How well can you scale your strategy?

This post will deal with a quick, finger in the air way of seeing how well a strategy scales–namely, how sensitive it is to latency between signal and execution, using a simple volatility trading strategy as an example. The signal will be the VIX/VXV ratio trading VXX and XIV, an idea I got from Volatility Made Simple’s amazing blog, particularly this post. The three signals compared will be the “magical thinking” signal (observe the close, buy the close, named from the ruleOrderProc setting in quantstrat), buy on next-day open, and buy on next-day close.

Let’s get started.

require(downloader)
require(PerformanceAnalytics)
require(IKTrading)
require(TTR)

download("http://www.cboe.com/publish/scheduledtask/mktdata/datahouse/vxvdailyprices.csv", 
         destfile="vxvData.csv")
download("https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/jk6der1s5lxtcfy/XIVlong.TXT",
         destfile="longXIV.txt")
download("https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/950x55x7jtm9x2q/VXXlong.TXT", 
         destfile="longVXX.txt") #requires downloader package
getSymbols('^VIX', from = '1990-01-01')


xiv <- xts(read.zoo("longXIV.txt", format="%Y-%m-%d", sep=",", header=TRUE))
vxx <- xts(read.zoo("longVXX.txt", format="%Y-%m-%d", sep=",", header=TRUE))
vxv <- xts(read.zoo("vxvData.csv", header=TRUE, sep=",", format="%m/%d/%Y", skip=2))
vixVxv <- Cl(VIX)/Cl(vxv)


xiv <- xts(read.zoo("longXIV.txt", format="%Y-%m-%d", sep=",", header=TRUE))
vxx <- xts(read.zoo("longVXX.txt", format="%Y-%m-%d", sep=",", header=TRUE))

vxxCloseRets <- Return.calculate(Cl(vxx))
vxxOpenRets <- Return.calculate(Op(vxx))
xivCloseRets <- Return.calculate(Cl(xiv))
xivOpenRets <- Return.calculate(Op(xiv))

vxxSig <- vixVxv > 1
xivSig <- 1-vxxSig

magicThinking <- vxxCloseRets * lag(vxxSig) + xivCloseRets * lag(xivSig)
nextOpen <- vxxOpenRets * lag(vxxSig, 2) + xivOpenRets * lag(xivSig, 2)
nextClose <- vxxCloseRets * lag(vxxSig, 2) + xivCloseRets * lag(xivSig, 2)
tradeWholeDay <- (nextOpen + nextClose)/2

compare <- na.omit(cbind(magicThinking, nextOpen, nextClose, tradeWholeDay))
colnames(compare) <- c("Magic Thinking", "Next Open", 
                       "Next Close", "Execute Through Next Day")
charts.PerformanceSummary(compare)
rbind(table.AnnualizedReturns(compare), 
      maxDrawdown(compare), CalmarRatio(compare))

par(mfrow=c(1,1))
chart.TimeSeries(log(cumprod(1+compare), base = 10), legend.loc='topleft', ylab='log base 10 of additional equity',
                 main = 'VIX vx. VXV different execution times')

So here’s the run-through. In addition to the magical thinking strategy (observe the close, buy that same close), I tested three other variants–a variant which transacts the next open, a variant which transacts the next close, and the average of those two. Effectively, I feel these three could give a sense of a strategy’s performance under more realistic conditions–that is, how well does the strategy perform if transacted throughout the day, assuming you’re managing a sum of money too large to just plow into the market in the closing minutes (and if you hope to get rich off of trading, you will have a larger sum of money than the amount you can apply magical thinking to). Ideally, I’d use VWAP pricing, but as that’s not available for free anywhere I know of, that means that readers can’t replicate it even if I had such data.

In any case, here are the results.

Equity curves:

Log scale (for Mr. Tony Cooper and others):

Stats:

                          Magic Thinking Next Open Next Close Execute Through Next Day
Annualized Return               0.814100 0.8922000  0.5932000                 0.821900
Annualized Std Dev              0.622800 0.6533000  0.6226000                 0.558100
Annualized Sharpe (Rf=0%)       1.307100 1.3656000  0.9529000                 1.472600
Worst Drawdown                  0.566122 0.5635336  0.6442294                 0.601014
Calmar Ratio                    1.437989 1.5831686  0.9208586                 1.367510

My reaction? The execute on next day’s close performance being vastly lower than the other configurations (and that deterioration occurring in the most recent years) essentially means that the fills will have to come pretty quickly at the beginning of the day. While the strategy seems somewhat scalable through the lens of this finger-in-the-air technique, in my opinion, if the first full day of possible execution after signal reception will tank a strategy from a 1.44 Calmar to a .92, that’s a massive drop-off, after holding everything else constant. In my opinion, I think this is quite a valid question to ask anyone who simply sells signals, as opposed to manages assets. Namely, how sensitive are the signals to execution on the next day? After all, unless those signals come at 3:55 PM, one is most likely going to be getting filled the next day.

Now, while this strategy is a bit of a tomato can in terms of how good volatility trading strategies can get (they can get a *lot* better in my opinion), I think it made for a simple little demonstration of this technique. Again, a huge thank you to Mr. Helmuth Vollmeier for so kindly keeping up his dropbox all this time for the volatility data!

Thanks for reading.

NOTE: I am currently contracting in a data science capacity in Chicago. You can email me at ilya.kipnis@gmail.com, or find me on my LinkedIn here. I’m always open to beers after work if you’re in the Chicago area.

NOTE 2: Today, on October 21, 2015, if you’re in Chicago, there’s a Chicago R Users Group conference at Jaks Tap at 6:00 PM. Free pizza, networking, and R, hosted by Paul Teetor, who’s a finance guy. Hope to see you there.

