Modeling Archives - QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH AND TRADING

July 26, 2022July 26, 2022

Developing Trading Strategies With Synthetic Data

One of the main criticisms levelled at systematic trading over the last few years is that the over-use of historical market data has tended to produce curve-fitted strategies that perform poorly out of sample in a live trading environment. This is indeed a valid criticism – given enough attempts one is bound to arrive eventually at a strategy that performs well in backtest, even on a holdout data sample. But that by no means guarantees that the strategy will continue to perform well going forward.

The solution to the problem has been clear for some time: what is required is a method of producing synthetic market data that can be used to build a strategy and test it under a wide variety of simulated market conditions. A strategy built in this way is more likely to survive the challenge of live trading than one that has been developed using only a single historical data path.

The problem, however, has been in implementation. Up until now all the attempts to produce credible synthetic price data have failed, for one reason or another, as I described in an earlier post:

A New Approach to Generating Synthetic Market Data

I have been able to devise a completely new algorithm for generating artificial price series that meet all of the key requirements, as follows:

Computational simplicity & efficiency. Important if we are looking to mass-produce synthetic series for a large number of assets, for a variety of different applications. Some deep learning methods would struggle to meet this requirement, even supposing that transfer learning is possible.
The ability to produce price series that are internally consistent (i.e High > Low, etc) in every case .
Should be able to produce a range of synthetic series that vary widely in their correspondence to the original price series. In some case we want synthetic price series that are highly correlated to the original; in other cases we might want to test our investment portfolio or risk control systems under extreme conditions never before seen in the market.
The distribution of returns in the synthetic series should closely match the historical series, being non-Gaussian and with “fat-tails”.
The ability to incorporate long memory effects in the sequence of returns.
The ability to model GARCH effects in the returns process.

This means that we are now in a position to develop trading strategies without any direct reference to the underlying market data. Consequently we can then use all of the real market data for out-of-sample back-testing.

Developing a Trading Strategy for the S&P 500 Index Using Synthetic Market Data

To illustrate the procedure I am going to use daily synthetic price data for the S&P 500 Index over the period from Jan 1999 to July 2022. Details of the the characteristics of the synthetic series are given in the post referred to above.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Fig3-12.png

Because we want to create a trading strategy that will perform under market conditions close to those currently prevailing, I will downsample the synthetic series to include only those that correlate quite closely, i.e. with a minimum correlation of 0.75, with the real price data.

Why do this? Surely if we want to make a strategy as robust as possible we should use all of the synthetic data series for model development?

The reason is that I believe that some of the more extreme adverse scenarios generated by the algorithm may occur quite rarely, perhaps once in every few decades. However, I am principally interested in a strategy that I can apply under current market conditions and I am prepared to take my chances that the worst-case scenarios are unlikely to come about any time soon. This is a major design decision, one that you may disagree with. Of course, one could make use of every available synthetic data series in the development of the trading model and by doing so it is likely that you would produce a model that is more robust. But the training could take longer and the performance during normal market conditions may not be as good.

Having generated the price series, the process I am going to follow is to use genetic programming to develop trading strategies that will be evaluated on all of the synthetic data series simultaneously. I will then use the performance of the aggregate portfolio, i.e. the outcome of all of the trades generated by the strategy when applied to all of the synthetic series, to assess the overall performance. In order to be considered, candidate strategies have to perform well under all of the different market scenarios, or at least the great majority of them. This ensures that the strategy is likely to prove more robust across different types of market conditions, rather than on just the single type of market scenario observed in the real historical series.

As usual in these cases I will reserve a portion (10%) of each data series for testing each strategy, and a further 10% sample for out-of-sample validation. This isn’t strictly necessary: since the real data series has not be used directly in the development of the trading system, we can later test the strategy on all of the historical data and regard this as an out-of-sample backtest.

To implement the procedure I am going to use Mike Bryant’s excellent Adaptrade Builder software.

This is an exemplar of outstanding software engineering and provides a broad range of features for generating trading strategies of every kind. One feature of Builder that is particularly useful in this context is its ability to construct strategies and test them on up to 20 data series concurrently. This enables us to develop a strategy using all of the synthetic data series simultaneously, showing the performance of each individual strategy as well for as the aggregate portfolio.

