Index | Recent Threads | Who's Online | Search

Posts: 100    Pages: 10    Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last Post
New Thread
This topic has been viewed 5076 times and has 99 replies
judgetrade
Re: Improvement of my Ranking System

Here are the corrected statistics with variable slippage ...

Attachment aaa.png (202534 bytes) (Download count: 256)


Nov 18, 2019 2:15:57 AM       
Edit 1 times, last edit by judgetrade at Nov 18, 2019 2:17:07 AM
mgerstein
Re: Improvement of my Ranking System

Hi Andreras,
I do not understand your (a-b)/abs(b) formulation, sorry but my math is terrible. Could you give me the exact formula I should use?
That would be great, Thank you!!!


This is a formulation we use throughout p123 when one of the items in a %change calculation might be negative . . . the crossing-zero problem. Suppose I want to compute the % change in EPS fro, b (1.00) to a (1.20). Most folks would do it as a/b or 1.20/1.00 which produces 1.2. The make it appear as a %, we'd actually do ((a/b)-1)*100.

But suppose the prior (b) figure was minus 1.00. In that case, the standard formulation would give us 1.2/-1 which would ultimatley wind up looking like a negative 20% growth rate, the exact opposite of what we want.

The alternative crossing-zero formulation would be this: If a and b are 1.20 and 1.00 respectively, then its (1.20-1.00)/1.00 which is .20/ To express as a % its ((a-b)/abs(b))*100.

Suppose the b figure is -1.00. Now, it's 1.20 - -1.00/abs(-1.00) which is .20/1.00 = .20.

It also works if the numerator figure is negative, or if both figures are negative.



“What you have here is a variation of that I’ve been noticing — investing based on the behavior/emotions of machines and those who program them.”
That is kind of the Idea of all my models. As Quants, at least this is my definition, we hack emotions of others especially in turnaround situations where the second derivative (e.g. rate of change) happens and market participants need to catch up (and try to be faster then the others).

E.g. I do not care so much about earnings, but for example the very recent rate of change earnings.


That's fine. And as you've seen in your work, it can be quite profitable. My quibble is only with the labels. That sort of thing can't be called value or quality because it isn't. Among traditionally labeled styles, the one that works best is momentum, or a different label can be created.

When we work only for ourselves, the label is irrelevant. It only becomes an issue when we want to communicate what we're doing to others who may or may not see the formulations we're using.



I tested longer term “standard Qualtiy stuff” (like 5 Year earnings consistency), but got ridd of it a bc. Rate of change (“fundamental momentum”) seems to give better results.

When you are looking for rate of change -- something that can, as you know, be very well worth looking for -- we stepped outside the realm of Quality and moved over to growth-momentum.

The thing is, I think I can explain that by emotions of market participants emotions (my assumption could be wrong), that chase that fundamental momentum (which is kind of backed by academic papers), so I give it a try. I know that is risky, bc. I do not have a 100% or even 50% knowledge about market participant emotions, but my “intuition” tells me, it’s worth the risk.

I would still define it as quality, but in rate of change terms, but you are right its kind my own definition.



Again, we're back to labels. Quality can be but is not necessarily about "better results." Its about a mixture of results (return) and risk. and moving up in Quality can be and often is justified in the face of lower returns but also lower risk.

As I said, personal definitions are fine when we keep our work private. But when we share our ideas with others, we need to speak in terms of commonly-accepted definitions lest we cause confusion and misunderstanding and wind up with the proverbial Tower of Babel.

And its especially important in areas like designer models. I've long complained that most models are promoted/marketed horribly. You're very strong in momentum, traditional and alternative (i.e fundamental momentum) and working with related behavioral phenomenon. Own it. Articulate it, Make it yours. That's how sellers of investment-related intellectual property market/promote themselves.

Marc Gerstein
Corporate Advisor, Portfolio123
Director of Research, Chaikin Analytics, featuring <i>Power Gauge</i> model, designed on Portfolio123
Blog: https://actiquant.com
I predict the future, as soon as it becomes the past

Nov 18, 2019 7:03:53 AM       
kumar
Re: Improvement of my Ranking System

Geo,

Warran Buffet says looking at the price is gambling not investment, ETN SVXY lost 90% in one day.

