Author Archives: Scalper1

Market Lab Report – The VIX Volatility Model (VVM) vs. Central Banks

The massive rip tides this year caused by quantitative easing vs. the loss of confidence in central bank policies are profound. The VIX Volatility Model (VVM) which is highly sensitive to small changes in the markets is quite telling in that its self-learning nature tailors its behavior to the market environment. In a sense, it acts as a market barometer. For example, it has never had so many signal changes over the last 10 week period unless one goes back to the colossally turbulent times of 2000-2002 or 2008, both which were highly profitable periods for the model. Such frequent signal changes can be nicely profitable as a number of intrasignal 15%+ gains have materialized since the model went beta in September 2015 if trading UVXY on buy signals. In addition, a profit taking algorithm is now in place to determine when to take profits in such favorable situations as some of these fast gains went well beyond +15% as volatility spiked . That said, it is essential no signals are overridden, especially by my trying to second guess the model in this rip-tide environment, as some signals can produce such 15%+ gains (see https://www.virtueofselfishinvesting.com/reports/view/market-lab-report-how-experience-can-work-against-you ).  Still, frequent signal changes can also lead to drawdowns , depending on market conditions. For example, the model dislikes what could be called the rare periods of chaotic volatility as opposed to clean volatility such as in 2000-2002 and 2008.  During any chaotic periods which are rare, noise levels are elevated.  The model tends to have drawdowns during such periods which are characterized by strings of small losses and whipsaws, some occurring up to three times in a day which is fortunately a very rare occurrence. These drawdown periods last typically a few months or less, though can be frustrating. Further, drawdown periods are also contained to typically within -20% (using 1x XIV on sell signals and 2x UVXY on buy signals). Meanwhile, the upside trounces any such drawdown periods as shown in the backtests. But it can require a degree of patience to withstand a string of small losses, even though typically contained to within 1.5% if trading 1x ETFs such as VXX and XIV and often breakeven. Potential Issues Indeed, it would be unfortunate were the model to have such a drawdown period at this point after scoring a number of +15% intrasignal gains. When the profit taking algorithm is taken together with the signals I overrode, we would be sitting on a healthy profit at this point to easily withstand a drawdown period.  Another issue is the model could trigger a fail-safe then not re-enter the position as the market goes on an uptrend which means it would be sidelined while the market moves higher. Fortunately, this has yet to happen in the backtests or in real–time, but that does not mean it cannot happen in the future.  Another issue is the model could get whipsawed a number of times should the ETF go into a trading range while the model stays on its signal. That said, it has a maximum of three tries for each fail-safe then moves to cash until the next change in signal.  Finally, there is gap up/gap down risk with these volatility ETFs. Should the ETF gap lower the next day triggering a fail-safe, the loss could be greater than the typical -1.5% using a 1x ETF. Backtests have shown the worst case scenario was an overnight gap of 8.2% which made the total loss for that particular signal -11.2% due to two fail-safe triggers which also occurred during the signal (-8.2% – 1.5% – 1.5% = -11.2%). The flipside of this are gaps in one’s favor which have far exceeded any losses caused by gaps lower through fail-safes. Incidentally, while there is no 2x inverse volatility ETF, the reason we use only 1x XIV on sell signals is that volatility can spike overnight without warning on some catastrophic news event which would send XIV gapping lower. Meanwhile, markets generally never “melt-up” by gapping higher overnight by the same order of magnitude. And 2x UVXY would greatly benefit on spikes in volatility as it did on 8/24/15 when it gapped higher overnight by +61.9%. Incidentally, the model has never been caught in XIV on such a huge gap down as the worst has been -8.2% as noted above. My intention in sharing this with you is to make everyone aware of certain negative factors which can occur even if such occurrences are very low probability.  At present, it is easy to feel the markets are behaving in an absurd manner as the rip tides created by central banks and the global economy play out. But it goes to show that governments rule the day in excessive fashion on this 39th day as brilliantly described in legendary futures trader Ed Seykota’s book Govopoly on the 39th Day http://seykota.com/book_site/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3Otj8bTLnk. Seykota uses the 39th day as an analogy to pond ecosystems where the amount of duckweed doubles each day. It goes unnoticed until after the 30th day where the presence of duckweed in the pond becomes pronounced. But by this time, it is too late to reverse its exponential growth. We are in the 39th day which means the world sits at a major tipping point as duckweed, ie, size of government, is doubling once more only to suffocate all life in the pond. Indeed, 8,000 years of history bears this out and is why fiat currencies have a limited lifetime as any leading government eventually topples. Indeed, this 39th day is a time of major transformation. Seykota says that while various crises are emerging to accelerate this transformation, his advice has been to keep a clear head and watch for the inevitable tsunamis that emerge as massive change brings massive volatility thus huge potential for profit . Indeed, the massively volatile period of 2000-2002 and 2008 were the VIX Volatility Model’s most profitable periods and in backtests, all 12-month rolling periods have been profitable regardless of the year . For example, the model trounced the major averages even in a trendless year such as 2015. A number of transformative tsunamis will occur over the next few years if history is any guide, and over the last few months, it appears one may have just begun.

