Technical Trading

Should market timers use moving averages of different lengths for trading uptrends and downtrends? In his January 2017 paper entitled “Asymmetry between Uptrend and Downtrend Identification: A Tale of Moving Average Trading Strategy”, flagged by a subscriber, Carlin chun-fai Chu investigates whether the use of different (asymmetric) moving average lookback intervals for uptrends and downtrends outperforms using the same lookback interval for both. He considers three types of moving averages: Simple Moving Average, Exponential Moving Average and Triangular Moving Average. He calculates these moving averages separately for each of seven market indexes: S&P 500, FTSE 100, Nikkei 225, Deutscher Aktien, TSX Composite, ASX 200 and Hang Seng. The price series is in uptrend (downtrend) when above (below) a specified moving average. He takes a long (short) position in an index when it crosses above (below) the moving average used during downtrends (uptrends). Using the earliest daily data available from Yahoo!Finance for each of the seven indexes through October 2016, he finds that: Keep Reading

Do attention-driven retail stock investors bid prices of the biggest daily movers to overvaluation? In their March 2017 paper entitled “Daily Winners and Losers”, Alok Kumar, Stefan Ruenzi and Michael Ungeheuer examine the subsequent return behaviors of the biggest daily winning and losing stocks. Specifically, they each day identify the 80 stocks with the highest daily returns (winners) and the 80 stocks with the lowest daily returns (losers). Each month, they group stocks as:

• Winners – a daily winner, but not a daily loser, at least once during the prior month.
• Losers – a daily loser, but not a daily winner, at least once during the prior month.
• Both – a daily winner and a daily loser at least each once during the prior month.
• Never – not a daily winner or a daily loser during the prior month.

They then reform monthly value-weighted and equal-weighted portfolios of the groups to measure performance differences. Using daily returns and characteristis for a broad sample of U.S. common stocks with price above $5, along with stock factor model returns, during July 1963 through December 2015, they find that: Keep Reading

Does adjusting stocks-bonds allocations according to trend following rules improve the performance of 30-year retirement portfolios? In their November 2016 paper entitled “Applying a Systematic Investment Process to Distributive Portfolios: A 150 Year Study Demonstrating Enhanced Outcomes Through Trend Following”, Jon Robinson, Brandon Langley, David Childs, Joe Crawford and Ira Ross compare retirement portfolio performances for variations of the following three strategies that may hold a broad stock market index, a 10-year government bond index or cash (3-month government bills) in the U.S., UK or Japan:

1. Buy and Hold – each month rebalance to fixed 60%-40% or 80%-20% stock-bond allocations.
2. T8 – each month set allocations among stocks, bonds and cash according to whether each of stocks and bonds are above (uptrend) or below (downtrend) respective 8-month exponential moving averages (EMA).
3. T12 – same as T8 but using a 12-month EMA.

See the first two tables below for precise T8 and T12 allocation rules. The authors consider annual portfolio distributions of 0%, 4%, 4.5% or 5% over a 30-year holding interval. They employ the S&P 500, FTSE 100 and TOPIX total return indexes for the U.S., UK and Japan, respectively. When 3-month government bill data are unavailable for the UK or Japan, they insert U.S. data. Using monthly total returns for the specified asset class proxies since 1865 for the U.S., 1935 for the UK and 1925 for Japan, all through 2015, they find that: Keep Reading

