Hello all,

– new report in the Live Strategies section called Composite Analysis
– 11 new Quantpedia Premium strategies
– 5 new related research papers
– 8 new backtests
– and finally, 5 new posts on our Quantpedia blog

The integration of artificial intelligence into algorithmic trading has ignited a race to transform generative text into systematic alpha. A new paper written by Steven Edwards empirically investigates whether constructing a synthetic consensus using large language models can simulate information aggregation dynamics or if it merely acts as a sophisticated echo chamber. By utilizing an expansive framework to evaluate portfolio construction across distinct synthetic mandates, the study challenges whether generative agents can truly democratize the wisdom of crowds within highly efficient capital markets.

Average strategy performance is one of the most common shortcuts in portfolio research. It gives the researcher a clean benchmark, a single reference line, and a simple way to compare one strategy against a broader group of similar strategies. In many cases, this is useful. But it can also be misleading.

This case study shows how Quantpedia API can be used to go beyond the average peer group return and measure yearly performance dispersion across a group of trend-following strategies. The goal is not only to ask how the average strategy performed, but also how different the individual strategies were from each other.

Time-series momentum stands as one of the most reliable and heavily backtested anomalies in quantitative finance, serving as a foundational alpha source for modern managed futures and trend-following strategies. However, a recent academic paper by Matti Suominen and Erik Hjalmarsson, titled “Boundaries of Time Series Momentum,” uncovers a structural vulnerability that every practitioner must account for. The authors demonstrate that while equity market trends persist reliably during normal business cycles, they systematically break down and aggressively reverse when market valuations reach historical extremes. This phenomenon establishes clear macro “boundaries” where chasing the trend shifts from a highly profitable strategy to a severe drawdown risk.

A single backtest can show that strategy was profitable, but it does not always show whether the strategy was competitive. This is especially true for systematic futures strategies. A trend-following strategy can have a positive Sharpe ratio, a long live-like performance history, and a reasonable drawdown, but those numbers are difficult to interpret without a relevant comparison group.
A broad equity index is often not the right benchmark for this type of strategy. A monthly rebalanced multi-asset futures strategy has a different objective, different risk profile, and different return drivers than a long-only stock index. A more useful question is whether the strategy performs well compared with other systematic trend-following futures strategies.
This case study shows how the Quantpedia API can be used to build a custom peer group benchmark for strategy evaluation. The workflow has two steps. First, Quantpedia strategy metadata is used to screen and define a comparable peer group. Second, the historical equity curves of the selected strategies are downloaded, converted into daily returns, and aggregated into an equal-weighted peer group benchmark.

We document a persistent intramonth momentum cycle in U.S. sector ETFs that yields meaningful risk-adjusted returns when properly sequenced. Using the nine original Select Sector SPDR ETFs and SPY as the market benchmark from December 1998 through June 2026, we show that trailing 252-day sector momentum generates a positive spread on the first trading day of the month—and then sharply reverses on days two and three. A third, independent leg of the cycle emerges in the window from ten to five trading days before month-end, consistent with the intramonth momentum cycle recently documented at the single-stock level by Nathan, Suominen and Tasa (2026). Stitching the three legs together into a single composite strategy delivers 5.99% annualized return at a 0.55 Sharpe ratio for the long-short variant, and 3.77% at 0.54 for the market-neutral variant—all while being invested fewer than half the trading days each month. Our contribution is twofold: we extend the calendar-anomaly literature from individual equities to sector-level portfolios, and we provide practitioners with a transparent, low-turnover framework that translates these academic patterns into actionable trade schedules.