After evolving strategies for 50 generations we arrive at the following outcome:

The equity curve for the aggregate portfolio is shown in blue, while the equity curves for the strategy applied to individual synthetic data series are shown towards the bottom of the chart. Of course, the performance of the aggregate portfolio appears much superior to any of the individual strategies, because it is effectively the arithmetic sum of the individual equity curves. And just because the aggregate portfolio appears to perform well both in-sample and out-of-sample, that doesn’t imply that the strategy works equally well for every individual market scenario. In some scenarios it performs better than in others, as can be observed from the individual equity curves.

But, in any case, our objective here is not to create a stock portfolio strategy, but rather to trade a single asset – the S&P 500 Index. The role of the aggregate portfolio is simply to suggest that we may have found a strategy that is sufficiently robust to work well across a variety of market conditions, as represented by the various synthetic price series.

Builder generates code for the strategies it evolves in a number of different languages and in this case we take the EasyLanguage code for the fittest strategy #77 and apply it to a daily chart for the S&P 500 Index – i.e. the real data series – in Tradestation, with the following results:

The strategy appears to work well “out-of-the-box”, i,e, without any further refinement. So our quest for a robust strategy appears to have been quite successful, given that none of the 23-year span of real market data on which the strategy was tested was used in the development process.

We can take the process a little further, however, by “optimizing” the strategy. Traditionally this would mean finding the optimal set of parameters that produces the highest net profit on the test data. But this would be curve fitting in the worst possible sense, and is not at all what I am suggesting.

Instead we use a procedure known as Walk Forward Optimization (WFO), as described in this post:

A Simple Momentum Strategy

The goal of WFO is not to curve-fit the best parameters, which would entirely defeat the object of using synthetic data. Instead, its purpose is to test the robustness of the strategy. We accomplish this by using a sequence of overlapping in-sample and out-of-sample periods to evaluate how well the strategy stands up, assuming the parameters are optimized on in-sample periods of varying size and start date and tested of similarly varying out-of-sample periods. A strategy that fails a cluster of such tests is unlikely to prove robust in live trading. A strategy that passes a test cluster at least demonstrates some capability to perform well in different market regimes.

To some extent we might regard such a test as unnecessary, given that the strategy has already been observed to perform well under several different market conditions, encapsulated in the different synthetic price series, in addition to the real historical price series. Nonetheless, we conduct a WFO cluster test to further evaluate the robustness of the strategy.

As the goal of the procedure is not to maximize the theoretical profitability of the strategy, but rather to evaluate its robustness, we select a criterion other than net profit as the factor to optimize. Specifically, we select the sum of the areas of the strategy drawdowns as the quantity to minimize (by maximizing the inverse of the sum of drawdown areas, which amounts to the same thing). This requires a little explanation.

If we look at the strategy drawdown periods of the equity curve, we observe several periods (highlighted in red) in which the strategy was underwater:

The area of each drawdown represents the length and magnitude of the drawdown and our goal here is to minimize the sum of these areas, so that we reduce both the total duration and severity of strategy drawdowns.

In each WFO test we use different % of OOS data and a different number of runs, assessing the performance of the strategy on a battery of different criteria:

These criteria not only include overall profitability, but also factors such as parameter stability, profit consistency in each test, the ratio of in-sample to out-of-sample profits, etc. In other words, this WFO cluster analysis is not about profit maximization, but robustness evaluation, as assessed by these several different metrics. And in this case the strategy passes every test with flying colors:

Other than validating the robustness of the strategy’s performance, the overall effect of the procedure is to slightly improve the equity curve by diminishing the magnitude and duration of the drawdown periods:

Conclusion

We have shown how, by using synthetic price series, we can build a robust trading strategy that performs well under a variety of different market conditions, including on previously “unseen” historical market data. Further analysis using cluster WFO tests strengthens the assessment of the strategy’s robustness.

November 24, 2020

Can Machine Learning Techniques Be Used To Predict Market Direction? The 1,000,000 Model Test.

During the 1990’s the advent of Neural Networks unleashed a torrent of research on their applications in financial markets, accompanied by some rather extravagant claims about their predicative abilities. Sadly, much of the research proved to be sub-standard and the results illusionary, following which the topic was largely relegated to the bleachers, at least in the field of financial market research.

With the advent of new machine learning techniques such as Random Forests, Support Vector Machines and Nearest Neighbor Classification, there has been a resurgence of interest in non-linear modeling techniques and a flood of new research, a fair amount of it supportive of their potential for forecasting financial markets. Once again, however, doubts about the quality of some of the research bring the results into question.

