|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Thanks for the link Dick! The LTCM story is fascinating. The book you mentioned is called "When Genius Failed" that goes into detail about the firm. It's been sitting on my bookshelf collecting dust for 6 months now, I'm hoping to get around to it over the holidays when I have some downtime. I do a lot of work with hedge funds and it is scary how many cases of fraud you see. In the industry rags I read, lately anyways, all I read about are fraud cases from fund managers that risked too much on one bet and then tried to hide the extent of the loss by fudging the books and then hoping to bail themselves in the months ahead. On fund in particular had a huge long position in ENWV - take a look at where it is trading now versus back in June and July. Needless to say the guy is screwed! Jason
areehoi <rhoierman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Eric,
If you trust the Hedge Fund mangers you need to read the book about
downfall of Long Term Capital the biggest hedge fund in the past
decade. It all but brought down the entire financial markets. See:
www.erisk.com/Learning/CaseStudies/ref_case_ltcm.asp
R.E. (Dick) Hoierman
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, eric paradis
<thechemistrybetweenus@xxxx> wrote:
>
> Either way, I'll trust the opinion of hedge fund
> managers with 30+ years experience who I'll assume
> their records speaks for itself.
>
>
>
> --- cwest <cwest@xxxx> wrote:
>
> > In the context of back testing a trading system, I'd
> > agree that profitable
> > outliers will impair its merit when the results are
> > measured on a risk
> > adjusted basis. In other words, an ounce
of good
> > luck if you will becomes a
> > paradox. When measuring results on a risk-adjusted
> > basis it's probably a
> > valid approach to exclude outliers provided that
> > additional risk wasn't
> > incurred to obtain the profit. Analogous to winning
> > something from a lottery
> > when the loss of the cost of a ticket isn't
> > relevant. I don't think that's
> > real-world in terms of designing and developing a
> > trading system.
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> > Of Fred
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 5:19 PM
> > To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [amibroker] Re: What metrics do you use for
> > comparing systems ?
> >
> >
> > Price ?! risk or Equity
Curve risk ?
> >
> > The problem with Sharpe is that by it punishes
> > upside "anomolies", if
> > you can call them that on the equity curve. I'll
> > take
> > uncharacteristic upside movement in the equity curve
> > every day.
> >
> > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "cwest"
> > <cwest@xxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't know anything about "Mulvaney," but it
> > seems that the
> > essence of his
> > > comments which you quoted is an effort to
> > discredit the use of the
> > standard
> > > deviation to measure risk. Not including the
> > inherent risk of
> > outliers,
> > > whether a trading system was designed to capture
> > those trades or
> > not,
> > > introduces skewing. The Sortino ratio does just
> > that--it assumes
> > that only
> > > downside risk is important.
> > >
> > > Given that a trading system is intended to
> > short-sell (as well),
> > then it's
> > > necessary to consider all price risk. I'm open to
> > any suggestions
> > that might
> > > be a better performance benchmark, but so far
> > measuring returns on a
> > > risk-adjusted basis is unequivocally the
> > consensus.
> > >
> > > Colin West
> > >
> > > _____
> > >
> > > From: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > On Behalf
> > > Of eric paradis
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 2:19 PM
> > > To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [amibroker] Re: What metrics do you
>
> use for comparing
> > systems ?
> > >
> > >
> > > You will absolutely not have a high sharpe ratio
> > if
> > > you have a long-term trend following system in
> > either
> > > equities or futures.
> > > Trend followers have made many statements as to
> > why
> > > low sharpe ratios exist in funds that average
> > 20-100%
> > > returns in any given year due to outlying trades.
> > >
> > > The low Sharpe Ratio is due to the outlying
> > winners,
> > > and their effect on the Sharpe Ratio calculation.
> > This
> > > quote, taken from trendfollowing.com, discusses
> > the
> > > negative side of using a Sharpe Ratio to calculate
> > > risk versus return-
> > >
> > > ( Mulvaney also notes that conventional
measures
> > of
> > > risk-adjusted returns (i.e. Sharpe ratio) miss the
> > > boat:
> > >
> > > "Implicitly using the standard deviation assumes
> > that
> > > the returns are normally distributed. But in
> > >
> > > fact our returns stream is very positively skewed,
> > and
> > > highly asymmetrical. Our standard
> > >
> > > deviation is extremely high but this is because of
> > the
> > > positive outliers. The standard deviation
> > >
> > > involves squaring the deviations from the mean and
> > the
> > > outliers are what really push it up. So a
> > >
> > > very strong case can be made that CTAs'
> > performance is
> > > severely penalized by the Sharpe
> > >
> > > ratio." )
> > >
> > > -Eric
> > >
> > > --- sebastiandanconia <sebastiandanconia@xxxx>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "...fwiw, very few mutual funds exceed 1.0 MSR
> > :).
> > > > Very good hedge
> > > > managers obtain 2.0+ MSR...
> > > >
> > > > Interesting! Thanks, Colin.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > S.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "cwest"
> > > > <cwest@xxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > My favorite subject/issue--performance
> > > > measurement. The most
> > > > preferred
> > > > > benchmark by which investment and/or trading
> > > > results are measured
> > > > is the
> > >
> > Sharpe ratio. However, imo there's a valid
> > > > modification one should
> > > > make to
> > > > > this measure. The Sharpe ratio assumes the
> > > > risk-free rate is the
> > > > interest
> > > > > rate of 90 day Government paper. That's
> > > > unreasonable as there are
> > > > plenty of
> > > > > alternatives that aren't classified as junk
> > > > paper--270 day BBB+
> > > > Corporate
> > > > > notes, for example. Even GM short-term paper
> > is
> > > > still pretty much
> > > > risk-free!
> > > > >
> > > > > Therefore, a modified Sharpe ratio (MSR) would
> > be:
> > > > annualized daily
> > > > average
> > > > > return less the
Corporate short-term interest
> > > > rate, divided by the
> > > > standard
> > > > > deviation of the annualized daily average
> > return,
> > > > is 'my' benchmark
> > > > for
> > > > > investment and/or trading. When calculations
> > are
> > > > annualized short-
> > > > term or
> > > > > long-term isn't too relevant.
> > > > >
> > > > > If your trading systems can't exceed 1.5
> > MSR--the
> > > > higher the number
> > > > the
> > > > > better the performance--it's back to the
> > drawing
> > > > board. fwiw, very
> > > > few
> > > > > mutual funds exceed 1.0 MSR :). Very good
> > hedge
> > > > managers obtain
> > > > 2.0+
MSR.
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
Yahoo! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping
Please note that this group is for discussion between users only.
To get support from AmiBroker please send an e-mail directly to
SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
For other support material please check also:
http://www.amibroker.com/support.html
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
|