Is there an exploitable short-term momentum effect after asset price jumps? In his January 2017 paper entitled “Profitability of Trading in the Direction of Asset Price Jumps – Analysis of Multiple Assets and Frequencies”, Milan Ficura tests the profitability of trading based on continuation of jumps up or down in the price series of each of four currency exchange rates (EUR/USD, GBP/USD, USD/CHF and USD/JPY) and three futures (Light Crude Oil, E-Mini S&P 500 and VIX futures). For each series, he looks for jumps in prices measured at seven intervals (1-minute, 5-minute, 15-minute, 30-minute, 1-hour, 4-hour and 1-day). His statistical specification for jumps uses returns normalized by local historical volatility. He separately tests the last 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128 or 256 measurement intervals for the local volatility calculation, and he considers jump identification confidence levels of 90%, 95%, 99% or 99.9%. His trading system enters a trade in the direction of a price jump at the end of the interval in which the jump occurs and holds for a fixed number of intervals (1, 2, 4, 8 or 16). He thus considers a total of 6,860 strategy variations across asset price series. He divides each price series into halves, employing the first half to optimize number of volatility calculation measurement intervals, confidence level and number of holding intervals for each measurement frequency. He then tests the optimal parameters in the second half. He assumes trading frictions of one pip for currencies, and one tick plus broker commission for futures. He focuses on drawdown ratio (average annual profit divided by maximum drawdown) as the key performance metric. He excludes price gaps over weekends and for rolling futures contracts. Using currency exchange rate data during November 1999 through mid-June 2015, Light Crude Oil futures data during January 1987 through early December 2015, E-Mini S&P 500 futures during mid-September 1999 through early December 2015 and VIX futures during late March 2004 through early December 2015, he finds that: Keep Reading

Is there pervasive yield momentum among U.S. corporate bonds? In their November 2016 paper entitled “Is Momentum Spanned Over Corporate Bonds of Different Ratings?”, Hai Lin, Chunchi Wu and Guofu Zhou investigate whether momentum exists in all segments of the U.S. corporate bond market. Their approach to momentum measurement is unconventional, involving cross-sectional regression of bond returns on multiple simple moving averages (SMA) of bond yields. They call their result “trend momentum” to distinguish it from conventional momentum based on simple past return. Specifically, they each month:

1. Calculate yield SMAs over the last 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months for each bond.
2. Regress returns for all bonds on respective prior-month yield SMAs to generate correlations (betas) between returns and past yield SMAs, thereby dynamically determining relative importance of yield SMA measurement intervals.
3. Calculate expected (for next month) yield SMA betas as average calculated betas over the past 12 months.
4. Estimate expected return (for next month) for each bond based on current yield SMAs and expected yield SMA betas.
5. Rank bonds based on expected returns into fifths (quintiles) or tenths (deciles).
6. Calculate gross trend momentum factor return as the difference in average (equal-weighted) actual returns between quintiles/deciles with the highest and lowest expected returns.

Using yields, returns, ratings and other characteristics for a broad sample of U.S. corporate bonds during January 1973 through September 2015, they find that: Keep Reading

How do moving averages work for timing asset prices, and how do different kinds of moving averages work differently? In his October 2016 paper entitled “Moving Averages for Market Timing”, Valeriy Zakamulin presents in three chapters: (1) financial series trend detection and turning point identification using moving averages; (2) the mathematics and properties of moving averages, with focus on smoothness and lag time; and, (3) types of moving averages, including regular moving averages, moving averages of moving averages and mixed moving averages that suppress lag time, with focus on differences in smoothness and lag time. Based on mathematical analyses, he concludes that: Keep Reading

Can stop-loss rules solve the stock momentum crash problem? In the September 2016 update of their paper entitled “Taming Momentum Crashes: A Simple Stop-loss Strategy”, Yufeng Han, Guofu Zhou and Yingzi Zhu test the effectiveness of a somewhat complex stop-loss rule in limiting the downside risk of a stock momentum strategy. Each month, they rank stocks into tenths (deciles) based on cumulative returns over the past six months, with the top (bottom) decile designated as winners (losers). After a skip-month, they form an equal-weighted or value-weighted portfolio that is long (short) the winners (losers) and hold for one month, except: during the holding month, when any winner (loser) stock in the portfolio falls below (rises above) the portfolio formation price by a basic stop-loss percentage threshold, they next day issue a stop-loss limit order at 1.5 times the threshold. For example, if the basic stop-loss threshold is 15%, the limit order represents an adjusted stop-loss level of 22.5%. If this order does not execute the next day and the original stop-loss threshold is still breached (not still breached) at the close, they sell at the close (repeat the process for that stock daily until the end of the month). They assume funds from any liquidations earn the U.S. Treasury bill (T-bill) yield for the balance of the month. They consider basic stop-loss thresholds of 10%, 15% and 20%. Using daily closes, highs and lows and monthly market capitalizations for a broad sample of U.S. common stocks, daily T-bill yield and monthly Fama-French three-factor (market, size, book-to-market) model returns during January 1926 through December 2013, they find that: Keep Reading

