Index  Recent Threads  Who's Online  Search 


yuvaltaylor

@ Dan: For example 100/10 would be 100/10=10 > that might be a great stock! It just might have just turned around and the price might not reflect that > I am with Jim here, it might not capture a growth, but it can be a good sentiment factor, especially on small caps. I tried: (CurFYEPSMean  CurFYEPS4WkAgo) /Max(0.02, Abs(CurFYEPS4WkAgo)) [formula #1] (NextFYEPSMean  NextFYEPS4WkAgo) / Max(0.02, Abs(NextFYEPS4WkAgo)) [formula #1a] and I tried (CurFYEPSMean  CurFYEPS4WkAgo) / Abs(CurFYEPS4WkAgo) [formula #2] (NextFYEPSMean  NextFYEPS4WkAgo) / Abs(NextFYEPS4WkAgo) [formula #2a] they give (much!) less performance then Abs(CurFYEPSMean) / Abs (CurFYEPS4WkAgo) [formula #3] Abs (NextFYEPSMean) / Abs(CurFYEPS4WkAgo) [formula #3a] Both above factors in one node and a rank weight of 12.5%. at least with my ranking systems (which has some heavy quality and momentum components) and a filter on small caps on the buy rules Let's look at what these factors are actually doing rather than judging them on "performance." Abs(CurFYEPSMean) / Abs (CurFYEPS4WkAgo). This would rank stocks that had an EPS estimate of 0.13 four weeks ago and an EPS estimate of 0.01 right now very low. A stock that had an EPS estimate of 0.01 four weeks ago and an EPS estimate of 0.13 right now would be ranked extremely high. Is this what you want? Abs (NextFYEPSMean) / Abs(CurFYEPS4WkAgo). If you want to compare next year's EPS estimate to this year's EPS estimate, why would you compare it to what this year's EPS estimate was four weeks ago rather than to this year's EPS estimate today? And once again, using Abs in the numerator makes no logical sense. It's always important to judge factors on their logic BEFORE judging them on their performance. As for their performance, if you run a 10week ranking test on the PRussell 3000 excluding stocks with a price under $3, rebalancing every four weeks over the last 10 years, the top decile gets 11.1% with the formula #1, 11.0% with formula #2, and 10.2% with formula #3. It gets 12.7% with formulas #1a and #2a and only 8.3% with formula #3a. (I numbered and labeled the formulas above.) Yuval Taylor Product Manager, Portfolio123 invest(igations) Any opinions or recommendations in this message are not opinions or recommendations of Portfolio123 Securities LLC. 


RTNL

How long was the hold before rebalancing, Jim? And since P123 does not do the significance tests, I assume you are doing it else where. If you don't mind, can you share where you do these? 

Edit 1 times,
last edit by
RTNL
at Jul 16, 2020 11:09:12 AM

Jrinne

How long was the hold before rebalancing, Jim? And since P123 does not do the significance tests, I assume you are doing it else where. If you don't mind, can you share where you do these? RT, Weekly. The image is weekly (FY equation above). NAs neutral so NAs do not affect the top or bottom quintile returns. The Excel download from this page can easily be manipulated to get the tscore for top quintile minus bottom quintile. Best, Jim Earnings Estimates.png (346316 bytes) (Download count: 59) From time to time you will encounter Luddites, who are beyond redemption. de Prado, Marcos López on the topic of machine learning for financial applications 

Edit 2 times,
last edit by
Jrinne
at Jul 16, 2020 11:18:16 AM

RTNL

Thanks, Jim. 


InspectorSector

Using top decile (or quintile) minus bottom decile (or quintile) over max period rank performance both of these are highly statistically significant with tscores greater than 4. So the first question is: How are you handling N/As Are they set to neutral in the ranking system? Otherwise a top decile versus bottom decile may be a meaningless analysis. Steve 

Edit 1 times,
last edit by
InspectorSector
at Jul 16, 2020 12:35:23 PM

Jrinne

From above: NAs neutral so NAs do not affect the top or bottom quintile returns. Steve, This is an EXCELLENT QUESTION and your reminder of something that could be overlooked is much appreciated. I did already think of this (this time). Best, Jim From time to time you will encounter Luddites, who are beyond redemption. de Prado, Marcos López on the topic of machine learning for financial applications 


InspectorSector

I don't have any experience with FactSet's estimate data so I am going to base these comments on my experience with the previous data vendor. My comments are as follows:  historical data was not Point In Time. i.e. the estimates were spilling over into Monday morning and the data was being overwritten. Therefore, the most recent week is untrustworthy.  GIven that the most recent week is not PIT, you have to avoid the most recent week. The formulae (CurFYEPSMean  CurFYEPS4WkAgo) / Abs(CurFYEPS4WkAgo) and (NextFYEPSMean  NextFYEPS4WkAgo) / Abs(NextFYEPS4WkAgo) are not valid as PIT backtests.  You have to modify the formulae to the following: (CurFYEPS1WkAgo  CurFYEPS4WkAgo) / Abs(CurFYEPS4WkAgo) and (NextFYEPS1WkAgo  NextFYEPS4WkAgo) / Abs(NextFYEPS4WkAgo) Backtest results:  using the original formulae on the PRussell3000, 5Year RS performance with weekly rebalance, ignoring the fact that the results are probably not PIT... Only the bottom decile provides usable results. There is no monatonic increase in buckets. This likely means that an extreme negative change in earnings estimates may forecast lower stock prices ahead. However keep in mind that this may not be PIT and this may not be exploitable.  using the modified formula (avoiding the most recent week), there is no useful advantage. See attached. Earnings Growth.gif (94340 bytes) (Download count: 47) 


InspectorSector

BTW, this is what Zacks does in their screener. I do not use Zacks but any reputation they may have is based their handling of earnings estimates. Zacks determines which analysts give the best ratings and then they look for an increase in earnings estimates from those analysts specifically, immediately before the earnings report comes out. This info is used in the Zacks rating. We don't have this ability using P123. 

Edit 1 times,
last edit by
InspectorSector
at Jul 16, 2020 1:44:11 PM

Jrinne

Steve, The last 5 years are interesting but I would prefer not to live in interesting times. I cannot add much to what you illustrate here. Not limited to earnings estimates however. Here is EBITDATTM/EV. This universe is the PRussell 3000 also. Enough to make me not want to discount walkforward methods that do not look back the entire 20 years. Something that adjusts to more recent events. Not that I have much outofsample data to show (either way). Best, Jim EBITDATTM:EV.png (90311 bytes) (Download count: 45) From time to time you will encounter Luddites, who are beyond redemption. de Prado, Marcos López on the topic of machine learning for financial applications 

Edit 6 times,
last edit by
Jrinne
at Jul 16, 2020 2:11:50 PM

