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

Texas ranks as top U.S. manufacturing hub, behind only one state

By The Numbers

Texas ranks among the country’s biggest hubs for manufacturing, according to a new study.

The study, conducted by Chinese manufacturing components supplier YIJIN Hardware, puts Texas at No. 2 among the states when it comes to manufacturing-hub status. California holds the top spot.

YIJIN crunched data from the U.S. Census Bureau, International Trade Administration, and National Association of Manufacturers to analyze manufacturing activity in each state. The study weighed factors such as number of manufacturing establishments, number of manufacturing employees, total value of manufacturing output, total manufacturing exports and manufacturing’s share of a state’s gross domestic product.

Here are Texas’ figures for those categories:

  • 19,526 manufacturing establishments
  • 847,470 manufacturing employees
  • Total manufacturing output of $292.6 billion
  • Total manufacturing exports of $291.9 billion
  • 11.3 percent share of state GDP

According to Texas Economic Development & Tourism, the state’s largest manufacturing sectors include automotive, tech, petroleum, chemicals, and food and beverage.

“The Lone Star State is truly a manufacturing powerhouse,” the state agency says.

In an October speech, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott praised the state’s robust manufacturing industry.

“We are proud that Texas is home to a booming manufacturing sector,” he said. “Thanks to our strong manufacturing sector, ‘Made in Texas’ has never been a bigger brand.”

Houston is a cornerstone of Texas’ manufacturing industry. The region produces more than $75 billion worth of goods each year, according to the Greater Houston Partnership. That makes Houston the second-ranked U.S. metro area for manufacturing GDP. The more than 7,000 manufacturing establishments in the area employ over 223,000 people.

“As one of the most important industrial bases in the world, Houston has access to many global markets thanks to its central location within the U.S. and the Americas,” the partnership says.

---

This story originally appeared on our sister site, EnergyCapitalHTX.

Houston's top 25 business and civic leaders named by local organization

HTown leaders

As part of its 25th anniversary celebrations, the Center for Houston’s Future has named its first-ever group of Top 25 Business/Civic Leadership Forum Alumni, including energy transition CEOs and legendary craft brewery founders.

The group was selected from among 1,400 alumni of the Center for Houston's Future's Leadership Forum, which hosts two cohorts per year, bringing together leaders from across industries to focus on issues critical to the long-term success of Greater Houston.

The individuals will be honored throughout the year, starting with an event this Thursday, March 20, at the Junior League of Houston called Leaders for Houston’s Future: Women Who Stand Apart, and culminating in the signature Dinner & Conversation event this fall.

Earlier this year, the organization selected an honor roll of 75 Leaders Who Stand Apart before naming the list of 25. See the honor roll here.

“Both our Top 25 and the honor roll of 75 Leaders are a testament to the amazing group of leaders working for the good of our region every day,” David Gow, the center’s CEO and president, said in a statement. “They are also a reflection of the Center’s historical and ongoing commitment to develop, inspire and connect leaders across all facets of our region.

Gow is the founder and chairman of Gow Media, InnovationMap's parent company.

The Top 25 Business/Civic Leadership Forum Alumni list includes:

  • Laura Bellows, president and board chairman, W.S. Bellows Construction
  • Richard Campo, chairman and CEO, Camden Property Trust
  • Anne Chao, co-founder, Houston Asian American Archive
  • Donna Cole, founder, president and CEO, Cole Chemical & Distributing
  • Suzan Deison, CEO, president and founder, Greater Houston Women's Chamber of Commerce
  • Amanda Edwards, principal, The Community Based Solutions Firm
  • Bob Eury, retired president and CEO, Central Houston, Inc.
  • Sidney Evans II, senior advisor, business affairs, Reliant Energy
  • Roland Garcia, shareholder, Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • Cullen Geiselman, board chair, Houston Parks Board
  • Bernard Harris Jr., former NASA astronaut
  • Winell Herron, senior vice president of public affairs, diversity and environmental affairs, H-E-B
  • Paul Hobby, founder and managing director, Genesis Park
  • Laura Jaramillo, executive director, LISC
  • Melanie Johnson, president and CEO, Collaborative for Children
  • Laura Murillo, president and CEO, Houston Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
  • Wilhelmina "Beth" Robertson, president, Cockspur, Inc. and Westview Development Inc.
  • Judson Robinson III, president and CEO, Houston Area Urban League
  • Kimberly Sterling, principal, Sterling for Good
  • Y. Ping Sun, of counsel, Yetter Coleman LLP
  • Bobby Tudor, founder and CEO, Artemis Energy Partners
  • Brock Wagner, founder, Saint Arnold Brewing Company
  • Barron Wallace, public finance partner and practice group co-Head, Bracewell LLP
  • Marc Watts, president, The Friedkin Group
  • Beth Wolff, founder and chairman, Beth Wolff Realtors

Eury, Sun and Wolff serve on the center’s board of directors.

“I’m grateful to be included on the Top 25,” Wolff said in the release. “I cannot stress enough what an extraordinary opportunity it is to participate in the Leadership Forum and focus on Houston’s future. Fellow cohort members become friends and colleagues working together in service of the community.”

This week's panel will feature Cole, Geiselman and Herron. They will be joined by Lharissa Jacobs, executive director of Fit Houston, who made the top 75 list. Frances Castañeda Dyess, president of the Houston East End Chamber of Commerce, will moderate.

California-based healthcare co. expands to Houston with new bioskills lab

med skills

Axis Research & Technologies, a California-based healthcare innovation solutions and medical research company, has expanded into the Houston area via a new 10,800-square-foot bioskills lab in Shenandoah last month.

The facility includes a main lab that’s configurable into a single space with over 20 stations, two more lab suites for specialized bioskills training, a conference room for presentations and a large multipurpose area.

Medical professionals can simulate a fully functional operating room in the lab for training and education. It also has the capability of handling cadaver specimens.

The company says the new facility aims to serve surgeons, medical device companies, hospitals and research institutions.

Axis was attracted to Houston thanks to the Texas Medical Center and other world-class medical groups, according to a release from the company. The facility in Shenandoah will be near medical facilities in The Woodlands.

“We are thrilled to expand into the Houston market,” Jill Goodwin, COO of Axis, said in a news release. “This new facility was driven by demand from our clients who have expressed a need for a high-quality bioskills lab in Houston. We repeatedly heard this feedback at the most recent American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) conference, which reinforced our decision to bring Axis to the region.”

Axis hosted its first lab event at its Houston-area venue on Feb. 22. The facility is currently accepting bookings for medical trainings, research collaborations and use of its bioskills lab.

“Our goal is to create an environment where groundbreaking medical advancements can take place,” Goodwin added in a news release. “Houston is home to one of the largest medical communities in the country, making it a perfect fit for our expansion.”

Axis' other bioskills labs are located in Nasvhille; Irvine, California; and Columbia, Maryland.