RS Primer

December 29, 2009

Good primer on relative strength by CSS Analytics:

I have done a lot of research in this area and the first conclusion I can make is that it should be a major portion of any trader or investors portfolio strictly because it is so durable and robust. Whether its asset classes, sectors, stocks, commodities, currencies—-you pick a time frame over the last 40-50 years and this simple method of buying strength and selling weakness has outperformed traditional buy and hold strategies. This outperformance or alpha is also robust to most transaction cost assumptions.

Four-stage model depicting how relative strength occurs:

Based on my own observation and theory I feel that a simple four-stage model best depicts how relative strength occurs and why it takes time to develop rather than occuring instantaneously. The relative strength effect is driven by behavioural feeback loops where investors sequentially pour money into the asset du jour for a plethora of reasons including positive perceived fundamentals, psychological beliefs such as fear or greed, or for positive economic or default risk factor sensitivity. Essentially it starts when certain investors create a theory such as: “emerging markets will outperform because of the accelerated pace of development” and begin to accumulate investments in assets tied to this theory (Stage 1: the early adopters). As time goes on the theory itself becomes more widely known and the rationale becomes more widely accepted. Others quickly catch on and start investing in the same idea (Stage 2: recognition and acceptance). The next stage (and longest stage) is where initial investors wait for hard proof that the idea or theory is supported by tangible evidence in a variety of forms whether economic indicators, qualitative or anectdotal accounts to mention a few. (Stage 3: validation). The “Validation Stage” tends to last long as the early investors are looking for ongoing proof that supports or refutes their theory. The nature of economic data and other information sources is that they require multiple readings to establish that a trend is in fact statistically valid. This is why it is impossible for markets to adjust instantaneously even with purely rational investors. There are two paths the validation stage can take—either the evidence to refute the theory is strong , and as a consequence momentum will fail as early investors bail out. Or if the evidence continues to support and even exceed expectations, the early investors will add to their positions alongside the second stage investors. This added money flowcements the trend and the relative strength begins to really accelerate. At this point we reach the final stage where everyone agrees that a given market is and should go up and people are hopping on the bandwagon simply because the market is going up. This is both the fastest stage and the most rewarding per unit of time (Stage 4: mania).

Posted by:


Constancy of Human Behavior

December 29, 2009

NY Magazine recently interviewed James Grant, well-known financial philosopher, to get his take on the economy and financial markets. The article is full of nuggets of wisdom, including the following:

Grant’s second cause for optimism is an observation about human nature, summed up by an epigram he borrowed from the late British economist Arthur C. Pigou: “The error of optimism dies in the crisis, but in dying it gives birth to an error of pessimism. This new error is born not an infant, but a giant.” As peculiar as our economic circumstances may seem to us right now, the way people behave has a certain reassuring constancy—which is to say, we freak out and then we get over it.

Human behavior, if left unchecked, makes it virtually impossible to generate superior investment results over time. The wide swings in optimism and pessimism that are part of the human condition present a serious challenge to the flexibility required to capitalize on investment opportunities. Rather than trying to train ourselves to be emotionless (which won’t happen), our solution is to rely on systematic relative strength models (which are emotionless.)

The reality is that there are times when we should be pessimistic and times when we should be optimistic, but without a system to overcome behavioral tendencies, we are likely to be unable to capitalize on those opportunities.

Posted by:


Diversification Mixup

December 29, 2009

One of the principles of strategic asset allocation is that you can reduce your risk by combining assets that have low or negative correlations. It requires the correlations between asset classes to be stable. Unfortunately, that is not the case. As a recent article in the Wall Street Journal points out:

As stocks retreated and recovered in the past 15 months, commodities investments moved in step with the U.S. market.

That wasn’t supposed to happen.

Investing in commodities long has been pushed as a useful way to cushion portfolio risk. “We haven’t seen the independence [in commodities returns] that you’d hope for in a diversified portfolio,” says Jay Feuerstein, chief executive of Chicago commodity-trading adviser 2100 Xenon Group.

This time, instead of moving independently of stocks, commodities have moved almost in lockstep with equities. The diversified portfolio you thought you built really isn’t diversified at all. To my way of thinking, this argues strongly in favor of tactical asset allocation where the portfolio is based on the current behavior of the individual components and not on some pretend correlation.

Posted by: