Houston research: Can predictive tools help forecast the stock market?

houston voices

The stock market has always been hard, if not impossible, to forecast. Image via Getty Images

What do you think the Standard & Poor’s 500 index will do over the next year?

When Rice Business finance professor Kevin Crotty asks his MBA students this question, the answers are all over the map. Some students expect the overall return on the stock market to be 10 percent, while others predict a loss of 20 percent.

This guessing game is closer to real life than many people realize. Experienced investors, people who have watched the stock market ebb and flow for many years, know that making predictions is a risky business. “Many money managers are more confident choosing individual stocks than trying to time the market,” says finance professor Kevin Crotty.

For most of the past century, academics have applied their power of analysis to understanding and predicting the stock market. Recently, some finance researchers have taken a closer look at option prices—the price paid for the right to buy or sell a security (like a stock or bond) at a specified price in the future. Combining economic theory with high-frequency options price data, they argued that they could estimate the expected return on the market in real-time, which would represent a tremendous development for finance practitioners and academics alike.

Crotty teamed up with Kerry Back, a fellow Rice Business professor, and Seyed Mohammad Kazempour, a finance Ph.D. student at the Jones Graduate School of Business, to evaluate whether the new predictors based on option prices really are a valuable forecasting tool. “Options are essentially a forward-looking contract, so it’s possible that they could be used to create a forward-looking measure of expected returns,” says Kazempour.

Economic theory suggests that the new predictors might systematically underestimate expected returns. The team set out to test if this may be the case, and if so, whether the predictors are useful as a forecasting tool. In their paper, “Validity, Tightness, and Forecasting Power of Risk Premium Bounds,” the Rice Business researchers ran the predictors through a more rigorous set of statistical tests that provide more power to detect whether the predictors systematically underestimate expected returns. The statistical tests used in previous research on the topic were less stringent, leading to conclusions that the predictors do not underestimate expected returns.

In short, the new predictors didn’t pass the more stringent tests. The researchers found that forecasts built on stock options consistently underestimated market returns. Moreover, the predictors are enough of an underestimate that they are not very useful as forecasts of market returns.

The results were somewhat anticlimatic, the researchers admit. If the option-based predictors had panned out, it could have become an innovative new tool for thinking about market timing for asset managers as well as investment decision-making for corporate finance projects. “Trying to estimate expected market returns is closely related to whether corporations decide to invest in projects,” notes Crotty. “The expected market return is an input in estimating the cost of capital when evaluating projects, and I explain in my MBA courses that we don’t have very precise estimates for this input. During this research project, I kept thinking about how cool it would be if we really had a better estimate,” he says.

Their research doesn’t end here. Crotty and Back have already begun brainstorming ways to potentially improve the option-based forecasting tool so that it can become more accurate.

At best, though, using option prices as a forecasting tool will only be one ingredient out of many that investors use to make decisions. “This tool may inform money management, but it will never drive it,” says Back.

For now, at least, the Rice researchers believe that trying to predict the stock market is still a very risky game.

------

This article originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom and was based on research from Rice Professors Kerry Backand Kevin Crotty.

Investors might be drawn to active fund investing, but index funds might be less risky, according to Rice University researchers. Getty Images

Rice University research finds how index funds can be a good investment opportunity for the risk adverse

Houston Voices

It's easy to assume that investing, like cooking, requires skill to get the right mix of ingredients. But that's not the case with index funds. Effort goes into building them, but these ready-made investments need minimal intervention. Yet the outcomes are appetizing indeed.

In the past few decades, use of index funds has exploded. So have media coverage and advertisements questioning if they can truly compete with active funds. A recent study by Alan Crane and Kevin Crotty, professors at the business school, provides a resounding "yes." These humble investment recipes, it turns out, are richer than they might seem.

Index funds track benchmark stock indexes, from the familiar Dow Jones Industrial Average to the widely followed Standard & Poor's 500. Like viewers following a cooking show, index fund managers buy stocks in the same companies and same proportions as those listed in a stock index. The best-known indices are traditionally based on the size of the companies.

The idea is that the index fund's returns will match those of its model. An S&P 500 index fund, for example, includes stocks in the same 500 major companies included in the Standard & Poor index, ranging from Apple to Whole Foods.

Index funds are part of the broad range of investment products called mutual funds. Like cooks making a stew, mutual fund managers add shares of various stocks into one single concoction, inviting investors to buy portions of the whole mixture.

While some mutual funds are active, meaning professional managers regularly buy and sell their assets, index funds are passive. Their managers theoretically just need to keep an eye on any changes in the index they're copying. Not surprisingly, active index funds tend to charge more than passive ones.

Curiously, not all index funds perform at the same level. So what should that mean for investors? To study these variations and their implications, Crane and Crotty expanded on past research about skill and index fund management, analyzing the full cross section of funds.