How do the long and short sides of futures trend-following strategies differently affect portfolio riskiness? In their September 2016 paper entitled “The Long and Short of Trend Followers”, Jarkko Peltomaki, Joakim Agerback and Tor Gudmundsen-Sinclair investigate via linear regression behaviors of the long and short sides of commonly used trend-following strategies across equities, bonds, commodities and currency futures/forwards under different economic conditions. They model trend-following performance by combining two sets of rules: (1) four slow-reacting simple moving average pair crossover rules using 75-225, 100-300, 125-375 or 150-450 daily moving average pairs; and, (2) four fast-reacting moving average breakout rules based on fluctuations around a long-term moving average. They apply the same allocation method for all rules to set a constant initial risk per trade, adjusted daily by scaling inversely with volatility. They examine how long and short trend-following returns depend on economic environment, focusing on interest rates. They assume trading frictions total $30 per contract. Using futures contract data for 22 equity indexes, 15 government bonds, 17 commodities and six currencies relative to the U.S. dollar, and contemporaneous Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) performance indexes, during 1984 through 2015, they find that: Keep Reading

How does pairs trading of relatively diversified exchange-traded funds (ETF) compare with pairs trading of individual stocks? In his July 2016 paper entitled “Does Pairs Trading with ETFs Work?”, Philipp Doering tests a common pairs trading process on the universe of ETFs. Specifically, he:

1. Each month, scales all ETF prices to $1 and computes the sum of squared price deviations (SSD) for all possible pairs over the next 12 months, excluding those with missing prices.
2. Rescales prices of pairs with the lowest SSDs to $1 and, during the next six months, buys (sells) the relative loser (winner) of each of these low-SSD pairs whenever their prices diverge by more than two selection-interval standard deviations.
3. Closes pair trades when prices converge, one of the ETFs discontinues trading or the end of the 6-month trading interval, whichever occurs first. Within the trading interval, selected pairs may trade more than once.

He scales returns by the number of pairs selected for trading and averages across the six overlapping pairs portfolios to compute return on committed capital. He performs this process also for individual stocks for comparison. Using daily trading data for broad samples of ETFs and stocks during January 2001 through June 2016, he finds that: Keep Reading

How can investors integrate global asset class diversification, pre-eminent factor premiums and crash protection? In his July 2016 paper entitled “The Trinity Portfolio: A Long-Term Investing Framework Engineered for Simplicity, Safety, and Outperformance”, Mebane Faber summarizes a portfolio combining these three principles, as follows:

1. Global diversification: Include U.S. stocks, non-U.S. developed markets stocks, emerging markets stocks, corporate bonds, 30-year U.S. Treasury bonds, 10-year foreign government bonds, U.S. Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS), commodities, gold and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REIT) .
2. Value/momentum screens: For U.S. stocks, each month first rank stocks by value and momentum metrics and then pick those with the highest average ranks. For non-U.S. stocks, each month pick the cheapest overall markets. For bonds, each month pick those with the highest yields.
3. Trend following for crash avoidance: For each asset each month, hold the asset (cash) if its price is above (below) its 10-month SMA at the end of the prior month.

The featured “Trinity” portfolio allocates 50% to a sub-portfolio based on principles 1 and 2 and 50% to a sub-portfolio based on principles 1, 2 and 3. Using monthly returns for the specified asset classes during 1973 through 2015, he finds that: Keep Reading