We tested separate November–April and May–October means for monthly US market excess returns. Twenty annual fits used official French Data Library archives, with inputs stopped in July. Historical use assumes each archive preserved its stated version and was available by September 30. In 240 months from October 2005 through September 2025, seasonal means had 0.012% more squared error than a pooled past mean. The paired 95% two-year circular block interval for error reduction was −1.76% to +2.16%. Both forecasts were always positive and matched an always-positive direction accuracy of 65.0%. At 10 basis points per dollar traded, a seasonal stock-and-cash paper rule earned 8.65% a year against 10.51% for the pooled rule, with lower exposure and risk. Its annual mean-variance utility difference was −0.745 percentage points, with interval −4.044 to +2.862. Fixed history, shrinkage, label and block checks gave no clear full-test seasonal gain. Separate scalar checks passed. A fresh run matched 76 analysis and account files. The package preserves code, provenance, forecasts, all fixed results, uncertainty draws, figures and repeat instructions. Direct source-derived outcome ledgers remain separately retained under provider terms. The test uses one known seasonal split, slow updates, assumed release dates and reused US history. It does not establish reliable prediction or profit. Twelve future paper forecasts remain unscored.
Filters: arxiv: q-fin.PM (Portfolio Management) ×
We tested fixed monthly forecasts for 30 US industry portfolios with seven dated input archives. The test has 66 distinct months from December 2015 to August 2025, with gaps. Each fit uses 120 source months. A 50% mix of sample covariance and a common-correlation matrix cut joint Gaussian loss by 5.1265 nats per return vector against sample covariance. The descriptive 95% interval from six capture-year groups was 1.7918 to 8.4208 nats. A separate sign-flip test gave p = 0.0625. Almost all the gain came from conditional industry contrasts in an exploratory score split. The Gaussian 90% region covered only 44 of 66 outcomes. At an assumed fee of 10 bp per dollar traded, the mix gave no clear risk gain in a long-only paper allocation with a 20% industry cap. Monthly standard deviation was 3.1502%, against 3.1410% for sample covariance. The reduction interval was -0.0684 to +0.0524 percentage points. Sparse old inputs, six groups and labels that are not proven first releases limit inference. We preserve code, source hashes, full forecast matrices, weights, scores, uncertainty draws, negative findings and 60 unscored future forecasts. We do not claim a new shrinkage method or reliable trading profit.
We tested whether a fixed volatility rule improves stock and cash allocation after costs. Each input used an ALFRED Nasdaq Composite version dated before entry. Calibration ended in 2017. The test had 2,011 sessions from 3 January 2018 to 31 December 2025. The rule targeted 10% annual volatility, capped stock exposure at 100%, and assumed 5 bp costs per unit traded and zero cash interest. Annual volatility was 10.58%, versus 16.37% for a constant stock fraction set from calibration risk. Compound annual return was 7.90%, versus 11.55%. The annual mean-variance utility difference at preference 5 was -0.20 percentage points. Its paired 95% 20-session block interval was -5.12 to +5.30 points. The test shows lower simulated risk but no clear utility gain at that preference. It uses one price index, excludes dividends, and does not test an executable fund. The package gives code, source provenance, dated forecasts, all fixed cases, uncertainty draws, figures, and checks.
We tested whether a better monthly risk forecast improved a fixed paper portfolio decision. The test has 116 monthly entries from January 2017 to August 2026. Each forecast uses its own ALFRED data vintage, cut two calendar days before the month began. We reuse the forecasts and market sample from an earlier SCI study; this is not an independent validation sample. Index allocations have a 100% cap. Entry is at the first session close of each month. Exact accounting includes weight drift, initial purchase, final sale, and assumed costs of 0, 10, or 25 basis points per dollar traded. At a 15% annual volatility target and 10 bp cost, adding Cboe VXN to a model of past returns raised the annual mean-variance utility score from 11.11% to 11.94%. The paired gain was 0.83 percentage points, with a 95% six-month-block interval of -0.99 to +2.85 points. All planned target, cost, and block-length intervals include zero. March 2020 supplies 71.8% of the full-sample gain. The VXN rule had a larger monthly-mark drawdown, and a raw 21-session risk control had a higher point utility score. Four stale-input months keep existing index units and cash. A change in outcome vintage leaves the result unchanged. Independent accounting checks passed for 9,744 rows, and all 15 core output files matched byte for byte in a clean repeat. We preserve code, source hashes, dated forecasts, model states, allocation schedules, uncertainty draws, figures, and negative results. Complete source-derived ledgers are retained under provider terms. The simulation uses price-index returns and zero cash yield. It does not establish an executable fund return, return-direction skill, or a reliable positive utility gain.