Against this background I and my co-researcher Dan Rico set out to address the question of whether these new techniques really do have predicative power, more specifically the ability to forecast market direction. Using some excellent MatLab toolboxes and a new software package, an Excel Addin called 11Ants, that makes large scale testing of multiple models a snap, we examined over 1,000,000 models and model-ensembles, covering just about every available non-linear technique. The data set for our study comprised daily prices for a selection of US equity securities, together with a large selection of technical indicators for which some other researchers have claimed explanatory power.

In-Sample Equity Curve for Best Performing Nonlinear Model

The answer provided by our research was, without exception, in the negative: not one of the models tested showed any significant ability to predict the direction of any of the securities in our data set. Furthermore, our study found that the best-performing models favored raw price data over technical indicator variables, suggesting that the latter have little explanatory power.

As with Neural Networks, the principal difficulty with non-linear techniques appears to be curve-fitting and a failure to generalize: while it is very easy to find models that provide an excellent fit to in-sample data, the forecasting performance out-of-sample is often very poor.

Out-of-Sample Equity Curve for Best Performing Nonlinear Model

Some caveats about our own research apply. First and foremost, it is of course impossible to prove a hypothesis in the negative. Secondly, it is plausible that some markets are less efficient than others: some studies have claimed success in developing predictive models due to the (relative) inefficiency of the F/X and futures markets, for example. Thirdly, the choice of sample period may be criticized: it could be that the models were over-conditioned on a too- lengthy in-sample data set, which in one case ran from 1993 to 2008, with just two years (2009-2010) of out-of-sample data. The choice of sample was deliberate, however: had we omitted the 2008 period from the “learning” data set, it would be very easy to criticize the study for failing to allow the algorithms to learn about the exceptional behavior of the markets during that turbulent year.

Despite these limitations, our research casts doubt on the findings of some less-extensive studies, that may be the result of sample-selection bias. One characteristic of the most credible studies finding evidence in favor of market predictability, such as those by Pesaran and Timmermann, for instance (see paper for citations), is that the models they employ tend to incorporate independent explanatory variables, such as yield spreads, which do appear to have real explanatory power. The finding of our study suggest that, absent such explanatory factors, the ability to predict markets using sophisticated non-linear techniques applied to price data alone may prove to be as illusionary as it was in the 1990’s.

ONE MILLION MODELS

October 27, 2020

On Testing Direction Prediction Accuracy

As regards the question of forecasting accuracy discussed in the paper on Forecasting Volatility in the S&P 500 Index, there are two possible misunderstandings here that need to be cleared up. These arise from remarks by one commentator as follows:

“An above 50% vol direction forecast looks good,.. but “direction” is biased when working with highly skewed distributions! ..so it would be nice if you could benchmark it against a simple naive predictors to get a feel for significance, -or- benchmark it with a trading strategy and see how the risk/return performs.”

(i) The first point is simple, but needs saying: the phrase “skewed distributions” in the context of volatility modeling could easily be misconstrued as referring to the volatility skew. This, of course, is used to describe to the higher implied vols seen in the Black-Scholes prices of OTM options. But in the Black-Scholes framework volatility is constant, not stochastic, and the “skew” referred to arises in the distribution of the asset return process, which has heavier tails than the Normal distribution (excess Kurtosis and/or skewness). I realize that this is probably not what the commentator meant, but nonetheless it’s worth heading that possible misunderstanding off at the pass, before we go on.

(ii) I assume that the commentator was referring to the skewness in the volatility process, which is characterized by the LogNormal distribution. But the forecasting tests referenced in the paper are tests of the ability of the model to predict the direction of volatility, i.e. the sign of the change in the level of volatility from the current period to the next period. Thus we are looking at, not a LogNormal distribution, but the difference in two LogNormal distributions with equal mean – and this, of course, has an expectation of zero. In other words, the expected level of volatility for the next period is the same as the current period and the expected change in the level of volatility is zero. You can test this very easily for yourself by generating a large number of observations from a LogNormal process, taking the difference and counting the number of positive and negative changes in the level of volatility from one period to the next. You will find, on average, half the time the change of direction is positive and half the time it is negative.

For instance, the following chart shows the distribution of the number of positive changes in the level of a LogNormally distributed random variable with mean and standard deviation of 0.5, for a sample of 1,000 simulations, each of 10,000 observations. The sample mean (5,000.4) is very close to the expected value of 5,000.