This wasn't possible to do until fairly recently: there simply weren't enough index funds to study. The first index fund, which tracked the S&P 500, was developed by Vanguard in the 1970s. To do their research, the Rice Business scholars looked at performance information for both index and active funds, starting their sample in 1995 with 29 index funds. The sample expanded to include a total of 240 index funds, all at least two years old with at least $5 million in assets, mostly invested in common stocks. They also analyzed 1,913 actively managed funds.

Using several statistical models, Crane and Cotty found that outperformance in index-fund returns was greater than it would be by chance. The discovery suggests that passive funds, although they require little skill to run, have almost as much upside as active funds.

In fact, the professors found, the best index funds perform surprisingly closely to the best active funds, but at a lower cost to the investor. The worst active funds perform far worse than the worst index funds–even before management fees.

The findings topple the conventional wisdom that only actively managed funds stand a chance of beating the market. While active-fund managers often measure their success against that of passive funds, the data show investors who are risk averse would do better to choose passive funds over more expensive active ones.

More adventurous investors, of course, will always be tempted by what's cooking in actively managed funds. But overall, investing in plain index funds is as good a meal at a lower price.

------

This story originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom.

Alan D. Crane and Kevin Crotty are associate professors of finance at the Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

Houston space tech co.'s lunar lander touches down on moon — condition unknown

Lunar Landing

A privately owned lunar lander touched down on the moon Thursday, but as the minutes dragged on, flight controllers could not confirm its condition or whether it was even upright near the south pole.

The last time Intuitive Machines landed a spacecraft on the moon, a year ago, it ended up sideways.

The company's newest Athena lander dropped out of lunar orbit as planned, carrying an ice drill, a drone and two rovers for NASA and others. The hourlong descent appeared to go well, but it took a while for Mission Control to confirm touchdown.

“We're on the surface,” reported mission director and co-founder Tim Crain. A few minutes later, he repeated, "It looks like we're down ... We are working to evaluate exactly what our orientation is on the surface.”

Launched last week, Athena was communicating with controllers more than 230,000 miles away and generating solar power, officials said. But nearly a half-hour after touchdown, Crain and his team still were unable to confirm if everything was all right with the 15-foot lander. NASA and Intuitive Machines abruptly ended their live webcast, promising more updates at a news conference later in the afternoon.

“OK team, keep working the problem," Crain urged.

Intuitive Machines last year put the U.S. back on the moon despite its lander tipping on its side.

Another U.S. company Firefly Aerospace on Sunday became the first to achieve complete success with its commercial lunar lander. A vacuum already has collected lunar dirt for analysis and a dust shield has shaken off the abrasive particles that cling to everything.

Intuitive Machines was aiming this time for a mountain plateau just 100 miles from the south pole, much closer than before.

This week's back-to-back moon landings are part of NASA’s commercial lunar delivery program meant to get the space agency’s experiments to the gray, dusty surface and jumpstart business. The commercial landers are also seen as scouts for the astronauts who will follow later this decade under NASA's Artemis program, the successor to Apollo.

NASA officials said before the landing that they knew going in that some of the low-cost missions would fail. But with more private missions to the moon, that increased the number of experiments getting there.

NASA spent tens of millions of dollars on the ice drill and two other instruments riding on Athena, and paid an additional $62 million for the lift. Most of the experiments were from private companies, including the two rovers. The rocket-powered drone came from Intuitive Machines — it's meant to hop into a permanently shadowed crater near the landing site in search of frozen water.

Intuitive Machines' Trent Martin said before the flight that Athena needed to land upright in order for the drone and rovers to deploy.

To lower costs even more, Intuitive Machines shared its SpaceX rocket launch with three spacecraft that went their separate ways. Two of them — NASA’s Lunar Trailblazer and AstroForge’s asteroid-chasing Odin — are in jeopardy.

NASA said this week that Lunar Trailblazer is spinning without radio contact and won’t reach its intended orbit around the moon for science observations. Odin is also silent, with its planned asteroid flyby unlikely.

As for Athena, Intuitive Machines made dozens of repairs and upgrades following the company’s sideways touchdown by its first lander. It still managed to operate briefly, ending America’s moon-landing drought of more than 50 years.

Until then, the U.S. had not landed on the moon since Apollo 17 in 1972. No one else has sent astronauts to the moon, the overriding goal of NASA’s Artemis program. And only four other countries have successfully landed robotic spacecraft on the moon: Russia, China, India and Japan.

Houston scientists make breakthrough in hearing science and treatment research

sounds good

Researchers at Baylor College of Medicine and the Jan and Dan Duncan Neurological Research Institute at Texas Children’s Hospital have successfully mapped which cell populations are responsible for processing different types of sounds.

Working with a team at the Oregon Health & Science University, the Houston scientists have classified where in the cochlear nucleus our brains connect with various sounds, including speech and music. The research was published in the new edition of Nature Communications.

“Understanding these cell types and how they function is essential in advancing treatments for auditory disorders,” Matthew McGinley, assistant professor of neuroscience at Baylor, said in a release. “Think of how muscle cells in the heart are responsible for contraction, while valve cells control blood flow. The auditory brainstem operates in a similar fashion — different cell types respond to distinct aspects of sound.”

Though scientists have long thought that there are distinct types of cells in the cochlear nucleus, they didn’t have tools to distinguish them until now.

Lead author on the study, Xiaolong Jiang, associate professor of neuroscience at Baylor, added: “This study not only confirms many of the cell types we anticipated, but it also unveils entirely new ones, challenging long-standing principles of hearing processing in the brain and offering fresh avenues for therapeutic exploration.”

Jiang and his team have cooked up a comprehensive cellular and molecular atlas of the cochlear nucleus, which will help them to create more targeted and more effective treatments for patients struggling with their hearing.

The strategies that aided them in creating these tools included single-nucleus RNA sequencing, which made it possible to define neuronal populations on a molecular level. Phenotypic categorizations of the cells were made possible with patch sequencing.

This is a watershed moment for the development of targeted treatments for individuals with auditory disorders, including those with impaired function in the auditory nerve, for whom cochlear implants don’t work.

“If we can understand what each cell type is responsible for, and with the identification of new subtypes of cells, doctors can potentially develop treatments that target specific cells with greater accuracy,” McGinley explains. “These findings, thanks to the work of our collaborative team, make a significant step forward in the field of auditory research and get us closer to a more personalized treatment for each patient.”

Houston shines among top 10 tech metros in the South, study says

Tops in Tech

A study analyzing top U.S. locales for the tech industry ranked Houston the No. 9 best tech hub in the South.

The report by commercial real estate platform CommercialCafe examined the top 20 Southern metros across nine metrics, such as the growth rates of tech establishments and employment, median tech earnings, a quality of life index, and more.

Like other Texas metros, the study attributes Houston's tech powerhouse status to its growing presence of major tech companies. However, Houston leads the nation with the highest number of patents granted between 2020 and 2024.

"The second-largest metro by population in the South, Houston led the region with an impressive 8,691 tech patent grants in the last five years," the report said. "Once synonymous with oil, Houston is increasingly making its mark as a cleantech hub — and patents reflect this shift."

Houston also experienced an impressive 14 percent growth in tech establishments, with nearly 500 new tech companies moving to the metro. An impressive 32 percent job growth rate also accompanied this change, with over 30,500 tech jobs added between 2019 and 2023.

Here's how Houston stacked up across the remaining five rankings:
  • No. 11 – Tech establishment density
  • No. 15 – Median tech earnings
  • No. 19 – Median tech earnings growth
  • No. 20 – Tech job density
  • No. 20 – Quality of life index

In a separate 2024 report, Houston was the No. 22 best tech city nationwide, showing that the city is certainly making efforts to improve its friendliness toward the tech industry in 2025.

Other top Texas tech hubs in the South
The only other Texas metros to earn spots in the report were Austin (No. 1) and Dallas-Fort Worth (No. 4). Most notably, CommercialCafe says Austin saw a 25 percent increase in tech company density from 2019 to 2023, which is the third-highest growth rate out of all 20 metros.

"Moreover, the metro’s tech scene thrives on a diverse range of segments, including AI and green energy (bolstered by the University of Texas), as well as globally recognized events like [South by Southwest]," the report says. "Thus, with tech companies accounting for more than half of all office leasing activity in 2024, Austin remains a magnet for innovation, talent and investment."

Dallas, on the other hand, has a far greater diversity when it comes to its tech sector and its thriving economic opportunities.

"Not to be outdone, Dallas-Fort Worth moved up from sixth to fourth in this year’s rankings, driven by a 25.9 percent growth in tech company presence — the second-highest increase among the top 20 metros," the report said. "For instance, companies like iRely (which relocated to Irving, Texas) and Diversified (now in Plano, Texas) have joined homegrown successes, such as StackPath and Bestow."

The top 10 best tech metros in the South are:

  • No. 1 – Washington, D.C.
  • No. 2 – Austin, Texas
  • No. 3 – Raleigh, North Carolina
  • No. 4 – Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas
  • No. 5 – Huntsville, Alabama
  • No. 6 – Baltimore, Maryland
  • No. 7 – Durham, North Carolina
  • No. 8 – Atlanta, Georgia
  • No. 9 – Houston, Texas
  • No. 10 – Charlotte, North Carolina
---

This story originally appeared on our sister site, CultureMap.com.

View All Listings