We tested fixed industry momentum ranks with seven dated US source files. Each rank used eleven months of returns and omitted the last source month. We held ranks for up to twelve months after a feasible entry date. The 66 target months from December 2015 to August 2025 did not overlap. Mean monthly rank correlation was 0.0137, with a descriptive 95% capture-year bootstrap interval from -0.0475 to +0.0725. Two simple ranking baselines gave no clear gain. A paper portfolio of the top ten industries gained 0.0194% per month over equal weight in all thirty after an assumed cost of 10 basis points per dollar traded. Its interval was -0.2974% to +0.2928%. A secondary early-minus-later allocation contrast was positive, but the rank contrast remained uncertain. No reliable trading gain was established. Only six capture-year groups support the intervals. The archive is sparse, outcome labels can change, and the paper baskets omit internal stock trading costs. We preserve all ranks, weights, scores, cash ledgers, uncertainty draws, source hashes, code and checks. Related studies use some of the same market outcomes, so this test is not independent confirmation.
We tested a fixed turn-of-month rule for daily US market excess returns. The window has the last trading day of each month and the first three trading days of each month. We fit two means on 1990–2014 returns in a file archived in November 2015. We kept these means fixed for 2,264 test sessions in 2016–2024. The calendar forecast gave no clear error reduction against a fixed overall mean. Out-of-sample R² was −0.078%, with a paired three-month block bootstrap 95% interval from −0.315% to +0.081%. The test calendar premium was −1.12 basis points per day, with an interval from −11.38 to +8.69. A long/cash paper strategy at 5 basis points per traded dollar had total return CAGR of 2.43%, against 4.49% for a fixed 20% market allocation. Its annual arithmetic mean excess-return difference was −1.75 percentage points, with an interval from −5.77 to +2.08. Later revised outcome data gave similar forecast scores. Independent calculations and a clean rerun matched the saved results. This is one aggregate market series and a market-proxy cost simulation. It does not establish equal performance, the absence of a calendar effect, or executable profit. The package preserves code, provenance, forecasts, cost cases, bootstrap draws, figures, and negative findings.
We tested whether the mean US market excess return from the last five years improved monthly forecasts over the mean from all earlier years. Official annual archives set all historical inputs. Each file was assumed available by the end of September and supplied forecasts for the next October through September. The test had 240 months from October 2005 to September 2025. The five-year mean had 1.67 percent more squared error. Its out-of-sample R-squared was -1.67 percent, with a descriptive 95 percent time-block interval of -4.03 to +0.40 percent. A ten-year mean, a zero floor, a fixed mix and zero gave no clear gain. Revised values at the same input dates gave a similar result. With monthly updates to more recent revised inputs, the five-year score was also below the reference. In a market and cash simulation at an assumed five-basis-point cost, the five-year rule earned 5.42 percent mean excess return a year, against 5.92 percent for the expanding rule. The paired gain interval was -2.07 to +1.10 percentage points a year. The source labels contain later revisions. The annual input endpoints are 3 to 14 months old, and original release dates are assumed from provider records. The evidence supports a narrow negative benchmark, not reliable stock-return prediction. Code, source hashes, all forecasts, model states, cost paths, uncertainty draws, figures and independent checks are preserved. A November 2026 paper forecast remains unscored.
We tested whether a known gain in Nasdaq-100 variance forecasts improves a fixed monthly allocation rule. We reused dated ALFRED forecasts for 116 holdings from January 2017 to August 2026. Equity weights targeted 10% annual volatility, with no leverage. The price-index simulation charged a 0.20% annual equity fee and 5 basis points per dollar traded. Adding VXN raised the annual mean-variance score by 0.42 percentage points over the past-return rule. Its paired 95% block interval was -0.78 to +1.81 points. Mean squared volatility-target error fell by 37.4%. March 2020 supplied 71.1% of that reduction and 96.6% of the main score difference under a fixed contribution calculation. Cost, cash-rate and stale-input checks did not establish a positive main score gain. A separate dollar-account calculation checked all 4,060 strategy-months. A fresh run reproduced nine core output files exactly. This is a retrospective test on a reused path with price-only returns and assumed costs. It does not establish a reliable economic advantage or future trading skill. The package preserves forecasts, fits, weights, code, source hashes, uncertainty draws and negative findings.
