Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 172

Market winners outperform losers again

In the spirit of recognising the many different ways in which you can pick stocks, I wrote an article two years ago about using a basic momentum strategy. I will update this article annually (last year’s is here). The premise is as follows: academic researchers found that the portfolios of recent stock market outperformers subsequently outperformed portfolios of recent underperformers. A long/short equity strategy constructed this way should generate a positive return. We applied this theory to the Australian marketplace and found a volatile but high-performing strategy. So how did it perform in the past financial year?

2015-16 performance

A brief refresher on the strategy, noting it is paper-based and theoretical:

  • At the start of each financial year I go long an equally weighted portfolio of the previous financial year’s top 10 performing stocks on the ASX 200
  • I also short an equally weighted portfolio of the previous financial year’s worst 10 performing stocks on the ASX 200
  • I hold this portfolio for the subsequent financial year (12 months).

The table below lists stocks I would have held, long and short, purchased from the end of the 2014/15 financial year. It is based on their performance over the past 12 months, along with their subsequent performance.

If I subtract my short performance (+3%) from my long performance (+40%), I have a total paper portfolio performance of 37%. However, it would definitely have been a rollercoaster year if you closely followed each stock (imagine being short RSG as it rallied 321%).

The past financial year was good for this strategy, above its long-term average. The chart below presents the updated track record (now 12 years).

Source: Thanks to Acadian Asset Management (Australia) for the data.

The performance numbers above only focus on the active return piece and leave out cash returns, stock borrowing fees and transaction costs (in theory, if I am long and short the same dollar amount of stocks I have 100% of my portfolio size earning cash returns). Stock borrow fees can be high for stocks that have performed poorly and this would dilute the strategy’s returns.

This article annoys some people

Each year I write this article, it seems to annoy people. The comment below is typical:

“Looking at any strategy without considering its actual cost and the ability to implement suggests to the reader that there are larger gains to be made than would exist in practice. Could all of the stocks actually have been borrowed, and what was the cost of borrow? Would any of the (very large) individual short positions (or even the entire short portfolio) pose a problem during a counter-trend short covering rally?” – Jerome Lander

This has always been a paper portfolio and never recommended as an investment strategy. It originates from academia and historically academics have failed to incorporate transactional expenses (though this is changing). And yes, the strategy relies on you not looking at your portfolio during the year because the ride is volatile.

So what’s the point?

The article illustrates a behavioural bias that exists in financial markets. Cuffelinks often has references to behavioural biases but rarely are these biases presented in a worked example that leaves you scratching your head and asking, ‘Is this possible?’. If markets were perfectly efficient, then simple rules-based strategies like holding past winners and selling short past losers would not generate outperformance.

Additionally, this article is an annual reminder that there are many different ways to pick stocks. Some are based on company analysis, some are technical, and some are behavioural. You need to pick the approaches you believe you can execute well, understand the strengths and weaknesses of your approach, and the environments where it will work. Cuffelinks publishes many articles on fundamental investing but less on technical approaches which account for behavioural biases.

Finally, it is relevant to reflect on what biases may be embedded in your own investment strategy. When I reflect on the winners versus losers anomaly, I find myself wondering if I am not open enough to the possibility that stocks and markets can experience a significant event that leads to consecutive years of outsized performance (positive or negative). If I have a mindset that I have missed this opportunity or that everything will bounce back (mean revert) then I have potentially hard-wired myself to not being open to important developments at a company, sector or market level which may have longer-lasting effects. I might feel I have missed an investment opportunity because it has already had a run, when in fact it may still have significant further upside.

You can have the best valuation model but if it is not populated with well-considered, unbiased inputs then it may not be successful.

 

David Bell is Chief Investment Officer at Mine Wealth and Wellbeing.  He is also working towards a PhD at University of NSW. This article is general information and does not consider the circumstances of any individual.

 

5 Comments
Graham Hand
September 19, 2016

Hi Ken, here's an article with the answer (although noting we are not recommending the strategy, it is a theoretical exercise).

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-best-and-worst-performing-australian-stocks-of-2016-2016-7

Ken
September 19, 2016

As a new subscriber I was most impressed with this article on the top 10 performing ASX200 stocks and how they performed the following year.
Do you have or know where I can get the names of the top 10 performing stocks for the year ending June2016?

David Bell
September 09, 2016

Hi Jerome,

Always appreciate your comments - you add value to readers of Cuffelinks. And credit for actually commenting under your own name. Please don't stop!

Given the way that I worded the article it may not surprise you that I am a strong believer in diversification - in this case investment styles (but also markets, return drivers, risk factors etc). So we do have exposure to the momentum factor in some of our stock selection strategies, but it is far less crude than the analysis I have been presenting on this topic each of the last few years. All this analysis is meant to do is create thought and reflection.

