However, if we stick to the base rates on fundamentals, we get a much
lesser mean reversion than we get in stock market returns.
Not exact matches
These can be trending or
mean reversion systems, but on a shorter time frame — Weissman cites that these generate signals for trades that last 10 days or
less.
Carlisle does an excellent job of explaining how the powerful forces of
mean reversion can make some metrics
less useful in identifying investable companies.
Thinking about price momentum and
mean -
reversion are also
lesser matters, because if your time horizon is a long one, the initial results will have a modest effect on the ultimate results.
This would seem to somewhat explain
mean reversion of stock prices of low p / b value firms (once Mr. Market realizes he can pay
less for income - generating assets), but doesn't explain earnings growth.
If you normalise the fuel margins the implied multiple can start to look
less attractive, and to the extent the market does not expect
mean reversion in terms of fuel margins this could lead to a nasty surprise.
PIMCO wrote that positioning for
mean reversion will be a
less compelling investment theme in a world where realized returns cluster nearer the tails and away from the
mean.
I haven't done a quantitative analysis, but my guess is that given an old record, «A», and a new record, «B», the expectation that a year soon after B will be even
less than B (a newer record) is probably
less the larger the B minus A difference (eg,
reversion to the
mean), BUT, the expectation that a year soon after B will be
less than A should increase the larger that difference (eg, there is more confidence in a larger decreasing trend due to Bayesian updating).