Monday, June 02, 2008

Labels: investing, portfolio

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

Another month in drawdown. This is where the lesser experienced would begin to question the validity of their system. Has something stopped working? Did the market change? If you design your strategy based on a helter skelter of methodologies...you may have a point.

But, if you build your system based on capturing the market's inherent behavior: stocks can exceed 100% returns but never exceed 100% loss (unless on margin). Then you know when the market turns south...you'll turn south. Nothing you can do but weather the storm. The fortunate thing is you have allocated your money based on this knowledge...that there will be storms. And you must wait for the storm to pass...the skies to clear...and the markets to return.

Below are the sector breakdowns for the portfolio. The cash level increased 35% from last month's level. Again, the increase in cash will reduce the portfolio's drawdown should the market continue to stall. But, decrease our returns should the market recover.


In fact, you can see in the chart below the difference the cash level is making to the portfolio.
February's drawdown is beginning to slowdown in comparison to the benchmark. As we move further and further into the market's downturn...the portfolio will begin to break off from the benchmark due to the rising cash level.

This rising cash level is due to 29% of the portfolio's positions hitting trailing stops since Jan 1st. In that same timeframe, our new new positions increased by 4%. Is this good or bad? Neither. Just the way the market works.

On a side note...the weather here in Missouri is toying with us. You can tell spring is trying to push it's way in...but the winter isn't giving up without a fight. Crazy thing to be riding bikes in short-sleeves one day and bracing for snow the next. Markets and weather...what fun.

Later Trades,

MT

Labels: investing, portfolio

Sunday, February 03, 2008

I would like to have done a better job at my first portfolio performance post. But, I'm afraid I've been extremely busy at my day job. So, please be patient. My hope for future performance posts is to include much more information about the returns and portfolio breakdown.

One of the difficult items I've found in preparing for posting of portfolio performance is the lack of good tools. I've tried quite a few products the past few months and was about to give up hope until I found Icarra. Sweet product. One of the hardest things to create is a simple product. So many developers miss the mark...the tendency is to focus on the bells and whistles. Icarra hits the mark with it's great charts, sector breakdowns, and ease of trade entry.

This is a good segway into developing a portfolio. As an investor, you have unlimited choices. Question to ask yourself...do you focus on the bells and whistles? Or do you hunker down and keep your choices simple...your strategy simple. If you find yourself changing your portfolio on every market downturn just because you feel like you should be doing something...then maybe it's time to refocus. Are you really improving your portfolio returns? Or just keeping yourself busy?

Now, back to portfolio performance. There are some things to note. I have not entered my actual entry prices into Icarra. Just too much data to sift thru in order to accomplish that. Instead, I have entered all the positions as if I bought them on the last day of 2007 (12/31/2007). From this point forward I will enter all sells, new buys, dividends, interest, etc. into Icarra. But, keep in mind...all performance is based on the clean slate of 2008.

Below is the breakdown of sectors in the portfolio. This is one area that I found some differences in the chart and the actual breakdown in Icarra. But, useful nonetheless. I'll contact Icarra to find the reason for the difference and post in the next performance release.


You can see, I now have a very large cash position in the portfolio. I don't like this, I have to admit. This will cause the portfolio to lag should the market gain back momentum. But, this is the normal process of the system. During market downturns like we've had...the trailing stops are hit and the bugs in the portfolio are killed. Then we have the waiting game for new signals. The goal, of course, is to be 100% invested in the market...that is what generates our returns. But, all seasons have their winters...and this is where we bundle up and wait for the ice to melt.

Another area I want to point out in the sector breakdown is the lack of consistency in the sector weightings. My goal is to have a better balance in the sector weightings. These sector weightings cannot always be controlled due to the nature of the system's signals. Some sectors may be very cold and other sectors can be very hot. Based on the weightings above, the services sector was pretty hot for 2007....and have held up relatively well in the portfolio during our bug killing in the recent market downturn.

Finally, I want to review the monthly returns of the portfolio...

Pretty large differential between the portfolio's monthly returns and the S&P 500's. The system is more volatile than the market and as result drawdowns and gains are larger. This is par for the course with trend following systems in general. It takes a lot of patience to trade a trend following system. Especially, a long-term trend following system. But, I truly believe, that's where the returns are in the long-term.

