In trading and in trading-related research one could be quickly overwhelmed with the sea of ink devoted to trading strategies and the like. It is essential that you “pick your battles” so to speak. I recently finished reading Machine Trading, by Ernest Chan. Here is what I think about the book.
You probably know that even a trading strategy which is actually no different from a random walk (RW henceforth) can perform very well. Perhaps you chalk it up to short-run volatility. But in fact there is a deeper reason for this to happen, in force. If you insist on using and continuously testing a RW strategy, you will find, at some point with certainty, that it has significant outperformance.
This post explains why is that.
In multivariate volatility forecasting (4), we saw how to create a covariance matrix which is driven by few principal components, rather than a complete set of tickers. The advantages of using such factor volatility models are plentiful.
Last time we showed how to estimate a CCC and DCC volatility model. Here I describe an advancement labored by Engle and Kelly (2012) bearing the name: Dynamic equicorrelation. The idea is nice and the paper is well written.
Departing where the previous post ended, once we have (say) the DCC estimates, instead of letting the variance-covariance matrix be, we force some structure by way of averaging correlation across assets. Generally speaking, correlation estimates are greasy even without any breaks in dynamics, so I think forcing some structure is for the better.
The other day, Harvey Campbell from Duke University gave a talk where I work. The talk- bearing the exciting name “Backtesting” was based on a paper by the same name.
The authors tackle the important problem of data-snooping; we need to account for the fact that we conducted many trials until we found a strategy (or a variable) that ‘works’. Accessible explanations can be found here and here. In this day and age, the ‘story’ behind what you are doing is more important than ever, given the things you can do using your desktop/laptop.
5 weeks ago we took a look at the rising volatility in the (US) equity markets via a time-series threshold model for the VIX. The estimate suggested we are crossing (or crossed) to the more volatile regime. Here, taking somewhat different Hidden Markov Model (HMM) approach we gather more corroboration (few online references at the bottom if you are not familiar with HMM models. The word hidden since the state is ‘invisible’).
One way to help us decide is to estimate a regime switching model for the VIX, see if the volatility crossed over to the bear regime.
If you google-finance AMZN you can see the beta is 0.93. I already wrote in the past about this illusive concept. Beta is suppose to reflect the risk of an instrument with respect for example to the market. However, you can estimate this measure in all kind of ways.
THIS IS NOT INVESTMENT ADVICE. ACTING BASED ON THIS POST MAY, AND IN ALL PROBABILITY WILL, CAUSE MONETARY LOSS.
Quantile regression is now established as an important econometric tool. Unlike mean regression (OLS), the target is not the mean given x but some quantile given x. You can use it to find stocks that present good upside potential. You may think it has to do with the beta of a stock, but the beta is OLS-related, and is symmetric. High-beta stock rewards with an upside swing if the market spikes but symmetrically, you can suffer a large draw-down when the market drops. This is not an upside potential.
In the post pairs trading issues one of the problems raised was the unstable estimates of the stock’s beta with respect to the market. Here is a suggestion for a possible solution, which is not really a solution but more stuff to do to make you feel less stupid when trading based on your fragile estimates.