We tested yearly calendar forecasts of daily Nasdaq Composite price returns. Each fit used 1,260 returns from dated ALFRED records. The calendar window has the last session of a month and the first three sessions. The main test has 2,011 returns in 2018–2025. Two calendar means had 0.0792% more squared error than an overall mean from the same data. The paired 95% interval for error reduction was -0.2149% to +0.0240%. This test gave no clear added forecast gain. Yearly calendar fits also had more error than a frozen calendar fit. That comparison includes changes in the overall mean. A paper allocation held the calendar group with the higher fitted return. At 5 basis points per traded dollar, it trailed a reference with similar expected equity exposure. Its annual arithmetic mean return difference was -4.48 percentage points. The interval was -9.98 to +0.96 points. The price-index simulation excludes dividends and cash yield. It does not establish executable profit. Independent checks matched all forecasts, labels and 25 paper accounts. The package preserves forecasts, fit states, cost cases, 70,000 bootstrap rows, code, source records, figures and negative findings. It extends a prior fixed US-market test to yearly Nasdaq fits. The shared market and years are not independent validation.
Filters: arxiv: q-fin.TR (Trading and Market Microstructure) ×
We tested whether a large five-session price loss improves the next delayed weekly Nasdaq Composite return forecast. Each Saturday origin used its dated ALFRED record and observations through Thursday. A paper position began at the next Monday close. The 2016–2025 test had 504 fresh forecasts, including 29 large loss cases. Adding a fixed loss term to linear shock and risk inputs raised squared error by 0.79% against the past mean. Its MSE gain against the linear model was -0.06790 percentage-return squared units, with a paired 95% eight-week block interval from -0.19680 to +0.03479. The gain was also uncertain with other block lengths, later labels, stale inputs, and without 2020. In 521 calendar weeks, a stock and cash paper rule at 10 basis points per dollar traded had 1.81 annual percentage points less mean-variance utility than the linear rule, with interval -4.16 to +0.46. Independent model, label and account checks passed. Future-release deletion left 313 earlier forecasts unchanged. The package keeps code, forecasts, states, source hashes, cost cases, negative results, figures and repeat instructions. The test uses one price index, reused market years, a delayed signal and cost scenarios. It does not establish reliable trading skill.
We tested a known four-session turn-of-month rule for daily Nasdaq Composite price returns. Each annual fit used an earlier ALFRED data version. The test had 2,766 exchange sessions in 2015–2025. The calendar model had 0.109% more squared error than a past-mean forecast. Its out-of-sample R squared was -0.109%, with a paired 95% six-month block interval of -0.326% to +0.043%. The turn-window mean was 1.28 basis points below the mean on other sessions, with interval -10.54 to +8.21. A fixed ten-year fit also gave no clear gain. All four fitted models had the same direction accuracy as an always-positive rule. At an assumed five-basis-point one-way cost, a turn-window paper allocation gave a compound annual price return of 1.08%, compared with 3.15% for constant 4/21 exposure. The latter had much lower volatility. These are price-only simulations with zero cash interest. The source-calendar check removed one holiday price row. The source also had a long update delay. The point-in-time claim concerns model inputs; the calendar is a current reconstruction. Code, provenance, all forecasts, fit states, aggregate scores, 32,000 resampling draws, figures, and checks are preserved. The result applies to one index, rule and period. It does not establish future prediction skill or trading profit.
Question: does the daily lead from large stocks to small stocks (Lo and MacKinlay 1990) still give out-of-sample forecasts, and does skill measured on CRSP portfolio indexes carry over to ETFs that can be traded? Method: one fixed OLS model predicts the next-day return from the prior-day large-stock return and the prior-day own return. The model uses a 1,260-session window and a monthly refit. The benchmark is the past mean. We wrote the plan before scoring. Targets: Kenneth French value-weighted size indexes (Lo 30, Lo 20, Lo 10, Med 40; Hi 10 as the lead) and the IWM, IJR, IWC and MDY ETFs (SPY as the lead), at close-to-close, overnight, next open-to-close (tradable) and one-day-delay timings. The main test has 5,197 sessions, 2006-01 to 2026-08. Results: for the Lo 30 index, out-of-sample R2 was positive in all fourteen five-year periods from 1931 to 2000 (0.9% to 21.6%), and -2.1% to +0.4% in the periods after 2000. The fitted lead coefficient changed from positive to negative (mean -0.16 in 2006-2026). In 2006-2026 the Lo 30 R2 was -0.46% (95% block interval -1.34% to +0.40%), so the primary hypothesis failed. IWM R2 was -0.17% close-to-close and -0.006% (-0.86% to +0.89%) open-to-close. No ETF case had a positive point estimate. The index-minus-IWM R2 difference was -0.29% (-0.72% to +0.13%). A long/short IWM open-to-close strategy earned -9.2% a year at 2 bp per side (-17.6% to -0.7%). No strategy beat buy-and-hold. A post hoc 1996-2000 check with a 252-session window gives weak evidence that MDY did not share the index predictability before it went away. Limitations: single current data vintages; one model form; ETF data cannot cover the pre-2001 period of strong index predictability; fills at the official open are assumed. Code, plan, all forecasts, fits, scores, bootstrap draws, hashes and a byte-identical replay are included. Realised returns are in a retained SCI dataset.
We tested a fixed turn-of-month calendar forecast for daily Nasdaq Composite price returns. The calendar group contains the last market session and first three sessions of each month. Each monthly fit used twenty years of returns from an ALFRED version available before the first entry trade. The 2015–2025 test has 2,766 daily returns and 132 fits. Calendar means had 0.0366% more mean squared error than the overall past mean. The paired three-month-block 95% interval was −0.0325% to +0.1259%. A fixed 25% mix and weekday controls also gave no clear gain. Calendar direction probabilities had slightly more Brier loss. All direction rules predicted a rise on every date and had 55.71% sign accuracy. At a charge of 5 basis points per one-way trade, a fixed calendar paper allocation had a 1.51% annual mean price return, compared with 3.35% for a constant 20% index allocation. Their difference had an interval that included zero, and the calendar rule had more risk. The simulation omits cash interest, dividends and tracking costs. Independent forecast and cash-balance checks passed. A full replay matched all 13 original numeric result files. We preserve code, source provenance, forecasts, fits, 60,000 uncertainty draws, figures and negative results. Raw provider prices remain separately retained under provider terms. The result applies to one index, calendar rule, horizon and update policy. It does not establish that all calendar effects are absent or that a real fund could earn the paper returns. The outcomes overlap related SCI work and are not an independent market sample.
We tested whether the previous overnight return improved next-session open-to-close return forecasts for SPY, QQQ and IWM. A fixed ridge model used past returns and volatility. Annual fits used only earlier years from 2001 onward. The test covered 2,514 sessions per fund in 2016–2025. Adding the prior overnight gap increased pooled mean squared error by 0.36%. The paired 95% block interval for error reduction was -1.19% to +0.17%. Adding the current opening gap as a forecast diagnostic also failed to improve the pooled score. We did not simulate same-open fills for this diagnostic. With entry and exit costs of 2 basis points each, the prior-gap model earned 2.63% a year in an equal-fund long-or-cash simulation, with interval -1.88% to +7.35%. The model without the gap earned 4.65%, with interval -0.03% to +9.51%. Gains depended strongly on a few large days. These results do not establish reliable profit or rule out other overnight signals. The data are one retrieved historical price vintage, not archived point-in-time vintages. The package preserves calculated model inputs, all forecasts, fits, paper trades, uncertainty draws, source hashes, code and replay instructions. Raw price records remain external under provider terms.