Momentum & Value vs. Growth & Value

At Dorsey Wright, we believe momentum can be used as a stand-alone investment strategy, however, combining it with other smart beta factors to which momentum is negatively correlated has its advantages.  We have referenced this in previous blog posts, noting that it allows for a portfolio to capture alpha at different periods of the market cycle, which in turn can reduce both drawdowns and volatility.   In this post we would like to discuss the potential benefits of combining momentum with value versus combining growth and value.   Furthermore, we will take a look the correlation of excess returns for each portfolio, and wrap things up by comparing the returns of each.

To begin, let’s take a look at the side by side performance (annual figures) for the products we will be using in our study:  PowerShares DWA Momentum Portfolio PDP, Russell 1000 Growth Index RLG, and the Guggenheim S&P 500 Pure Value ETF RPV.  We can reference this table in comparison to the results we get when combining the smart beta factors we mentioned earlier.  In order to get proper historical data, we used the underlying index (total return) for both RLG and RPV.  For PDP, total return figures were used starting on 3/1/2007.  The table below confirms that when using each of these products as a stand-alone investment product.  As we can see, momentum outperforms all other factors but also at a slightly elevated volatility.   Perhaps the most surprising theme is the underperformance of the growth factor throughout this time frame.

all

PDP inception date: March 1, 2007, RLG inception date: May 22, 2000, RPV inception date:   March 1, 2006 – data prior to inception is based on a back-test of the underlying indexes.   Please see the disclosures for important information regarding back-testing.  PDP returns do not include dividends prior to 3/1/2007.  Returns do not include all potential transaction costs.  Past performance is not indicative of future results.  Potential for profits is accompanied by possibility of loss. 

Next, let’s take a look at the correlation coefficients when comparing the returns of each portfolio.  Below we’ve plotted the returns of each portfolio against each other on a year-to-year basis.   The correlation of excess returns between PDP and RPV came out to be -.50 during this time period, just slightly better then RLG vs. RPV (which registered -.40).   Again, both of these are impressive in terms of negative correlation which hopefully will give us the ability to capture alpha at different areas of the market cycle once we construct our portfolios.   Typcially our goal in doing this is lowering portfolio volatility and reducing max drawdowns when compared to using them as stand alone investments.

pdp-vs-rpv

PDP inception date: March 1, 2007, RLG inception date: May 22, 2000, RPV inception date:   March 1, 2006 – data prior to inception is based on a back-test of the underlying indexes.   Please see the disclosures for important information regarding back-testing.  PDP returns do not include dividend prior to 3/1/2007.  Returns do not include all potential transaction costs.  Past performance is not indicative of future results.  Potential for profits is accompanied by possibility of loss. 

rlg-vs-rpv

PDP inception date: March 1, 2007, RLG inception date: May 22, 2000, RPV inception date:   March 1, 2006 – data prior to inception is based on a back-test of the underlying indexes.   Please see the disclosures for important information regarding back-testing.  PDP returns do not include dividend prior to 3/1/2007.  Returns do not include all potential transaction costs.  Past performance is not indicative of future results.  Potential for profits is accompanied by possibility of loss.  

In conclusion, the portfolios we will construct are going to be based on a static allocation of 70%/30%.  To clarify, both the momentum and growth allocations will remain at 70%, while the value portion will be 30%.  The portfolios are re-balanced annually (although as we mentioned the allocation will remain static).    Looking at the table below, we can see that the momentum/value combination portfolio outperformed has over the growth/value combination.   The returns are nearly double, while volatility remains the same at 22%.   Market participants looking to combine a portion of their value portfolio with another allocation would certainly seem to benefit by using a momentum product vs. a growth product.

summary

PDP inception date: March 1, 2007, RLG inception date: May 22, 2000, RPV inception date:   March 1, 2006 – data prior to inception is based on a back-test of the underlying indexes.   Please see the disclosures for important information regarding back-testing.  PDP returns do not include dividend prior to 3/1/2007.  Returns do not include all potential transaction costs.  Past performance is not indicative of future results.  Potential for profits is accompanied by possibility of loss. 

DWA provides the underlying index for PDP (discussed above) and receives licensing fees from Invesco PowerShares based on assets invested in the Fund.

Some information presented is the result of a strategy back-test.  Back-tests are hypothetical (they do not reflect trading in actual accounts) and are provided for informational purposes to illustrate the effects of the strategy during a specific period.  Back-tested results have certain limitations.  Such results do not represent the impact of material economic and market factors might have on an investment advisor’s decision making process if the advisor were actually managing client money.  Back-testing also differs from actual performance because it is achieved through retroactive application of a model investment methodology designed with the benefit of hindsight.  

Neither the information within this email, nor any opinion expressed shall constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation or an offer to buy any securities, commodities or exchange traded products.  This article does not purport to be complete description of the securities or commodities, markets or developments to which reference is made. 

The relative strength strategy is NOT a guarantee.  There may be times where all investments and strategies are unfavorable and depreciate in value.  Relative Strength is a measure of price momentum based on historical price activity.  Relative Strength is not predictive and there is no assurance that forecasts based on relative strength can be relied upon.

 

2 Responses to Momentum & Value vs. Growth & Value

  1. Chip Harlow says:

    Does the same hold true if you use a Russell 3000 Growth etf? This is the bench that PDP is compared to on the fact sheet. Thx

  2. […] Momentum beats growth. (systematicrelativestrength) […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *