Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

BlueHorseshoe

Compounding Long-Only

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I've just begun trading a second account today (18 months in the planning and research), with rather different and more conservative goals to what I've done elsewhere, and I wanted to share some thoughts . . . Here's some basic info:

 

  • The strategy is long-only a portfolio of 12 ETFs
  • Positions are rebalanced monthly
  • Allocations are the result of a rule-based adaptive algorithm
  • Leverage is configured at 0.96
  • A position is held in all 12 markets at all times

 

So here's the conundrum . . .

 

The strategy shows a greater edge, when the simplest of money management approaches (reinvestment of return, reinvestment of dividends) is applied, than when position sizing is based on a static account size.

 

How can this be?

 

Imagine investing in 4 shares of single stock. After a strong month, during which the stock rallied 100%, you liquidate your position. Your equity has doubled. Does this mean that you now go and buy 8 shares of this stock? Of course not: the stock now costs twice as much. You can only buy 4 shares.

 

Now imagine you split your equity evenly between purchases of shares of two equally priced stocks, with 2 shares in each. The first doubles in value; the second exhibits no change whatsoever. Your account has increased in size by 50%, and so some of this increase in available equity is passed on to your new position size in the second stock (the one whose value remained static).

 

You can only buy 2 shares of the first stock, but you can buy 3 shares of the second. The second is the "weaker" stock - the one that has demonstrated the least return for a long-only trader.

 

Now consider my long-only strategy, which is designed to benefit only from price increases. When returns are compounded evenly in allocation to all components of the portfolio, and the strategy becomes more profitable with this type of compounding, then the increase in alpha MUST COME FROM THE WEAKER PERFORMING COMPONENTS.

 

That's right: the strategy has been designed to benefit when price goes up, but the money management element will increase returns purely by increasing allocation to those markets that have gone up the least (or even fallen).

 

What do people make of this? In a strategy predicated upon relative strength, breakouts, trends and outliers, is the money management actually drawing out additional alpha from mean reversion, of all things?

 

Kind Regards,

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do people make of this? In a strategy predicated upon relative strength, breakouts, trends and outliers, is the money management actually drawing out additional alpha from mean reversion, of all things?

 

I think if there were a name that you could put to such a strategy it would be "trading the cycle" or possibly "value investing". If you watch a basket of individual stocks day-to-day it's fairly easy to spot the cycle in a market that is trending. This becomes more evident if the basket ranges across all sectors.

 

Reversion to the mean is a statistical fact of life as we know it, but playing that game can be frustrating. That's why I became a day trader... my account was always "reverting to the mean".

 

Edit: I'd like to think that I would be better at it now than I was then... not so sure though.

Edited by jpennybags

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can this be?

 

 

Are the etfs equities markets biased?

 

Equities have done phenomenally well over the last 5 1/4 years. It was hard to lose money, long term, with anything that is a component of the s&p 500, or other related corporate index.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are the etfs equities markets biased?

 

Equities have done phenomenally well over the last 5 1/4 years. It was hard to lose money, long term, with anything that is a component of the s&p 500, or other related corporate index.

 

Hi MM,

 

A few are equity indices, but it's pretty well diversified with things like metals, energies, interest rates, and timber woodland in there as well. The weighting of each component in the portfolio is a dynamic feature, so the allocation to equities may be minimal (as it was in 2008 for example).

 

The strategy has underperformed the S&P500 throughout the past few years.

 

Kind regards,

 

BlueHorseshoe

Edited by BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello,

 

 

What do people make of this? In a strategy predicated upon relative strength, breakouts, trends and outliers, is the money management actually drawing out additional alpha from mean reversion, of all things?

 

Kind Regards,

 

BlueHorseshoe

 

You have simply modified the portfolio strategy.....

if you rebalance every month you are making quantity to buy decisions based not on mean reversion, breakouts or any such changes in prices. You are making it based on your rule for rebalancing. There are many ways to do this, no rebalancing, rebalancing monthly, quarterly, at some change in % or absolute equity.....etc;etc.

 

Imagine it this way - you are a fund manager and you have to deal with subscriptions and redemptions each month.

You have to have a rule that either simply increases/decreases each quantity each month, OR you will have a change in each individual position proportionally - ie; investors either are diluted or get increased concentration to different positions for their returns going forward if you treat all investors the same with the same NAV calculation.

(One of the great reasons why similar styled funds have different returns even if they have similar entry exit triggers and many of them say its all in the money mgmt)

 

So in a nutshell its just another component to consider as part of an over all strategy for the portfolio simply as you have added the extra rule of rebalancing - (and why when many backtesting systems say they are able to test for a portfolio is BS, as it can get more complicated than they allow for)

 

......I also think that you are miss using the common usage of alpha. Your may or may not get extra alpha out of your strategy, depending on what the benchmark for your alpha measurement does. Hence while it might underperform the SP recently, it might be great over 10-15-20 years.

 

Your point might be better described as - if I apply this money mgt rule to a breakout type entry strategy does it massively change the returns over the long run, and deviate from the strategy I am implementing, or does it provide a better risk return profile--- at a complete guess it might smooth the returns and lower them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have simply modified the portfolio strategy.....

if you rebalance every month you are making quantity to buy decisions based not on mean reversion, breakouts or any such changes in prices. You are making it based on your rule for rebalancing. There are many ways to do this, no rebalancing, rebalancing monthly, quarterly, at some change in % or absolute equity.....etc;etc.

 

Imagine it this way - you are a fund manager and you have to deal with subscriptions and redemptions each month.

You have to have a rule that either simply increases/decreases each quantity each month, OR you will have a change in each individual position proportionally - ie; investors either are diluted or get increased concentration to different positions for their returns going forward if you treat all investors the same with the same NAV calculation.

(One of the great reasons why similar styled funds have different returns even if they have similar entry exit triggers and many of them say its all in the money mgmt)

 

So in a nutshell its just another component to consider as part of an over all strategy for the portfolio simply as you have added the extra rule of rebalancing - (and why when many backtesting systems say they are able to test for a portfolio is BS, as it can get more complicated than they allow for)

 

......I also think that you are miss using the common usage of alpha. Your may or may not get extra alpha out of your strategy, depending on what the benchmark for your alpha measurement does. Hence while it might underperform the SP recently, it might be great over 10-15-20 years.

 

Your point might be better described as - if I apply this money mgt rule to a breakout type entry strategy does it massively change the returns over the long run, and deviate from the strategy I am implementing, or does it provide a better risk return profile--- at a complete guess it might smooth the returns and lower them.

 

Hi SIUYA,

 

The strategy is best termed 'relative strength' rather than 'breakout' - I just tend to lump anything that is directional and not mean reversion together as 'go with' - trend following included.

 

I may be misusing the term alpha . . . I was considering an equal-weighted portfolio of the components (ie a 'passive' investment in the portfolio) as the benchmark. The portfolio as I have implemented it, with variable weights, shows (historically) a greater return than this benchmark - is this not usually termed alpha?

 

The key question I'm asking though is this: when profits can be traced to a particular portfolio component, should the "benefit" of increased position sizing be passed to just this one component, or to the portfolio as a whole?

 

What I have found in this instance is that performance is improved when the benefit is passed equally to every component in the portfolio. This must mean that the improvement in performance is the result of increasing position size for poorer performing components, surely?

 

Cheers,

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi,

re alpha yes - I thoughts you were simply talking about alpha 'generally' and not in direct ref to an equally weighted benchmark, and even then the benchmark needs to be standardised...but my confusion. (too much beer on the weekend in Prague) The way you are referencing it is good.

I think this is also one of the issues when people pigeon hole a strategy type as men reversion, breakout, trend etc; as it needs to be compared to a standard otherwise it is hard to compare apples and oranges.

''''''''''''''

"The key question I'm asking though is this: when profits can be traced to a particular portfolio component, should the "benefit" of increased position sizing be passed to just this one component, or to the portfolio as a whole?

 

What I have found in this instance is that performance is improved when the benefit is passed equally to every component in the portfolio. This must mean that the improvement in performance is the result of increasing position size for poorer performing components, surely?""

 

If you are rebalancing your whole porftolio, then you must be doing it taking into consideration all parts of the portfolio if you are doing it properly, otherwise its hindsight(???) How would you decide to not increase some or others....or are you simply doing the 'dogs of the dow ' theory and buying laggards but with extra leverage on top of a evenly balanced portfolio.

eg; buy 2 at $1, when one goes to $2 and the other is at $1, you dont sell any at $2, but simply buy the more of the one still at $1.

 

'''''''''''''''''''''''

I think I am getting at what you are talking about.....I remember doing a test once that had a portfolio limitation of not having too many correlated instruments and so it did not rebalance but it did not take new entries in what we determined to be highly correlated instruments if you were 'full up' in that sector. In a classic do your head in thing, during the Internet bubble approx 2000, because the portfolio was full of equities already it never took the nasdq buy signals. This meant massive underperformance of a benchmark.....and because we never rebalanced it never changed. When introducing variants (even small ones) for rebalancing, or spreading over further instruments, or even concentrating it more it had big changes in return profiles, and this also looked different over the time frame of the tests - eg; it never had the same issue when the naq burst and it even managed to put on a short.

So my guess is all you can do is simply test and see what happens over the long run and what you can live with....sometimes its great to be full tilt othertimes not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...but my confusion. (too much beer on the weekend in Prague)

 

It's probably me not explaining myself clearly enough to be honest :)

 

If you are rebalancing your whole porftolio, then you must be doing it taking into consideration all parts of the portfolio if you are doing it properly,

 

Yes, but this isn't necessarily linked to the compounding aspect, is it? For example, suppose I draw off any profits so that the account always remained at a fixed amount by month end, but still rebalance the portfolio each month based on a consideration of all parts of the portfolio.

 

The allocation of reinvested profits could differ from the allocations of the rebalanced portfolio aside from these. For example . . . 10k account with 60% (6k) allocated to Stock A . . . 1k portfolio profit at month end . . . Monthly rebalance, 70% of 10k (7k) allocated to Stock A, but only 30% of profits (300) allocated to Stock A, so position size is 7,300, and not 70% of 11k (7,700).

 

....or are you simply doing the 'dogs of the dow ' theory and buying laggards but with extra leverage on top of a evenly balanced portfolio.

 

Quite the opposite - it's basically "relative strength" - increase position size for the leaders, reduce position size for the laggards . . . then a load of fancy machine-learning thrown at it (purely for my own gratification and entertainment - think basic strategy returns 13%, me playing around with code for a year might add at best 2% and smooth volatility of returns if I'm lucky!).

 

You can see the shifts in weighting of each component in the subpane of the curve I've attached. One component always has a weight of zero (at the minute, metals).

 

We're talking very long term outlook here :)

 

So my guess is all you can do is simply test and see what happens over the long run and what you can live with....sometimes its great to be full tilt othertimes not.

 

Sure. I've done this, and I'm pretty comfortable with what I'm doing.

 

In a previous thread here I argued that the individual components of a portfolio should be 'rewarded' with increased position size dependent on their unique performance; I now find myself doing the opposite and spreading the benefit from components that have performed strongly to 'reward' equally those that have underperformed. And yet that's what masses of testing tells me is the right thing to do.

 

Cheers,

 

BlueHorseshoe

Allocation.thumb.png.e557b38b3cdff54683b46c683b350acb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but this isn't necessarily linked to the compounding aspect, is it? For example, suppose I draw off any profits so that the account always remained at a fixed amount by month end, but still rebalance the portfolio each month based on a consideration of all parts of the portfolio.

 

The allocation of reinvested profits could differ from the allocations of the rebalanced portfolio aside from these. For example . . . 10k account with 60% (6k) allocated to Stock A . . . 1k portfolio profit at month end . . . Monthly rebalance, 70% of 10k (7k) allocated to Stock A, but only 30% of profits (300) allocated to Stock A, so position size is 7,300, and not 70% of 11k (7,700).

 

........

 

In a previous thread here I argued that the individual components of a portfolio should be 'rewarded' with increased position size dependent on their unique performance; I now find myself doing the opposite and spreading the benefit from components that have performed strongly to 'reward' equally those that have underperformed. And yet that's what masses of testing tells me is the right thing to do.

 

Cheers,

 

BlueHorseshoe

 

Hi, I thought I got it but now I am confused again (too much wine tonight)....from your example at the end of the month, its like you are reweighting based on 2 different formula components.

A normal reweighting formula --- this takes you from 60% to 70% for stock A and

An inverse profit formula - you are taking the profit for the month (1k) and rebalancing on a % of that, as an inverse % of the total weighting.

Hence you are actually increasing your winners by a smaller amount if there is a profit (assuming the first normal reweighting formula is flat).

 

So I get that you are now reweighting across all portfolio instruments. Regardless of where the PL came from.

 

I dont think compounding makes much difference as to how you are getting it as it looks more like you are capturing a little bit of both trend following and mean reversion. Like having a mix of two strategies in one, and you are making the most of the only free lunch there is - diversification......which makes a lot of sense....and is an interesting take on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A normal reweighting formula --- this takes you from 60% to 70% for stock A and

An inverse profit formula - you are taking the profit for the month (1k) and rebalancing on a % of that, as an inverse % of the total weighting.

 

Hi SIUYA,

 

My lack of clarity again (and sadly I've had neither beer nor wine for several days).

 

The "Stock A/B" example I gave was purely by way of explaining that reinvested returns could be allocated with a separate criteria to the one used for rebalancing. So profits would not have to be distributed back to the poorer performing components.

 

This isn't what I'm doing though . . .

 

So I get that you are now reweighting across all portfolio instruments. Regardless of where the PL came from.

 

That's correct.

 

I dont think compounding makes much difference as to how you are getting it as it looks more like you are capturing a little bit of both trend following and mean reversion.

 

That's what I have concluded, although the intention was to capture the former (as my swing trading account focuses on mean reversion and I wanted diversification of styles across the two accounts).

 

As always, thanks for your thoughts and help.

