Abstract
This paper investigates whether short-term momentum and long-term reversal may emerge from the wealth reallocation process taking place in speculative markets. We assume that there are two classes of investors who trade long-lived assets by holding constantly rebalanced portfolios based on their beliefs. Provided beliefs, and thus portfolios, are sufficiently diversified, all investors survive in the long-run and, due to waves of mispricing, the resulting equilibrium returns exhibit long-term reversal. If, moreover, asset dividends are positively correlated, investors’ profitable trades become positively correlated too, thus generating short-term momentum in equilibrium returns. We use the model to replicate the performance of the Winners and Losers portfolios highlighted by the empirical literature and to provide insights on how to improve upon them. Finally, we show that dividend positive autocorrelation is positively related to momentum and negatively related to reversal while diversity of beliefs is positively related to both momentum and reversal.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See Sect. 2 for an account of the empirical literature on momentum and reversal.
See Sect. 2 for more details on empirical results concerning Winners–Losers portfolios.
In doing so, we neglect the price impact of such portfolio strategies. Their inclusion in the set of trading strategies could be an interesting topic for future work.
We shall show that this is the case in Sect. 4.1. We anticipate that having no aggregate risk is crucial for this result, otherwise returns should be risk adjusted.
A similar aggregation is performed in the behavioral finance literature, see e.g. Barberis et al. (1998).
The same analysis holds even when agents have a different discount factor. The only difference is that the risk-free rate depends on agents’ relative wealth. In the long-run, only the agent with the highest discount factor has positive wealth, and thus determines prices.
Provided beliefs and discount factors are homogeneous, the exact functional form of U does not matter when the aggregate endowment is constant. Prices and portfolio shares can thus be derived using Euler equations and market clearing for any choice of the representative agent.
As we shall characterize later, \((\mathcal {I}_t)\) can be restricted to \((\mathcal {F}_t)\) for our purposes, Conditional on such restriction, \(\mathbb {Q}\) can be derived from \(\mathbb {P}\). See the beginning of Sect. 5.
In particular, since this learning process generically converges to the model with the lowest relative entropy with respect to the invariant \(\pi ^*\) (Berk 1966), we directly assume that each agent uses the best i.i.d. model from the beginning.
The choice of i.i.d. models rather than, for example, Markov models is aimed at ensuring tractability. We try to be careful in understanding the effect of this choice on our results, especially on momentum, and will comment on it again in Sect. 5.1.
As shown in Bottazzi et al. (2018), the rule becomes log-optimal under perfect foresight on prices when the agent using it becomes the representative agent. Under constant aggregate endowment, the “Subjective Generalized Kelly” is thus inter-temporally optimal for all risk-adverse Bernoulli utility \(U^i\), still provided perfect foresight on prices and a representative agent.
Saving rule heterogeneity would give a survival advantage to the agent who has the highest saving rate.
For a precise appraisal of the role of saving rates on agents’ portfolio positions we refer the reader to the discussion on effective beliefs in Bottazzi et al. (2018). Intuitively, simple portfolio rules can be mapped into log-optimal portfolio rules by modifying agents’ beliefs into effective endogenous beliefs. Higher values of saving rates imply a low interest rate and thus a high influence of assets’ future dividends for their evaluation. The same pair of simple rules need closer effective beliefs, and thus less severe speculation, in order to counterbalance the higher impact of future dividends.
A detailed explanation of the procedure can be found in “Appendix E”.
Sources of the data: http://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-dividend-yield/ for the dividend yield (whose yearly average is divided by 4 to get the quarterly one) and http://www.ck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/data_library.html for the 1-month risk free rate (which is compounded in order to find the 3-month one).
Obviously excluding the zero-measure events in which \(p_t=1/2+\lambda \) and \(p_t=1/2-\lambda \) that yield a null expected return.
Despite agent demand is not directly derived by an inter-temporal utility maximization, no arbitrages are possible in our model, see also Bottazzi et al. (2018).
Different initial conditions do not affect the results.