Volatility Stat-Arb Shenanigans

This post deals with an impossible-to-implement statistical arbitrage strategy using VXX and XIV. The strategy is simple: if the average daily return of VXX and XIV was positive, short both of them at the close. This strategy makes two assumptions of varying dubiousness: that one can “observe the close and act on the close”, and that one can short VXX and XIV.

So, recently, I decided to play around with everyone’s two favorite instruments on this blog–VXX and XIV, with the idea that “hey, these two instruments are diametrically opposed, so shouldn’t there be a stat-arb trade here?”

So, in order to do a lick-finger-in-the-air visualization, I implemented Mike Harris’s momersion indicator.

momersion <- function(R, n, returnLag = 1) {
  momentum <- sign(R * lag(R, returnLag))
  momentum[momentum < 0] <- 0
  momersion <- runSum(momentum, n = n)/n * 100
  colnames(momersion) <- "momersion"
  return(momersion)
}

And then I ran the spread through it.


xiv <- xts(read.zoo("longXIV.txt", format="%Y-%m-%d", sep=",", header=TRUE))
vxx <- xts(read.zoo("longVXX.txt", format="%Y-%m-%d", sep=",", header=TRUE))

xivRets <- Return.calculate(Cl(xiv))
vxxRets <- Return.calculate(Cl(vxx))

volSpread <- xivRets + vxxRets
volSpreadMomersion <- momersion(volSpread, n = 252)
plot(volSpreadMomersion)

In other words, this spread is certainly mean-reverting at just about all times.

And here is the code for the results from 2011 onward, from when the XIV and VXX actually started trading.

#both sides
sig <- -lag(sign(volSpread))
longShort <- sig * volSpread
charts.PerformanceSummary(longShort['2011::'], main = 'long and short spread')

#long spread only
sig <- -lag(sign(volSpread))
sig[sig < 0] <- 0
longOnly <- sig * volSpread
charts.PerformanceSummary(longOnly['2011::'], main = 'long spread only')


#short spread only
sig <- -lag(sign(volSpread))
sig[sig > 0] <- 0
shortOnly <- sig * volSpread
charts.PerformanceSummary(shortOnly['2011::'], main = 'short spread only')

threeStrats <- na.omit(cbind(longShort, longOnly, shortOnly))["2011::"]
colnames(threeStrats) <- c("LongShort", "Long", "Short")
rbind(table.AnnualizedReturns(threeStrats), CalmarRatio(threeStrats))

Here are the equity curves:

Long-short:

Long-only:

Short-only:

With the following statistics:

                          LongShort      Long    Short
Annualized Return          0.115400 0.0015000 0.113600
Annualized Std Dev         0.049800 0.0412000 0.027900
Annualized Sharpe (Rf=0%)  2.317400 0.0374000 4.072100
Calmar Ratio               1.700522 0.0166862 7.430481

In other words, the short side is absolutely amazing as a trade–except for the one small fact of having it be impossible to actually execute, or at least as far as I’m aware. Anyhow, this was simply a for-fun post, but hopefully it served some purpose.

Thanks for reading.

NOTE: I am currently contracting and am looking to network in the Chicago area. You can find my LinkedIn here.

Hypothesis-Driven Development Part II

This post will evaluate signals based on the rank regression hypotheses covered in the last post.

The last time around, we saw that rank regression had a very statistically significant result. Therefore, the next step would be to evaluate the basic signals — whether or not there is statistical significance in the actual evaluation of the signal–namely, since the strategy from SeekingAlpha simply selects the top-ranked ETF every month, this is a very easy signal to evaluate.

Simply, using the 1-24 month formation periods for cumulative sum of monthly returns, select the highest-ranked ETF and hold it for one month.

Here’s the code to evaluate the signal (continued from the last post), given the returns, a month parameter, and an EW portfolio to compare with the signal.


signalBacktest <- function(returns, nMonths, ewPortfolio) {
  nMonthAverage <- apply(returns, 2, runSum, n = nMonths)
  nMonthAverage <- xts(nMonthAverage, order.by = index(returns))
  nMonthAvgRank <- t(apply(nMonthAverage, 1, rank))
  nMonthAvgRank <- xts(nMonthAvgRank, order.by=index(returns))
  selection <- (nMonthAvgRank==5) * 1 #select highest average performance
  sigTest <- Return.portfolio(R = returns, weights = selection)
  difference <- sigTest - ewPortfolio
  diffZscore <- mean(difference)/sd(difference)
  sigZscore <- mean(sigTest)/sd(sigTest)
  return(list(sigTest, difference, mean(sigTest), sigZscore, mean(difference), diffZscore))
}

ewPortfolio <- Return.portfolio(monthRets, rebalance_on="months")

sigBoxplots <- list()
excessBoxplots <- list()
sigMeans <- list()
sigZscores <- list()
diffMeans <- list()
diffZscores <- list()
for(i in 1:24) {
  tmp <- signalBacktest(monthRets, nMonths = i, ewPortfolio)
  sigBoxplots[[i]] <- tmp[[1]]
  excessBoxplots[[i]] <- tmp[[2]]
  sigMeans[[i]] <- tmp[[3]]
  sigZscores[[i]] <- tmp[[4]]
  diffMeans[[i]] <- tmp[[5]]
  diffZscores[[i]] <- tmp[[6]]
}

sigBoxplots <- do.call(cbind, sigBoxplots)
excessBoxplots <- do.call(cbind, excessBoxplots)
sigMeans <- do.call(c, sigMeans)
sigZscores <- do.call(c, sigZscores)
diffMeans <- do.call(c, diffMeans)
diffZscores <- do.call(c, diffZscores)