 

Regards,

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • China’s New Cryptocurrency   China plans to release a new digital currency which would bear some similarities to Facebook’s Libra coin. It would be usable across several platforms like WeChat and Alipay.   In a recent interview with the Shanghai Security News on the 6th of September, the deputy director of the People’s Bank of China, Mu Changchun, stated the purposes and the need for the new digital currency. He stated that the central bank needed to evolve from the use of traditional paper currency and delve into electronic payment methods which are making strong advances around the world. He said that the digital currency would be a realistic way to protect monetary sovereignty and legal currency status, stating that this digital currency initiative was a way of planning for a rainy day.   He also mentioned that digital currency would be as safe as the traditional central bank-issued paper notes and that it could even be used without requiring an internet connection. This offline feature is one of its major selling points as monetary transactions can still be carried out even in the face of communication breakdowns resulting from natural disasters like earthquakes, tsunamis and so on.   In 2014, the Chinese central bank set up a research party to explore the possibilities of a China-based digital currency to reduce the costs of producing and circulating paper money, which in turn would boost policymakers’ control over the supply of money.   Information about the development of this new digital currency was unknown to the public until last month when Mu announced that the innovation was almost ready.   US-based financial magazine Forbes has made claims that the currency would be ready by November 11.   Analysts are saying that the announcement made by social media giants, Facebook on the release of its digital coin, Libra, is the reason for the acceleration of the push towards digital currency by the PBoC.   Mu made mention of how the new digital currency would strike a balance between allowing anonymous payments and preventing money-laundering as compared to Libra. Although the Chinese digital currency may bear some resemblances with Libra, it would possess characteristics that even Libra didn’t have.   Facebook’s Libra Facebook’s Libra has sparked a lot of worries among global regulators that it could become the predominant digital payment format and could become a medium for money laundering considering the social media’s wide reach.   Libra is said to be a digital currency that would be backed by several real-world assets, including bank deposits and government securities, and it will be held by a network of stewards. The structure of Libra is predicated on promoting trust and to stabilize its price.   Finally, Mu further discussed the superiority of the digital currency over altcoins was that others could go bankrupt and cause its users huge losses. Thus he said, can never be the case of PBoC’s new currency.   Source: https://learn2.trade         
    • Facebook’s Libra To Apply For Licence In Switzerland   Swiss financial regulators have signaled that Facebook’s cryptocurrency, Libra is mandated to meet up to extra requirements besides acquiring a payment system license before they can begin operations in the region.   In a recent press release, the Swiss Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) explained that the diverse services projected by Libra have created the need for adding the requirements being imposed. They stated that due to the issuance of payment tokens by Libra, the operations planned by Libra would clearly exceed those of a pure payment system and therefore should be subjected to such extra requirements.   The Extra Regulatory Requirements According to FINMA, the extra requirements would be targeted specifically at liquidity, risk concentration and capital allocation.   The financial regulators of Switzerland have also noted that the management of Libra is another element necessitating the demand for Facebook to meet extra requirements concerning its cryptocurrency initiative.   In the launch of the Libra white paper in June, Facebook noted that the reserve would be controlled by a web of custodians who would be spread across different geographies. The so-called custodians will be mandated to possess an investment-grade credit rating.   Also, Facebook noted that the real assets used to back the Libra cryptocurrency would be a selection of low-risk assets such as bank deposits and government securities.   What Form Will these Extra Libra requirements take?   According to FINMA, the extra regulatory requirements that Libra would have to meet would be nothing different from what other participants in the financial markets have to adhere to.   For example, Libra would be expected to be exposed to certain bank-like rules such as a large simultaneous number of withdrawals of Libra coin by users would have to be palliated by the application of certain bank-like regulatory requirements. This means that Facebook would be required to obtain a banking license. This idea has been pushed for in the past by U.S. President, Donald Trump.   FINMA also mentioned that Libra’s international range will mandate a globally coordinated approach. This new development would drastically delay the launch of the cryptocurrency.   U.S. Pressures Switzerland over Libra Cryptocurrency Switzerland is under intense pressure from the United States to ensure that its cryptocurrency regulations are not prone to misuse. Facebook chose the Central European nation as its hub because of the country’s progressiveness towards FinTech.   According to a report by the Wall Street Journal, officials from Switzerland and U.S. Held a meeting in Switzerland earlier this week, where they discussed matters surrounding the new cryptocurrencies regulations.   The U.S Undersecretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, Sigal Mandelker, emphasized his concerns over the need to have regulations strong enough to fend off bad actors. He mandated that the Swiss handle these concerns with all importance.   Source: https://learn2.trade   
    • I don't agree with you. There are dozens and dozens of brokers that are regulated by the CySEC or FCA.
    • Just one more question. How many real REGULATED crypto BROKERS can we find? Correct, the answer is ZERO!! Please stay away from trading cryptos.
    • EU was stopped for -.5. Current stalk EU
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.