|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
If this posts twice, apologies. I think Yahoo! ate my first one.:)
If your goal is lower volatility and you don't mind lower
performance, there's nothing wrong with that. I just didn't want you
to get the mistaken impression that there is a "best" money
management method, without regard to the concept behind the
entry/exit rules. The mix can make a big difference in what you can
expect.
Also, consider this simple test: Over the past 10 years, the SP600
Small Cap Value Index has had an average annual return of 19% (not
including dividends). It's worst correction lasted less than 6
months and it fell -37% from its all-time high at the time.
During the same time-period, the SP500 had an average annual return
of 12.53% (not counting dividends). Its worst correction lasted 2
years and it fell -47% from its all-time high at the time.
Counter to accepted wisdom, the "more-volatile" small cap index had a
SMALLER maximum drawdown AND outperformed the "less-volatile" large-
cap index. Why did that happen? According to the theory behind
volatility-based position-sizing it shouldn't have, but according to
stock-valuation theory, it's a reasonable outcome. In fact, in this
example, stock-valuation theory alone would have achieved what a
complex money-management algorithm layered on top of it could not.
First, understand the concept behind each part of your system. Then
move on to understand how the different parts compliment (or defeat)
the other parts.
JMO and FWIW.
Luck,
Sebastian
--- In equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "metastkuser"
<andysmith_999@xxxx> wrote:
> Sebastian,
>
> You wrote: "Allocating money by using volatility-based money
> management rules, you'd have less money invested in the better-
> performing asset class (small-caps) and more money invested in the
> lesser-performing asset class (large caps)."
>
> 1) I believe that is the goal -- less money invested in riskier
> small-caps, and more money in stable large-caps.
>
> 2) Your comment assuming the risk fraction does not vary with asset
> class or trade probablility. There are several dynamic money
> management techniques where the bet size is varied... I'm trying to
> test some of these now, marching through quicksand...
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, sebastiandanconia
> <no_reply@xxxx> wrote:
> > Superfragalist and I agree on something, and that is that you
should
> > test this and see how it works.
> >
> > Volatility-based fixed-fractional position sizing can be a useful
> > tool, but like any trading tool it has its strengths and
weaknesses.
> >
> > Its strength is that it reduces equity swings by diversifying
> > according to the volatility of the securities in the portfolio.
More
> > volatile stocks have less money committed to them and less
volatile
> > stocks get more money, giving you better diversification and a
> > smoother equity curve.
> >
> > However, there's no free lunch and smaller equity swings come at
the
> > cost of lower performance. Small-cap stocks, for example, are
more
> > volatile than large-cap stocks, but small-caps outperform large-
caps
> > over time. Allocating money by using volatility-based money
> > management rules, you'd have less money invested in the better-
> > performing asset class (small-caps) and more money invested in
the
> > lesser-performing asset class (large caps). That would happen
even
> > if you were using EXACTLY the same entry/exit rules for them all.
> >
> > This may not be the best forum for discussions of "how" or "why"
> > different techniques work as they do (and how they interact), but
in
> > good conscience I couldn't just let this slide. However much it
> > takes, you really need to put yourself in a position where you
can
> > test ideas independently and test them hard.
> >
> > JMO, FWIW, and I yield my soap-box to the next person.:)
> >
> >
> > Luck,
> >
> > Sebastian
> >
> >
> > --- In equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "metastkuser"
> > <andysmith_999@xxxx> wrote:
> > > Super,
> > >
> > > I understand the volatility-based sizing, but have a question
about
> > > the fixed fractional risk number itself.
> > >
> > > Say you choose your risk per trade to be 2% of account equity.
Do
> > you
> > > ever modulate that 2% (say to 1% or 3%) based on how your
portfolio
> > > equity curve is doing, or based on if you are in a winning
streak or
> > > losing streak? If so, can you share your experience?
> > >
> > > I find it odd that there is much published work about money
> > mangement
> > > when it comes to futures/comodities, but little related to
> > stocks....
> > >
> > > As always, thanks much for your guidance.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, superfragalist
> > <no_reply@xxxx>
> > > wrote:
> > > > I have been accused of promoting Roy's newsletter. That
> > accusation is
> > > > alleged and the merit as yet undetermined. Without admitting
or
> > > > denying anything, if it sounds like I promote the newsletter,
it's
> > > > because it's such a good MS tool that I think every MS user
> > should use
> > > > it.
> > > >
> > > > In fact, Equis should give everyone who purchases MS a free
one
> > year
> > > > subscription. (I'm sorry, I lost my head for a minute. I know
> > that's
> > > > just being too rational.)
> > > >
> > > > However, unlike Equis I don't ignore the users and what they
need
> > to
> > > > be successful. So as a gift to everyone who subscribes to
Roy's
> > > > newsletter this month, I'm going to give you a terrific
position
> > > > sizing indicator that calculates the number of shares of a
> > particular
> > > > stock that you should buy based on your personal risk profile
and
> > the
> > > > volatility of the stock.
> > > >
> > > > This is a powerful tool for position sizing, so don't ignore
it.
> > Test
> > > > it out and see if it improves your returns. It's based on
sound
> > theory
> > > > of money management.
> > > >
> > > > CapitalAccount:=Input("Size of Capital
> > Account",5000,10000000,100000);
> > > > RiskPercent:=Input("Account Risk Tolerance in
> > > Decimals.",0.001,100,0.01);
> > > > {This is the amount of your account balance you're willing to
> > lose per
> > > > trade-- 0.01 equals 1%.}
> > > > VT:=Input("ATR Periods for Calculating Volatility.",1,100,10);
> > > > Bars:=Input("Number of Bars for Smoothing ATR.",2,100,10);
> > > > WhimpFactor:=Input("Personal Risk Profile-1 Cowboy to 7
> > Whimp",1,7,3);
> > > > {1 means you ride bulls and live hard, 7 means you're Mister
> > > > Rogers--most people fall in between.}
> > > > x:=Mov(ATR(VT),Bars,S);
> > > > RiskPercent*CapitalAccount/(x*WhimpFactor)
> > > >
> > > > Plot this on the chart and read the shares to include in your
> > > > portfolio at the current price.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I know I'm giving it to you before you subscribe. I work
off
> > of
> > > > the honor system, so I know that everyone who reads this will
> > honor
> > > > the deal and sign up. This one indicator alone is worth the
> > price.
> > > >
> > > > www.metastocktips.co.nz
> > > >
> > > > I know who's being naughty and nice, I'm making a list and
> > counting it
> > > > twice. So look out, Christmas is coming. It's not a good time
to
> > be
> > > > breaking the honor code. Okay!
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/equismetastock/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
equismetastock-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|