par(mfrow=c(2,1))
plot(as.numeric(sigMeans)*100, type='h', main = 'signal means', 
     ylab = 'percent per month', xlab='formation period')
plot(as.numeric(sigZscores), type='h', main = 'signal Z scores', 
     ylab='Z scores', xlab='formation period')

plot(as.numeric(diffMeans)*100, type='h', main = 'mean difference between signal and EW',
     ylab = 'percent per month', xlab='formation period')
plot(as.numeric(diffZscores), type='h', main = 'difference Z scores',
     ylab = 'Z score', xlab='formation period')

boxplot(as.matrix(sigBoxplots), main = 'signal boxplots', xlab='formation period')
abline(h=0, col='red')
points(sigMeans, col='blue')

boxplot(as.matrix(sigBoxplots[,1:12]), main = 'signal boxplots 1 through 12 month formations', 
        xlab='formation period')
abline(h=0, col='red')
points(sigMeans[1:12], col='blue')

boxplot(as.matrix(excessBoxplots), main = 'difference (signal - EW) boxplots', 
        xlab='formation period')
abline(h=0, col='red')
points(sigMeans, col='blue')

boxplot(as.matrix(excessBoxplots[,1:12]), main = 'difference (signal - EW) boxplots 1 through 12 month formations', 
        xlab='formation period')
abline(h=0, col='red')
points(sigMeans[1:12], col='blue')

Okay, so what’s going on here is that I compare the signal against the equal weight portfolio, and take means and z scores of both the signal values in general, and against the equal weight portfolio. I plot these values, along with boxplots of the distributions of both the signal process, and the difference between the signal process and the equal weight portfolio.

Here are the results:




To note, the percents are already multiplied by 100, so in the best cases, the rank strategy outperforms the equal weight strategy by about 30 basis points per month. However, these results are…not even in the same parking lot as statistical significance, let alone in the same ballpark.

Now, at this point, in case some people haven’t yet read Brian Peterson’s paper on strategy development, the point of hypothesis-driven development is to *reject* hypothetical strategies ASAP before looking at any sort of equity curve and trying to do away with periods of underperformance. So, at this point, I would like to reject this entire strategy because there’s no statistical evidence to actually continue. Furthermore, because August 2015 was a rather interesting month, especially in terms of volatility dispersion, I want to return to volatility trading strategies, now backed by hypothesis-driven development.

If anyone wants to see me continue to rule testing with this process, let me know. If not, I have more ideas on the way.

Thanks for reading.

NOTE: while I am currently consulting, I am always open to networking, meeting up (Philadelphia and New York City both work), consulting arrangements, and job discussions. Contact me through my email at ilya.kipnis@gmail.com, or through my LinkedIn, found here.

Introduction to Hypothesis Driven Development — Overview of a Simple Strategy and Indicator Hypotheses

This post will begin to apply a hypothesis-driven development framework (that is, the framework written by Brian Peterson on how to do strategy construction correctly, found here) to a strategy I’ve come across on SeekingAlpha. Namely, Cliff Smith posted about a conservative bond rotation strategy, which makes use of short-term treasuries, long-term treasuries, convertibles, emerging market debt, and high-yield corporate debt–that is, SHY, TLT, CWB, PCY, and JNK. What this post will do is try to put a more formal framework on whether or not this strategy is a valid one to begin with.

One note: For the sake of balancing succinctness for blog consumption and to demonstrate the computational techniques more quickly, I’ll be glossing over background research write-ups for this post/strategy, since it’s yet another take on time-series/cross-sectional momentum, except pared down to something more implementable for individual investors, as opposed to something that requires a massive collection of different instruments for massive, institutional-class portfolios.

Introduction, Overview, Objectives, Constraints, Assumptions, and Hypotheses to be Tested:

Momentum. It has been documented many times. For the sake of brevity, I’ll let readers follow the links if they’re so inclined, but among them are Jegadeesh and Titman’s seminal 1993 paper, Mark Carhart’s 1997 paper, Andreu et. Al (2012), Barroso and Santa-Clara (2013), Ilmanen’s Expected Returns (which covers momentum), and others. This list, of course, is far from exhaustive, but the point stands. Formation periods of several months (up to a year) should predict returns moving forward on some holding period, be it several months, or as is more commonly seen, one month.

Furthermore, momentum applies in two varieties–cross sectional, and time-series. Cross-sectional momentum asserts that assets that outperformed among a group will continue to outperform, while time-series momentum asserts that assets that have risen in price during a formation period will continue to do so for the short-term future.

Cliff Smith’s strategy depends on the latter, effectively, among a group of five bond ETFs. I am not certain of the objective of the strategy (he didn’t mention it), as PCY, JNK, and CWB, while they may be fixed-income in name, possess volatility on the order of equities. I suppose one possible “default” objective would be to achieve an outperforming total return against an equal-weighted benchmark, both rebalanced monthly.

The constraints are that one would need a sufficient amount of capital such that fixed transaction costs are negligible, since the strategy is a single-instrument rotation type, meaning that each month may have two-way turnover of 200% (sell one ETF, buy another). On the other hand, one would assume that the amount of capital deployed is small enough such that execution costs of trading do not materially impact the performance of the strategy. That is to say, moving multiple billions from one of these ETFs to the other is a non-starter. As all returns are computed close-to-close for the sake of simplicity, this creates the implicit assumption that the market impact and execution costs are very small compared to overall returns.