Category: Uncategorized

Investors Need To Understand The Risks Of Smart Beta

By Rhea Wessel The low-yield environment has many investors seeking new sources of outperformance. One development has been the growth of so-called smart beta investments, a $400 billion ETF market with a strong flow of funds from both institutions and retail investors. But are such funds really “smart” and do they truly have the potential to boost performance? To answer such questions, CFA Institute Magazine turned to Nick Baturin, CFA , formerly head of portfolio analytics at Bloomberg. He also spoke at the CFA Institute Annual Conference in Frankfurt in 2015. In this interview, Baturin discusses the rise of smart beta, its counterpart “dumb alpha,” and the need for investors to educate themselves about risks in this area. CFA Institute: First of all, what is smart beta? Nick Baturin, CFA : Smart beta investments are funds and ETFs that have a non-traditional weighting scheme that goes beyond cap weighting. There are many different types out there – equal-weighted, inversely risk-weighted, optimized to minimize risk, fundamental-weighted, factor tilts, dividend tilts, and dividend-weighted ETFs. There’s a whole taxonomy out there. The latest entrant in this space is a hybrid product which combines several themes into one. An example is the iShares enhanced index funds. These are active funds and they trade based on some of BlackRock’s research into well-known anomalies – the value anomaly, the quality anomaly, the size anomaly – and they optimize risk as well. They act like an active management quant fund but somewhat simplified. BlackRock does not give you all of their proprietary model insights that they use for their other actively managed quant funds. They give you a dumbed-down version of that. However, they’re also charging lower fees than for their actively managed quant funds. Another thing to note about smart beta indices: They have to rebalance a lot more often than passive buy-and-hold index funds, which are cap-weighted and typically rebalance just once or twice a year. You’ve talked about “dumb alpha.” What is that? There’s a lot of marketing hype going on. When I call smart beta “dumb alpha,” that’s a view that’s somewhat non-traditional. Obviously, it wouldn’t sit well with smart beta fund providers. I call it dumb alpha because traditional quantitative investors have known about these style tilts for several decades. They bet on factors such as value and momentum, quality and size. These have been used in quant investment strategies forever. I call them generic alpha factors rather than proprietary alpha factors. The difference between generic and proprietary is that proprietary cannot be easily replicated. You have some secret sauce, perhaps, at your own firm that only you know about, whereas with a value factor or size or momentum, everyone knows about it. You can implement this in a very straightforward manner. In that sense, it’s dumb alpha because you don’t need any complex implementation engine for it. What I’ve seen with smart beta is partially a marketing effort to rebrand these traditional generic alpha factors as smart beta funds. All they do is give you exposure to these traditional, generic quant factors, but in the ETF wrapper, and they charge a higher fee. So, basically, it’s a rebranding effort in my opinion. Is the higher fee justified? Well, the higher fee can be partially justified by the higher trading costs of these funds. And certain factors do have long-term outperformance records over the market portfolio. But you have to be very judicious. With a smart beta fund, the burden of decision as to what to invest in is no longer on the fund manager. It’s now on the investor. Should smart beta strategies be included in participant retirement plans? Fundamentally weighted funds bet on the value factor, but investors can also get value-factor exposure by investing in the Vanguard Value Fund, which is a cap-weighted fund which also gives you value exposure, but a lot cheaper. You have to be judicious. You cannot expect a retail investor to know the difference between smart beta and stupid beta and to evaluate the cost versus benefit tradeoff. If you call all smart beta ETFs “smart,” that becomes a confusing soup to choose from. You have momentum, you have value, you have quality, you have size; you have fundamental-weighted, risk-weighted. It’s a complicated array of products that is exposing retail investors to a lot more choices. This will take them a long time to learn about. I don’t think they are in a position to really drill down in much detail. Would I include smart beta in participant retirement plans? Possibly, but you have to select low-cost versions implementing well-known ideas that have been demonstrated to work over a long time and in different markets, like a value tilt. That’s a pretty solid factor. That’s one of the best ones out there. Is a fundamentally weighted index a good way to capture that? A fundamental index comes with additional attributes (factor exposures other than value) that are offered as a bundled deal. In that sense, a pure value tilt is probably a better exposure vehicle for retirement plans. If you are a retail investor, you are typically not sophisticated, and you respond to marketing and hype. It’s our job as investment managers to be honest with these investors and really explain performance beyond the hype. They have to know the risks and the rewards of investing in these products, and there are risks. The term smart beta is a great marketing slogan, and it has caught on. What are the risks? You may have a period of massive underperformance of a particular strategy. There’s a lot of academic research that says that actively managed funds collectively underperform passive cap-weighted indices in the long run. Vanguard founder John Bogle thinks that everything that’s not an index fund is a fraud. But does it mean that the market is truly efficient and there are no anomalies? No. There are anomalies. And there are risks – mainly, that any strategy will underperform. Let’s say everybody in the world piles into value strategies. Then value will stop working. The market-cap-weighted index is the only index that can theoretically be held by every investor in the market. You will all get the same exposure. But in the real world, there will always be some winners and some losers. After a lot of dollars flow into these smart beta funds, they will eventually stop working. We’ll have cut off the branch we were sitting on. What’s next in the world of smart beta? I’d say hybrid products that erase the boundary between active management and smart beta are where things are headed. Those are truly multi-factor, risk-aware investment strategies. These haven’t caught on just yet. The largest is just over 100 million in assets. That’s not a lot by the standards of the ETF market. But, nevertheless, these hybrid products that combine several anomalies in a risk-controlled way under one vehicle will become popular. It depends on the performance and the marketing. I think the marketing is a huge aspect of it all. We live in a low-yield environment with investors who are desperate to outperform the traditional indices and asset classes, so I think marketing has a huge role to play in whether or not these hybrid products catch on. What should investors watch out for in smart beta? There are definitely things to watch out for. I’d say don’t start out cold. You’ve got to educate yourself. Beware of risks. Beware of costs. Invest in more robust ideas, like value. Momentum isn’t robust. On that basis, my heart lies with lower-cost solutions that offer you a cheap value tilt. These are traditional cap-weighted value funds. They score highly for me because they are cheap and deliver on that factor tilt. There’s going to be periods of underperformance. At least over the very long term, you stand a chance of outperforming traditional cap-weighted indices. Disclaimer: Please note that the content of this site should not be construed as investment advice, nor do the opinions expressed necessarily reflect the views of CFA Institute.

