Tag Archives: function

SPY-TLT Universal Investment Strategy 20 Year Backtest

20 year strategy backtest using Vanguard VFINX/VUSTX index funds as a proxy for SPY/TLT. The strategy uses an adaptive SPY/TLT allocation, depending of the market environment. The strategy achieves 2x the return to risk ratio and a 5x smaller max drawdown than a buy and hold S&P 500 investment. In a previous article ” The SPY-TLT Universal Investment Strategy ” I presented a simple strategy which allowed to obtain an excellent return to risk ratio only by investing in variable allocations to the SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF ( SPY) and the i Shares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: TLT ) allocations. The allocation of the SPY/TLT pair is rebalanced monthly using a modified sharpe formula. For the new month, the strategy always uses the allocation ratio which achieved the highest modified sharpe ratio for a given lookback period. Here the algorithm uses a 72 day lookback period and a volatility factor of 2.5 in the modified sharpe formula: sharpe=72 day return/72 day standard deviation ^ 2.5. Several readers asked me now to present a longer backtest of this strategy. Using the Vanguard Five Hundred Index Fund Inv ( VFINX) and the Vanguard Long Term Treasury Fund Inv (MUTF: VUSTX ) as a proxy to the SPY/TLT ETFs, here is now a 20 year backtest for the UIS strategy. These index funds are only used to do the 20 year backtest. To run the strategy you would still invest using SPY and TLT. You can also use futures (ES/UB) or leveraged ETFs ( Direxion Daily S&P 500 Bull 3X Shares ETF ( SPXL)/ Direxion Daily 30-Year Treasury Bull 3x Shares ETF ( TMF) or Direxion Daily S&P 500 Bear 3X Shares ETF ( SPXS)/ Direxion Daily 30-Year Treasury Bear 3x Shares ETF ( TMV)) instead. This is explained in detail in my previous article. With these two Vanguard funds, this is now one of the rare strategies which can be easily backtested for such a long period. In general however, I think that it is much more important, how a strategy performed after 2008. The market has changed considerably during these last years, and if you would only invest in strategies which can be backtested 20 or more years, then you would have missed most of the investment opportunities of the recent years. For the backtest, I use our QuantTrader software. This software is written in C# and allows to backtest and optimize investment strategies using this sharp maximizing approach. You see the screenshot of the results below. The upper chart shows the VFINX/VUSTX performance. The middle chart shows the allocation with red=treasury and yellow=S&P500. If you look at this allocation, then you see that the market is in fact oscillating between “risk on” bull stock markets and “risk off” bear stock markets (= bull treasury market). Overall, you can say that for buy and hold investors, treasuries have been the better investment for the last 20 years. The sharpe ratio (return to risk) of the VUSTX treasury is 0.79, while the sharpe of the VFINX S&P500 fund is only 0.5. With VFINX/VUSTX combined, the strategy achieves a sharpe of 1.28, which is more than double the return to risk ratio of a stock market investment. This means, that instead of investing 100’000$ in the U.S. stock market, using leverage, you could invest 250’000$ in the UIS strategy. This way you would have the same risk, but you would get 20%-30% annual return. The strategy shows a very smooth equity line and the real max drawdown is well below 10%. The 11.68% drawdown peak measured in 2008 was in fact only an extreme mean-reversion reaction following a near 20% treasury up spike. The max drawdown is more than 5x smaller than a buy-and-hold stock market investment. Personally I think, this is in fact the biggest argument for such a strategy. All together, we had several major market correction like the 2000 tech bubble dot-com crisis, the 2001 9/11 attack, the 2003 Gulf war, the 2008 subprime crisis, the 2011 European sovereign debt crisis and lots of other smaller corrections. The UIS strategy always performed very well during these corrections. From 1995 to 2007, the UIS strategy had quite a stable 12% annual return. After 2008, the UIS return increased to 15% annually. The main reason for this improvement is the increased volatility and momentum factors present in the market. After the 55% correction of the U.S. stock market in 2008, VFINX had a lot to recover the last years. In fact, the normal average growth rate of the S&P 500 is about 9% and not 15% like it was during the last 5 years. The UIS strategy “likes” market corrections from time to time, because then the strategy can profit during the down market from treasuries going up and when the market goes up again, then the strategy can profit a second time from a higher stock market allocation. This way, the strategy can return more than each of the two single ETFs. If you want to check the monthly investments of this strategy, then you can download here the full backtest Excel file: 20 year performance log UIS VFINX VUSTX (click to enlarge) Source: Logical-invest.com