Distribution Number of Positive Direction Changes

So, a naive predictor will forecast volatility to remain unchanged for the next period and by random chance approximately half the time volatility will turn out to be higher and half the time it will turn out to be lower than in the current period. Hence the default probability estimate for a positive change of direction is 50% and you would expect to be right approximately half of the time. In other words, the direction prediction accuracy of the naive predictor is 50%. This, then, is one of the key benchmarks you use to assess the ability of the model to predict market direction. That is what test statistics like Theil’s-U does – measures the performance relative to the naive predictor. The other benchmark we use is the change of direction predicted by the implied volatility of ATM options.
In this context, the model’s 61% or higher direction prediction accuracy is very significant (at the 4% level in fact) and this is reflected in the Theil’s-U statistic of 0.82 (lower is better). By contrast, Theil’s-U for the Implied Volatility forecast is 1.46, meaning that IV is a much worse predictor of 1-period-ahead changes in volatility than the naive predictor.

On its face, it is because of this exceptional direction prediction accuracy that a simple strategy is able to generate what appear to be abnormal returns using the change of direction forecasts generated by the model, as described in the paper. In fact, the situation is more complicated than that, once you introduce the concept of a market price of volatility risk.

October 20, 2020

Long Memory and Regime Shifts in Asset Volatility

This post covers quite a wide range of concepts in volatility modeling relating to long memory and regime shifts and is based on an article that was published in Wilmott magazine and republished in The Best of Wilmott Vol 1 in 2005. A copy of the article can be downloaded here.

One of the defining characteristics of volatility processes in general (not just financial assets) is the tendency for the serial autocorrelations to decline very slowly. This effect is illustrated quite clearly in the chart below, which maps the autocorrelations in the volatility processes of several financial assets.

Thus we can say that events in the volatility process for IBM, for instance, continue to exert influence on the process almost two years later.

This feature in one that is typical of a black noise process – not some kind of rap music variant, but rather:

“a process with a 1/f^β spectrum, where β > 2 (Manfred Schroeder, “Fractals, chaos, power laws“). Used in modeling various environmental processes. Is said to be a characteristic of “natural and unnatural catastrophes like floods, droughts, bear markets, and various outrageous outages, such as those of electrical power.” Further, “because of their black spectra, such disasters often come in clusters.”” [Wikipedia].

Because of these autocorrelations, black noise processes tend to reinforce or trend, and hence (to some degree) may be forecastable. This contrasts with a white noise process, such as an asset return process, which has a uniform power spectrum, insignificant serial autocorrelations and no discernable trending behavior:

An econometrician might describe this situation by saying that a black noise process is fractionally integrated order d, where d = H/2, H being the Hurst Exponent. A way to appreciate the difference in the behavior of a black noise process vs. a white process is by comparing two fractionally integrated random walks generated using the same set of quasi random numbers by Feder’s (1988) algorithm (see p 32 of the presentation on Modeling Asset Volatility).

Fractal Random Walk - White Noise — Fractal Random Walk – White Noise

Fractal Random Walk - Black Noise Process — Fractal Random Walk – Black Noise Process

As you can see. both random walks follow a similar pattern, but the black noise random walk is much smoother, and the downward trend is more clearly discernible. You can play around with the Feder algorithm, which is coded in the accompanying Excel Workbook on Volatility and Nonlinear Dynamics . Changing the Hurst Exponent parameter H in the worksheet will rerun the algorithm and illustrate a fractal random walk for a black noise (H > 0.5), white noise (H=0.5) and mean-reverting, pink noise (H<0.5) process.

One way of modeling the kind of behavior demonstrated by volatility process is by using long memory models such as ARFIMA and FIGARCH (see pp 47-62 of the Modeling Asset Volatility presentation for a discussion and comparison of various long memory models). The article reviews research into long memory behavior and various techniques for estimating long memory models and the coefficient of fractional integration d for a process.

But long memory is not the only possible cause of long term serial correlation. The same effect can result from structural breaks in the process, which can produce spurious autocorrelations. The article goes on to review some of the statistical procedures that have been developed to detect regime shifts, due to Bai (1997), Bai and Perron (1998) and the Iterative Cumulative Sums of Squares methodology due to Aggarwal, Inclan and Leal (1999). The article illustrates how the ICSS technique accurately identifies two changes of regimes in a synthetic GBM process.

In general, I have found the ICSS test to be a simple and highly informative means of gaining insight about a process representing an individual asset, or indeed an entire market. For example, ICSS detects regime shifts in the process for IBM around 1984 (the time of the introduction of the IBM PC), the automotive industry in the early 1980’s (Chrysler bailout), the banking sector in the late 1980’s (Latin American debt crisis), Asian sector indices in Q3 1997, the S&P 500 index in April 2000 and just about every market imaginable during the 2008 credit crisis. By splitting a series into pre- and post-regime shift sub-series and examining each segment for long memory effects, one can determine the cause of autocorrelations in the process. In some cases, Asian equity indices being one example, long memory effects disappear from the series, indicating that spurious autocorrelations were induced by a major regime shift during the 1997 Asian crisis. In most cases, however, long memory effects persist.