Can this be improved? Possibly. There are ideas I have yet to test that could trim the portfolio's volatility. And hopefully, I'll get a chance to test these ideas in the months to come.

If you have any questions or would like to see other aspects of the portfolio...drop me a line.

Later trades,

MT

This post is for information and entertainment purposes only. Under no circumstances does this information represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities or any other type of investment instruments.

Labels: investing, portfolio

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

"The one who does the work decides." -- KDE principle

Jeff Atwood over at the Coding Horror blog discusses a fascinating problem in software development. Doers and talkers. Designers and coders.

I believe all developers need to have a bit of both in their toolbox. Mainly, because the first design is most always changed due to scope creep (failure to see all the pieces to the puzzle). If you spend all your time talking about that first design...you never get to coding. And if you can't get to the coding...you'll fail to find those missing puzzle pieces. And fail to deliver a prototype for the customers to evaluate.

Designers, this means getting your hands dirty in order to create something to improve. Developing systems is an iterative process. Design, code, design, code. And yes, even code, design, code, design. The ultimate goal is to refine the process until you and your customers are satisfied. Whatever it takes. And yes, that means moving to the coding stage even when the optimal design has yet to reveal itself. It's really a Kaizen process. Small accomplished improvements to the initial design pays dividends to all.

Coders, this means before plunging forward hacking away at the problem...ask for feedback of your idea and possible alternatives to the problem. It's important to starting coding down the right path. One that encompasses as much information of the problem as possible. This means you'll need to bring some information to the design table yourself. Perhaps a bit of discovery coding must take place to figure out what elements are involved and possible problems or bottlenecks in your proposed solution. This also helps in keeping the design discussion focused.

So, how does this apply to investing? Well, how many investors/traders do you know that invest without a plan? Without a design? An overriding investment philosophy? Just plunge ahead into the market?

These type of investors would be well served by stepping back a bit and design their investment model. Then ask for feedback of their proposed design. It's okay to perform some discovery trading first. Determining how the market handles your ideas. But, gather what you need and then design. Then invest with the goal of continually refining your design.

What about investors/traders who are afraid of the market? Have not found an investment model that is perfect? And refuse to step a toe in the market waters until they feel 100% comfortable in their design? Problem with this thinking is knowledge requires experience. And nothing is ever 100%...especially in the market. So, create your investment manifesto and then try it out. You can't improve upon something that isn't there to improve. And you can't design a successful investment strategy if you don't have market experience.

Later trades,

MT

Labels: investing, programming

Sunday, October 21, 2007

I'm in the process of validating some investment ideas and thought I'd share some of the hidden biases that occur when comparing systems against each other and the market in general. I should know...these issues have bit me numerous times over my past 7 years of system testing. Maybe the testing methods below will help you as they have helped me.

Failure to Trade All Signals

• Every signal received from your idea should be tested. Which means taking trades for a stock you already own. If your idea is to buy 20-day highs and you receive your first signal for YHOO on 10/15/2007...you buy it. If you receive another signal on 10/16/2007 for YHOO...guess what? You buy it. Despite already owning the stock. Failure to do so means your filtering the idea. This is okay if you already know the idea is valid...but if so...then why are you testing in the first place?

• A big obstacle in taking all signals is money. First test the idea without money constraints. Money should not limit your trades. In fact, when testing...the only limit on your trades should be the idea.

Failure to Test the Other Side

• The Trading Digest covers idea reversals in their article on the 50/200 Moving Avererage Crossover system. In essence, any idea should be reversed, tested, and compared with the original idea.
  

• So, if the idea is selecting 20-day highs...the reverse of that idea is selecting stocks less than or equal to their 20-day highs. But, performing this test presents a problem. There are fewer stocks at their 20-day highs (idea #1) than stocks not at their 20-day highs (idea #2).

• It's unfair to compare 150 trades from idea #1 against 5,000 trades from idea #2. Whose to say randomly selecting 150 trades from the 5,000 trades in the idea #2 sample set wouldn't generate as good if not better results than idea #1?
  

• And that's just how to solve the problem...boot-strap it. Take those 5,000 trades and randomly select 150 trades. Compare those results against idea #1's sample set of 150. Of course, it wouldn't be wise to select one 150-set sample from 5,000. Take several 150-set samples...compile the results and use that for the comparison.

Remove the Best Trades

• With any system...the Pareto Principle is large and in charge. You'll find only 5% to 10% of the trades generate the majority of the idea's profits. What are the chances you would have missed a few of those trades? Throw money limits into the mix and real world events like vacations and that home remodeling project your wife has been bugging you about...and it's very easy to do. So, remove them from the test sample. Don't let a few trades in the sample play such a large role in the results.

Market Exposure

• When buying presents for your kids...the number one rule is every kid must receive the same number of presents. If you fail here...there will be hell to pay. Testing and comparing ideas are a lot like your kids. Give them equal time and exposure.

• Use the same signal starting point for the comparisons. If your testing date range is 01/01/1995 - 12/31/2004 and idea #1 kicks off it's first signal on 05/01/1995 and idea #2 kicks off it's first signal on 02/01/1996...no fair! Idea #1 received a 9 months head start on idea #2. Might not seem like much...but with markets and babies...9 months can make a difference.

• In fact, it usually pays to bucket the trades in similar timeframes. That way you can ensure not only the trades share similar signal start times but also similar bucket sizes. For example, to test 10 years of data...01/01/1995 - 12/31/2004:

Bucket 1 -> 01/01/1995 - 12/31/1996
Bucket 2 -> 01/01/1997 - 12/31/1998
Bucket 3 -> 01/01/1999 - 12/31/2000
Bucket 4 -> 01/01/2001 - 12/31/2002
Bucket 5 -> 01/01/2003 - 12/31/2004

• The buckets 1 - 5 above would be the testing date ranges. After the simulations are complete for each idea and corresponding bucket...verify idea #1's bucket 1 contains roughly the same number of trades as idea #2's bucket 1. If not, then boot-strap the larger bucket size down to the smaller bucket's size. Compare results. And remember, remove the top 5% or so trades from each idea's buckets.

[Clarification: The testing date ranges in the buckets listed above are not the start and end dates for your trades. The date ranges are the start and end dates for your idea. Meaning...all ideas triggered from 01/01/1999 to 12/31/2000 would be in Bucket 3. You would need to track those signals for as long as you stay in them...which may mean all the way to your end date of 12/31/2004. Make sense?

In essence, your overall begin and end dates are 01/01/1995 - 12/31/2004. Then you slice and dice the signals that occurred during that time frame based on entry date into buckets 1 - 5.]

Questions?

• What if the idea consists of several smaller ideas such as selecting stocks at their 20-day high and on that new high experience a 30-day volume surge? In this case, you would need to iterate through the above process twice.

• In the first pass, you'd compare the 20-day high stocks against stocks not at their 20-day high. In the second pass (if the first pass proves fruitful), compare the 20-day high stocks with 30-day volume surges against 20-day high stocks without 30-day volume surges.

As you can see, getting an idea through the validation process is quite an ordeal. Unfortunately for us system traders; very few ideas make it out alive. Thankfully, we don't have to cut those ideas from our sample set.

Later Trades,

MT

Labels: investing, testing

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

130/30 Strategy Backtested Disagree with comparison of 130/30 to non-leveraged benchmark/strategy. Also, the additional longs didn't improve the long portion of the 130/30 returns compared to the long-only strategy returns. Am I missing something?

Labels: investing, links

Monday, September 17, 2007

• One year ago I was a stock market analyst [Part 1]
  Very interesting how he was able to process 9,000 stocks in less than a minute.


• Goldblog - Python - Stock Quote Module
  Interesting python stock quote utility.


• Goldblog - Investment Advice
  Excellent investment advice. Keep it simple.


• NumPy for Numeric/numarray users
  Cheatsheet for NumPy Python users

Labels: investing, links, numpy, python

Thursday, September 06, 2007

Quantmod - Quantitative Financial Modelling Framework for R

• Offers R language modules to...
  
  • calculate periodic returns
  • retrieve historic quotes from Yahoo, Google, FRED
  • there's even a tradeModel that looks interesting
  • and well documented.
    
