“What Works”: Key New Findings on Stock Selection

by James O'Shaughnessy

Hear James O'Shaughnessy's Keynote Opening speech at the AAII Investor Conference!

When I began the research for what would eventually become the first edition of “What Works on Wall Street” in 1995, I sought to identify which individual factors delivered the best alpha (risk-adjusted performance) over time and did so with the greatest consistency (base rates).

What I have found is that there is no “best” factor, per se; rather, the strongest individual factors come in and out of favor. The price-to-sales ratio and EBITDA-to-enterprise-value ratio vie for top billing, but it depends on the time period under review. (EBITDA is earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. Enterprise value is a combination of a company’s market capitalization, debt, minority interest and preferred stock at market value, less any investments in associated companies at market value and all cash and cash equivalents.)

...To continue reading this article you must be registered with AAII.

Gain exclusive access to this article and all of the member benefits and investment education AAII offers.
JOIN TODAY for just $29.
Log in
Already registered with AAII? Login to read the rest of this article.

Register for FREE
to read this article and receive access to future AAII.com articles.
  
James O'Shaughnessy is chairman, CEO and CIO of O’Shaughnessy Asset Management (OSAM) and author of “What Works on Wall Street” (4th edition, McGraw-Hill, 2012).


Discussion

Andrew Beaudoin from Georgia posted 6 months ago:

Does AAII have a screen for this method?


Richard Oetting from Arizona posted 6 months ago:

An excellent article.


Charles Egerton from Mississippi posted 6 months ago:

The earnings quality composite sounds like a very valuable tool for a stock investor's armamentarium. However, for casual purchases the mathematics is prohibitively tedious. Is this tool available on-line?


Charles Egerton from Mississippi posted 6 months ago:

The earnings quality composite sounds like a very valuable tool for a stock investor's armamentarium. However, for casual purchases the mechanics of its calculation seems dauntingly tedious. Is this tool available on-line?


Vaidy Bala from posted 6 months ago:

Is there a software available to these analysis for each stock? Or any of the free AAII screens would do them. One thought is what is the time frame you look through this window?


Ronald Raecek from Connecticut posted 6 months ago:

Does AAII have a screen for this method?

Is there a software available to do these analysis for each stock?


F Krasowski from Connecticut posted 6 months ago:

Why doesn't AAII have a stock screen for this method?


Robert Black from Florida posted 6 months ago:

How do I get this score?


Maurice Peel from Arkansas posted 6 months ago:

The article is great. I want to try it but where do I get the screen? Without the screen it isn't usable for me.


Daniel Ekstrand from Illinois posted 6 months ago:

I agree the article was good and makes sense, but without some way to put it, or other similar methodologies to use, it is just a read. What should we do next? How do we use it? Also, if one is able to use this type of filter against the world of good dividend paying stocks - BINGO in my world!


William Bentley from Kentucky posted 6 months ago:

Early last year, I attempted to put O'Shaun's very good work to practice, adding to it some of the work done by another researcher. I used Stock Investor Pro to generate data, first filtering to meet the authors' market cap filters. I downloaded the data into Excel. Very few of the exact metrics were provided; some of those could calculated in Excel, in many cases data was missing, requiring that I try to collect the raw data from other sources. After sorting, I then computed composite metrics using multiple factors. In summary, you can't screen directly using SIP, and the amount of work required to do on your own is quite substantial. Add to that the inability to effectively back test, and I shelved this concept. Too bad, I think the author is on to something.


Gerald Sensabaugh from Texas posted 6 months ago:

What is AAII's answer to the above questions/observations ??????


Wayne Maybach from Virginia posted 6 months ago:

Excellent article - and I, like many other AAII members. would like to know if AAII can provide a stock screening tool using this methodology. It sounds like a lot of research for individual investors to perform and just not practical.


Charles Rotblut from Illinois posted 6 months ago:

Hi,

I'm looking into seeing what we can do in terms of providing instructions on how to replicate Jim's criteria in Stock Investor Pro. I think it will likely require the use of SI Pro and a spreadsheet.

Keep in mind that a big focus of this article is not to rely on one single criteria. Rather, consider valuation, financial strength and the quality of earnings.

-Charles


David Huong from Illinois posted 5 months ago:


David Huong from Illinois posted 5 months ago:

This is and excellent piece of information.
However, if aaii can have a screen to share, that will be fantastic, if not reading these information is great as a general knowledge.
Appreciate it very Jim.


Scott Strobeck from Georgia posted 5 months ago:

I love it! A composite of composites, but they only suggested combining composites without suggesting a method or providing results.

Anyway, I ditto the request to have AAII put together a screen. Maybe just average the 3 composites and take the top 5%?

Scott


James Ranum from Florida posted 5 months ago:

That seems to be the problem with AAII. They throw info like this out there and walk away.
Over and over, I've seen this.


Louis Lasday from Florida posted 5 months ago:

The theory is great but AAII never seems to cross the finish line. Let's be more specific. Some of your readers don't have time for study hall. A list or screen would be helpful


Jim Hamilton from Florida posted 5 months ago:

To answer Ronald's question:
Yes, AAII has not one but six O'Shaughnessy screens. Here they are and how they rank (out of 77 total screens, where 1=best) this year:
Small Cap Growth and Value (8)
Tiny Titans (13)
Growth Market Leaders (33)
Growth (45)
Value (65)
All Cap (74)


Frederick Joffe from Kentucky posted 5 months ago:

Can you show us a list of stocks that are in the top decile of all 3 composities now?


Frederick Joffe from Kentucky posted 5 months ago:

Can you show us a list of stocks that are in the top decile of all 3 composities now?


Thomas Conley from Illinois posted 5 months ago:

I know of three ways to screen for this data. S&P Capital IQ, Zacks Research Wizard, and Morningstar. A paid membership is required for all three, but in my view it's well worth the cost for all but the smallest investors.


G Shaner from Iowa posted 5 months ago:

I spent about two hours attempting to see if I could create a screen with SI Pro. Some of the parameters were all ready there. i.e. price/sales or price/earnings. Others were elusive even with a custom formula i.e. accruals/assets.


Dean Copeland from Connecticut posted 5 months ago:

Back in May of 2010, John Bajkowski wrote a First Cut article the explained how to implement Tortoriello's Quantitative Strategies in Stock Investor Pro. I think a similar First Cut article would be great as a follow-up to O'Shaughnessy's article. In particular, I like the idea of measuring Earnings Quality by looking at accruals, but I can't find Accruals in SI Pro.


Doug from New York posted 5 months ago:

Dean Copeland wrote:
In particular, I like the idea of measuring Earnings Quality by looking at accruals, but I can't find Accruals in SI Pro.
-----
It should be straightforward to compute: See
http://www.investopedia.com/university/accounting-earnings-quality/earnings5.asp


Mark Seibert from California posted 5 months ago:

I am going to suggest that if this method works so well then why doesn't everyone use it? It is evidently not a secret. I will also suggest that if it works well everyone will want to use it and it will therefore cease to work.
So what does work, probably no set formula but I suspect doing what the crowd is not doing i.e. buying when a reasonably priced stock is pummeled for missing its earnings by 1 cent, that should be 1 cent out of many of course. Another case is buying when the next finance panic arrives. The even harder question though is when do you get out?

Not trying to be negative, just pointing out that everyday people are hatching systems to beat the market, many will work for a time and fortunately some can even be recycled as they fall out of favor.


Jim Linnemann from Michigan posted 5 months ago:

What wasn't clear to me is whether these results are pure back-testing based, or whether they work in the real world going forward.

It it's just backtesting, well one looks at lots of plausible things and only reports the ones that look good in retrospect. That's often called data snooping or data dredging (see the wiki). Notice that the screens Jim Hamilton cited above, based on earlier work by the same author, are all over the map when applied in real time.


I'm a lot more impressed if the methods have been applied successfully in the real market for some time, after having been previously developed.


Robert Koch from Missouri posted 5 months ago:

I have two questions:

How is "external financing" calculated? This is one of the financial strength factors.

The last sentence in the first paragraph under "Financial Strength" says, "In the case of the financial strength composite, stocks missing a value for a factor are ignored; to be included in the composite, a stock musts have a value for at least two of the four factors." Which way is it?


Doug from New York posted 5 months ago:

It's curious when a composite outperforms all its components (this wouldn't happen with an arithmetic average, for instance). It makes me think that there are probably other plausible composites which UNDERPERFORM all their components. The question is, how to determine, in advance, which kind you are dealing with....


Arnold Siemsen M D from Hawaii posted 5 months ago:

In the 2012 edition of O'Shaughnessy's "What Works on Wall Street" starting on page 284, there is a lot of data on results from ranking the four factors in earnings quality. These factors are mentioned in the current article, however, there is no mention of how to screen for them. If we could get some AAII help with the definitions, perhaps we could write the screen in SIP.


