Objective research to aid investing decisions

Value Investing Strategy (Strategy Overview)

Allocations for July 2024 (Final)

Momentum Investing Strategy (Strategy Overview)

Allocations for July 2024 (Final)
1st ETF 2nd ETF 3rd ETF

Following S&P 500 Index Trends

| | Posted in: Technical Trading

How well do trend-following rules work when applied to the S&P 500 Index? In the March 2012 version of their paper entitled “Breaking into the Blackbox: Trend Following, Stop Losses, and the Frequency of Trading: The Case of the S&P 500”, Steve Thomas, James Seaton, Andrew Clare and Peter Smith evaluate a variety of simple daily moving average (SMA, 10 to 450 days), moving average crossover (25/50 to 150/350 days) and channel breakout (10-day to 450-day highs) trading rules as applied to the S&P 500 Index. They further investigate: (1) how measurement frequency affects rule performance; (3) effectiveness of combining the rules with stop-losses; and, (3) whether fundamental valuation metrics outperform the rules. They assume an index-cash switching cost of 0.2%. Using daily S&P 500 Index levels and monthly total returns from January 1952 through June 2011, daily S&P 500 Index total returns from July 1988 through June 2011 and contemporaneous Treasury bill yields as the return on cash, they find that:

  • Except for very short-term rules, trend following based on either daily or end-of-month calculations generally outperforms buy-and-hold by a wide margin. Specifically, during July 1988 through June 2011:
    • A buy-and-hold approach produces a Sharpe ratio of 0.31 and an annualized total return of 9.5%.
    • For daily (end-of-month) measurements applied to SMAs, the 400-day (450-day) rule generates the highest net Sharpe ratio of 0.54 (0.59), with annualized net return 10.5% (11.2%).
    • For daily (end-of-month) measurements applied to moving average crossovers, the 150/300 (100/250) rule generates the highest net Sharpe ratio of 0.56 (0.58), with annualized net return 10.9% (11.1%). There is little discrimination among rules longer than 50/200.
    • For daily (end-of-month) measurements applied to channel breakouts, the 250-day (250-day) rule generates the highest net Sharpe ratio of 0.59 (0.62), with annualized net return 11.2% (11.6%).
  • In general, rules based on monthly calculations outperform those based on daily calculations due to reduced trading. For example:
    • For the July 1988 through June 2011 sample, net Sharpe ratios for SMA rules range from 0.06 to 0.59 (-0.79 to 0.54) for monthly (daily) calculations.
    • For the January 1952 through June 2011 sample, the best end-of-month calculation rule (12 months) is at least as good as the best daily calculation rule (Sharpe ratio 0.58 versus 0.57).
  • Popular stop-loss rules do not add value to trend following. In other words, a change of trend itself is the most effective stop-loss.
  • Whipsawing is not a problem for longer measurement intervals.
  • The simplest trend following rules are about as good as the most complex rules.
  • During January 1952 through June 2011, a 10-month SMA rule outperforms fundamental valuation trading rules based on dividend yield, earnings yield, the Fed Model, the relative yield on bonds and equities and Shiller’s cyclically adjusted price-earnings ratio.

In summary, evidence indicates that long-interval trend-following rules outperform both buy-and-hold and commonly used valuation metrics when used to time the S&P 500 Index , with monthly calculations superior to daily calculations and additional stop-loss rules of no value.

Cautions regarding findings include:

  • The July 1988 through June 2011 sample is short in terms of number of independent measurement intervals (for example, just 13 450-day intervals) and number of bull-bear stock market cycles.
  • Using an index to assess trading rules ignores the costs (trading frictions and management fees) of creating and maintaining a tradable asset that tracks the index.
  • The cost of switching between cash and an S&P 500 Index proxy would vary considerably over the sample period since 1952, and would likely have been much higher than 0.2% during some subperiods (see “Trading Frictions Over the Long Run”). Higher trading frictions generally favor monthly over daily calculations and longer over shorter measurement intervals (and buy-and-hold generally).
  • Testing a large number of rules on the same data introduces data snooping bias (luck), such that the results for the best rules overstate expectations for future returns.
  • The study does not address tax implications of trading.
  • Findings for other asset classes may be different (see “SMA Signal Effectiveness Across ETFs” and “Use ‘Standard’ SMAs to Identify Gold Market Regimes?”).

See also “10-month Versus 40-week Versus 200-day SMA”“Is There a Best SMA Calculation Interval for Long-term Crossing Signals?”“Simple Tests of an Asymmetric SMA Strategy” and “Pure Versus Buffered SMA Crossing Signals”

For counterpoint, see “Technical Trend-following: Fighting the Last War?”.

See also “Do Stop Losses Work?” and “Using Trailing Stop Losses to Reduce Risk”.

Daily Email Updates
Filter Research
  • Research Categories (select one or more)