We tested whether an old market risk state should move toward its ten-year level as the forecast lead increases. Twenty annual French Data Library archives supplied July inputs for 240 later monthly US market excess returns, from October 2005 to September 2025. Historical release by September 30 and archive preservation are assumptions. The primary six-month decay rule had a mean QLIKE gain of 0.1054 over a fixed July state. Its paired 95% annual-block interval was -0.0428 to +0.2812. The gain over a ten-year baseline was also uncertain. At 5 basis points per dollar traded, a long-only paper account gave an annual utility gain of 0.146 percentage points, with interval -0.664 to +1.167. No signed-return model was tested. The package preserves all fixed rules, 3600 forecast rows across three data cases, 450000 uncertainty draws, source hashes, original code, figures and repeat instructions. Independent checks passed, and a fresh run reproduced 34 numeric result and ledger files byte for byte. The same market outcomes occur in earlier SCI archive tests. This test gives no clear gain under the slow data schedule; it does not establish a reliable trading rule.
We tested how source delays and later return revisions change monthly industry forecasts. We used ten distinct archived U.S. 30-industry releases from 2015 to 2026. The primary rule ranked industries by six-month returns, bought seven and sold seven, with gross exposure one. Revising the same months changed mean allocation by 2.14%. Adding newer completed months changed it by 24.29%. The paired difference was 22.14 percentage points, with a descriptive 95% year bootstrap interval of 8.57 to 37.50. The exact two-sided year sign-flip value was 0.0625, so that test did not reject at 5%. After an entry-time check excluded one capture made after the required close, nine one-month paper trades averaged 0.41% net at 10 bp per dollar traded at entry and exit plus a 1% yearly short fee. Its year interval was -2.03% to +1.71%. The archived return forecast reduced mean squared error by 0.29% against the historical mean, with an uncertain loss difference. An earlier-label check kept this conclusion. All 90 scalar model checks and future-data mutation checks passed. Source revisions include the FIZ to CIZ return change. Sparse, nonrandom captures and unmeasured basket costs limit use. We did not establish a reliable return forecast or trading edge. The package preserves code, forecasts, weights, source hashes, date checks, negative results and repeat instructions. Source returns are retained separately under provider terms.
Question: Savor and Wilson (2014) found that on scheduled PPI, employment and FOMC announcement days (a-days), high-beta stocks earned much more than low-beta stocks, but not on other days (n-days). Their sample ended in 2011. Did the pattern continue, and could a paper investor use it? Approach: we froze a protocol before we downloaded return data. We used daily Kenneth French portfolios (CRSP build 202608), with 25 size/book-to-market and 10 industry portfolios as primary test assets. We took dates from BLS archives, ALFRED vintage dates and Federal Reserve FOMC pages. Betas used only the previous 12 months of daily returns. Daily Fama-MacBeth regressions gave the security market line (SML) slope. We tested five holdout hypotheses (2012-01 to 2026-08, 3,686 days, 454 a-days) with Holm correction, Newey-West errors and a stationary block bootstrap. Results: the method reproduced the original result in 1978-2011 (a-day minus n-day slope +11.6 bp per day, 95% CI +2.6 to +20.9). In the holdout, the difference was +5.3 bp (CI -12.4 to +23.6), and the a-day slope was +6.8 bp (t 0.74). No hypothesis passed (all Holm p = 1). The market excess return was not higher on a-days (-0.6 bp, CI -12.1 to +10.6; in-sample +8.9 bp). Holding the market only on a-days earned +0.35% a year at 2 bp costs, against a 13.9% excess return for buy-and-hold. The SML slope portfolio held only on a-days lost 9.3% a year at 5 bp costs. Post-hoc: FOMC days had the largest holdout slope (+23.8 bp, t 1.29). The minimum detectable difference was 23 bp, two times the in-sample effect. At holdout noise, about 59 years of new data are necessary to detect the in-sample effect. Thus the holdout neither confirms nor rejects the original size. Limitations: low power; French portfolios instead of stock beta deciles; current (not point-in-time) data versions; costs are scenarios. Code, protocol, dates, daily slopes, strategy returns and figures are included. Raw CRSP-derived returns are not included, but they are retained as a hashed data item.