There are two overarching hypotheses to be tested in order to validate the efficacy of this strategy:

1) Time-series momentum: while it has been documented for equities and even industry/country ETFs, it may not have been formally done so yet for fixed-income ETFs, and their corresponding mutual funds. In order to validate this strategy, it should be investigated if the particular instruments it selects adhere to the same phenomena.

2) Cross-sectional momentum: again, while this has been heavily demonstrated in the past with regards to equities, ETFs are fairly new, and of the five mutual funds Cliff Smith selected, the latest one only has data going back to 1997, thus allowing less sophisticated investors to easily access diversified fixed income markets a relatively new innovation.

Essentially, both of these can be tested over a range of parameters (1-24 months).

Another note: with hypothesis-driven strategy development, the backtest is to be *nothing more than a confirmation of all the hypotheses up to that point*. That is, re-optimizing on the backtest itself means overfitting. Any proposed change to a strategy should be done in the form of tested hypotheses, as opposed to running a bunch of backtests and selecting the best trials. Taken another way, this means that every single proposed element of a strategy needs to have some form of strong hypothesis accompanying it, in order to be justified.

So, here are the two hypotheses I tested on the corresponding mutual funds:

require(quantmod)
require(PerformanceAnalytics)
require(reshape2)
symbols <- c("CNSAX", "FAHDX", "VUSTX", "VFISX", "PREMX")
getSymbols(symbols, from='1900-01-01')
prices <- list()
for(symbol in symbols) {
  prices[[symbol]] <- Ad(get(symbol))
}
prices <- do.call(cbind, prices)
colnames(prices) <- substr(colnames(prices), 1, 5)
returns <- na.omit(Return.calculate(prices))

sample <- returns['1997-08/2009-03']
monthRets <- apply.monthly(sample, Return.cumulative)

returnRegression <- function(returns, nMonths) {
  nMonthAverage <- apply(returns, 2, runSum, n = nMonths)
  nMonthAverage <- xts(nMonthAverage, order.by = index(returns))
  nMonthAverage <- na.omit(lag(nMonthAverage))
  returns <- returns[index(nMonthAverage)]
  
  rankAvg <- t(apply(nMonthAverage, 1, rank))
  rankReturn <- t(apply(returns, 1, rank))
  
  
  meltedAverage <- melt(data.frame(nMonthAverage))
  meltedReturns <- melt(data.frame(returns))
  meltedRankAvg <- melt(data.frame(rankAvg))
  meltedRankReturn <- melt(data.frame(rankReturn))
  lmfit <- lm(meltedReturns$value ~ meltedAverage$value - 1)
  rankLmfit <- lm(meltedRankReturn$value ~ meltedRankAvg$value)
  return(rbind(summary(lmfit)$coefficients, summary(rankLmfit)$coefficients))
}

pvals <- list()
estimates <- list()
rankPs <- list()
rankEstimates <- list()
for(i in 1:24) {
  tmp <- returnRegression(monthRets, nMonths=i)
  pvals[[i]] <- tmp[1,4]
  estimates[[i]] <- tmp[1,1]
  rankPs[[i]] <- tmp[2,4]
  rankEstimates[[i]] <- tmp[2,1]
}
pvals <- do.call(c, pvals)
estimates <- do.call(c, estimates)
rankPs <- do.call(c, rankPs)
rankEstimates <- do.call(c, rankEstimates)

Essentially, in this case, I take a pooled regression (that is, take the five instruments and pool them together into one giant vector), and regress the cumulative sum of monthly returns against the next month’s return. Also, I do the same thing as the above, except also using cross-sectional ranks for each month, and performing a rank-rank regression. The sample I used was the five mutual funds (CNSAX, FAHDX, VUSTX, VFISX, and PREMX) since their inception to March 2009, since the data for the final ETF begins in April of 2009, so I set aside the ETF data for out-of-sample backtesting.

Here are the results:

pvals <- list()
estimates <- list()
rankPs <- list()
rankEstimates <- list()
for(i in 1:24) {
  tmp <- returnRegression(monthRets, nMonths=i)
  pvals[[i]] <- tmp[1,4]
  estimates[[i]] <- tmp[1,1]
  rankPs[[i]] <- tmp[2,4]
  rankEstimates[[i]] <- tmp[2,1]
}
pvals <- do.call(c, pvals)
estimates <- do.call(c, estimates)
rankPs <- do.call(c, rankPs)
rankEstimates <- do.call(c, rankEstimates)


plot(estimates, type='h', xlab = 'Months regressed on', ylab='momentum coefficient', 
     main='future returns regressed on past momentum')
plot(pvals, type='h', xlab='Months regressed on', ylab='p-value', main='momentum significance')
abline(h=.05, col='green')
abline(h=.1, col='red')

plot(rankEstimates, type='h', xlab='Months regressed on', ylab="Rank coefficient",
     main='future return ranks regressed on past momentum ranks', ylim=c(0,3))
plot(rankPs, type='h', xlab='Months regressed on', ylab='P-values')




Of interest to note is that while much of the momentum literature specifies a reversion effect on time-series momentum at 12 months or greater, all the regression coefficients in this case (even up to 24 months!) proved to be positive, with the very long-term coefficients possessing more statistical significance than the short-term ones. Nevertheless, Cliff Smith’s chosen parameters (the two and four month settings) possess statistical significance at least at the 10% level. However, if one were to be highly conservative in terms of rejecting strategies, that in and of itself may be reason enough to reject this strategy right here.

However, the rank-rank regression (that is, regressing the future month’s cross-sectional rank on the past n month sum cross sectional rank) proved to be statistically significant beyond any doubt, with all p-values being effectively zero. In short, there is extremely strong evidence for cross-sectional momentum among these five assets, which extends out to at least two years. Furthermore, since SHY or VFISX, aka the short-term treasury fund, is among the assets chosen, since it’s a proxy for the risk-free rate, by including it among the cross-sectional rankings, the cross-sectional rankings also implicitly state that in order to be invested into (as this strategy is a top-1 asset rotation strategy), it must outperform the risk-free asset, otherwise, by process of elimination, the strategy will invest into the risk-free asset itself.

In upcoming posts, I’ll look into testing hypotheses on signals and rules.

Lastly, Volatility Made Simple has just released a blog post on the performance of volatility-based strategies for the month of August. Given the massive volatility spike, the dispersion in performance of strategies is quite interesting. I’m happy that in terms of YTD returns, the modified version of my strategy is among the top 10 for the year.

Thanks for reading.

NOTE: while I am currently consulting, I am always open to networking, meeting up (Philadelphia and New York City both work), consulting arrangements, and job discussions. Contact me through my email at ilya.kipnis@gmail.com, or through my LinkedIn, found here.

Why Backtesting On Individual Legs In A Spread Is A BAD Idea

So after reading the last post, the author of quantstrat had mostly critical feedback, mostly of the philosophy that prompted its writing in the first place. Basically, the reason I wrote it, as I stated before, is that I’ve seen many retail users of quantstrat constantly ask “how do I model individual spread instruments”, and otherwise try to look like they’re sophisticated by trading spreads.

The truth is that real professionals use industrial-strength tools to determine their intraday hedge ratios (such a tool is called a spreader). The purpose of quantstrat is not to be an execution modeling system, but to be a *strategy* modeling system. Basically, the purpose of your backtest isn’t to look at individual instruments, since in the last post, the aggregate trade statistics told us absolutely nothing about how our actual spread trading strategy performed. The backtest was a mess as far as the analytics were concerned, and thus rendering it more or less useless. So this post, by request of the author of quantstrat, is about how to do the analysis better, and looking at what matters more–the actual performance of the strategy on the actual relationship being traded–namely, the *spread*, rather than the two components.

So, without further ado, let’s look at the revised code:

require(quantmod)
require(quantstrat)
require(IKTrading)

getSymbols("UNG", from="1990-01-01")
getSymbols("DGAZ", from="1990-01-01")
getSymbols("UGAZ", from="1990-01-01")
UNG <- UNG["2012-02-22::"]
UGAZ <- UGAZ["2012-02-22::"]

spread <- 3*OHLC(UNG) - OHLC(UGAZ)

initDate='1990-01-01'
currency('USD')
Sys.setenv(TZ="UTC")
symbols <- c("spread")
stock(symbols, currency="USD", multiplier=1)

strategy.st <- portfolio.st <- account.st <-"spread_strategy_done_better"
rm.strat(portfolio.st)
rm.strat(strategy.st)
initPortf(portfolio.st, symbols=symbols, initDate=initDate, currency='USD')
initAcct(account.st, portfolios=portfolio.st, initDate=initDate, currency='USD')
initOrders(portfolio.st, initDate=initDate)
strategy(strategy.st, store=TRUE)

#### paramters

nEMA = 20

### indicator

add.indicator(strategy.st, name="EMA",
              arguments=list(x=quote(Cl(mktdata)), n=nEMA),
              label="ema")

### signals

add.signal(strategy.st, name="sigCrossover",
           arguments=list(columns=c("Close", "EMA.ema"), relationship="gt"),
           label="longEntry")

add.signal(strategy.st, name="sigCrossover",
           arguments=list(columns=c("Close", "EMA.ema"), relationship="lt"),
           label="longExit")

### rules

add.rule(strategy.st, name="ruleSignal", 
         arguments=list(sigcol="longEntry", sigval=TRUE, ordertype="market", 
                        orderside="long", replace=FALSE, prefer="Open", orderqty=1), 
         type="enter", path.dep=TRUE)

add.rule(strategy.st, name="ruleSignal", 
         arguments=list(sigcol="longExit", sigval=TRUE, orderqty="all", ordertype="market", 
                        orderside="long", replace=FALSE, prefer="Open"), 
         type="exit", path.dep=TRUE)

#apply strategy
t1 <- Sys.time()
out <- applyStrategy(strategy=strategy.st,portfolios=portfolio.st)
t2 <- Sys.time()
print(t2-t1)

In this case, things are a LOT simpler. Rather than jumping through the hoops of pre-computing an indicator, along with the shenanigans of separate rules for both the long and the short end, we simply have a spread as it’s theoretically supposed to work–three of an unleveraged ETF against the 3x leveraged ETF, and we can go long the spread, or short the spread. In this case, the dynamic seems to be on the up, and we want to capture that.

So how did we do?

#set up analytics
updatePortf(portfolio.st)
dateRange <- time(getPortfolio(portfolio.st)$summary)[-1]
updateAcct(portfolio.st,dateRange)
updateEndEq(account.st)

#trade statistics
tStats <- tradeStats(Portfolios = portfolio.st, use="trades", inclZeroDays=FALSE)
tStats[,4:ncol(tStats)] <- round(tStats[,4:ncol(tStats)], 2)
print(data.frame(t(tStats[,-c(1,2)])))
(aggPF <- sum(tStats$Gross.Profits)/-sum(tStats$Gross.Losses))
(aggCorrect <- mean(tStats$Percent.Positive))
(numTrades <- sum(tStats$Num.Trades))
(meanAvgWLR <- mean(tStats$Avg.WinLoss.Ratio[tStats$Avg.WinLoss.Ratio < Inf], na.rm=TRUE))

And here’s the output:

> print(data.frame(t(tStats[,-c(1,2)])))
                   spread
Num.Txns            76.00
Num.Trades          38.00
Net.Trading.PL       9.87
Avg.Trade.PL         0.26
Med.Trade.PL        -0.10
Largest.Winner       7.76
Largest.Loser       -1.06
Gross.Profits       21.16
Gross.Losses       -11.29
Std.Dev.Trade.PL     1.68
Percent.Positive    39.47
Percent.Negative    60.53
Profit.Factor        1.87
Avg.Win.Trade        1.41
Med.Win.Trade        0.36
Avg.Losing.Trade    -0.49
Med.Losing.Trade    -0.46
Avg.Daily.PL         0.26
Med.Daily.PL        -0.10
Std.Dev.Daily.PL     1.68
Ann.Sharpe           2.45
Max.Drawdown        -4.02
Profit.To.Max.Draw   2.46
Avg.WinLoss.Ratio    2.87
Med.WinLoss.Ratio    0.78
Max.Equity          13.47
Min.Equity          -1.96
End.Equity           9.87
> (aggPF <- sum(tStats$Gross.Profits)/-sum(tStats$Gross.Losses))
[1] 1.874225
> (aggCorrect <- mean(tStats$Percent.Positive))
[1] 39.47
> (numTrades <- sum(tStats$Num.Trades))
[1] 38
> (meanAvgWLR <- mean(tStats$Avg.WinLoss.Ratio[tStats$Avg.WinLoss.Ratio < Inf], na.rm=TRUE))
[1] 2.87

In other words, the typical profile for a trend follower, rather than the uninformative analytics from the last post. Furthermore, the position sizing and equity curve chart actually make sense now. Here they are.

To conclude, while it’s possible to model spreads using individual legs, it makes far more sense in terms of analytics to actually examine the performance of the strategy on the actual relationship being traded, which is the spread itself. Furthermore, after constructing the spread as a synthetic instrument, it can be treated like any other regular instrument in the context of analysis in quantstrat.

Thanks for reading.

NOTE: I am a freelance consultant in quantitative analysis on topics related to this blog. If you have contract or full time roles available for proprietary research that could benefit from my skills, please contact me through my LinkedIn here.

A Way To Model Execution On Individual Legs Of A Spread In Quantstrat

In this post, I’ll attempt to address a question I’ve seen tossed around time and again regarding quantstrat.

“How do I model executions on individual underlying instruments in spread trading?”

First off, a disclaimer: this method is a bit of a kludge, and in using it, you’ll lose out on quantstrat’s inbuilt optimization functionality. Essentially, it builds upon the pre-computed signal methodology I described in a previous post.

Essentially, by appending a column with the same name but with different values to two separate instruments, I can “trick” quantstrat into providing me desired behavior by modeling trading on two underlying instruments.

SO here’s the strategy:

Go long 3 shares of the UNG (natural gas) ETF against 1 share of UGAZ (3x bull) when the spread crosses above its 20-day exponential moving average, otherwise, do nothing. Here’s the reasoning as to why:

require(quantmod)
require(quantstrat)
require(IKTrading)

getSymbols("UNG", from="1990-01-01")
getSymbols("DGAZ", from="1990-01-01")
getSymbols("UGAZ", from="1990-01-01")
UNG <- UNG["2012-02-22::"]
UGAZ <- UGAZ["2012-02-22::"]

spread <- 3*OHLC(UNG) - OHLC(UGAZ)

nEMA=20

chart_Series(spread)
add_TA(EMA(Cl(spread), n=nEMA), on=1, col="blue", lwd=1.5)
legend(x=5, y=50, legend=c("EMA 20"),
       fill=c("blue"), bty="n")

With the corresponding plot:

So, as you can see, we have a spread that drifts upward (something to do with the nature of the leveraged ETF)? So, let’s try and capture that with a strategy.

The way I’m going to do that is to precompute a signal–whether or not the spread’s close is above its EMA20, and append that signal to UNG, with the negative of said signal appended to UGAZ, and then encapsulate it in a quantstrat strategy. In this case, there’s no ATR order sizing function or initial equity–just a simple 3 UNG to 1 UGAZ trade.

signal <- Cl(spread) > EMA(Cl(spread), n=nEMA)
UNG$precomputedSig <- signal
UGAZ$precomputedSig <- signal*-1

initDate='1990-01-01'
currency('USD')
Sys.setenv(TZ="UTC")
symbols <- c("UNG", "UGAZ")
stock(symbols, currency="USD", multiplier=1)

strategy.st <- portfolio.st <- account.st <-"spread_strategy"

rm.strat(portfolio.st)
rm.strat(strategy.st)
initPortf(portfolio.st, symbols=symbols, initDate=initDate, currency='USD')
initAcct(account.st, portfolios=portfolio.st, initDate=initDate, currency='USD')
initOrders(portfolio.st, initDate=initDate)
strategy(strategy.st, store=TRUE)

#long rules
add.signal(strategy.st, name="sigThreshold",
           arguments=list(column="precomputedSig", threshold=.5, 
                          relationship="gt", cross=TRUE),
           label="longEntry")

add.signal(strategy.st, name="sigThreshold",
           arguments=list(column="precomputedSig", threshold=.5, 
                          relationship="lt", cross=TRUE),
           label="longExit")

#short rules
add.signal(strategy.st, name="sigThreshold",
           arguments=list(column="precomputedSig", threshold=-.5, 
                          relationship="lt", cross=TRUE),
           label="shortEntry")

add.signal(strategy.st, name="sigThreshold",
           arguments=list(column="precomputedSig", threshold=-.5, 
                          relationship="gt", cross=TRUE),
           label="shortExit")