References
Amir, R., Evstigneev, I., Hens, T., Schenk-Hoppé, K.: Market selection and survival of investment strategies. J Math Econ 41, 105–122 (2005)
Amir, R., Evstigneev, I.V., Schenk-Hoppé, K.R.: Asset market games of survival: a synthesis of evolutionary and dynamic games. Ann Finance 9(2), 121–144 (2013)
Asness, C.S., Moskowitz, T.J., Pedersen, L.H.: Value and momentum everywhere. J Finance 68(3), 929–985 (2013)
Balvers, R., Wu, Y., Gilliland, E.: Mean reversion across national stock markets and parametric contrarian investment strategies. J Finance 55(2), 745–772 (2000)
Barberis, N., Shleifer, A., Vishny, R.: A model of investor sentiment. J Financ Econ 49(3), 307–343 (1998)
Beker, P.F., Chattopadhyay, S.: Consumption dynamics in general equilibrium: a characterisation when markets are incomplete. J Econ Theory 145, 2133–2185 (2010)
Beker, P.F., Espino, E.: The dynamics of efficient asset trading with heterogeneous beliefs. J Econ Theory 146, 189–229 (2011)
Beker, P.F., Espino, E.: Short-term momentum and long-term reversal of returns under limited enforceability and belief heterogeneity. Technical Report 1096, University of Warwick, Department of Economics (2015)
Berk, R.H.: Limiting behavior of posterior distributions when the model is incorrect. Ann Math Stat 37, 51–58 (1966)
Bernard, V.L.: Stock price reactions to earnings announcements: a summary of recent anomalous evidence and possible explanations. In: Thaler, R. (ed.) Advances in Behavioral Finance. Russell Sage Foundation, New York (1992)
Bernard, V.L., Thomas, J.K.: Post-earnings-announcement drift: delayed price response or risk premium? J Account Res 27, 1–36 (1989)
Bhamra, H., Uppal, R.: Asset prices with heterogeneity in preferences and beliefs. Rev Financ Stud 27, 519–580 (2014)
Blume, L., Easley, D.: Evolution and market behavior. J Econ Theory 58, 9–40 (1992)
Blume, L., Easley, D.: If you are so smart why aren’t you rich? Belief selection in complete and incomplete markets. Econometrica 74, 929–966 (2006)
Borovička, J.: Survival and long-run dynamics with heterogeneous beliefs under recursive preferences. J Polit Econ (forthcoming) (2019)
Bottazzi, G., Dindo, P.: Drift criteria for persistence of discrete stochastic processes on the line. LEM Papers Series 2015/26, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy (2015). https://ideas.repec.org/p/ssa/lemwps/2015-26.html
Bottazzi, G., Dindo, P., Giachini, D.: Long-run heterogeneity in an exchange economy with fixed-mix traders. Econ Theory 66(2), 407–447 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00199-017-1066-8
Breiman, L.: Optimal gambling systems for favorable games. In: Proceedings of the 4th Berkley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, vol. 1, pp. 63–68 (1961)
Brock, W., Lakonishok, J., LeBaron, B.: Simple technical trading rules and the stochastic properties of stock returns. J Finance 47(5), 1731–1764 (1992)
Cao, D.: Speculation and financial wealth distribution under belief heterogeneity. Econ J 128, 2258–2281 (2018)
Chan, L.K., Jegadeesh, N., Lakonishok, J.: Momentum strategies. J Finance 51(5), 1681–1713 (1996)
Chopra, N., Lakonishok, J., Ritter, J.R.: Measuring abnormal performance: Do stocks overreact? J Financ Econ 31(2), 235–268 (1992)
Cogley, T., Sargent, T., Tsyrennikov, V.: Wealth dynamics in a bond economy with heterogeneous beliefs. Econ J 124, 1–30 (2013)
Condie, S.: Living with ambiguity: prices and survival when investors have heterogeneous preferences for ambiguity. Econ Theory 36, 81–108 (2008)
Coury, T., Sciubba, E.: Belief heterogeneity and survival in incomplete markets. Econ Theory 49, 37–58 (2012)
