of the group for us, as we think there is more alpha to be had in small caps with these sorts of approaches. We also ran this story in case anyone has clients who have been asking for more quant funds.