GDF Suez Shares Should Get Re-Rated

GDF Suez is uniquely positioned to capture the benefits of changing energy markets. Its vertical integration mitigates against the fallout from commodities, especially in LNG. The shares should see a re-rating as management delivers growth ahead of the sector. One of my core names for exposure to the mega trends of energy. The positioning of GDF Suez in global energy across various value chains is unique. Management has highlighted an area of strength and taken the next strategic step in the current energy cycle: Return to growth. That should see a positive reaction and lead to a re-rating of the shares. GDF Suez has highlighted its areas of strength for growth , Asia, Middle East and Africa. The company is building these as core growth regions. That makes sense given its already strong position in those regions and above average growth. Looking through current weakness, energy demand growth will likely exceed 7% CAGR to the end of the decade (source: IEA). Management also has proactively moved to the post deleveraging phase by committing to new growth. The company targets growth capex of Eur6.5-7.5bn for 2014-18. It is looking to dedicate about 20-30% of growth capex spend to Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. With that, GDF Suez stands out, not only amongst European utilities who are undergoing slow and painful transitions in order to identify new growth opportunities. It also stacks up very well against the global oil and gas sector that is struggling to deliver reserve growth whilst cash flows are strained by weak commodities. Asia, Africa, the Middle East are regions of strong new growth so it makes sense that they are at the core for GDF Suez. IPP, LNG and energy services are the key growth businesses, in line with its tested strategy. The company’s target regions account for over 80% of global energy growth over the next 20 years. The latest guidance implies power capacity growth in the above target regions of 6% CAGR, 2P reserves growth of 8.8% CAGR and energy services revenue growth of 7.9% CAGR to 2020 on the target areas. The regions currently account for c 7% of Ebitda. Visibility on growth is very good. The pipeline provides for 30% power capacity growth to 2020. I would only consider capacity under construction at this stage, which is just short of 1GW. The IPP model is tried and tested and merchant risk very low. GDF Suez has a very good track record of securing PPA’s at good conditions and in strong local partnerships. I expect that and the strong execution capability to continue to as the basic earnings driver. E&P reserves growth of 5-7% is at the high end of the sector, and the gas focus in line with the broader sector. But I see GDF Suez better hedged than the average of the E&P sector, because of its vertical presence all the way through the chain. With that, I think it stands a better chance of profitable reserves conversion to earnings growth to 2020. LNG is a risky sector at this moment. Asian demand weakness and weak oil prices are leading to price falls. Over-capacity is creeping into the market. New capacity build risks not meeting its hurdle rates. Suez currently has a feasibility study under way for an Indonesian LNG terminal. There I see risk of delay. The same goes for the floating LNG terminal project in India. I also see risk of lower utilization of the US terminals. The US Cameron liquefaction terminal may escape the heart of the storm, it won’t come to market before 2018. But the company’s vertically globally integrated business provides for mitigation. Pricing risk for the Japan and Taiwan LNG contracts is in my view relatively low as they were concluded at very tight pricing in the first place. Eventually, gas demand in Asia will recover. On average, the IEA estimates demand growth of 4%pa to 2035 with corresponding infrastructure investment requirement. The industry estimates over USD 100bn of liquefaction and storage capex requirement alone. And for that, the company’s positioning across upstream, infrastructure and power generation is second to none. The changing structure of energy markets with distributed generation, renewables and gas/power convergence are all playing to the company’s strength. The energy services business will be a major beneficiary and additionally deliver strong synergies to these new growth businesses. It will also be a growth driver in its own right in China and a door opener for other business development. GDF Suez has a unique advantage through the combination of its IPP, global gas and energy services business. That is in my view the true attraction of the company. Sentiment will likely be cautious on commodities, but should increasingly return to reflect the early move and strong position on long term growth. This is one of my core names for exposure on the global energy mega trends. The shares trade on a 20% discount to the European utilities sector and offer a well supported 5% yield. Editor’s Note: This article discusses one or more securities that do not trade on a major exchange. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks.