Chickens And Eggs

Are you a chicken farmer, or an egg farmer? Chicken farmers raise chickens for their meat. Egg farmers raise chickens for what they lay. Investors who plan to sell their stocks to pay for college or to buy a second home are chicken farmers. Investors who hope to use the income from their investments are egg farmers. The financial press doesn’t understand egg farmers. Every day they report market prices and how they’ve changed. But they almost never report on dividends. This bias sometimes causes income-oriented egg-farmer investors to forget who they are and believe that they are chicken farmers. If they get confused, they may have a hard time reaching their goals. Prices are volatile. If you’re a chicken farmer, when you buy, and especially, when you sell, is extremely important. A chicken farmer needs to watch the market like a hawk. But if you’re an egg farmer, the most striking aspect of dividend payments is how boring they are. They just don’t jump around very much. Both kinds of portfolios need oversight, but managing a dividend stream is different. Risk doesn’t come from market swings, but from factors that endanger a company’s ability to earn profits and pay investors. Egg farmers like bear markets, especially bear markets that don’t threaten corporate revenues. When the market falls, investors can adjust their portfolios without taking gains and paying taxes. By contrast, chicken farmers hate it when prices fall. But chicken farmers love mergers and acquisitions. The buyer almost always has to pay a premium. But for egg farmers, takeovers just complicate things. Acquirers – especially serial acquirers – usually aren’t as generous with their dividends. Both approaches are valid, but they meet fundamentally different needs. So you never have to ask which comes first.