Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
86 lines (55 loc) · 4.2 KB

File metadata and controls

86 lines (55 loc) · 4.2 KB

Factor Investing Primer

Overview

This document summarizes the theory and practice behind the factors implemented in this repository: value, momentum, and quality. It is intended as educational context for the strategies in the course.


Value

Idea: Stocks that are "cheap" relative to fundamentals (earnings, assets, sales, cash flow) tend to outperform over the long run.

Theoretical basis:

  • Fama–French: value (e.g. high book-to-market) earns a risk premium.
  • Behavioral: investors overreact to bad news, so value stocks are underpriced.
  • Risk-based: value firms are riskier (distress, cyclicality), so higher expected return.

Common metrics (lower = cheaper = more value):

  • P/E (price-to-earnings): price per dollar of earnings. Fails for negative earnings.
  • P/B (price-to-book): market value vs book value. Less meaningful for intangibles-heavy firms.
  • P/S (price-to-sales): useful when earnings are negative or volatile.
  • EV/EBITDA: enterprise value to operating cash flow; good for cross-sector comparison.
  • EV/GP (enterprise value to gross profit): less affected by leverage and accounting choices.

In this repo: The RV (Robust Value) score is the average of percentiles across P/E, P/B, P/S, EV/EBITDA, and EV/GP (lower raw metric → higher percentile → higher RV). We select the top 50 by RV for the value strategy.


Momentum

Idea: Stocks that have performed well over the recent past (e.g. 6–12 months) tend to continue performing well in the short term.

Theoretical basis:

  • Underreaction to information (earnings, news) so trends persist.
  • Behavioral: herding and slow information diffusion.
  • Risk: momentum as compensation for time-varying risk exposure.

Common implementations:

  • Price momentum: past 2–12 month return (skip most recent month to avoid short-term reversal).
  • High-quality momentum: require strength across multiple horizons (e.g. 1m, 3m, 6m, 12m) to avoid one-off spikes (e.g. FDA approval).

In this repo: HQM (High-Quality Momentum) uses 1m, 3m, 6m, and 1y price return percentiles and averages them. Top 50 by HQM form the momentum portfolio. Alternatives implemented: 52-week high proximity, risk-adjusted momentum (return/volatility).


Quality

Idea: Profitable, stable, low-leverage firms (high "quality") tend to have higher risk-adjusted returns.

Common metrics:

  • ROE (return on equity): profitability.
  • Earnings stability: low volatility of earnings over time.
  • Low leverage: debt/equity or interest coverage.

In this repo: Quality is used as an overlay (filter or score) and in the multi-factor strategy (value + momentum + quality weights). Quality score can be based on ROE and optional earnings stability.


Multi-Factor Combination

Combining value, momentum, and quality can improve diversification of signals and reduce regime dependence. In this repo, the multi-factor strategy uses configurable weights (e.g. 1/3 value, 1/3 momentum, 1/3 quality), ranks by composite score, and selects the top 50.


Portfolio Construction

  • Equal weight: simplest; each name has same weight.
  • Risk parity / volatility weighting: weight inversely to volatility so each position contributes similarly to risk.
  • Conviction: weight by score (e.g. higher HQM or lower RV → higher weight).
  • Optimization: minimum variance (minimize portfolio vol) or max Sharpe (maximize risk-adjusted return) subject to constraints.

Backtesting Caveats

  • Survivorship bias: using only current index members overstates historical returns; use point-in-time constituents when possible.
  • Look-ahead bias: ensure all inputs (prices, fundamentals) are available at each rebalance date.
  • Transaction costs: rebalancing and turnover reduce net returns; model explicitly for realism.

References (Further Reading)

  • Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1992). The cross‐section of expected stock returns. Journal of Finance.
  • Jegadeesh, N., & Titman, S. (1993). Returns to buying winners and selling losers. Journal of Finance.
  • Asness, C. S., Frazzini, A., & Pedersen, L. H. (2019). Quality minus junk. Review of Accounting Studies.