The Time To Hedge Is Now! January 2015 Update

Summary Brief overview and links to earlier articles in the series. Why Buy-and-hold investors should consider hedging. Sell your January 2014 puts in Terex (TEX) before expiration this Friday and lock in profits. Improved buy prices on select candidates. Discussion of the risks inherent to this strategy versus not being hedged. Back to December Update – Part II Strategy Overview If you are new to this series you will likely find it useful to refer back to the original articles, all of which listed with links in this instablog . In the Part I of this series I provided an overview of a strategy to protect an equity portfolio from heavy losses in a market crash. In Part II, I provided more explanation of how the strategy works and gave the first two candidate companies to choose from as part of a diversified basket using put option contracts. I also provided an explanation of the candidate selection process and an example of how it can help grow both capital and income over the long term. Part III provided a basic tutorial on options. Part IV explained my process for selecting options and Part V explained why I do not use ETFs for hedging. Parts VI through IX primarily provide additional candidates for use in the strategy. Part X explains my rules that guide my exit strategy. All of the above articles include varying views that I consider to be worthy of contemplation regarding possible triggers that could lead to another sizeable market correction. Part II of the December Update (linked at the top of this article) explains how I intend to roll my positions. I want to make it very clear that I am not predicting a market crash. Bear markets are a part of investing in equities, plain and simple. I like to take some of the pain out of the downside to make it easier to stick to my investing plan: select superior companies that have sustainable advantages, consistently rising dividends and excellent long-term growth prospects. Then I like to hold onto to those investments unless the fundamental reasons for which I bought them in the first place changes. Investing long term works! I just want to reduce the occasional pain inflicted by bear markets. Why Hedge? With the current bull market turning 70 months now, it is now more than double the average duration (30.7 months) of all bull markets since 1929. The current bull is now longer in duration than all but three bull markets during that time period (out of a total of 15). So, I am preparing for the inevitable next bear market. I do not know when the strategy will pay off, and I will be the first to admit that I am probably earlier than I suggested at the beginning of this series. However, I do feel confident that the probability of experiencing another major bear market will rise in the coming year(s). It may be 2015, 2016 or even 2017, before we take another hit like we did in 2000-2002 or 2008-09. But I am not willing to risk losing 50 percent (or more) of my portfolio to save the less than two percent per year cost of a rolling insurance hedge. I am convinced that the longer the duration of the bull market lasts the worse the resulting bear market will be. Sell TEX January 2015 puts now! I don’t like to hold short positions, especially on dividend paying stocks. Even though the dividend is tiny on TEX, I recommend selling the puts now. I sold two of my TEX put positions yesterday ($26 and $27 strikes) and am happy with my returns (680% and 809%, respectively). I also sold the last batch today ($23 strike) for a small profit. The bull market churned ever higher while we remained hedged and one of our candidates fell enough to help offset part of the cost of the hedge. I hope you held TEX puts in your hedge! Overall the hedge position (all 18 positions) lost money. All in all, because of the one good outcome my portfolio was hedged for most of last year for less than one percent. I estimate that this next year may cost over 1.5 percent of our total portfolio (I pay for mine by giving up a portion of my dividend income) if we buy all the puts today. However, there are some events coming up soon that could spur U.S. equities higher in the short term, depending on the outcomes. Pending Economic Events The biggest two events that are on the schedule, in my view are the European Central Bank [ECB] decision to increase quantitative easing coming on January 22 and the Greek election set for January 