#buy 3
add.rule(strategy.st, name="ruleSignal", 
         arguments=list(sigcol="longEntry", sigval=TRUE, ordertype="market", 
                        orderside="long", replace=FALSE, prefer="Open", orderqty=3), 
         type="enter", path.dep=TRUE)

add.rule(strategy.st, name="ruleSignal", 
         arguments=list(sigcol="longExit", sigval=TRUE, orderqty="all", ordertype="market", 
                        orderside="long", replace=FALSE, prefer="Open"), 
         type="exit", path.dep=TRUE)

#short 1
add.rule(strategy.st, name="ruleSignal", 
         arguments=list(sigcol="shortEntry", sigval=TRUE, ordertype="market", 
                        orderside="short", replace=FALSE, prefer="Open", orderqty=-1), 
         type="enter", path.dep=TRUE)

add.rule(strategy.st, name="ruleSignal", 
         arguments=list(sigcol="shortExit", sigval=TRUE, orderqty="all", ordertype="market", 
                        orderside="short", replace=FALSE, prefer="Open"), 
         type="exit", path.dep=TRUE)

t1 <- Sys.time()
out <- applyStrategy(strategy=strategy.st,portfolios=portfolio.st)
t2 <- Sys.time()
print(t2-t1)

#set up analytics
updatePortf(portfolio.st)
dateRange <- time(getPortfolio(portfolio.st)$summary)[-1]
updateAcct(portfolio.st,dateRange)
updateEndEq(account.st)

So, did our spread trade work?

#trade statistics
tStats <- tradeStats(Portfolios = portfolio.st, use="trades", inclZeroDays=FALSE)
tStats[,4:ncol(tStats)] <- round(tStats[,4:ncol(tStats)], 2)
print(data.frame(t(tStats[,-c(1,2)])))
(aggPF <- sum(tStats$Gross.Profits)/-sum(tStats$Gross.Losses))
(aggCorrect <- mean(tStats$Percent.Positive))
(numTrades <- sum(tStats$Num.Trades))
(meanAvgWLR <- mean(tStats$Avg.WinLoss.Ratio[tStats$Avg.WinLoss.Ratio < Inf], na.rm=TRUE))

> (aggPF <- sum(tStats$Gross.Profits)/-sum(tStats$Gross.Losses))
[1] 1.101303
> (aggCorrect <- mean(tStats$Percent.Positive))
[1] 51.315
> (numTrades <- sum(tStats$Num.Trades))
[1] 76
> (meanAvgWLR <- mean(tStats$Avg.WinLoss.Ratio[tStats$Avg.WinLoss.Ratio < Inf], na.rm=TRUE))
[1] 1.065

Sort of. However, when you think about it–looking at the statistics on a per-instrument basis in a spread trade is a bit of a red herring. After all, outside of a small spread, what one instrument makes, another will lose, so the aggregate numbers should be only slightly north of 1 or 50% in most cases, which is what we see here.

A better way of looking at whether or not the strategy performs is to look at the cumulative sum of the daily P&L.

#portfolio cash PL
portString <- paste0("portfolio.", portfolio.st)
portPL <- .blotter[[portString]]$summary$Net.Trading.PL
portPL <- portPL[-1,] #remove initialization date
plot(cumsum(portPL))

With the following equity curve:

Is this the greatest equity curve? Probably not. In fact, after playing around with the strategy a little bit, it’s better to actually get in at the close of the next day than the open (apparently there’s some intraday mean-reversion).

Furthermore, one thing to be careful of is that in this backtest, I made sure that for UNG, my precomputedSig would only take values 1 and 0, and vice versa for the UGAZ variant, such that I could write the rules I did. If it took the values 1, 0, and -1, or 1 and -1, the results would not make sense.

In conclusion, the method I showed was essentially a method building on a previous technique of pre-computing signals. Doing this will disallow users to use quantstrat’s built-in optimization functionality, but will allow users to backtest individual leg execution.

To answer one last question, if one wanted to short the spread as well, the thing to do using this methodology would be to pre-compute a second column called, say, precomputedSig2, that behaved the opposite way.

Thanks for reading.

NOTE: I am a freelance consultant in quantitative analysis on topics related to this blog. If you have contract or full time roles available for proprietary research that could benefit from my skills, please contact me through my LinkedIn here.

An Update to the Robustness Heuristic and a Variation of a Volatility Strategy

So, before revealing a slight wrinkle on the last strategy I wrote about, I’d like to clear up a bit of confusion regarding Jaekle and Tomasini’s idea of a stable region.

Essentially, the entire idea *is* that similar parameter configurations behave in very similar ways, and so, are supposed to be highly correlated. It does not mean the strategy may not be overfit in other ways, but that incremental changes to a parameter should mean incremental changes to performance, rather than seeing some sort of lucky spike in a sea of poor performance.

In any case, the one change to the strategy from last week is that rather than get in at the current close (aka observe close, execute at close), to get in at the next day’s close.