Excel Workbook on Volatility and Nonlinear Dynamics

There are several other topics from chaos theory and nonlinear dynamics covered in the workbook, including:

Generation of the Sierpinski triangle
Estimation of the Hurst Exponent in various series (Industrial Production, DJIA, S&P500)
Logistic and Henon attractors
Estimation of the fractal dimension and correlation integral for the S&P500 index

Robustness in Quantitative Research and Trading

What is Strategy Robustness? What is its relevance to Quantitative Research and Trading?

One of the most highly desired properties of any financial model or investment strategy, by investors and managers alike, is robustness. I would define robustness as the ability of the strategy to deliver a consistent results across a wide range of market conditions. It, of course, by no means the only desirable property – investing in Treasury bills is also a pretty robust strategy, although the returns are unlikely to set an investor’s pulse racing – but it does ensure that the investor, or manager, is unlikely to be on the receiving end of an ugly surprise when market conditions adjust.

Robustness is not the same thing as low volatility, which also tends to be a characteristic highly prized by many investors. A strategy may operate consistently, with low volatility in certain market conditions, but behave very differently in other. For instance, a delta-hedged short-volatility book containing exotic derivative positions. The point is that empirical researchers do not know the true data-generating process for the markets they are modeling. When specifying an empirical model they need to make arbitrary assumptions. An example is the common assumption that assets returns follow a Gaussian distribution. In fact, the empirical distribution of the great majority of asset process exhibit the characteristic of “fat tails”, which can result from the interplay between multiple market states with random transitions. See this post for details:

http://jonathankinlay.com/2014/05/a-quantitative-analysis-of-stationarity-and-fat-tails/

In statistical arbitrage, for example, quantitative researchers often make use of cointegration models to build pairs trading strategies. However the testing procedures used in current practice are not sufficient powerful to distinguish between cointegrated processes and those whose evolution just happens to correlate temporarily, resulting in the frequent breakdown in cointegrating relationships. For instance, see this post:

http://jonathankinlay.com/2017/06/statistical-arbitrage-breaks/

Modeling Assumptions are Often Wrong – and We Know It

We are, of course, not the first to suggest that empirical models are misspecified:

“All models are wrong, but some are useful” (Box 1976, Box and Draper 1987).

Martin Feldstein (1982: 829): “In practice all econometric specifications are necessarily false models.”

Luke Keele (2008: 1): “Statistical models are always simplifications, and even the most complicated model will be a pale imitation of reality.”

Peter Kennedy (2008: 71): “It is now generally acknowledged that econometric models are false and there is no hope, or pretense, that through them truth will be found.”

During the crash of 2008 quantitative Analysts and risk managers found out the hard way that the assumptions underpinning the copula models used to price and hedge credit derivative products were highly sensitive to market conditions. In other words, they were not robust. See this post for more on the application of copula theory in risk management:

http://jonathankinlay.com/2017/01/copulas-risk-management/

Robustness Testing in Quantitative Research and Trading

We interpret model misspecification as model uncertainty. Robustness tests analyze model uncertainty by comparing a baseline model to plausible alternative model specifications. Rather than trying to specify models correctly (an impossible task given causal complexity), researchers should test whether the results obtained by their baseline model, which is their best attempt of optimizing the specification of their empirical model, hold when they systematically replace the baseline model specification with plausible alternatives. This is the practice of robustness testing.

Robustness testing analyzes the uncertainty of models and tests whether estimated effects of interest are sensitive to changes in model specifications. The uncertainty about the baseline model’s estimated effect size shrinks if the robustness test model finds the same or similar point estimate with smaller standard errors, though with multiple robustness tests the uncertainty likely increases. The uncertainty about the baseline model’s estimated effect size increases of the robustness test model obtains different point estimates and/or gets larger standard errors. Either way, robustness tests can increase the validity of inferences.

Robustness testing replaces the scientific crowd by a systematic evaluation of model alternatives.

Robustness in Quantitative Research

In the literature, robustness has been defined in different ways:

as same sign and significance (Leamer)
as weighted average effect (Bayesian and Frequentist Model Averaging)
as effect stability We define robustness as effect stability.

