Performance comparison, monthly frequency: long training, rank transformation
Panel A: one-month horizon . | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
. | Std Dev . | p-val. . | SR . | ||
Theory-based | MW | 0.2 | 3.2 | 0.154 | 0.30 |
KT | −1.8 | 6.9 | 0.704 | 0.30 | |
Machine learning | ENet | 0.5 | 3.5 | 0.073 | 0.65 |
ANN | 0.4 | 3.4 | 0.053 | 0.34 | |
GBRT | −0.8 | 4.3 | 0.300 | 0.37 | |
RF | −0.8 | 4.8 | 0.294 | 0.17 | |
Ens | 0.1 | 3.8 | 0.108 | 0.41 |
Panel A: one-month horizon . | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
. | Std Dev . | p-val. . | SR . | ||
Theory-based | MW | 0.2 | 3.2 | 0.154 | 0.30 |
KT | −1.8 | 6.9 | 0.704 | 0.30 | |
Machine learning | ENet | 0.5 | 3.5 | 0.073 | 0.65 |
ANN | 0.4 | 3.4 | 0.053 | 0.34 | |
GBRT | −0.8 | 4.3 | 0.300 | 0.37 | |
RF | −0.8 | 4.8 | 0.294 | 0.17 | |
Ens | 0.1 | 3.8 | 0.108 | 0.41 |
Panel B: one-year horizon . | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
100 . | Std Dev . | p-val. . | SR . | ||
Theory-based | MW | 8.8 | 16.3 | 0.051 | 0.37 |
KT | 3.1 | 47.6 | 0.694 | 0.37 | |
Machine learning | ENet | 6.9 | 22.5 | 0.174 | 0.49 |
ANN | 8.1 | 22.1 | 0.097 | 0.63 | |
GBRT | 9.7 | 23.1 | 0.086 | 0.49 | |
RF | 9.6 | 43.3 | 0.361 | 0.67 | |
Ens | 10.2 | 24.8 | 0.086 | 0.60 |
Panel B: one-year horizon . | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
100 . | Std Dev . | p-val. . | SR . | ||
Theory-based | MW | 8.8 | 16.3 | 0.051 | 0.37 |
KT | 3.1 | 47.6 | 0.694 | 0.37 | |
Machine learning | ENet | 6.9 | 22.5 | 0.174 | 0.49 |
ANN | 8.1 | 22.1 | 0.097 | 0.63 | |
GBRT | 9.7 | 23.1 | 0.086 | 0.49 | |
RF | 9.6 | 43.3 | 0.361 | 0.67 | |
Ens | 10.2 | 24.8 | 0.086 | 0.60 |
Notes: This table reports predictive , their standard deviation and statistical significance, and the annualized Sharpe ratios (SR) implied by Martin and Wagner’s (2019) and Kadan and Tang’s (2020) theory-based approaches and the five machine learning models. The standard deviation of the (Std Dev) is calculated based on the annual test samples. The SR refer to a zero-investment strategy long in the portfolio of stocks with the highest excess return prediction and short in the portfolio of stocks with the lowest excess return prediction. The p-values are associated with a test of the null hypothesis that the respective excess return prediction has no explanatory power over the zero forecast, . For Panel A, the investment horizon is one month, and for Panel B, it is one year. The RPE are computed at the monthly (EOM) frequency. The out-of-sample testing period starts in January 1996 and ends in November 2018 (Panel A) or December 2017 (Panel B), respectively. The features are rank-scaled as described in Section 3.6. The machine learning results are obtained using the long training scheme depicted in Figure 2.
Performance comparison, monthly frequency: long training, rank transformation
Panel A: one-month horizon . | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
. | Std Dev . | p-val. . | SR . | ||
Theory-based | MW | 0.2 | 3.2 | 0.154 | 0.30 |
KT | −1.8 | 6.9 | 0.704 | 0.30 | |
Machine learning | ENet | 0.5 | 3.5 | 0.073 | 0.65 |
ANN | 0.4 | 3.4 | 0.053 | 0.34 | |
GBRT | −0.8 | 4.3 | 0.300 | 0.37 | |
RF | −0.8 | 4.8 | 0.294 | 0.17 | |
Ens | 0.1 | 3.8 | 0.108 | 0.41 |
Panel A: one-month horizon . | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
. | Std Dev . | p-val. . | SR . | ||
Theory-based | MW | 0.2 | 3.2 | 0.154 | 0.30 |
KT | −1.8 | 6.9 | 0.704 | 0.30 | |
Machine learning | ENet | 0.5 | 3.5 | 0.073 | 0.65 |
ANN | 0.4 | 3.4 | 0.053 | 0.34 | |
GBRT | −0.8 | 4.3 | 0.300 | 0.37 | |
RF | −0.8 | 4.8 | 0.294 | 0.17 | |
Ens | 0.1 | 3.8 | 0.108 | 0.41 |
Panel B: one-year horizon . | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
100 . | Std Dev . | p-val. . | SR . | ||
Theory-based | MW | 8.8 | 16.3 | 0.051 | 0.37 |
KT | 3.1 | 47.6 | 0.694 | 0.37 | |
Machine learning | ENet | 6.9 | 22.5 | 0.174 | 0.49 |
ANN | 8.1 | 22.1 | 0.097 | 0.63 | |
GBRT | 9.7 | 23.1 | 0.086 | 0.49 | |
RF | 9.6 | 43.3 | 0.361 | 0.67 | |
Ens | 10.2 | 24.8 | 0.086 | 0.60 |
Panel B: one-year horizon . | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
100 . | Std Dev . | p-val. . | SR . | ||
Theory-based | MW | 8.8 | 16.3 | 0.051 | 0.37 |
KT | 3.1 | 47.6 | 0.694 | 0.37 | |
Machine learning | ENet | 6.9 | 22.5 | 0.174 | 0.49 |
ANN | 8.1 | 22.1 | 0.097 | 0.63 | |
GBRT | 9.7 | 23.1 | 0.086 | 0.49 | |
RF | 9.6 | 43.3 | 0.361 | 0.67 | |
Ens | 10.2 | 24.8 | 0.086 | 0.60 |
Notes: This table reports predictive , their standard deviation and statistical significance, and the annualized Sharpe ratios (SR) implied by Martin and Wagner’s (2019) and Kadan and Tang’s (2020) theory-based approaches and the five machine learning models. The standard deviation of the (Std Dev) is calculated based on the annual test samples. The SR refer to a zero-investment strategy long in the portfolio of stocks with the highest excess return prediction and short in the portfolio of stocks with the lowest excess return prediction. The p-values are associated with a test of the null hypothesis that the respective excess return prediction has no explanatory power over the zero forecast, . For Panel A, the investment horizon is one month, and for Panel B, it is one year. The RPE are computed at the monthly (EOM) frequency. The out-of-sample testing period starts in January 1996 and ends in November 2018 (Panel A) or December 2017 (Panel B), respectively. The features are rank-scaled as described in Section 3.6. The machine learning results are obtained using the long training scheme depicted in Figure 2.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.