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

Unexpected results in our retirement income survey

Who knew? With some surprise results, the Government is on unexpected firm ground in asking people to draw on all their assets in retirement, although the comments show what feisty and informed readers we have.

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

Three all-time best tables for every adviser and investor

It's a remarkable statistic. In any year since 1875, if you had invested in the Australian stock index, turned away and come back eight years later, your average return would be 120% with no negative periods.

The looming excess of housing and why prices will fall

Never stand between Australian households and an uncapped government programme with $3 billion in ‘free money’ to build or renovate their homes. But excess supply is coming with an absence of net migration.

Five stocks that have worked well in our portfolios

Picking macro trends is difficult. What may seem logical and compelling one minute may completely change a few months later. There are better rewards from focussing on identifying the best companies at good prices.

Six COVID opportunist stocks prospering in adversity

Some high-quality companies have emerged even stronger since the onset of COVID and are well placed for outperformance. We call these the ‘COVID Opportunists’ as they are now dominating their specific sectors.

Latest Updates

Retirement

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

Interviews

Sean Fenton on marching to your own investment tune

Is it more difficult to find stocks to short in a rising market? What impact has central bank dominance had over stock selection? How do you combine income and growth in a portfolio? Where are the opportunities?

Compliance

D’oh! DDO rules turn some funds into a punching bag

The Design and Distribution Obligations (DDO) come into effect in two weeks. They will change the way banks promote products, force some small funds to close to new members and push issues into the listed space.

Shares

Dividends, disruption and star performers in FY21 wrap

Company results in FY21 were generally good with some standout results from those thriving in tough conditions. We highlight the companies that delivered some of the best results and our future  expectations.

Fixed interest

Coles no longer happy with the status quo

It used to be Down, Down for prices but the new status quo is Down Down for emissions. Until now, the realm of ESG has been mainly fund managers as 'responsible investors', but companies are now pushing credentials.

Investment strategies

Seven factors driving growth in Managed Accounts

As Managed Accounts surge through $100 billion for the first time, the line between retail, wholesale and institutional capabilities and portfolios continues to blur. Lower costs help with best interest duties.

Retirement

Reader Survey: home values in age pension asset test

Read our article on the family home in the age pension test, with the RBA Governor putting the onus on social security to address house prices and the OECD calling out wealthy pensioners. What is your view?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 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.