← Back to Projects
Project Report · Asset Pricing · Replication

Factor Momentum: Replication & Extension

Replicating and extending Ehsani & Linnainmaa (2022) and Arnott, Kalesnik & Linnainmaa (2023). Do equity risk factors exhibit momentum — and is stock-level momentum simply a reflection of this factor-level autocorrelation?

View Notebook GitHub Profile
Data
CRSP + Compustat
Sample
Jul 1963 – Dec 2022
Observations
3.1M firm-months
Factors
HML, PMU, CMA, UMD
Methodology
FF 2×3 sorts, OLS, PCA
References
Ehsani & Linnainmaa (2022), Arnott et al. (2023)

Key Numbers

0.45
CSFM Sharpe Ratio
Cross-sectional factor momentum, annualized.
3.33
HML Autocorrelation t-stat
Strongest factor persistence in sample.
0.58%/mo
TSFM 5-Factor Alpha
Significant at t = 3.33, drops when UMD added.
77.2%
Variance in PC1 + PC2
Momentum concentrates in high-eigenvalue PCs.

Executive Summary

Factor Construction

Each factor is constructed using the standard Fama-French 2×3 sort methodology. Every month, stocks are independently sorted into two size groups (NYSE median) and three signal groups (NYSE 30th/70th percentiles), producing six value-weighted portfolios. The factor return averages the long-short spread across both size groups.

Factor return: Ft = ½(RS/H,t + RB/H,t) − ½(RS/L,t + RB/L,t)

HML, PMU, and CMA rebalance annually in June (holding July–June). UMD rebalances monthly — momentum is a short-horizon signal that requires frequent refreshing.

Factor Summary Statistics

FactorMean MonthlyAnn. MeanAnn. StdAnn. Sharpet-stat
HML0.00240.02940.11080.26522.01
PMU0.00150.01830.07440.24631.87
CMA0.00160.01880.06410.29402.23
UMD0.00410.04910.14020.35032.65

Benchmark correlations: HML correlates 0.91 with Fama-French HML. UMD correlates 0.97 with Fama-French UMD — confirming accurate factor replication from raw data.

Testing Factor Autocorrelation

The central empirical claim: factors that performed well over the prior year tend to continue performing well. Each factor is regressed on an indicator for whether its trailing 12-month average return was positive. A positive, significant beta implies the factor exhibits "streaks."

Conditional Returns (Prior-Year Performance)

FactorAlphat(Alpha)Betat(Beta)
HML-0.0022-1.210.00813.33
PMU-0.0009-0.650.00382.25
CMA0.00010.100.00261.80
UMD0.00471.71-0.0009-0.26

HML shows the strongest autocorrelation (t = 3.33) — the most likely to continue performing well after a positive year. PMU is also significant (t = 2.25). This is exactly what the papers predict.

Unconditional vs. Conditional Correlations with UMD

Factorρ (Unconditional)ρ+ (After Good Year)ρ− (After Bad Year)
HML-0.4246-0.1201-0.6912
PMU-0.02820.2660-0.4207
CMA0.00160.2698-0.2467

Unconditional correlations between UMD and other factors are near zero — which is why the Fama-French model treats them as independent. But conditionally, the correlations flip sign: after a good year, momentum goes long value stocks; after a bad year, momentum goes short value. The unconditional correlation masks a strong time-varying relationship, explaining why the FF five-factor model struggles with momentum.

Factor Momentum Strategies

Two strategies that explicitly exploit factor-level autocorrelation: TSFM goes long factors with positive prior-12-month returns and shorts those with negative returns. CSFM goes long the top-2 factors by prior-month return and shorts the bottom-2.

TSFM vs. CSFM Performance

MetricTSFMCSFM
Ann. mean return0.03990.0569
Ann. std0.13120.1253
Sharpe ratio0.300.45
Sortino ratio0.460.72
Max drawdown-0.3638-0.3484
Calmar ratio0.110.16
t-statistic2.283.44
TSFM vs. CSFM Cumulative Wealth Figure 1
Cumulative wealth: TSFM (12-month lookback) vs CSFM (1-month lookback), 1963–2022

CSFM outperforms TSFM across all metrics (Sharpe 0.45 vs 0.30). CSFM uses a 1-month lookback capturing shorter-term factor persistence, while TSFM's 12-month window mirrors how UMD is constructed.

Spanning Tests

A factor momentum strategy is only a genuine anomaly if its returns cannot be explained by known risk factors. Each strategy is regressed on the Fama-French five-factor model, then the six-factor model (adding UMD).

TSFM Spanning Results

Term5-Factor6-Factor
Alpha0.0058 (t=3.33)0.0018 (t=1.25)
Mkt-RF-0.093 (t=-2.32)0.013 (t=0.37)
SMB0.072 (t=1.25)0.061 (t=1.30)
HML-0.389 (t=-4.88)-0.051 (t=-0.74)
RMW-0.287 (t=-3.74)-0.342 (t=-5.48)
CMA0.165 (t=1.38)-0.073 (t=-0.74)
UMD0.512 (t=15.59)
0.1190.421

TSFM has a significant five-factor alpha (0.58%/mo, t = 3.33), but it drops to insignificance when UMD is added (0.18%, t = 1.25) with a massive UMD loading of 0.51. TSFM's 12-month lookback mirrors how UMD is constructed.

CSFM Spanning Results

Term5-Factor6-Factor
Alpha0.0034 (t=1.93)0.0031 (t=1.74)
Mkt-RF-0.033 (t=-0.81)-0.026 (t=-0.62)
SMB-0.108 (t=-1.84)-0.108 (t=-1.86)
HML-0.126 (t=-1.56)-0.102 (t=-1.20)
RMW0.131 (t=1.68)0.127 (t=1.63)
CMA0.384 (t=3.16)0.367 (t=2.98)
UMD0.036 (t=0.88)
0.0570.058

CSFM's alpha barely changes when UMD is added (0.34% → 0.31%) with a tiny, insignificant UMD loading (0.04, t = 0.88). CSFM captures a short-term effect that stock momentum doesn't explain at all.

This supports the papers' central argument: factor momentum is more fundamental than stock momentum. UMD explains TSFM because they share a similar lookback, but CSFM — which captures pure factor-level relative momentum — is completely independent of UMD.

Long-Only Factor Rotation

The strategies above take both long and short positions in factors. In practice, many investors cannot short factors. This section builds a more realistic long-only Factor Momentum Rotation (FMR) strategy and compares it against a passive equal-weight benchmark.

EW vs. FMR Performance

MetricEqual-WeightFMR
Ann. excess return0.02750.0236
Ann. std0.04640.0939
Sharpe ratio0.590.25
Sortino ratio0.920.33
Max drawdown-0.1184-0.3815
Calmar ratio0.230.06
t-statistic3.751.59
Cumulative Wealth: EW vs. FMR Figure 2
Cumulative wealth comparison: equal-weight benchmark vs factor momentum rotation

The simple equal-weight benchmark outperforms FMR on every metric. With only four factors, the momentum signal is too unstable for reliable long-only timing — one factor having a bad run can dominate the portfolio. The papers analyze 20–47 factors where the signal is much more diversified.

Extension: Principal Component Factor Momentum

Ehsani & Linnainmaa and Arnott et al. show that factor momentum concentrates in the highest-eigenvalue principal components — the systematic directions that explain the most variation in returns. The economic intuition: arbitrageurs can easily correct mispricings in low-eigenvalue directions, so only sentiment-driven mispricings in the most systematic factor combinations persist long enough to generate momentum.

Eigenvalue Distribution (Rolling 5-Year PCA)

ComponentAvg. Eigenvalue% VarianceStatus
PC11.97949.5%Traded
PC21.11027.8%Traded
PC30.62415.6%Excluded
PC40.2867.2%Excluded

Momentum Concentration Test

GroupSharpet-stat
High-EV (PC1–2)0.2912.08
Low-EV (PC3–4)0.2131.53
All PCs (PC1–4)0.4393.14
PCA Extension: Strategy Comparison & Eigenvalue Distribution Figure 3
Left: cumulative wealth for EW, FMR, and PC-FMR strategies. Right: eigenvalue distribution showing traded vs excluded components.

PC1 and PC2 capture 77.2% of variance and show significant momentum (Sharpe 0.29, t = 2.08), while PC3 and PC4 do not. The long-only PC-FMR underperforms because PCs are centered at zero by construction — the "was this PC positive?" signal is inherently noisier than asking the same question of a raw factor with a positive long-run mean.

Conclusion

The overarching takeaway aligns with Ehsani & Linnainmaa: momentum is not a separate anomaly — it is what happens when you sort stocks by past returns and inadvertently load on whichever factors are currently in a streak.