Charles Rotblut from Illinois posted 5 months ago:

We are working on a SI Pro screen based on this article and will discuss it in a future AAII Journal article.

-Charles


Raymond Vance from California posted 5 months ago:

Mr. O'Shaughnessy has managed my stock portfolio since 1997. The portfolio is always fully invested. Since then he has beaten the S & P 500 by an annualized 6.2 percent per year. I am more than satisfied.
Everyone doesn't accept a successful strategy because they want to time the market and will abandon the strategy if it does not beat the index in every short period they might consider.


Raymond Vance from California posted 5 months ago:

Mr. O'Shaughnessy has managed my stock portfolio since 1997. The portfolio is always fully invested. Since then he has beaten the S & P 500 by an annualized 6.2 percent per year. I am more than satisfied.
Everyone doesn't accept a successful strategy because they want to time the market and will abandon the strategy if it does not beat the index in every short period they might consider.


Arnold Siemsen M D from Hawaii posted 5 months ago:

Charles, glad to hear you are working on a screen. In the article he discusses the percentile ranking system. For example if a stock has a price-earnings ratio that's in the lowest % it gets a one. On page 302 of the latest "What Works on Wall Street" he says that if a stock has a PE ratio in the lowest 1% it receives a rank of 100 and it gets a 1 if it is in the highest %. This is confusing. Which way is it?


MarkP from California posted 4 months ago:

Hi Arnold,
In the book and in the subsequent AAII Conference presentation actually he has used different scales (100 being the best, or 1 being the best). You can set it up either way. But, "best" needs to be consistent in your calculations, obviously.
And "best" in these calculations means "highest value". So if you call 100 "best", then for PE, a high PE would get a low percentile value, and a low PE would get a high value. So, the stock with the lowest PE would get 100. In the book actually he talks about EP (Earnings to Price). But you just need to be consistent about "best".

Mark


Richard Fisel from California posted 4 months ago:

I am trying to understand the criteria in O'Shaughnessy's screens. What is the difference between Total Accruals (I presume for trailing 12 months) and Current Accruals? The definitions seem to be the same, cf. http://www.investopedia.com/university/accounting-earnings-quality/earnings5.asp


Thomas Ford from New York posted 4 months ago:

This does not seem to differ that much from what Piotroski was doing. For the accruals piece, one can use the calculations from Sloan, which appear a bit simpler. I am curious why no longer term valuation metrics were utilized such as P/B or a company-specific CAPE style valuation metric in order to get away from y/y earnings volatility. The problem with O'Shaughnessy is he measures every stock on whether it is absolutely cheap or not, but high return, wide moat companies will often not show up as being absolutely cheap, but can be historically cheap and as a result great investments.


John Givens from Florida posted 3 months ago:

While I am typically quick to lash out at AAII for their total lack of customer service (responding to emails, backtesting 1st cut and other strategies instead of just putting them out there, etc. etc.) they are still the best service and value in existence. Painfully, I think they deserve a break. While they could do us a great service by working with O'Shaughnessy and setting up fields and screens for "What Works" the main problem here is the book. So far, I have not been able to find definitions for "financial composite", external financing, change in operating assets, etc. in the book. How can O'Shaughnessy expect us to take his book seriously if he doesn't define his terms. Now, I can find definitions from other sources, but why should I have to and how would I know if they are the same definitions that he used?


Michael Dimillo from Georgia posted 3 months ago:

I have been using SI Pro and Excel to replicate the Trending Value Screen (aka VC2) since April of last year. A few of the metrics require custom formulas, but it isn't that difficult. O'Shaughnessy has some material on his site that help with the calculations. You have to translate it from Compustat, but it is doable. Here is the link - http://www.whatworksonwallstreet.com/supplement.html.

So far the top 25 I generated in April is up 40%, excluding OMX, DELL, VMED, and STRZA, which were all acquired. In the real world you would have reinvested, but it was too much effort to track it. He recommends a yeah holding period, but I have been running it every month when the new data sets come out as well so I can compare it to the other screens on AAII that I use.

I think it will be hard to replicate this in SI Pro alone, but definitely think it is worth the manual labor. I am re-tweaking my spreadsheet to plug some data holes, but I would be happy to share it with others when I am done.


You need to log in as a registered AAII user before commenting.
Create an account

Log In