Parameter Stability and Properties of Robustness

Robustness is the share of the probability density distribution of the baseline model that falls within the 95-percent confidence interval of the baseline model. In formulaeic terms:

Robustness is left-–right symmetric: identical positive and negative deviations of the robustness test compared to the baseline model give the same degree of robustness.
If the standard error of the robustness test is smaller than the one from the baseline model, ρ converges to 1 as long as the difference in point estimates is negligible.
For any given standard error of the robustness test, ρ is always and unambiguously smaller the larger the difference in point estimates.
Differences in point estimates have a strong influence on ρ if the standard error of the robustness test is small but a small influence if the standard errors are large.

Robustness Testing in Four Steps

Define the subjectively optimal specification for the data-generating process at hand. Call this model the baseline model.
Identify assumptions made in the specification of the baseline model which are potentially arbitrary and that could be replaced with alternative plausible assumptions.
Develop models that change one of the baseline model’s assumptions at a time. These alternatives are called robustness test models.
Compare the estimated effects of each robustness test model to the baseline model and compute the estimated degree of robustness.

Model Variation Tests

Model variation tests change one or sometimes more model specification assumptions and replace with an alternative assumption, such as:

change in set of regressors
change in functional form
change in operationalization
change in sample (adding or subtracting cases)

Example: Functional Form Test

The functional form test examines the baseline model’s functional form assumption against a higher-order polynomial model. The two models should be nested to allow identical functional forms. As an example, we analyze the ‘environmental Kuznets curve’ prediction, which suggests the existence of an inverse u-shaped relation between per capita income and emissions.

Note: grey-shaded area represents confidence interval of baseline model

Another example of functional form testing is given in this review of Yield Curve Models:

http://jonathankinlay.com/2018/08/modeling-the-yield-curve/

Random Permutation Tests

Random permutation tests change specification assumptions repeatedly. Usually, researchers specify a model space and randomly and repeatedly select model from this model space. Examples:

sensitivity tests (Leamer 1978)
artificial measurement error (Plümper and Neumayer 2009)
sample split – attribute aggregation (Traunmüller and Plümper 2017)
multiple imputation (King et al. 2001)

We use Monte Carlo simulation to test the sensitivity of the performance of our Quantitative Equity strategy to changes in the price generation process and also in model parameters:

http://jonathankinlay.com/2017/04/new-longshort-equity/

Structured Permutation Tests

Structured permutation tests change a model assumption within a model space in a systematic way. Changes in the assumption are based on a rule, rather than random. Possibilities here include:

sensitivity tests (Levine and Renelt)
jackknife test
partial demeaning test

Example: Jackknife Robustness Test

The jackknife robustness test is a structured permutation test that systematically excludes one or more observations from the estimation at a time until all observations have been excluded once. With a ‘group-wise jackknife’ robustness test, researchers systematically drop a set of cases that group together by satisfying a certain criterion – for example, countries within a certain per capita income range or all countries on a certain continent. In the example, we analyse the effect of earthquake propensity on quake mortality for countries with democratic governments, excluding one country at a time. We display the results using per capita income as information on the x-axes.

Upper and lower bound mark the confidence interval of the baseline model.

Robustness Limit Tests

Robustness limit tests provide a way of analyzing structured permutation tests. These tests ask how much a model specification has to change to render the effect of interest non-robust. Some examples of robustness limit testing approaches:

unobserved omitted variables (Rosenbaum 1991)
measurement error
under- and overrepresentation
omitted variable correlation

For an example of limit testing, see this post on a review of the Lognormal Mixture Model:

http://jonathankinlay.com/2018/08/the-lognormal-mixture-variance-model/

Summary on Robustness Testing

Robustness tests have become an integral part of research methodology. Robustness tests allow to study the influence of arbitrary specification assumptions on estimates. They can identify uncertainties that otherwise slip the attention of empirical researchers. Robustness tests offer the currently most promising answer to model uncertainty.

September 15, 2020

Yield Curve Construction Models – Tools & Techniques

Yield curve models are used to price a wide variety of interest rate-contingent claims. The existence of several different competing methods of curve construction available and there is no single standard method for constructing yield curves and alternate procedures are adopted in different business areas to suit local requirements and market conditions. This fragmentation has often led to confusion amongst some users of the models as to their precise functionality and uncertainty as to which is the most appropriate modeling technique. In addition, recent market conditions, which inter-alia have seen elevated levels of LIBOR basis volatility, have served to heighten concerns amongst some risk managers and other model users about the output of the models and the validity of the underlying modeling methods.

