[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [amibroker] Mutual funds are outperforming ETFs big time, but they shouldn't...why?


  • Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:39:35 -0500
  • From: "wavemechanic" <fimdot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [amibroker] Mutual funds are outperforming ETFs big time, but they shouldn't...why?

PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links



For the past several years, ILF and MALTX are usually highly correlated with a correlation coefficient hanging around 1 but before then things were not so clean and there were periods of quite poor correlation.  However, irrespective of their correlation their portfolios are quite a bit different so they are really apples and oranges.  ILF is fixed at the S&P LA 40 Index and MALTX is whatever the manager feels like doing on any particular day but typically has about 100 positions in the fund with an average turnover rate of "X" days.  As a result, their relative performance will sometimes be very close and less so at other times.  The relative performance (%) for various periods picked at random are as follows (starting date shown to present):
 
                    MALTX           ILF
8/20/03            480                398
4/12/05            200                178
7/05/06            76                   70
6/07/07            13                    14
2/15/08             -4                    -7
8/21/08            1.4                    -4
9/14/09            11                    9
 
How they behave with any particular system is a different matter and may or may not be the same as the relative performance data which by eye appears to give the edge to the fund.
 
Bill
        
 
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: February 24, 2010 10:01 PM
Subject: [amibroker] Mutual funds are outperforming ETFs big time, but they shouldn't...why?

I ran a couple of quick tests to check out this possibility.  I used ILF and MALTX from 1 Jan 2006 to date.

2 ma xover: the fund outperformed etf by a large amount but both grossly under performed B&H.

Kirshenbaum Bands: the etf return was quite a bit greater than the fund and both considerably out performed B&H.
etf          212%               76% b&h
fund          140%                61% b&h


For this test I did a quick optimization of the system parameters and then ran the old V4.4 backtester to generate comparable results for the two securities on one run.  Running the same system with the same parameters over the same time span.

Perhaps you might want to keep poking around with this idea.
Cheers
Sid


__._,_.___


**** IMPORTANT PLEASE READ ****
This group is for the discussion between users only.
This is *NOT* technical support channel.

TO GET TECHNICAL SUPPORT send an e-mail directly to
SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com

TO SUBMIT SUGGESTIONS please use FEEDBACK CENTER at
http://www.amibroker.com/feedback/
(submissions sent via other channels won't be considered)

For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG:
http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/





Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___