As for my own money, all my super goes into Mine Wealth and Wellbeing. I don't have a SMSF - I direct all my efforts at the fund (and where possible try and share relevant thoughts with the broader industry) and I want to create maximum alignment between me and the members who I manage money for.

Cheers, Dave

Jerome Lander
September 08, 2016

It is certainly good to see you appear to be an advocate of thoughtful active investing. Why anyone would believe not thinking about what they're doing, and simply trusting in the market to provide a return to them (rather than a diligent manager or strategy) is quite amazing.. Of course certain financial "education" encourages people to believe in false concepts, so that probably explains it and many other biases. Having an education beyond finance helps see the flaws in a "financial education".

David, I wonder whether you currently use a strategy like this in your institutional CIO role - it is cheap after all? If not, why not? So many super fund executives actually invest the bulk of their own superannuation money elsewhere through a SMSF, which I find particularly interesting but not surprising - there are after all better options out there and the insiders should know, given all the flaws that impede big institutions from investing well. Readers might reconsider where they put their money if they knew all the issues.

David, I rarely get quoted as making mainstream or typical comments and then having my comment quoted in the f/up article, so that's a first! By no means has yours been the only Cuffelinks article to have "issues" in my humble opinion, and I have grown a little weary of making (hopefully) informative comments so don't expect to hear too much from me :-0

Ashley
September 08, 2016

Good to disclose it is a theoretical paper trading portfolio and not real money. There are oodles of inefficiencies to exploit – but few work after brokerage, spreads and tax – especially the horrendous spreads small individual investors suffer.

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Stock market winners versus losers

Ignore the rise of short selling at your peril

How to think rationally about shares

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Is it better to rent or own a home under the age pension?

With 62% of Australians aged 65 and over relying at least partially on the age pension, are they better off owning their home or renting? There is an extra pension asset allowance for those not owning a home.

Too many retirees miss out on this valuable super fund benefit

With 700 Australians retiring every day, retirement income solutions are more important than ever. Why do millions of retirees eligible for a more tax-efficient pension account hold money in accumulation?

Is the fossil fuel narrative simply too convenient?

A fund manager argues it is immoral to deny poor countries access to relatively cheap energy from fossil fuels. Wealthy countries must recognise the transition is a multi-decade challenge and continue to invest.

Reece Birtles on selecting stocks for income in retirement

Equity investing comes with volatility that makes many retirees uncomfortable. A focus on income which is less volatile than share prices, and quality companies delivering robust earnings, offers more reassurance.

Superannuation: a 30+ year journey but now stop fiddling

Few people have been closer to superannuation policy over the years than Noel Whittaker, especially when he established his eponymous financial planning business. He takes us on a quick guided tour.

Comparing generations and the nine dimensions of our well-being

Using the nine dimensions of well-being used by the OECD, and dividing Australians into Baby Boomers, Generation Xers or Millennials, it is surprisingly easy to identify the winners and losers for most dimensions.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

Superannuation: a 30+ year journey but now stop fiddling

Few people have been closer to superannuation policy over the years than Noel Whittaker, especially when he established his eponymous financial planning business. He takes us on a quick guided tour.

Survey: share your retirement experiences

All Baby Boomers are now over 55 and many are either in retirement or thinking about a transition from work. But what is retirement like? Is it the golden years or a drag? Do you have tips for making the most of it?

Interviews

Time for value as ‘promise generators’ fail to deliver

A $28 billion global manager still sees far more potential in value than growth stocks, believes energy stocks are undervalued including an Australian company, and describes the need for resilience in investing.

Superannuation

Paul Keating's long-term plans for super and imputation

Paul Keating not only designed compulsory superannuation but in the 30 years since its introduction, he has maintained the rage. Here are highlights of three articles on SG's origins and two more recent interviews.

Fixed interest

On interest rates and credit, do you feel the need for speed?

Central bank support for credit and equity markets is reversing, which has led to wider spreads and higher rates. But what does that mean and is it time to jump at higher rates or do they have some way to go?

Investment strategies

Death notices for the 60/40 portfolio are premature

Pundits have once again declared the death of the 60% stock/40% bond portfolio amid sharp declines in both stock and bond prices. Based on history, balanced portfolios are apt to prove the naysayers wrong, again.

Exchange traded products

ETFs and the eight biggest worries in index investing

Both passive investing and ETFs have withstood criticism as their popularity has grown. They have been blamed for causing bubbles, distorting the market, and concentrating share ownership. Are any of these criticisms valid?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2022 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.