Market lessons from the 1800s
New data suggests that factors such as value, momentum and low beta have a long history of success
The hunt for ways to beat the market means that the investment industry has an enormous appetite for data on how different types of stocks have performed over time. The problem is that the data we have is more limited than you might expect.
It’s quite decent for US stocks back to the 1920s, for example, because in the aftermath of the crash of 1929 and the Great Depression, American researchers began collating more financial and economic information. There are also long-term stock prices for many other countries, but there’s a shortage of long-term fundamental data.
This is an issue when you want to know whether a pattern of returns you have found only holds true for the limited amount of data you are working with (known as “in sample” in statistics), or whether it tends to occur across different markets and across time (“out of sample”). Findings that are only tested in sample will often be misleading – they may lead you to make wrong forecasts if you try to apply them more widely. Results that can be robustly replicated out of sample and in very different environments can be trusted much more as the basis for an investment strategy.
Reconstructing the past
So anybody interested in market history will be pleased by a new study from researchers at Dutch asset manager Robeco and Erasmus University at Rotterdam, who have put together data on US stocks from 1866 (when the country was just emerging from civil war) to 1926. This involved a great deal of work scanning old newspapers and other records to build up a database of 1,488 individual stocks (which explains why this kind of historical work is rare). The information available is limited – there are no earnings – but includes prices, market capitalisation and dividends.
This allowed the researchers to test whether factors (see below) such as yield, size and momentum worked in this very old, very different out-of-sample data in the same way that they have in more recent history. Their results suggest that yield and momentum effects were present, as was low beta (the tendency of less volatile stocks to outperform more volatile ones). The size effect (smaller stocks beating larger ones) was not significant (one could speculate that some issues driving smallstocks today, such as less public research and information, were true more broadly back then).
There is one huge caveat to historical studies like this. It is possible that any apparent anomalies could not have been profitably exploited given higher trading costs or lower liquidity. That aside, this data seems to strengthen the idea that many factor effects are long-term consequences of human behaviour in markets rather than misleading patterns that appear solely by chance.
Housing bulls argue that America has a housing shortage, but underlying demand isn’t that strong. “We don’t believe we are in a shortage,” says Zelman. The pace of growth in new households was the slowest on record over the past decade. “The US is seeing more consolidation in terms of households. We’re seeing more multi-generational living.” The picture is being clouded by investment demand, which can’t rise forever. “Prices won’t be sustainable if the returns start to flatten out or even come under pressure.”
The “terrible Fed policy” of buying $40bn of mortgage-backed securities per month is keeping interest rates at “artificially low levels”. When rates start to rise, that will cool demand – not least because the 70% of homeowners who have locked in very long-term mortgages at less than 4% will have to pay higher rates to move. “It may be that our concerns don’t come to fruition this year or possibly even in 2022,” says Zelman. “But we definitely see a storm brewing.”
“Findings that are only tested in sample may be misleading”