Cujean, J., Hasler, M.: Why does return predictability concentrate in bad times? J Finance 72(6), 2717–2758 (2017)
Cutler, D.M., Poterba, J.M., Summers, L.H.: Speculative dynamics. Rev Econ Stud 58(3), 529–546 (1991)
Cvitanić, J., Jouini, E., Malamud, S., Napp, C.: Financial markets equilibrium with heterogeneous agents. Rev Finance 16(1), 285–321 (2012)
Daniel, K., Titman, S.: Market efficiency in an irrational world. Financ Anal J 55(6), 28–40 (1999)
Daniel, K., Hirshleifer, D., Subrahmanyam, A.: Investor psychology and security market under-and overreactions. J Finance 53(6), 1839–1885 (1998)
De Bondt, W.F., Thaler, R.: Does the stock market overreact? J Finance 40(3), 793–805 (1985)
De Bondt, W.F., Thaler, R.: Further evidence on investor overreaction and stock market seasonality. J Finance 42(3), 557–581 (1987)
Dindo, P.: Survival in speculative markets. J Econ Theory 181, 1–43 (2019)
Evstigneev, I., Hens, T., Schenk-Hoppé, K.: Evolutionary stable stock markets. Econ Theory 27, 449–468 (2006)
Evstigneev, I., Hens, T., Schenk-Hoppé, K.: Globally evolutionary stable portfolio rules. J Econ Theory 140, 197–228 (2008)
Evstigneev, I., Hens, T., Schenk-Hoppé, K.: Evolutionary finance. In: Hens, T., Schenk-Hoppé, K. (eds.) Handbook of Financial Markets: Dynamics and Evolution, Handbooks in Economics Series. Elsevier, North-Holland (2009)
Evstigneev, I., Hens, T., Schenk-Hoppé, K.R.: Evolutionary behavioral finance. In: The Handbook of Post Crisis Financial Modeling, Springer, pp. 214–234 (2016)
Friedman, M.: Essays in Positive Economics. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago (1953)
Gigerenzer, G., Brighton, H.: Homo heuristicus: why biased minds make better inferences. Top Cognit Sci 1(1), 107–143 (2009)
Gigerenzer, G., Gaissmaier, W.: Heuristic decision making. Annu Rev Psychol 62, 451–482 (2011)
Gigerenzer, G., et al.: Simple Heuristics that Make us Smart. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1999)
Gropp, J.: Mean reversion of industry stock returns in the us, 1926–1998. J Empir Finance 11(4), 537–551 (2004)
Guerdjikova, A., Sciubba, E.: Survival with ambiguity. J Econ Theory 155, 50–94 (2015)
Hong, H., Stein, J.C.: A unified theory of underreaction, momentum trading, and overreaction in asset markets. J Finance 54(6), 2143–2184 (1999)
Hong, H., Stein, J.C.: Disagreement and the stock market (digest summary). J Econ Perspect 21(2), 109–128 (2007)
Hong, H., Lim, T., Stein, J.C.: Bad news travels slowly: size, analyst coverage, and the profitability of momentum strategies. J Finance 55(1), 265–295 (2000)
Hurley, W.J., Johnson, L.D.: A realistic dividend valuation model. Financ Anal J 50(4), 50–54 (1994)
Hurley, W.J., Johnson, L.D.: Generalized markov dividend discount models. J Portf Manag 25(1), 27–31 (1998)
Jegadeesh, N.: Evidence of predictable behavior of security returns. J Finance 45, 881–898 (1990)
Jegadeesh, N., Titman, S.: Returns to buying winners and selling losers: implications for stock market efficiency. J Finance 48(1), 65–91 (1993)
Jegadeesh, N., Titman, S.: Profitability of momentum strategies: an evaluation of alternative explanations. J Finance 56(2), 699–720 (2001)
Jouini, E., Napp, C.: Heterogeneous beliefs and asset pricing in discrete time: an analysis of pessimism and doubt. J Econ Dyn Control 30(7), 1233–1260 (2006)
Jouini, E., Napp, C.: Consensus consumer and intertemporal asset pricing with heterogeneous beliefs. Rev Econ Stud 74(4), 1149–1174 (2007)
Kelly, J.: A new interpretation of information rates. Bell Syst Tech J 35, 917–926 (1956)