Question: can past factor returns, or machine-learning forecasts from them, time 153 published equity factors well enough to beat an equal-weight factor portfolio after trading costs, in data that the factor-momentum papers did not use? Approach: we used JKP Global Factor Data (capped value weight, monthly, 2026-04 vintage). Before we loaded returns after 2018, we froze a protocol. A factor can enter the universe only after its publication year. We tested 11 rules: 12-month time-series and cross-sectional factor momentum, winners only, winners minus losers, 1-month, volatility-scaled, historical-mean sign, and pooled ridge and LightGBM forecasts. The baseline is equal-weight buy-and-hold. Costs are 10 bp for each dollar of stock traded, with 0 to 50 bp scenarios. The holdout is 2019-01 to 2025-12. After the first holdout, we froze an addendum before we downloaded country data. The addendum pools the same test over 43 non-US countries. Results: no pre-registered timing hypothesis was supported (Holm p >= 0.43 in the US, 0.56 in the pool). The US net alpha of 12-month factor momentum on buy-and-hold was 0.18% per month (t 1.24). This agrees with a parallel 23-factor SCI study. In the country pool, the net alpha was 0.04% per month (95% CI -0.08 to 0.15), and the minimum detectable effect was 0.16%. But the pre-registered winners-minus-losers gross spread was 0.31% per month (t 3.18, Holm p 0.002) and positive in 40 of 43 countries. Factor returns thus continued, but trading removed the gain. ML forecasts ranked factors with skill (holdout IC 0.13, t 3.6 ex-US), but high turnover gave significantly negative net alphas in the pool (LightGBM long-only -0.12% per month, t -4.6). A look-ahead universe of all factors made the 1972-2018 US spread larger (0.34% vs 0.23% for published factors only). Limitations: costs are scenarios, internal factor rebalancing and shorting costs are not modelled, 84 months, one data vintage. The package has code, frozen protocols, hashes, aggregate tables and figures. Forecasts, weights and monthly returns are in a retained dataset.
We tested whether five years of past returns give better monthly US market risk forecasts than ten years. At each of 20 annual origins, we used the official French Data Library archive for that year. Inputs stopped in July. Forecasts stayed fixed from October through September. The test covered October 2005–September 2025, with 240 scored months. Risk was the monthly excess-return second moment. The primary QLIKE gain, defined as ten-year loss minus five-year loss, was -0.300. Its descriptive 95% stationary bootstrap interval was -0.776 to +0.004. The planned positive-gain criterion was not met. The October 2008 block supplied about 75% of the loss disadvantage. The point gain stayed negative after any one annual block was removed and under later-vintage checks. Five-year and ten-year mean return forecasts had R2 of -1.652% and -0.009% against the all-history mean. In unlevered paper accounts with 10 bp trading costs, the five-year risk rule had 1.81 percentage points less annual utility than the ten-year rule. The interval was -4.36 to +0.33 points. No reliable return forecast or trading advantage was established. The main limits are 20 annual decisions, stale inputs, noisy squared-return targets, and assumed archive release dates. The package preserves the plan, code, source hashes, forecasts, bootstrap draws, figures, and independent checks. Raw sources are retained separately with their original rights. Twelve later paper forecasts are preserved without scored outcomes.
We tested a seasonal return forecast for 30 US industry portfolios. Five archived files set all forecasts before each later 12-month test. The tests contain 60 months from 2016 to 2025. Forecasts stayed fixed during each test. The seasonal rule uses 20 earlier returns for the target calendar month. Its baseline uses each industry's last 240 monthly returns. Archived seasonal forecasts had 1.55% more squared error than this baseline. A paper portfolio bought the top six industries and sold short the bottom six. Its gross arithmetic mean was -6.41% a year. Its net mean was -10.87%. Assumed costs were 10 bp per dollar traded and 50 bp a year for short borrow. The five-block bootstrap interval was [-18.31, -3.44]% a year. A small-sample t interval was [-22.52, 0.77]%. Thus, inference depends on the method. Later data changed 31 of 60 monthly portfolios and 74 of 1,800 position assignments. Both forecasts used the same historical input dates. The later data gave a net mean of -9.97% a year. The paired change was +0.91 percentage points a year, with a block interval of [-2.79, 3.96]. Both versions kept a mean loss. The data contrast includes historical revisions and the CRSP return-method change. The sample is small, archive dates are selected, and costs are assumed. This is a historical reconstruction, not a prospective experiment. The package preserves code, input hashes, archive dates, forecasts, weights, scores, costs, resampling draws, and checks. Raw provider files remain in separate retained storage under their original terms.
We tested whether VIX from the prior session improved forecasts of S&P 500 risk over the next 22 trading sessions. We used official Cboe historical snapshots retrieved in October 2026. The test had 2,492 origins in 2016–2025. Inputs ended at the prior close. Monthly fits used only targets that had finished. The reference model combined two measures of past-return variance. Adding VIX reduced mean QLIKE loss from 0.702 to 0.493. The paired difference was -0.209, with a 95% 66-session block-bootstrap interval of [-0.390, -0.069]. A check with 114 target windows that did not overlap gave -0.151, with interval [-0.307, -0.029]. The better risk forecast did not give a clear trading gain. At an assumed five-basis-point cost, the allocation rule with VIX earned 6.18% a year, compared with 7.32% for the past-return rule and 8.15% for fixed 60% equity. These are simulated price returns with zero cash interest. A fixed ridge return forecast gave an uncertain 1.39% error reduction and no added direction accuracy. Raw VIX also gave lower full-test loss than the calibrated model with VIX. All forecasts, code, fit records, uncertainty draws, source hashes, and negative findings are preserved. Independent checks and a full repeat passed. A forward paper forecast for 26 October 2026 is saved and remains unscored. The files are current historical snapshots, not verified original historical data versions. The evidence assumes availability of the stated closes by the next session. It supports a scoped risk benchmark, not reliable stock-return direction prediction or a new profitable strategy.
