I’m working on a piece on the Iowa Electronic Markets in my copious spare time at the moment. Just as a warm-up, here’s a few questions for finance mavens.
1. In the 1996 Presidential vote-share market, after the candidates have been nominated and adopted, what should the sum of the values of the CL|DOLE plus V.DOLE (Dole vote share) contracts be?
2. What percentage return would you have made in the 2000 winner-takes-all market by buying the BUSH contract at the point when DEM was at its peak and holding to maturity?
3. You hold a porfolio in the current 2004 Presidential vote-share market long BU|KERR but short BU|CLINT. If George Bush were to announce tomorrow that he had decided to withdraw from the race, what would be your profit or loss?
Answers below the fold. Historical price and prospectus data available on the IEM website.
These are all trick questions, in case you hadn’t guessed …
1. In the 1996 Presidential vote-share market, what should the sum of the values of the VS_CLINT (Clinton vote share) plus VS_DOLE (Dole vote share) contracts be?
If you answered 1.00, 100% or some similar, you’re wrong and if you’ve got a finance qualification you should give yourself a slap on the wrist. That’s one answer that has to be wrong.
If you answered “100% minus Perot’s share of the vote”, then good try, you’re thinking, but wrong. The Iowa vote share markets are the share between the Republican and Democratic candidate; shares of third-party candidates don’t count. This is sometimes very relevant indeed; see below.
The correct answer is 1.00 minus the time value of money. Because you have to pay your money upfront to receive the return after the election, a portfolio of 1 Dole plus 1 Clinton should sell at a discount to face value reflecting that fact.
2. What percentage return would you have made in the 2000 winner-takes-all market by buying the BUSH contract at the point when GORE was at its peak and holding to maturity?
You would have lost all your money. The 2000 winner-takes-all contract paid out on Gore, not Bush. There are two factors at work here.
a) Although it is called “winner takes all”, the WTA market is not actually a betting market on the winner. It is a market in binary options which pay 1.00 if the underlying vote-share contract is above a strike price of 0.50.
b) Gore won the popular vote by a small margin. If you strike out Nader’s votes (as you have to for the VS market calculation [Update: Oh do you really, laughing boy? See below]), this margin became signficant.
3. You would neither win nor lose anything. BU is simply an identifier meaning “the Republican candidate”.
All of which is by way of suggesting that, whenever you’re doing research on any kind of financial time series, you need to be very careful indeed about the specification of the contracts involved. Lots of academic studies comparing mutual funds to the S&P500 index do not observe this basic requirement, by the way.
UPDATE Actually, my answer to 1 was only correct for the 1996 and market. In 1992, there was a Perot vote share market, and in 2000 a Buchanan VS market and both times the vote shares were calculated three ways. Consider me slapped.
Daniel, your point about paying close attention to the specifications of the contracts in time series is an excellent one. But I don’t understand your reference to studies of mutual-fund performance vs. the S&P. What is it that academics aren’t paying attention to in these studies?
Also, with regard to the question of the time value of money, you’re right as a matter of theory. But in practice, aren’t the sums involved in the IEM so small that most investors feel free to neglect time value? Even if you invest the maximum in a contract, and hold it for a year — something few IEM investors do, I imagine — you’re talking about two dollars (that could have been earned at the risk-free rate). At that price, it’s probably not worth spending the time adjusting your forecast to take into account the discount rate.
Re Iowa, you’re probably right.
Re SP500, my bugbear is studies which refer to “a Buy and Hold strategy on the SP500 index”. You can’t “buy and hold” the SP500. It’s an index that gets regularly rebalanced. If you made the same trades, you’d typically find a cash shortfall between the value of the stocks you sold and the ones you bought and the index does not reflect the losses one would sustain on rebalancing. You could buy and hold the SP500 future, but then you don’t get the dividends and that kills your long term total return.
I think not; 1 Bush plus 1 Clinton on the contract specified is a cash-and-carry arbitrage, so it’s the risk-free rate, shurely?
Doesn’t an index fund do the rebalancing for you? Vanguard 500, for instance, has captured just about all of the S&P’s returns over the past three years (actually, it outperformed the index by a tiny bit: .01% in 2003, .12% in 2002, and .04% in 2001. So if you buy the Vanguard 500 and hold it, you’re effectively buying-and-holding the S&P 500. Comparing the performance of managed funds to the performance of VFINX is a straight apples-to-apples comparison: you can buy Mutual Fund X or you can buy VFINX.
Vanguard outperforms the S&P 500 by engaging in security lending; if you take out the excess return due to that, the return is lower than the “naive” S&P 500 return. For example, if they could lend 100% of their securities they would be picking up about 30 bp, I think.
