Friday, July 31, 2009

In defense of John Hussman's market timing

I was surprised last week to read the claim in the CXO Advisory blog that the Hussman Strategic Growth Fund (HSGFX) has not been successful at market timing via hedging adjustments, a claim backed up by some statistical legerdemain. As one who has been following Hussman’s weekly market comment for years and watching his fund performance, I found this result counterintuitive. In fact, it is incorrect.

Generally the CXO Advisory blog does great work. Their digests of the latest finance papers from SSRN are especially valuable. But in this particular case they got it wrong.

Exhibit A. Fortunately, Hussman actually publishes what his fund return would be if no hedging strategy were employed. For the period 21 Nov 2000 (inception) to 30 June 2009:

 $10000 becomesAnnualized return %
HSGFX213469.21
Without hedging151374.93

Subtracting the reported return without hedging (4.93%) from the total return (9.21%) gives an annualized return due to hedging of 4.07%. (Arithmetic on annualized returns is done geometrically. In this case, 1.0921/1.0493 = 1.0407)

Comparing HSGFX with an S&P 500 index fund, Vanguard Index Trust 500 (VFINX):

 $10000 becomesAnnualized return %
VFINX7939-2.65
HSGFX outperformance 12.18
Due to hedging 4.07
Due to stock selection 7.79

HSGFX (9.21%) outperformed VFINX (-2.65%) by an annualized 12.18%. Of this outperformance, as we saw above, 4.07% was due to hedging. This leaves the remaining outperformance of 7.79% presumably due to superior stock selection.

Exhibit B. Let’s look at the data another way. I calculated a 20-day rolling beta for HSGFX, using VFINX total return as a proxy for the market. It looks like this:



Hussman turned bullish early in 2003, then gradually scaled back as the market moved higher, reaching maximum bearishness in mid-2007. What’s not to like about that? In 2008 he did turn bullish too early, just before the October crash, which cost him dearly (though his fund holders still came out well ahead of anyone fully invested in stocks).

Now associate each of the betas calculated above with the market return that occurred during the corresponding 20-day period, sort the data by market return, then divide the data into deciles. Down market periods to the left, up market periods to the right. Within each decile, what was the average beta exhibited by HSGFX?



Very clearly Hussman, on balance, was positioned with lower beta during down periods and higher beta during up periods—exactly as he intended.

Why did CXO come up with a different answer? Primarily because CXO put too much faith in statistical regression. The least squares regression formula minimizes squared error, whereas the market rewards or penalizes you in proportion to actual (unsquared) error. In least squares regression, outlying points end up getting disproportionately large weighting. Dropping only two of the oddball data points from CXO’s regression (crash week, 10 Oct 2008, and week horribilis, 8 May 2009, when HSGFX was down 5% while the market was up 6%) gives very different results. Rather than leave out those two data points, however, I leave them in but redo the regressions using a nonstandard method: minimizing the sum of the absolute errors. This method of regression gives the result we would expect if the hedging were successful: a steeper slope (beta) during up weeks than during down weeks. The new regressions are shown by the black lines in the chart below; the original regression is shown in red and green (click on the image for a larger version).



Conclusion: Hussman’s performance has been stellar, with estimated outperformance of 4.07% due to market timing and of 7.79% due to stock selection. Either of the two is beyond most fund managers. For one manager to combine both is truly unusual. I would be surprised to find any mutual fund farther above the security market line over the past 8 1/2 years than Hussman Strategic Growth.

Happily for us, Hussman is very open about his methods. He publishes his current stance on the market every Monday morning in his weekly market comment.

6 comments:

  1. Sweet blog. I stumbled here via Abnormal Returns. I appreciate the Hussman analysis. When I read the CXO blog I also had my doubts about the analysis but I don't have the time to dig into it. Anytime stats are in play I love to find out if any stress testing or other approaches were used. Nice work!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well done. Few have tweaked the nose of CXO Advisory successfully (they are generally pretty good). John Hussman is one clever guy; I may not agree with him all of the time, but he manages money well for his clients.

    David Merkel -- Aleph Blog

    ReplyDelete
  3. agree with David's comments. Good stuff thanks for sharing!

    Also stumbled on you via Abnormal Returns. Pleased to make the acquaintance and look forward to reading

    Jay
    marketfolly.com

    ReplyDelete
  4. I also came across you via Abnormal Returns - great post. I've followed Hussman closely and he is really my major "idol" when it comes to building a fund business (I am rolling out a new fund late this year). I think you do a great job dispelling the CXO criticism, but I have a different one for Hussman.

    The fund's long term track record is excellent, but almost all of that is due to 2000-2002. That period of time saw an important dispersion in market returns where many stocks did quite well while the bubble segments like technology and large cap growth in general imploded. It was truly a nirvana for Hussman's strategy, as his stocks could do much better than his hedging via options on the SPX, NDX and RUT. Also, the fund was very small and nimble, as its assets did not begin to take off until mid 2002.

    Since that period, Hussman's performance has been pedestrian, IMO. I don't mean that to be demeaning - I think he is a brilliant guy and own the fund personally. However, he is now dealing with tremendous asset bloat that is likely to limit his flexibility in navigating market conditions to some degree. Also, he explicity states that he is a risk managed growth fund - NOT an absolute return fund, which is how many RIA's are using him.

    I would expect the fund to continue doing what it has done over the past 3 and 5 year periods - generate good relative returns but mediocre absolute returns....at least until long term valuations reach secularly low levels. Also, I suspect that some of the shareholders may become disenchanted in the future as the fund begins to behave more and more like a stock fund rather than how it has behaved during its first 9+ years.

    Finally, I am astounded that the HSGFX fund has grown to over $5 billion given its pedestrian performance over the past 3 and 5 years compared to its 2000-2002 showing. This is one of the reasons I will be coming to market with a fund, as it appears there is an insatiable appetite for even mediocre "absolute return" or "alternative" fund performance. My composite returns in our global macro strategy best HSGFX (admittedly a different animal all together) by 2,300 bps, 900 bps and 600 bps over the past 1, 3 and 5 year periods...so I hope the appetite continues! I wouldn't mind collecting 100 bps in management fees on $5 billion after essentially making my clients zero return after inflation over 1, 3 and 5 year periods....

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you all for your kind comments.

    jucojames brings up an important point. Most of Dr. Hussman's stock selection alpha occurred in the first two years of the fund, when it was "small and nimble." Interestingly, his stock selection success in the first half of 2009 has been on par with that of 2001. During the meltdown of late last year and early this year panicked investors were dumping stocks wholesale, without regard to long term value. I suspect this has resulted in a market where more stocks than usual are mispriced and investors with superior stock picking skills have been taking advantage.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Not sure how much this hussman gave you. His record is

    1 Year -12.62%
    3 Year -5.05%
    5 Year -4.01%
    10 Year +1.69%

    SP500
    2012 +16%
    2011 -1%
    2010 +17.11%

    If you invest in SP500 with low fee and you are up +34.48%
    with this guy you are down -15%

    and some guys up there say that his major idol. OMG you make me want to puke.
    I read some of his article, lots of words but lack in content. He been bear since 2008.

    ReplyDelete