Question: after factor momentum became public in 2017–2018, did the past 12-month return of equity factors predict their next-month return well enough to beat a static factor portfolio after trading costs? Approach: we froze a protocol before the holdout test. We built 23 long-short factors (17 US factors from the French and AQR data libraries, 6 developed-ex-US factors from French) in the 202608 data vintage. The primary strategy holds each factor long or short with weight 1/N, as the sign of its past 12-month return sets. The baseline holds all factors long with weight 1/N. We charged 10 bp per dollar traded, with scenarios of 5 to 50 bp. We used stationary block-bootstrap intervals. The holdout is 2019-01 to 2026-08 (92 months). Results: the net timing gain was +0.06% per month (95% CI −0.30 to +0.44), so the pre-registered hypothesis is not supported. The gain was also not positive in 1964–2018 (−0.08%, CI −0.21 to 0.06). The equal-weight factor premium fell from 0.35% to 0.09% per month. The alpha of factor momentum on the baseline was 0.17% per month in both periods, with intervals that include zero. Seven other variants (lookbacks of 1 to 60 months, a volatility-scaled rule, a cross-sectional rule) and eight other universes also gave no holdout gain with an interval above zero. A post-hoc measure, the spread between past winner and past loser factors, stayed near its earlier level (0.38% versus 0.45% per month). Pooled machine-learning forecasts (ridge, LightGBM) had out-of-sample R² near 0% against each factor's expanding mean in the holdout, against +1.6% for ridge in 1985–2018. In archived data vintages, revisions changed 0–2% of the 12-month signals for six US factors. Main limitation: the minimum detectable gain in the holdout is 0.60% per month. This is larger than any earlier estimate, so the null result is weak evidence of no effect. Costs are a scenario model, not measured costs. The package has code, the frozen protocol, provenance hashes, forecasts, monthly strategy returns and figures.
Question: do published monthly return-prediction rules that use only public US portfolio returns still earn a net return in the months after each paper's sample ended? Approach: we rebuilt four published rules and one fixed composite from the Kenneth French Data Library (CRSP build 202608) and AQR factors. The rules are cross-industry OLS post-LASSO (Rapach et al. 2019), industry momentum (Moskowitz and Grinblatt 1999), time-series factor momentum with 13 US factors (Ehsani and Linnainmaa 2022), industry same-calendar-month seasonality (Keloharju et al. 2016), and a composite of three of them. Each holdout starts in the month after the original sample and ends in August 2026. We fixed the protocol before we calculated holdout statistics. Signals use only earlier returns; costs are 10 bp one way per unit traded; intervals come from a stationary block bootstrap. Results: no rule passed the one-sided Holm-corrected test of net mean above zero (smallest adjusted p = 0.097). The LASSO rule replicated in 1970-2016 (6.7% a year gross, t = 4.7) but earned -4.8% net in 2017-2026 (95% CI -11.0 to 1.3), and its forecasts had an out-of-sample R2 of -6.1% against the prevailing mean. Industry momentum earned 5.6% net in 1995-2026 (CI 0.3 to 10.8), but its FF5+UMD alpha was 1.5% (t = 0.7). Factor momentum earned 1.0% net in 2016-2026 (CI -2.0 to 4.1), about 40% of its earlier mean. Industry seasonality earned 7.6% gross in 1947-2011 and -9.6% net in 2012-2026 (CI -15.2 to -4.2). Its retention ratio was -0.76 (CI -1.64 to -0.06). Without the 2026 months, its gross mean was -3.6% (t = -1.5). The composite earned -2.7% net. A comparison with an archived 2017 vintage showed that 78% of the industry-month returns since 1960 have been revised; the LASSO strategy returns on the two vintages correlate only 0.88. Limitations: three holdouts are only 116-128 months long, so minimum detectable effects are 3.8-11 percentage points a year; our LASSO rule is a reconstruction; portfolio returns are gross of their internal trading costs. Code, monthly strategy returns, every LASSO forecast, data hashes and the protocol are included.