Why we not able to extract performance every year by Graham and Buffet value investing. We have all required factors and formula for value investing.

Buffet says take the market sell off to buy stocks not to sell.

Any successful strategy to buy 52 weeks low and sell on 52 weeks high. In the chart and past data it looks simple and straightforward and how to achieve same in p123 and in out of sample. That is question of thought.

Thanks
Kumar

Attachment 478E996E-A29C-41E1-A56A-D9ED207FF4DB.png (788643 bytes) (Download count: 212)


Warren Buffett — 'Risk comes from not knowing what you're doing'
'Should you find yourself in a chronically leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is likely to be more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks'

Nov 18, 2019 1:57:43 PM       
Edit 2 times, last edit by kumar at Nov 18, 2019 2:11:19 PM
kumar
Re: Improvement of my Ranking System

if anyone have plan to exit the market when market is shaking/drop down you are a trader -- need to monitor the market every day,
i am moving away from trader mindset.

if anyone have plan to enter the market when market is down. you are a investor. read and follow Mr.Warran Buffet's footage.
I am leaning towards as investor.

Thanks
Kumar

Warren Buffett — 'Risk comes from not knowing what you're doing'
'Should you find yourself in a chronically leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is likely to be more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks'

Nov 18, 2019 3:55:08 PM       
geov
Re: Improvement of my Ranking System

Andreas,
The max D/D of your model = -25.46%.
From my experience you can only get such a good D/D with market timing.
Please confirm, and if possible let us know what you use.

Thanks,
Georg

Nov 18, 2019 3:57:43 PM       
geov
Re: Improvement of my Ranking System

Geo, Warran Buffet says looking at the price is gambling not investment, ETN SVXY lost 90% in one day.
Kumar

Kumar that is the reason why the model always holds 2 positions.
Also ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF seeks daily investment results, before fees and expenses, that correspond to one-half the inverse (-0.5x) of the daily performance of the S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures Index. It used to be -1.0x. So the risk is less now. If they had implemented this from the start one would "only" have lost 45% in one day.

Nov 18, 2019 4:51:57 PM       
geov
Re: Improvement of my Ranking System

Although I prefer ETF models, it is not too difficult to design a small-med-cap model with annualized return > 50% and reasonable turnover and drawdown. Here is performance from Jan-2004 with variable slippage, without and with market timing. The buy rules are based to a large degree on Yuval's recently posted screen rules.

Attachment Small-Med Caps no mkt timing.png (151152 bytes) (Download count: 195)


Attachment Small-Med Caps with mkt timing.png (152971 bytes) (Download count: 196)


Nov 18, 2019 5:59:46 PM       
Edit 2 times, last edit by geov at Nov 18, 2019 6:04:00 PM
Testious
Re: Improvement of my Ranking System

Hi Andreras,
I do not understand your (a-b)/abs(b) formulation, sorry but my math is terrible. Could you give me the exact formula I should use?
That would be great, Thank you!!!


This is a formulation we use throughout p123 when one of the items in a %change calculation might be negative . . . the crossing-zero problem. Suppose I want to compute the % change in EPS fro, b (1.00) to a (1.20). Most folks would do it as a/b or 1.20/1.00 which produces 1.2. The make it appear as a %, we'd actually do ((a/b)-1)*100.

But suppose the prior (b) figure was minus 1.00. In that case, the standard formulation would give us 1.2/-1 which would ultimatley wind up looking like a negative 20% growth rate, the exact opposite of what we want.

The alternative crossing-zero formulation would be this: If a and b are 1.20 and 1.00 respectively, then its (1.20-1.00)/1.00 which is .20/ To express as a % its ((a-b)/abs(b))*100.

Suppose the b figure is -1.00. Now, it's 1.20 - -1.00/abs(-1.00) which is .20/1.00 = .20.

It also works if the numerator figure is negative, or if both figures are negative.



“What you have here is a variation of that I’ve been noticing — investing based on the behavior/emotions of machines and those who program them.”
That is kind of the Idea of all my models. As Quants, at least this is my definition, we hack emotions of others especially in turnaround situations where the second derivative (e.g. rate of change) happens and market participants need to catch up (and try to be faster then the others).