Lewellen, J.: Momentum and autocorrelation in stock returns. Rev Financ Stud 15(2), 533–564 (2002)
Lo, A.W., MacKinlay, A.C.: When are contrarian profits due to stock market overreaction? Rev Financ Stud 3(2), 175–205 (1990)
Ludwig, A., Zimper, A.: A decision-theoretic model of asset-price underreaction and overreaction to dividend news. Ann Finance 9(4), 625–665 (2013)
Morris, S.: The common prior assumption in economic theory. Econ Philos 11(2), 227–253 (1995)
Moskowitz, T.J., Grinblatt, M.: Do industries explain momentum? J Finance 54(4), 1249–1290 (1999)
Moskowitz, T.J., Ooi, Y.H., Pedersen, L.H.: Time series momentum. J Financ Econ 104(2), 228–250 (2012)
Mukherji, S.: Are stock returns still mean-reverting? Rev Financ Econ 20(1), 22–27 (2011)
Poterba, J., Summers, L.: The persistence of volatility and stock market fluctuations. Am Econ Rev 76(5), 1142–1151 (1988)
Radner, R.: Equilibrium under uncertainty. In: Arrow, K.J., Intriligator, M.D. (eds.) Handbook of Mathematical Economics (Chap 20), vol. 2, pp. 923–1006. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1982)
Rouwenhorst, K.G.: International momentum strategies. J Finance 53(1), 267–284 (1998)
Sandroni, A.: Do markets favor agents able to make accurate predictions. Econometrica 68(6), 1303–1341 (2000)
Sandroni, A.: Efficient markets and bayes’ rule. Econ Theory 26(4), 741–764 (2005)
Sciubba, E.: Asymmetric information and survival in financial markets. Econ Theory 25, 353–379 (2005)
Verardo, M.: Heterogeneous beliefs and momentum profits. J Financ Quant Anal 44(04), 795–822 (2009)
Yan, H.: Natural selection in financial markets: Does it work? Manag Sci 54, 1935–1950 (2008)
Funding
The funding was provided by Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (Grant No. 640772 - DOLFINS) and FP7 People: Marie-Curie Actions (Grant No. PIOF-GA-2011-300637).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Pietro Dindo has been supported by the Marie Curie International Outgoing Fellowship PIOF-GA-2011-300637 within the 7th European Community Framework Programme. Daniele Giachini gratefully acknowledges the hospitality of the Department of Banking and Finance at the University of Zurich. This research has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No. 640772—DOLFINS.
Appendices
A Proof of Proposition 1
Following the assumptions we made, one has
Since \(0<\pi ^2<\pi ^1<1\), there exists a \(\varepsilon >0\) such that \(\varepsilon \le \pi ^2<\pi ^1\le 1-\varepsilon \). Let
From (11), given that \(p\in [\pi ^2,\pi ^1]\), it is easy to show that for \(s_{t+1}=1\) it is
and for \(s_{t+1}=2\) it is
Since \(z_{t+1}-z_t\) is continuous in p, these inequalities imply that \((z_t)\) is a bounded increments process with finite positive and negative increments as defined in Bottazzi and Dindo (2015).
Call \(\mathcal {M}(z,s)=E[z_{t+1}|z_{t}=z,s_t=s]-z\) and notice that \(\lim _{z\rightarrow +\infty }\mathcal {M}(z,1)=-\mu (\pi ^2,\pi ^1,1)\), \(\lim _{z\rightarrow +\infty }\mathcal {M}(z,2)=-\mu (\pi ^2,\pi ^1,2)\), \(\lim _{z\rightarrow -\infty }\mathcal {M}(z,1)=\mu (\pi ^1,\pi ^2,1)\) and \(\lim _{z\rightarrow -\infty }\mathcal {M}(z,2)=\mu (\pi ^1,\pi ^2,2)\). Thus, if the conditions stated in (15) are satisfied, Theorem 2.2 of Bottazzi and Dindo (2015) applies, the process \((z_t)\) is persistent and both agents survive. The statement in (16) follows from the finite positive and negative increments of \((z_t)\). Along the same lines, if the conditions in (17) are satisfied, either Theorem 3.1 or Corollary 3.1 of Bottazzi and Dindo (2015) apply, the process \((z_t)\) is transient and one of the two agents dominates while the other vanishes.