  
  
  - post by taylortree

Labels: investing, programming, rlanguage

Tuesday, September 04, 2007

World Beta - Engineering Targeted Returns and Risk: More On The Endowment Style Of Investing  Annotated

• World Beta shares some links covering the endowment investing side of things...
  
  • A link to
    Frontier Capital Management
    - check out their knowledge section for more great papers similar to the ones Faber links to.
  • Faber mentions a great upcoming book covering the twelve top endowment CIO's .
  • from Alpha Magazine...Highbridge Capital Managment shares its office organization - putting traders and developers together.  I've always thought this would be a great idea in any shop.  By putting users and developers together - manual taks can be seen and automation can happen.
    
  
  
   - post by taylortree

SourceForge.net: tkdiff

• Great little file compare utility.  Graphic front end to the diff program.
  note:  tested this today against a large file/program (well, not that large in my line of work...but I guess to Google's)...couldn't handle it.  But, works great on small files.
   - post by taylortree

Google Mondrian: web-based code review and storage

• Online code review that works like a blog/wiki.  I wonder...is it possible to create a code review system similar to Mondrian within a source management toolset such as subversion?  Seems like most of the backend is there already...would only need to add some front end tools to display the changes being committed and allow comments on those changes.
   - post by taylortree

Labels: investing, python

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Tom from InvestorGuide.com sent me an article of his to read regarding the differences between investing and gambling. Tom did a great job in discussing the two terms fairly. Very hard to write an article like that without exposing unknown biases.

I did find a couple of very minor areas where I disagreed with Tom's article. I shared those comments to Tom in an email. But, felt those comments would be helpful to readers of this site. First read Tom's article. Then my comments below...

Tom's article:
There's a big difference between buying a stock after thoroughly researching it and buying a stock by hitting it on a dartboard.

My comments:
Is there really a big difference...in outcome? Sure, the person may feel different about the investment...but based on outcome alone...historical evidence would suggest the odds of success are approximately the same.

Tom's Article:
Gambling - "Any activity in which money is put at risk for the purpose of making a profit, and which is characterized by some or most of the following...no net economic effect results."

My comments:
I would argue that each player in the stock market provides a positive economic effect. The investor provides long-term capital to companies in need of capital. The speculator and gambler provide liquidity. Sure there are negative effects from all players...investors prop up some companies that probably shouldn't receive further funding...and will eventually go bust. And speculators/gamblers can turn liquidity into a frothing market that can cause long-term problems after the swell has subsided.

Of course, your point is true that gamblers' short-term trades may be a net effect with each other...but that activity regardless of reason or length of hold...still provides liquidity for other players in the market.

Basically, remove any player from the game...and the market wouldn't be what it is.

That's it from here where I've got a softball game to prepare for this week. I haven't played softball since my college days. And haven't thrown many balls since my shoulder surgery. Should be an interesting show to say the least.

Later Trades,

MT

Labels: investing

Saturday, June 09, 2007

Sharing some great links found this morning while enjoying a Starbucks coffee and Krispy Kreme doughnut. :-)

A great Quantitative Primer from the Bionic Turtle.

Nice little profile on Parametric Portfolio Associates by Bloomberg Markets Magazine. I enjoyed reading their rebalancing alpha along with their contrarian weighting of individual stocks for each country. In fact, check out Parametric's Research & Whitepapers area...great information to be had. Their paper on Using Statistical Process Control to Monitor Active Managers is one to read a few times this weekend.

One view shared by Parametric coincides with my recent testing of alpha filtering in the U.S. Equities market. Parametric found that smaller countries exhibit less correlation to the broader markets. My guess is due to less investor attention, liquidity issues, and such. In essence the markets are less efficient which enable Parametric to extract alpha (non-commoditized beta) by overweighting these smaller countries in their portfolio compared to the index they track. I found that by increasing the frequency in my alpha calculations...the fewer stocks I found that could beat the market (high alpha). Increasing the frequency to daily in my alpha filter picked up only the most illiquid stocks in the market out of the 20,000 stocks in my database (including the delisted). What does this mean? These stocks are the less followed? Less efficient? Their returns are least effected by the broad market? Short-term...all other stocks are governed by the overall market returns? Only if you extend your time horizon do stocks capture more alpha from the market? My recent testing shows this to be a possibility.

