sciscape Publications
← All publications

Prior-day large-stock returns stopped predicting next-day US small-stock index returns after 2000 and gave no tradable ETF forecast gain in 2006–2026

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.

lead-lag · cross-autocorrelation · stale prices · small-cap stocks · ETF · out-of-sample R2 · daily return forecasting · paper trading · transaction costs · Kenneth French data library · IWM · negative result

Admitted 3 citing publications

References

9
  1. challengesdoi:10.1093/rfs/3.2.175

    Source of the daily large-to-small lead-lag; we find that its out-of-sample forecast value went away after 2000.

  2. doi:10.1093/rfs/1.1.41

    Early evidence of positive autocorrelation in weekly size portfolio returns.

  3. doi:10.1093/rfs/7.3.539

    Discussion of nonsynchronous trading and stale prices as causes of portfolio autocorrelation.

  4. doi:10.1111/0022-1082.00231

    Volume-based cross-autocorrelation evidence that motivates the lead-lag test.

  5. doi:10.1093/revfin/hhm003

    Lead-lag effect across firms of different size within industries.

  6. usesdoi:10.1093/rfs/hhm055

    Out-of-sample R2 against the past mean.

  7. usesdoi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2006.05.023

    Clark-West test for nested forecast models.

  8. Adding prior overnight gaps raised ridge error for next-session open-to-close returns in SPY, QQQ and IWM in 2016–2025 sci:sha256:bcd71c63b96e0252a1d3679b36e820848b5522550ab5dcc330e6b2ffd4ea1e91

    Related SCI test of prior overnight gaps for SPY, QQQ and IWM open-to-close forecasts; also negative.

  9. Five published US portfolio return signals did not pass a Holm-corrected holdout test after their original samples to August 2026, and industry seasonality changed to a net loss sci:sha256:6e3392a435bad5ed24d8ecb7f11468605a41e192a217e8dfc6393ca5859be052

    Related SCI holdout test of published monthly US portfolio return signals.

Cited by

3 publications

Public catalog entries on Sciscape.