B Proof of Corollary 1
The conditions in (15) can be written as
with
By Jensen’s inequality, it is
Thus, if the right hand side is positive, the argument of the logarithm in the left hand side must be greater than one. Substituting the values for \(\pi \), \(\pi '\) and \(\pi ''\) and remembering that \(\delta \in (0,1)\), this implies
which, remembering that \(0<\pi ^1<\pi ^2<1\), is equivalent to the assertion.
C Proof of Propositions 3
By Lemma 1 we can average expected returns with respect to the invariant distribution \(\pi ^*\) and this yields
which gives the required expression. The fact that \(\phi _t(1,p_t)>0\) for all \((t,\sigma )\) and for all \(p_t\in (\pi ^2,\pi ^1)\) implies \(\Phi _t(1)>0\) for all \((t,\sigma )\), irrespective of the price distribution. Subtracting Eq. (18) from Eq. (21) one gets
with the equality holding if and only if \(\pi ^1=\pi ^2\). Thus, the statement follows.
D Proof of Propositions 4
From Lemma 1, irrespective of the value of \(p_t\), one has
Averaging with respect the the invariant distribution of the states on the world \(\pi ^*\) gives
which gives the required expression. Notice that this expression does not depend on \(p_t\), hence \(\Phi _\infty =\phi _\infty (p_t)\).
E Evaluation of winners and losers performances
We start by establishing a length J for the formation period, a length H for the performance period, and the total number of formation periods N. Then we numerically iterate the map in (11) for \(T=J\times N+H\) periods starting with initial conditionFootnote 20\(p_0=1/2\) and compute for any time step \(t=1,2,\ldots ,T\) the abnormal return of each asset k defined as
For each formation period \(n=1,\ldots ,N\), we compute the cumulative return of each asset k in that formation period as
During the same time steps we rank the two assets on the basis of their cumulative return and assign them either to the Winners portfolio (W) or to the Losers portfolio (L). The Winners portfolio built after the n-th formation period buys asset 1 if \(CU_{1,n}>CU_{2,n}\) and asset 2 if \(CU_{2,n}>CU_{1,n}\). The Losers portfolio does the opposite. Then we evaluate the performance of the two portfolios during the following H periods computing the cumulative abnormal return for each \(h=1,2,\ldots ,H\). Using the subscript w to indicate the winner asset and the subscript l to indicate the loser one, the cumulative abnormal returns for each time step h of the n-th performance period read
De Bondt and Thaler (1985), relying on a wide cross-section of assets, prescribes to build Winners and Losers portfolio considering only those assets that have extreme cumulative returns with respect to such cross-section. Having only two assets in our economy, we reproduce such feature using the time series dimension instead of the cross-section one. Knowing the time distribution of cumulative returns, we consider the performance of the two portfolios only after formation periods in which the cumulative return of one asset is below the first quartile (and thus it contributes to the loser portfolio) or above the third quartile (and thus it contributes to the winner portfolio). Naming M the set of formation periods for which the condition is respected, whose cardinality is N / 2 given the use of quartiles, we compute the average cumulative abnormal return of each portfolio
and the relative standard errors
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bottazzi, G., Dindo, P. & Giachini, D. Momentum and reversal in financial markets with persistent heterogeneity. Ann Finance 15, 455–487 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10436-019-00353-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10436-019-00353-0
Keywords
- Market efficiency
- Heterogeneous beliefs
- Speculation
- Short-term momentum
- Long-term reversal
- Evolutionary finance