• Selected
• Entire List

Abstract:
Recent research documents that commodities are good diversifiers in traditional investment portfolios: overall portfolio risk is reduced while less than proportional return is sacrificed. These studies generally find a relatively high volatility in commodity returns, which implies a huge potential for tactical strategies. In this paper we investigate timing strategies with commodity futures using factors directly related to the stance of the business cycle, the monetary environment and the sentiment of the market. We use a dynamic model selection procedure in the spirit of the recursive modeling approach of Pesaran and Timmermann [1995]. However, instead of using in-sample model selection criteria, we build on the extensions of Bauer, Derwall and Molenaar [2004] by introducing an out-of-sample model training period to select optimal models. The best models from this training period are used to generate forecasts in a subsequent trading period. Our results show that the variation in commodity future returns is sufficiently predictable to be exploited by a realistic timing strategy.

Commodity futures, market timing

Abstract:
This paper provides empirical evidence on the link between stock market volatility and macroeconomic uncertainty. We show that US stock market volatility is significantly related to the dispersion in economic forecasts from SPF survey participants over the period from 1969 to 1996. This link is much stronger than that between stock market volatility and the more traditional time-series measures of macroeconomic volatility, but disappears after 1996.

Stock market volatility, macro-economic factors, survey data

Abstract:
We show that average excess returns during the last two years of the presidential cycle are significantly higher than during the first two years: 9.8 percent over the period 1948 – 2008. This pattern in returns cannot be explained by business-cycle variables capturing time-varying risk premia, differences in risk levels, or by consumer and investor sentiment. In this paper, we formally test the presidential cycle election (PCE) hypothesis as the alternative explanation found in the literature for explaining the presidential cycle anomaly. PCE states that incumbent parties and presidents have an incentive to manipulate the economy (via budget expansions and taxes) to remain in power. We formulate eight empirically testable propositions relating to the fiscal, monetary, tax, unexpected inflation and political implications of the PCE hypothesis. We do not find statistically significant evidence confirming the PCE hypothesis as a plausible explanation for the presidential cycle effect. The existence of the presidential cycle effect in U.S. financial markets thus remains a puzzle that cannot be easily explained by politicians employing their economic influence to remain in power.

political economy, inefficient markets, market anomalies, calendar effects