The purpose of this review, which was carried out in conjunction with research analyst Xu Bai, now at Morgan Stanley, was to gain a thorough understanding of current methodologies, to validate their theoretical frameworks and implementation, identify any weaknesses in the current modeling methodologies, and to suggest improvements or alternative approaches that may enhance the accuracy, generality and robustness of modeling procedures.

Yield Curve Construction Models

December 10, 2019

Modeling Asset Processes

Introduction

Over the last twenty five years significant advances have been made in the theory of asset processes and there now exist a variety of mathematical models, many of them computationally tractable, that provide a reasonable representation of their defining characteristics.

While the Geometric Brownian Motion model remains a staple of stochastic calculus theory, it is no longer the only game in town. Other models, many more sophisticated, have been developed to address the shortcomings in the original. There now exist models that provide a good explanation of some of the key characteristics of asset processes that lie beyond the scope of models couched in a simple Gaussian framework. Features such as mean reversion, long memory, stochastic volatility, jumps and heavy tails are now readily handled by these more advanced tools.

In this post I review a critical selection of asset process models that belong in every financial engineer’s toolbox, point out their key features and limitations and give examples of some of their applications.

Modeling Asset Processes

September 3, 2019

Dynamic Time Warping

September 12, 2018

How to Bulletproof Your Portfolio

Summary

How to stay in the market and navigate the rocky terrain ahead, without risking hard won gains.

A hedging program to get you out of trouble at the right time and step back in when skies are clear.

Even a modest ability to time the market can produce enormous dividends over the long haul.

Investors can benefit by using quantitative market timing techniques to strategically adjust their market exposure.

Market timing can be a useful tool to avoid major corrections, increasing investment returns, while reducing volatility and drawdowns.

The Role of Market Timing

Investors have enjoyed record returns since the market lows in March 2009, but sentiment is growing that we may be in the final stages of this extended bull run. The road ahead could be considerably rockier. How do you stay the course, without risking all those hard won gains?

The smart move might be to take some money off the table at this point. But there could be adverse tax effects from cashing out and, besides, you can’t afford to sit on the sidelines and miss another 3,000 points on the Dow. Hedging tools like index options, or inverse volatility plays such as the VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Short-Term ETN (NASDAQ:XIV), are too expensive. What you need is a hedging program that will get you out of trouble at the right time – and step back in when the skies are clear. We’re talking about a concept known as market timing.

Market timing is the ability to switch between risky investments such as stocks and less-risky investments like bonds by anticipating the overall trend in the market. It’s extremely difficult to do. But as Nobel prize-winning economist Robert C. Merton pointed out in the 1980s, even a modest ability to time the market can produce enormous dividends over the long haul. This is where quantitative techniques can help – regardless of the nature of your underlying investment strategy.

Let’s assume that your investment portfolio is correlated with a broad US equity index – we’ll use the SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF (NYSEARCA:SPY) as a proxy, for illustrative purposes. While the market has more than doubled over the last 15 years, this represents a modest average annual return of only 7.21%, accompanied by high levels of volatility of 20.48% annually, not to mention sizeable drawdowns in 2000 and 2008/09.

Fig. 1 SPY – Value of $1,000 Jan 1999 – Jul 2014

Source: Yahoo! Finance, 2014

The aim of market timing is to smooth out the returns by hedging, and preferably avoiding altogether, periods of market turmoil. In other words, the aim is to achieve the same, or better, rates of return, with lower volatility and drawdown.

Market Timing with the VIX Index

The mechanism we are going to use for timing our investment is the CBOE VIX index, a measure of anticipated market volatility in the S&P 500 index. It is well known that the VIX and S&P 500 indices are negatively correlated – when one rises, the other tends to fall. By acting ahead of rising levels of the VIX index, we might avoid difficult market conditions when market volatility is high and returns are likely to be low. Our aim would be to reduce market exposure during such periods and increase exposure when the VIX is in decline.

Forecasting the VIX index is a complex topic in its own right. The approach I am going to take here is simpler: instead of developing a forecasting model, I am going to use an algorithm to “trade” the VIX index. When the trading model “buys” the VIX index, we will assume it is anticipating increased market volatility and lighten our exposure accordingly. When the model “sells” the VIX, we will increase market exposure.

Don’t be misled by the apparent simplicity of this approach: a trading algorithm is often much more complex in its structure than even a very sophisticated forecasting model. For example, it can incorporate many different kinds of non-linear behavior and dynamically adjust its investment horizon. The results from such a trading algorithm, produced by our quantitative modeling system, are set out in the figure below.

