The document discusses regression to the mean in stock market returns. It provides 3 reasons why regression to the mean failed in forecasting the market: 1) it can proceed slowly and be disrupted by shocks, 2) it may fluctuate around the mean with irregular deviations, and 3) the mean itself can be unstable and change over time. The document also examines several studies that found evidence of regression to the mean in stock returns and mutual fund performance over periods of years. However, it notes that people tend to focus on short-term returns rather than the long-term trend of regression to the mean.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
The document discusses regression to the mean in stock market returns. It provides 3 reasons why regression to the mean failed in forecasting the market: 1) it can proceed slowly and be disrupted by shocks, 2) it may fluctuate around the mean with irregular deviations, and 3) the mean itself can be unstable and change over time. The document also examines several studies that found evidence of regression to the mean in stock returns and mutual fund performance over periods of years. However, it notes that people tend to focus on short-term returns rather than the long-term trend of regression to the mean.
Original Description:
Finance,history, statistics,contribution, regression, random walk,Against the gods
The document discusses regression to the mean in stock market returns. It provides 3 reasons why regression to the mean failed in forecasting the market: 1) it can proceed slowly and be disrupted by shocks, 2) it may fluctuate around the mean with irregular deviations, and 3) the mean itself can be unstable and change over time. The document also examines several studies that found evidence of regression to the mean in stock returns and mutual fund performance over periods of years. However, it notes that people tend to focus on short-term returns rather than the long-term trend of regression to the mean.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
The document discusses regression to the mean in stock market returns. It provides 3 reasons why regression to the mean failed in forecasting the market: 1) it can proceed slowly and be disrupted by shocks, 2) it may fluctuate around the mean with irregular deviations, and 3) the mean itself can be unstable and change over time. The document also examines several studies that found evidence of regression to the mean in stock returns and mutual fund performance over periods of years. However, it notes that people tend to focus on short-term returns rather than the long-term trend of regression to the mean.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 16
Peapods and Perils
Presented by: Rajan Thakur
FIN 700 3 reasons why regression to the mean failed to forecasting in the market.
It sometimes proceeds at so slow a place
that a shock will disrupt the process. Regression may fluctuate around the mean, with repeated, irregular deviations on either side. The mean itself is unstable, the normality may change in the future. Normal had shifted to a new location
In 1930, right after the Great Crash, stock prices
had fallen 50% from their previous high in 1929. Prices proceeded to fallen another 80% before they finally hit bottom in 1932. Take another look at the market in 1955, DJI gradually regain its 1929 high in the preceding 6 years. After 9 years, in 1964, the DJI was doubled. An interesting paper Title: “Does the Stock Market Overreact? ” By: Richard Thaler and Werner Debondt Main issue: to test whether extreme movements of stock price in one direction provoke regression to the mean and are subsequently followed by movements in other direction. An interesting paper Studied 3-year returns of thousands of stock from January 1926 to December 1982. Classify stocks: Winners VS Losers. Calculate average performance of each group. Finding: Loser group outperform the market average by 19.6% and Winner group earn 5% less than the market. Conclusion: Investors overreact to the new information made the unequivocal result. The reasons: focus on the short-run and ignorance the long-run, which is regression to the mean. An vivid evidence of regression to the mean 1994, Morningstar, (A leading publication on performance of mutual funds) published accompanying table. A spectacular demonstrate of regression to the mean. It was not the fault of the fund managers, but was the swing in different industry. Various funds fare over the 5 year ending March 1989 and March 1994 Objective 5 year to March 1989 5 year to March 1994 International stock 20.60% 9.40% Income 14.30% 11.20% Growth and Income 14.20% 11.90% Growth 13.30% 13.90% Small company 10.30% 15.90% Aggressive growth 8.90% 16.10% Average 13.60% 13.10% Test the market as a whole The stock-prices movement in the short run are independent. But the performance by the month and by the quarter still look like a normal distribution. Test the market as a whole A simple logical reasoning: if the random-walk view is correct Prerequisite: Today’s stock price embody all relevant information. The availability of new information would be the only thing that make stock price change A simple logical reasoning: if the random-walk view is correct Reasoning process No way of knowing what new information might be ↓ No mean for stock price to regress ↓ No temporary stock price (A price sits in limbo before moving to another point.) ↓ Stock price changes are unpredictable. William Reichenstein and Dovalee Dorsett
Professor of Baylor University
Published a monograph in 1995 by Association for Investment Management & Research. Their conclude: Bad periods in the market are predictably followed by good periods, and vice versa. This finding directly contradiction to the view random-walk view. Ignoring short-term volatility In a very long run, return to investors should average around some kind of long-term normal. Stock market may be risky for some months or even certain years, but the risk of losing substantial over a period of 5 years or longer should be small. Long-run volatility in the stock market is less than it would be if the extremes had any chance of taking over. Uncertainty about rate of return over long-run is much smaller than in the short run. The paradox We, people, are obliged to live in the short run.
Most of us believe is inevitably wrong. But without
conventional wisdom, we could make no long-run decisions and would have trouble finding our way from day to day.
In the long run, we are all dead. Economists set
themselves too easy, too useless a task if in the tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean will be flat. ---John Maynard Keynes Conclusion Regression to the mean is only a tool; It is not a religion with immutable dogma and ceremonies. Regression to the mean is little more than mumbo-jumbo. Revel in more comprehensive views than the average. Any Questions?