Also, I believe that security lending reduces the after-tax return on a stock portfolio because a “payment in lieu of dividends” received on lent shares does not qualify for the lower dividend tax rate.
Wesley has it right; Vanguard (and other trackers) do all sorts of things to make their money; they also play some games with their execution which look to me to be for all the world like a bank prop trading desk. Given that Vanguard doesn’t buy and hold, because it couldn’t both buy and hold and track the SP500, one comes to the conclusion that it has to generate quite material outperformance of the SP500 just to track it.
Academics often give absolutely no thought whatever to the operational complexities of conceptually simple strategies; I used to sit near someone who did the Royal Dutch/Shell arbitrage for a living, and I can tell anyone who asks that arbitrage trading is neither “simple” nor “risk-free”, and that 99.9% of people who tried to do it would get their faces ripped off.
But I agree; comparing VFINX to a mutual fund is a legitimate comparison, as long as you don’t make the mistake of assuming that VFINX is equivalent to buy and hold. If you sneaked a look at the last chapter of Campbell, Lo & McKinlay’s “A Non-Random Walk Down Wall Street”, you’ll see their conclusion is that it is possible to sustainably outperform the market, but that the gains which can be statistically shown to be there come from execution and market impact, not investment strategy.
I think your questions #1 and 2 are written differently below than they are above. Question number 1, for instance, makes absolutely no sense to me above the jump but is perfectly clear below. Eh?
As with the IEM, the theoretical point that VFINX is not using a pure buy-and-hold strategy (which is mainly a function of the fact that the S&P 500 is itself in a perpetual process of rebalancing, adding and dropping stocks, etc.) is right. But practically speaking, it surely isn’t a coincidence that index funds that try to emulate the S&P 500 index do, in general, a very good job of duplicating the returns you’d get if you bought-and-hold (with rebalancing, etc.) the index. To put it differently, it’s not as if the strategies that index-fund managers use to track the index involve taking on market risk.
More important, the reason we care about this is because we want to know if money managers can outperform the S&P. That question would be significantly less interesting — and perhaps unfair to money managers — if there were no way for investors to guarantee themselves the S&P’s return. But practically speaking, there is: buy VFINX. So I don’t really think there’s a problem with studies that compare managed funds to a buy-and-hold strategy with the S&P.
At the same time, you’re absolutely right about the operational complexities involved. Vanguard’s index-fund money management has been exceptional at keeping down costs and capturing returns, and other index funds have been significantly less successful at that.
Question number 1, for instance, makes absolutely no sense to me above the jump but is perfectly clear below. Eh?
Ahh. I typed it from memory, copied and pasted, then corrected the contract names above the fold but not below. Since the error improves comprehensibility, as you suggest, I’ll keep it.
But practically speaking, it surely isn’t a coincidence that index funds that try to emulate the S&P 500 index do, in general, a very good job of duplicating the returns you’d get if you bought-and-hold (with rebalancing, etc.) the index. To put it differently, it’s not as if the strategies that index-fund managers use to track the index involve taking on market risk.
Good point; it’s no more a coincidence than that bakers make bread (which is better for you than a buy-and-hold strategy with respect to flour and yeast).
My point is, I think, your own. Vanguard does a much better job than you would be able to do yourself (trying to build your own replicating portfolio is a mug’s game).
I’m less convinced than you are, though, that the outperformance built into Vanguard’s trading returns represents pure alpha (generated through execution) rather than market risk. I suspect that VFINX is taking on considerable market risk in the tails — in other words, I suspect that its replication strategies rely on good liquidity, which is a risk positively correlated to the market.
So I don’t really think there’s a problem with studies that compare managed funds to a buy-and-hold strategy with the S&P
Probably right from a statistical point of view. But it betrays a certain mindlessness (I’d also comment that I’ve seen studies published in decent journals that completely ignored the little matter of dividends!)
In vaguely related news, the Economist’s Big Mac index has been claiming for the last ten years that a Big Mac is a homogeneous product around the world, despite no fewer than four letters from me telling them that it isn’t; fat content, calorific value and even weight differ significantly between local markets.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ifunds/040428/20040428_putcallparity_adv_bon_jb_1.html notes a dramatic violation in put-call parity on bond ETFs. Shares for shorting simply can’t be had, so there’s no arbitrage.
When single stock futures were introduced, I was asking people whether the futures price of a potential short-squeeze might drift a bit below fair value for basically this reason. As with many of my questions, nobody seemed to care. At the time I looked at the options market for Krispy Kreme, but saw no significant effect.
This is related to the previous point about the first question; if you can’t short the futures and pull the procedes out, and the IEM doesn’t pay interest on cash, it’s hard to see that there’s going to be a compelling force keeping the prices in line with interest rates.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review