Fig. 2a -VIX Trading Algorithm – Equity Curve

Source: TradeStation Technologies Inc.

Fig. 2b -VIX Trading Algorithm – Performance Analysis

Source: TradeStation Technologies Inc.

Not only is the strategy very profitable, it has several desirable features, including a high percentage of winning trades. If this were an actual trading system, we might want to trade it in production. But, of course, it is only a theoretical model – the VIX index itself is not tradable – and, besides, the intention here is not to trade the algorithm, but to use it for market timing purposes.

Our approach is straightforward: when the algorithm generates a “buy” signal in the VIX, we will reduce our exposure to the market. When the system initiates a “sell”, we will increase our market exposure. Trades generated by the VIX algorithm are held for around five days on average, so we can anticipate rebalancing our portfolio approximately weekly. In what follows, we will assume that we adjust our position by trading the SPY ETF at the closing price the day following a signal from the VIX model. We will apply trading commissions of $1c per share and a further $1c per share in slippage.

Hedging Strategies

Let’s begin our evaluation by looking at the outcome if we adjust the SPY holding in our market portfolio by 20% whenever the VIX model generates a signal. When the model buys the VIX, we will reduce our original SPY holding by 20%, and when it sells the VIX, we will increase our SPY holding by 20%, using the original holding in the long only portfolio as a baseline. We refer to this in the chart below as the MT 20% hedge portfolio.

Fig. 3 Value of $1000 – Long only vs MT 20% hedge portfolio

Source: Yahoo! Finance, 2014

The hedge portfolio dominates the long only portfolio over the entire period from 1999, producing a total net return of 156% compared to 112% for the SPY ETF. Not only is the rate of return higher, at 10.00% vs. 7.21% annually, volatility in investment returns is also significantly reduced (17.15% vs 20.48%). Although it, too, suffers substantial drawdowns in 2000 and 2008/09, the effects on the hedge portfolio are less severe. It appears that our market timing approach adds value.

The selection of 20% as a hedge ratio is somewhat arbitrary – an argument can be made for smaller, or larger, hedge adjustments. Let’s consider a different scenario, one in which we exit our long-only position entirely, whenever the VIX algorithm issues a buy order. We will re-buy our entire original SPY holding whenever the model issues a sell order in the VIX. We refer to this strategy variant as the MT cash out portfolio. Let’s look at how the results compare.

Fig. 4 Value of $1,000 – Long only vs MT cash out portfolio

Source: Yahoo! Finance, 2014

The MT cash out portfolio appears to do everything we hoped for, avoiding the downturn of 2000 almost entirely and the worst of the market turmoil in 2008/09. Total net return over the period rises to 165%, with higher average annual returns of 10.62%. Annual volatility of 9.95% is less than half that of the long only portfolio.

Finally, let’s consider a more extreme approach, which I have termed the “MT aggressive portfolio”. Here, whenever the VIX model issues a buy order we sell our entire SPY holding, as with the MT cash out strategy. Now, however, whenever the model issues a sell order on the VIX, we invest heavily in the market, buying double our original holding in SPY (i.e. we are using standard, reg-T leverage of 2:1, available to most investors). In fact, our average holding over the period turns out to be slightly lower than for the original long only portfolio because we are 100% in cash for slightly more than half the time. But the outcome represents a substantial improvement.

Fig. 5 Value of $1,000 – Long only vs. MT aggressive portfolio

Source: Yahoo! Finance, 2014

Total net returns for the MT aggressive portfolio at 330% are about three times that of the original long only portfolio. Annual volatility at 14.90% is greater than for the MT cash out portfolio due to the use of leverage. But this is still significantly lower than the 20.48% annual volatility of the long only portfolio, while the annual rate of return of 21.16% is the highest of the group, by far. And here, too, the hedge strategy succeeds in protecting our investment portfolio from the worst of the effects of downturns in 2000 and 2008.

Conclusion

Whatever the basis for their underlying investment strategy, investors can benefit by using quantitative market timing techniques to strategically adjust their market exposure. Market timing can be a useful tool to avoid major downturns, increasing investment returns while reducing volatility. This could be especially relevant in the weeks and months ahead, as we may be facing a period of greater uncertainty and, potentially at least, the risk of a significant market correction.

Disclosure: The author has no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. The author wrote this article themselves, and it expresses their own opinions. The author is not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). The author has no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.