Factor allocation

The U.S. equity market has periodically been dominated by a few technology-driven stocks, most recently the so-called “Magnificent Seven.” Historically, similar dominance occurred during the Nifty Fifty era in the 1960s–1970s and the dot-com boom in the 1990s. These periods of concentrated leadership often led to temporary outperformance, but systematically capturing such gains has proven challenging. Our study investigates the potential to exploit technology sector dominance using momentum-based strategies across Fama–French 12 industry portfolios, analyzing whether long-only, long-short, and rolling-basis approaches can generate persistent alpha, and assessing the limitations of simple timing methods.

The low-risk anomaly in financial markets has puzzled researchers and investors, challenging the traditional risk-return paradigm (higher risk->higher return). This phenomenon, where low-risk assets outperform their high-risk counterparts on a risk-adjusted basis, has been observed across various asset classes, including stocks and mutual funds. What may be the possible explanation? Pass-through mutual funds, which aim to replicate the performance of specific market indices, play a crucial role in this context by channeling investor flows and potentially influencing asset prices through demand pressure.

When using machine learning to forecast global equity returns, it’s tempting to focus on the raw prediction—whether some stock market is expected to go up or down. But our research shows that the real value lies elsewhere. What matters most isn’t the level or direction of the machine learning model’s forecast but how much it differs from a simple, price-based benchmark—such as a naive moving average signal. When that gap is wide, it often reveals hidden mispricings. In other words, it’s not about whether the ML model predicts positive or negative returns but whether its view disagrees sharply with what a basic trend-following model would suggest. Those moments of disagreement offer the most compelling opportunities for tactical country allocation.

Over the past decade and a half, the US equities have set the hard-to-beat performance benchmark. Nearly all of the other countries, no matter if small or big, emerging or developed, have lagged behind. However, what are the forces behind this outperformance? Why did most of the other markets and even investing styles bow to the US large-cap growth dominance? A new paper written by David Blitz nicely analyses the rise of the behemoth.

With financial markets increasingly whipsawed by geopolitical tensions and unpredictable policy shifts from the Trump administration—investors are once again questioning how to understand risk, fear, and the true drivers of returns. A recent and compelling paper dives into this debate with a provocative thesis: in “Fear, Not Risk, Explains Asset Pricing,” authors Rob Arnott and Edward McQuarrie argue that traditional models built on quantifiable risk have failed to explain real-world returns, and that fear—messy, emotional, and deeply human—is the missing piece.

The recent imposition of sweeping global tariffs by President Donald Trump has triggered a sharp and sudden selloff across global equity markets. In times like these, it’s natural for panic to set in. However, as quantitative investors, our strength lies in data-driven decision-making, risk management, and maintaining discipline when others lose theirs.

Rather than reacting emotionally, the prudent course of action is to reassess the robustness of our portfolios. Are we diversified across uncorrelated strategies? Do we have components in place that act as hedges during market crises? Fortunately, the tools provided by Quantpedia can help investors, traders, and portfolio managers identify, test, and deploy crisis-resilient strategies in a structured and evidence-based manner.