So, what should an investor/trader do? Well, if you're a daytrader, you should pay much more attention to the market in general. The market acts as a powerful force in a stock's short-term returns. If you're an investor...extending your time horizon months if not years is a way to capture more (alpha) than the market gives (beta) to each individual stock. Think about it...anywhere the market is efficient...the market governs the behavior. Only when you drive outside of that efficient zone do you capture non-market behavior. Holding stocks for the very long-term is one road outside of the city.

World Beta finds an interview with Harvard's Endowment manager,El-Erian. El-Erian claims his biggest challenge is overcoming the popularity of the endowment model. Which I tend to agree.

Finally, for you R fans out there...check out the Econometric tools for performance and risk analysis created by Brian G. Peterson and Peter Carl. Need to calculate the Information Ratio, Sharpe Ratio, Sortino Ratio, max drawdowns, rolling returns, CAPM, Kelly Ratio, and Omega on your portfolio's returns? Then this PerformanceAnalytics package could be just the ticket. I have yet to work with this feature-rich package...but have it on my list of to-do's over the coming weeks.

That's it from TaylorTree...where the weather is beautiful, coffee is great, and I've got an afternoon of fishing in my future.

Later Trades,

MT

Labels: investing

Sunday, May 20, 2007

The Beta in Alpha's clothing? (pdf) Bridgewater Associates' detail how various hedge fund's are charging Alpha prices for Beta returns.

How to differentiate Alpha from Beta in those hedge funds? Check out AllAboutAlpha's post titled, Mommy, Where do alphas come from? AllAboutAlpha does a great job of summarizing Andrew Lo's paper, Where Do Alphas Come from?: A New Measure of the Value of Active Investment Management. Lo explains how to differentiate active returns from passive and more importantly what value the active returns add to the total returns of the portfolio. Cool stuff!

Very interesting draft, When Do Stop-Loss Rules Stop Losses?, by Kathryn M. Kaminski and Andrew W. Lo. They find stop-losses improve returns and reduce volatility compared to buy & hold. And stop-out periods were distributed uniformly over time versus only during small market crashes.

MOSERS discusses how to handle residual cash in a portfolio in the following newsletters, Rebalancing and Cash Securitization and Rebalancing II. I was shocked to discover how big of an impact residual cash had on my returns during my market studies. A cash drag indeed! Very important to get that cash, no matter how small, back into the market in order to generate further market returns.

Enjoy your week!

MT

Labels: investing

Saturday, April 28, 2007

According to this article, Jeremy Grantham believes the sky is falling.

"The bursting of this bubble will be across all countries and all assets, with the probable exception of high-grade bonds," Grantham warned. "Since no similar global event has occurred before, the stresses to the system are likely to be unexpected. All of this is likely to depress confidence and lower economic activity."

But, plenty of hedging is done as to the timing of the fall.

As for timing, he (Grantham) concedes that's impossible to predict. But here's the kicker: Even Grantham thinks you probably need to be bullish right now. The reason? Most bubbles, he notes, go through a short but dramatic "exponential phase" just before they burst. Like Japan in 1989 or the Internet in early 2000.

How does this type of prognostication help anyone...I asks ya's?

Grantham's bold statements and subsequent hedging of bets is something a lot of market pundits do. This allows them to zig and zag at the same time. If the market goes down big, Grantham claim's victory. If the market goes up big, Grantham claim's victory. A win-win scenario.

This type of hedge may prove useful in other pursuits. For example, wouldn't it be nice to lead a programming project and hedge the timeline of the project?

Yes, we will make the May 1st deadline unless we don't.

The above statement doesn't work because it's not wordy enough. Too simple...straight to the point.

We fully expect to meet the May 1st deadline. All components have been reviewed, tested, and verified to meet our stringent requirements. But, there is always the case that problems may arise due to circumstances outside our control. These problems may impact our schedule and possibly result in extending the deadline.

There, that's better. A great hedge!

Well, that's it for me this Saturday morning. I'm taking my daughter fishing today. Of course, the fishing trip may be delayed or cancelled if changes in the Earth's atmosphere produce drops of water from the sky. ;-)

Later Trades,

MT

Labels: investing