Quarterly seasonality and momentum strategy implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Momentum strategies exhibit quarterly seasonality, earning significantly higher average strategy returns in the third month of the quarter than the first month. The authors evaluate the magnitude of quarterly seasonality in various momentum strategies to examine the relation between quarterly seasonality and risk-adjusted monthly returns. Design/methodology/approach The authors construct long-short portfolios for various types of momentum strategies and calculate the average returns of these portfolios in the three months of the quarter. They also calculate the average changes in institutional ownership across the different portfolios. Findings The authors demonstrate that quarterly seasonality is directly associated with quarterly changes in net purchases by institutional investors. Additionally, they show that near-term price momentum exhibits more seasonality than other momentum strategies, consistent with institutional investor incentives. Research limitations/implications Researchers studying momentum should understand that quarterly seasonality increases the standard deviation of monthly returns for different types of momentum strategies. Practical implications Individual investors and investment managers should consider whether it is early or late in the calendar quarter when implementing momentum strategies. Originality/value Quarterly seasonality explains several seemingly independent findings in the momentum literature. In cases where researchers show one momentum strategy outperforms another on a risk-adjusted basis, the authors find that the superior strategy exhibits less quarterly seasonality. This pattern holds across types of momentum strategies, strategy formation periods and asset classes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".