Undergraduate Student Investment Management Fund

Transcription

1 Undergraduate Student Investment Management Fund Semi-Annual Presentation April 29 th,

2 Meet the Fund 2

3 1 Theory Review Agenda 2 3 Implementation Returns 4 Moving Forward 3

4 Financial Theory Implementation Results & Analysis Overview of Investment Thesis Arbitrage Asymmetry and the Idiosyncratic Volatility Puzzle Stambaugh, Yu, Yuan (2015) Invest in securities with two key features: Underpriced High Idiosyncratic Risk Determined by ranking securities along five pricing anomalies Individual risk of a stock after removing effects (in excess) of market/systematic risk 4

5 Financial Theory Implementation Results & Analysis CAPM and Idiosyncratic Risk CAPM assumes the market is in equilibrium and all investors are fully diversified The real-world market has frictions that prevent full diversification (Levy 1968, Merton 1986); idiosyncratic risk is priced and has a positive expected premium Ang, et al. (2006) found empirically that idiosyncratic risk has a negative premium Stambaugh, et al. (2015) explain this using a combination of mispricing and constraints on arbitrage 1968: Levy 2006: Ang, et al. 1964: CAPM 1986: Merton 2015: Stambaugh, et al. 5

6 Financial Theory Implementation Results & Analysis Idiosyncratic Risk Defined: IVOL 6

7 Financial Theory Implementation Results & Analysis Mispricing Overpriced Security Negative momentum High asset growth High net stock issuance Unprofitable High accruals Underpriced Security Positive momentum Low asset growth Low net stock issuance Profitable Low accruals 7

8 Financial Theory Implementation Results & Analysis Arbitrage Constraints 8

9 Financial Theory Implementation Results & Analysis Asymmetric Arbitrage 9

10 Financial Theory Implementation Results & Analysis Anomaly Selection Accruals Goal: narrow down 11 mispricing anomalies from Stambaugh s IVOL Theory to 5 to make mispricing forecasts more manageable Chosen based on: Confidence in supporting research & returns Ease of calculation Covariances Profitability Net Stock Issuance Five Anomalies Momentum Asset Growth 10

11 Financial Theory Implementation Results & Analysis Portfolio Implementation 11

12 Financial Theory Implementation Results & Analysis Trading Costs First rebalance: monthly turnover of 156.6% Trading costs were $.02/share plus spread Effective trading costs of ~30-35bp Expected premium was only 30-50bp Goal: control trading costs while still capturing expected premium 12

13 Financial Theory Implementation Results & Analysis Anomaly Underpricing SELL Sell 35% BUY Sell 35% 80% IVOL 13

14 Financial Theory Implementation Results & Analysis Anomaly Underpricing SELL Sell 35% BUY HOLD Hold 35% 80% IVOL 14

15 Financial Theory Implementation Results & Analysis New Buy Ranking Method Old Method Security IVOL Percentile Anomaly Pecentile Average Bid-Ask Commission Closing Price Transaction Cost Percentage Company A Company B Company C Company D New Method Security IVOL Percentile Anomaly Pecentile Average Bid-Ask Commission Closing Price Transaction Cost Percentage Company C Company D Company B Company A

16 Financial Theory Implementation Results & Analysis Results Rebalance month Turnover % Notes December % January 63.65% Implemented holding range February 46.48% Implemented transaction cost ranking March 8.43% April 30.15% *Original Seeding in November 16

17 Returns 17

18 6 Total Portfolio Returns Return Tot. Return Std Dev Total Port. S&P 500 Russell % 1.53% 1.03% 4.98% 3.77% 4.03% *Since inception, through 4/22/ /20/ /22/2015 1/21/2016 2/22/2016 3/23/2016 4/22/2016 Portfolio Russell 3000 S&P500 18

19 GIC Industry Average Weight Comparison Utilities 3.30 Telecommunication Services Materials Information Technology Industrials Health Care Financials Energy Consumer Staples Consumer Discretionary Cash Russell 3000 Portfolio *Averages across entire holding period

20 Industry Benchmark Construction Seeding Rebalance SIMF Portfolio (Stocks) A B C Weight 20% 40% 40% Return 4% Weight 40% 35% 25% Benchmark (ETFs) A B C Weight 20% 40% 40% Return 3% Weight 40% 35% 25% 20

21 6 Portfolio Returns vs. Industry Benchmark Return Tot Return Std Dev Total Port. Ind. Weight 4.36% 1.75% 4.98% 4.56% *Since inception /20/ /22/2015 1/21/2016 2/22/2016 3/23/2016 4/22/2016 Portfolio Industry Weight 21

22 Total Portfolio Market Cap Holding Cash Large Cap Mid Cap Small Cap 6.94% 1.05% 23.40% 65.46% *Averages across entire holding period 22

23 6 Portfolio Returns vs. Size Benchmark Return Tot Return Std Dev Total Port. Market Cap 4.36% 0.55% 4.98% 4.20% *Since inception /20/ /22/2015 1/21/2016 2/22/2016 3/23/2016 4/22/2016 Portfolio Market Cap 23

24 Long-term: Improving SIM Fund Processes Portfolio Database Utilize SQL Server to track key portfolio information Create an infrastructure to calculate holdings, returns, attributions XBRL Pull financial statement data directly from company XBRL filings Fix bugs to integrate XBRL into portfolio construction process 24

25 XBRL Update: Process Pull Data From SEC Clean and Insert Run Anomaly Rankings Moving Forward: 1. Integrate with Bloomberg to fill in missing data 2. Add filters for charter restraints 3. Compare XBRL to previous rebalance data 25

26 Conclusion 26

27 At this time we would be happy to take your questions 27

28 Portfolio Database Transactions CUSIP Name Ticker Price Date (at rebalancing) Buy/Sell Binary # of Shares Strategy Identifier Attributes CUSIP Name Ticker Industry Market Cap Date (at rebalancing) # Dividend Payment Dividends CUSIP Name Ticker Ex Date Pmt Date Amount Portfolio Returns Strategy Identifier Frequency Start Date End Date Return Portfolio Attributes Strategy Identifier Date (at rebalancing) Cash Industry Attribution Market Cap Attribution 28