The profitability of momentum investing

ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Several studies have shown that abnormal returns can be generated simply by buying past winning stocks and selling past losing stocks. Being able to predict future price behaviour by past price movements represents a direct challenge to the Efficient Market Hypothesis, a centrepiece of contemporary finance.Fund managers have attempted to exploit this effect, but reliable footage of the performance of such funds is very limited. Several academic studies have documented the presence of the momentum effect across different markets and between different periods. These studies employ trading rules that might be helpful to establish whether the momentum effect is present in a market or not, but have limited practical value as they ignore several practical constraints.The number of shares in the portfolios formed by academic studies is often impractical. Some studies (e.g. Conrad & Kaul, 1998) require holding a certain percentage of every share in the selection universe, resulting in an extremely large number of shares in the portfolios. Others create portfolios with as little as three shares (e.g. Rey & Schmid, 2005) resulting in portfolios that are insufficiently diversified. All academic studies implicitly require extremely high portfolio turnover rates that could cause transaction costs to dissipate momentum profits and lead the returns of such strategies to be taxed at an investor’s income tax rate rather than her capital gains tax rate. Depending on the tax jurisdiction within which the investor resides these tax ramifications could represent a tax difference of more than 10 percent, an amount that is unlikely to be recovered by any investment strategy.Critics of studies documenting positive alpha argue that momentum returns may be due to statistical biases such as data mining or due to risk factors not effectively captured by the standard CAPM. The empirical tests conducted in this study were therefore carefully designed to avoid every factor that could compromise the results and hinder a meaningful interpretation of the results. For example, small-caps were excluded to avoid the small firm effect from influencing the results and the tests were conducted on two different samples to avoid data mining from being a possible driver. Previous momentum studies generally used long/short strategies. It was found, however, that momentum strategies generally picked short positions in volatile and illiquid stocks, making it difficult to effectively estimate the transaction costs involved with holding such positions. For this reason it was chosen to test a long-only strategy.Three different strategies were tested on a sample of JSE mid-and large-caps on a replicated S&P500 index between January 2000 and September 2009. All strategies yielded positive abnormal returns and the null hypothesis that feasible momentum strategies cannot generate statistically significant abnormal returns could be rejected at the 5 percent level of significance for all three strategies on the JSE sample.However, further analysis showed that the momentum profits were far more pronounced in “up” markets than in “down” markets, leaving macroeconomic risk as a possible explanation for the vast returns generated by the strategy. There was ample evidence for the January anomaly being a possible driver behind the momentum returns derived from the S&P500 sample.