E.g. I do not care so much about earnings, but for example the very recent rate of change earnings.


That's fine. And as you've seen in your work, it can be quite profitable. My quibble is only with the labels. That sort of thing can't be called value or quality because it isn't. Among traditionally labeled styles, the one that works best is momentum, or a different label can be created.

When we work only for ourselves, the label is irrelevant. It only becomes an issue when we want to communicate what we're doing to others who may or may not see the formulations we're using.



I tested longer term “standard Qualtiy stuff” (like 5 Year earnings consistency), but got ridd of it a bc. Rate of change (“fundamental momentum”) seems to give better results.

When you are looking for rate of change -- something that can, as you know, be very well worth looking for -- we stepped outside the realm of Quality and moved over to growth-momentum.

The thing is, I think I can explain that by emotions of market participants emotions (my assumption could be wrong), that chase that fundamental momentum (which is kind of backed by academic papers), so I give it a try. I know that is risky, bc. I do not have a 100% or even 50% knowledge about market participant emotions, but my “intuition” tells me, it’s worth the risk.

I would still define it as quality, but in rate of change terms, but you are right its kind my own definition.



Again, we're back to labels. Quality can be but is not necessarily about "better results." Its about a mixture of results (return) and risk. and moving up in Quality can be and often is justified in the face of lower returns but also lower risk.

As I said, personal definitions are fine when we keep our work private. But when we share our ideas with others, we need to speak in terms of commonly-accepted definitions lest we cause confusion and misunderstanding and wind up with the proverbial Tower of Babel.

And its especially important in areas like designer models. I've long complained that most models are promoted/marketed horribly. You're very strong in momentum, traditional and alternative (i.e fundamental momentum) and working with related behavioral phenomenon. Own it. Articulate it, Make it yours. That's how sellers of investment-related intellectual property market/promote themselves.


Mark, you said:"Suppose the b figure is -1.00. Now, it's 1.20 - -1.00/abs(-1.00) which is .20/1.00 = .20."
No,in this case the result is (1.20 - -1.00)/abs(-1)=2.2/abs(-1)=2.2 (220%).........not 0.2. Am I wrong?
Anyway, despite what you said, which is terribly right, the formula a/b used by Judgtrade genarally (and I do not know why) gives a better return.

Nov 21, 2019 3:26:42 PM       
Edit 1 times, last edit by Testious at Nov 21, 2019 3:51:45 PM
judgetrade
Re: Improvement of my Ranking System

Hi Mark,
understood! (correct labeling!).

Thank you for your hints!

Best Regards

Andreas

Nov 22, 2019 5:10:27 AM       
judgetrade
Re: Improvement of my Ranking System

Hi Georg,

yes, market timing is included:

Buy rule: (close(0,#spepscy)>ema(75,0,#spepscy)) or (close(0,#bench)>ema(75,0,#bench))
Sell rule: (close(0,#spepscy)<ema(75,0,#spepscy)) and (close(0,#bench)<ema(200,0,#bench))

My take: its very loose, e.g. it will not protect you from a 20% DD, but from a 2008 scenario.
It was out of the market in 2015 very shortly, otherwise it hold me in the market basically since
2011 which was fine so far.

Also: the SP500 Earnings are estimated by a ton of analysts, the whole market looks at that number, so they
might be wrong for prolonged time, but they correct regulary.
I invested a ton of time in macro timing the market and I have to say that this simple formula (combined with
a good ranking system) is really hard to beat.

And from what I have learned its really hard to be protected from DDs that are in the 10-25% range, so
I simply teached myself to withstand the vola and think more in terms of total return instead of
so called "volatility adjusted" return.

Also I regulary have a look at your work at (pops up every day at my screen when I open my browser!!!):

https://imarketsignals.com/bci/

Best Regards
Andreas

Nov 22, 2019 5:18:02 AM       
Edit 1 times, last edit by judgetrade at Nov 22, 2019 5:22:21 AM
Posts: 100    Pages: 10    Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
 Last Post