25, just three days later. I want to thank Mercy Jimenez for reminding me of these two important dates coming in the third week of this month. The ECB decision could provide a boost, if QE is initiated and is large enough to matter, to U.S. equities via the carry trade. Those with access to very low cost money in the Euro Zone will borrow cheaply there and reinvest where they expect high and safer returns; that would be the U.S as investors continue their flight to perceived safety). Both U.S. bonds and equities stand to benefit if the vote is positive. Currently, the plan does not seem settled as to the total amount of QE that the ECB will provide. Most recently I have read articles stating that 500 billion euros (just under $600 billion U.S.) is likely. However, a few days ago I read that the ECB was planning a one trillion euro (almost $1.2 trillion U.S.). I suspect the lower amount is more likely. On the other hand, if the measure does not pass, there could be a negative reaction as those who had positioned investments to take advantage of an expected run up would probably unwind those positions. The Greek election outcome appears to favor the Syriza party which is anti-bailout and wants to renegotiate the austerity terms required for more loans. If the Syriza party prevails and negotiations stall, it could bring the sovereign debt question in Europe back to the forefront. That could either hurt or help U.S. equities, depending upon how the outcome and its consequences are interpreted. If both votes go sour, then we want to be hedged because all bad news from Europe could cause enough fear in the global investors to go to cash. U.S. bonds would probably find support, but a risk off environment would likely result in a correction to equities. Being partially hedged at this point is a good bet. If the vote on QE by the ECB passes, we could get a good opportunity to buy more puts at lower premiums in the near future. Patience is the key. Current Premiums on select Candidates In this section I will provide current quotes and other data points on selected candidates that pose an improved entry point from the last update. All quotes and information are based upon the close on Wednesday, January 14, 2015. I am calculating the possible gain percentage, total estimated dollar amount of hedge protection (Tot Est. $ Hedge) and the percent cost of portfolio using the “Last Premium” amount shown. This was the last premium paid on the last transaction of the day and provides a more accurate example of the cost and potential for each trade. Please remember that all calculations of the percent cost of portfolio are based upon a $100,000 equity portfolio. If you have an equity portfolio of $400,000 you will need to increase the number of contracts by a factor of four. Also, the hedge amount provided is predicated upon a 30 percent drop in equities during an economic recession and owning eight hedge positions that provide protection that approximates $30,000 for each $100,000 of equities. So, you should pick eight candidates from the list and make sure that the hedge amounts total to about $30,000. Since each option represents 100 shares of the underlying stock, we cannot be extremely precise, but we can get very close. Another precaution: do not try to use this hedge strategy for the fixed income portion of your portfolio. If the total value of your portfolio is $400,000, but $100,000 of that is in bonds or preferred stocks, use this strategy to hedge against the remaining $300,000 of stocks held in the portfolio (assuming that is all that is left). This is also not meant to hedge against other assets such as real estate, collectibles or precious metals. Goodyear Tire & Rubber (NASDAQ: GT ) Current Price Target Price Strike Price Bid Premium Ask Premium Last Premium Poss. % Gain Tot Est. $ Hedge % Cost of Portfolio $25.43 $8.00 $15.00 $0.10 $0.65 $0.26 2592 $4,044 0.16% GT stock is actually slightly lower than it was at the time of the last update. But the potential gain is better if you can get in near the latest premium paid. Truck and SUV sales in the U.S. are improving due to lower gas prices, but sales of sedans and economy autos are dropping. Total sales for autos should be relatively flat with profits rising from a higher margin mix. But volume is likely to fall and that spells reduced sales for tire companies like GT. I don’t expect a major drop in share price without a recession, but we could see some gradual downside movement over the coming months. You will still need six January 2016 GT put option contract, but the cost drops significantly to cover one eighth of a $100,000 equity portfolio. Seagate Technology (NASDAQ: STX ) Current Price Target Price Strike Price Bid Premium Ask Premium Last Premium Poss. % Gain Tot Est. $ Hedge % Cost of Portfolio $64.59 $24.00 $45.00 $0.53 $0.57 $0.54 3789 $4,092 0.11% We will need a total of two June 2015 STX put options with a strike of $45 to complete this position at current pricing levels for each $100,000 in portfolio value. The actual last premium was listed as $0.47 which is below the bid premium. That is not likely to happen, so I split the difference between the bid and ask price to get $0.54 and used that for the calculations. The cost per month is considerably lower using June options than using January 2016 options. CarMax (NYSE: KMX ) Current Price Target Price Strike Price Bid Premium Ask Premium Last Premium Poss. % Gain Tot Est. $ Hedge % Cost of Portfolio $63.42 $16.00 $35.00 $0.45 $0.65 $0.60 3067 $3,680 0.12% We will need two January 2016 KMX put options with a strike of $35 to complete this position for each $100,000 in portfolio value. Royal Caribbean Cruises (NYSE: RCL ) Current Price Target Price Strike Price Bid Premium Ask Premium Last Premium Poss. % Gain Tot Est. $ Hedge % Cost of Portfolio $81.94 $22.00 $57.50 $0.85 $0.96 $0.91 3801 $3,459 0.09% We need only one June 2015 RCL put option contract to fill this position and protect against approximately $3,459 in loss on a $100,000 portfolio. United Continental Holdings (NYSE: UAL ) Current Price Target Price Strike Price Bid Premium Ask Premium Last Premium Poss. % Gain Tot Est. $ Hedge % Cost of Portfolio $64.05 $18.00 $35.00 $0.29 $0.64 $0.46 3596 $3,308 0.09% We need two June 2015 UAL put option contracts to fill this position and protect against approximately $3,308 in loss on a $100,000 portfolio. Currently the June contracts are more cost effective than the January 2015 contracts. L Brands (NYSE: LB ) Current Price Target Price Strike Price Bid Premium Ask Premium Last Premium Poss. % Gain Tot Est. $ Hedge % Cost of Portfolio $82.12 $20.00 $50.00 $0.80 $1.00 $0.85 3429 $5,830 0.17% We need two January 2016 LB put options to provide the indicated loss coverage for each $100,000 in portfolio value. Those of you who have been following the series will notice that I have increased the strike price from $40 to $50 here resulting in a significant rise in the amount hedged. Marriott International (NASDAQ: MAR ) Current Price Target Price Strike Price Bid Premium Ask Premium Last Premium Poss. % Gain Tot Est. $ Hedge % Cost of Portfolio $76.57 $30.00 $50.00 $1.00 $1.20 $0.95 1718 $3,780 0.22% We need two January 2016 MAR put option contracts to provide the indicated loss coverage for each $100,000 in portfolio value. Since the last premium was below the bid I chose to split the difference between the bid and ask premium and used $1.10 as the premium for the calculations. Micron Technology (NASDAQ: MU ) Current Price Target Price Strike Price Bid Premium Ask Premium Last Premium Poss. % Gain Tot Est. $ Hedge % Cost of Portfolio $30.05 $10.00 $17.00 $0.53 $0.59 $0.55 1173 $3,870 0.33%                   We need six January 2016 MU put option contracts to provide the indicated loss coverage for each $100,000 in portfolio value. The cost of these contracts is coming down slowly because the stock price has fallen since the last update. I will probably not add much, if any, of this candidate to my hedge unless I can get a better premium in the future Williams-Sonoma (NYSE: WSM ) Current Price Target Price Strike Price Bid Premium Ask Premium Last Premium Poss. % Gain Tot Est. $ Hedge % Cost of Portfolio $76.99 $20.00 $55.00 $1.40 $1.90 $1.43 2348 $3,357 0.14% We need only one January 2016 WSM put option contract to provide the indicated loss coverage for each $100,000 in portfolio value. In the last update article I used May options. Since then the pricing in the January contracts has become more favorable. Level 3 Communications (NYSE: LVLT ) Current Price Target Price Strike Price Bid Premium Ask Premium Last Premium Poss. % Gain Tot Est. $ Hedge % Cost of Portfolio $47.88 $15.00 $40.00 $1.15 $1.35 $1.20 1983 $4,760 0.24% The position shown above would require two June 2015 LVLT put option contracts to provide the indicated loss coverage for each $100,000 in portfolio value. Remember that these options expire in June 2015 and will require us to replace them at additional cost. Even though the cost has come down by almost a third, I do not intend to add LVLT contracts at this time. I will wait for better pricing or use another candidate for my hedge. Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS ) and Sotheby’s (NYSE: BID ) option costs are still too high to be considered at this time. I plan to wait for better entry points before adding to my hedge position with these candidates. Summary My top eight choices from the list above includes LB, KMX, GT, WSM, MAR, RCL, STX and UAL. That group (using the put option contracts suggested above) should provide approximately $31,550 in downside protection against a 30 percent market correction at a cost of 1.1 percent of a $100,000 portfolio. Granted, four of the candidates will need to be replaced by May or June which will add to the total cost, but we should still be able to keep the total hedge cost below two percent for the year. Brief Discussion of Risks If an investor decides to employ this hedge strategy, each individual needs to do some additional due diligence to identify which candidates they wish to use and which contracts are best suited for their respective risk tolerance. I do not always choose the option contract with the highest possible gain or the lowest cost. I should also point out that in many cases I will own several different contracts with different strikes on one company. I do so because as the strike rises the hedge kicks in sooner, but I buy a mix to keep the overall cost down. My goal is to commit approximately two percent (but up to three percent, if necessary) of my portfolio value to this hedge per year. If we need to roll positions before expiration there will be additional costs involved, so I try to hold down costs for each round that is necessary. I do not expect to need to roll positions more than once, if that, before we see the benefit of this strategy work. I want to discuss risk for a moment now. Obviously, if the market continues higher beyond January 2016 all of our new option contracts could expire worthless. I have never found insurance offered for free. We could lose all of our initial premiums paid plus commissions. If I expected that to happen I would not be using the strategy myself. But it is one of the potential outcomes and readers should be aware of it. And if that happens, I will initiate another round of put options for expiration beyond January 2016, using from up to three percent of my portfolio to hedge for another year. The longer the bull maintains control of the market the more the insurance will cost me. But I will not be worrying about the next crash. Peace of mind has a cost. I just like to keep it as low as possible. Because of the uncertainty in terms of how much longer this bull market can be sustained and the potential risk versus reward potential of hedging versus not hedging, it is my preference to risk a small percentage of my principal (perhaps as much as three percent per year) to insure against losing a much larger portion of my capital (30 to 50 percent). But this is a decision that each investor needs to make for themselves. I do not commit more than five percent of my portfolio value to an initial hedge strategy position and have never committed more than ten percent to such a strategy in total before a major market downturn has occurred. The ten percent rule may come into play when a bull market continues much longer than expected (like three years instead of 18 months). And when the bull continues for longer than is supported by the fundamentals, the bear that follows is usually deeper than it otherwise would have been. In other words, I expect a much less powerful bear market if one begins early in 2015; but if the bull can sustain itself into late 2015 or beyond, I would expect the next bear market to be more like the last two. If I am right, protecting a portfolio becomes ever more important as the bull market continues. As always, I welcome comments and will try to address any concerns or questions either in the comments section or in a future article as soon as I can. The great thing about Seeking Alpha is that we can agree to disagree and, through respectful discussion, learn from each other’s experience and knowledge. Additional disclosure: I hold put option positions in each of the stocks listed in the article.