Again, here’s the strategy script:

require(downloader)
require(quantmod)
require(PerformanceAnalytics)
require(TTR)

download("http://www.cboe.com/publish/scheduledtask/mktdata/datahouse/vxvdailyprices.csv", 
         destfile="vxvData.csv")
download("http://www.cboe.com/publish/ScheduledTask/MktData/datahouse/vxmtdailyprices.csv", 
         destfile="vxmtData.csv")

vxv <- xts(read.zoo("vxvData.csv", header=TRUE, sep=",", format="%m/%d/%Y", skip=2))
vxmt <- xts(read.zoo("vxmtData.csv", header=TRUE, sep=",", format="%m/%d/%Y", skip=2))
ratio <- Cl(vxv)/Cl(vxmt)


download("https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/jk6der1s5lxtcfy/XIVlong.TXT",
         destfile="longXIV.txt")

download("https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/950x55x7jtm9x2q/VXXlong.TXT", 
         destfile="longVXX.txt") #requires downloader package

xiv <- xts(read.zoo("longXIV.txt", format="%Y-%m-%d", sep=",", header=TRUE))
vxx <- xts(read.zoo("longVXX.txt", format="%Y-%m-%d", sep=",", header=TRUE))

xiv <- merge(xiv, ratio, join='inner')
vxx <- merge(vxx, ratio, join='inner')
colnames(xiv)[5] <- colnames(vxx)[5] <- "ratio"

xivRets <- Return.calculate(Cl(xiv))
vxxRets <- Return.calculate(Cl(vxx))

retsList <- list()
count <- 1
for(i in 10:200) {
  ratioSMA <- SMA(ratio, n=i)
  vxxSig <- lag(ratio > 1 & ratio > ratioSMA, 2)
  xivSig <- lag(ratio < 1 & ratio < ratioSMA, 2)
  rets <- vxxSig*vxxRets + xivSig*xivRets
  colnames(rets) <- i
  retsList[[i]]  <- rets
  count <- count+1  
}
retsList <- do.call(cbind, retsList)
colnames(retsList) <- gsub("X", "", colnames(retsList))
charts.PerformanceSummary(retsList)
retsList <- retsList[!is.na(retsList[,191]),]
retsList <- retsList[-1,]

The one change I made is that rather than go with the default lag value, I went with a lag of 2. A lag of zero induces look-ahead bias. In any case, let’s run through the process again of analyzing for robustness.

rankComparison <- function(rets, perfAfun="Return.cumulative") {
  fun <- match.fun(perfAfun)
  monthlyFun <- apply.monthly(rets, fun)
  monthlyRank <- t(apply(monthlyFun, MARGIN=1, FUN=rank))
  meanMonthlyRank <- apply(monthlyRank, MARGIN=2, FUN=mean)
  rankMMR <- rank(meanMonthlyRank)
  
  aggFun <- fun(rets)
  aggFunRank <- rank(aggFun)
  
  bothRanks <- data.frame(cbind(aggFunRank, rankMMR, names(rankMMR)), stringsAsFactors=FALSE)
  names(bothRanks) <- c("aggregateRank", "averageMonthlyRank", "configName")
  bothRanks$aggregateRank <- as.numeric(bothRanks$aggregateRank)
  bothRanks$averageMonthlyRank <- as.numeric(bothRanks$averageMonthlyRank)
  bothRanks$sum <- bothRanks[,1] + bothRanks[,2]
  bothRanks <- bothRanks[order(bothRanks$sum, decreasing=TRUE),]
  
  plot(aggFunRank~rankMMR, main=perfAfun)
  print(cor(aggFunRank, meanMonthlyRank))
  return(bothRanks)
}

retRank <- rankComparison(retsList)
sharpeRank <- rankComparison(retsList, perfAfun="SharpeRatio.annualized")

In this case, I added some functionality to not only do the plotting and correlation, but to spit out a table comparing both the aggregate metric along with the rank of the average monthly rank (again, dual ranking layer), and ordered the table by the sum of both the aggregate and the monthly metric, starting with the highest.

For instance, here’s the output from the returns comparison:

> retRank <- rankComparison(retsList)
[1] 0.736377

> head(retRank, 20)
    aggregateRank averageMonthlyRank configName sum
62            190                191         62 381
63            189                187         63 376
60            185                189         60 374
66            191                182         66 373
65            187                183         65 370
59            184                185         59 369
56            181                186         56 367
64            188                179         64 367
152           174                190        152 364
61            183                178         61 361
67            186                167         67 353
151           165                188        151 353
57            179                173         57 352
153           167                184        153 351
58            182                164         58 346
154           170                175        154 345
53            164                180         53 344
155           166                176        155 342
158           163                177        158 340
150           157                181        150 338

So, for this configuration, the correlation went down from above .8 to around .74…which is still strong and credence that the strategy configurations have validity outside some lucky months. The new feature I added was the data frame of the two ranks side by side, along with their configuration name (in this case, my names were simply the SMA parameter, but the names could be anything such as say, SMA_60_lag_2), and the sum of the two rankings, which orders the configurations. As there were 191 configurations (SMA ranging from 10 to 200), the best score that could be achieved was 382. Furthermore, note that although there seems to be a strong region from SMA 53 to SMA 67, there also seems to be another region, at least when it comes to absolute return, of an SMA parameter at SMA 150+.

Here’s the same table for annualized Sharpe (this variation takes a bit longer to compute due to the monthly annualized Sharpes).

> sharpeRank <- rankComparison(retsList, perfAfun="SharpeRatio.annualized")
[1] 0.5590881
> head(sharpeRank, 20)
    aggregateRank averageMonthlyRank configName   sum
62            190              191.0         62 381.0
59            185              190.0         59 375.0
61            183              186.5         61 369.5
60            186              181.0         60 367.0
63            189              175.0         63 364.0
66            191              164.0         66 355.0
152           166              173.0        152 339.0
58            182              155.0         58 337.0
56            181              151.0         56 332.0
53            174              153.0         53 327.0
57            179              148.0         57 327.0
151           159              162.0        151 321.0
76            177              143.0         76 320.0
150           152              163.0        150 315.0
54            173              140.0         54 313.0
77            178              131.0         77 309.0
65            187              119.0         65 306.0
143           146              156.0        143 302.0
74            167              132.0         74 299.0
153           161              138.0        153 299.0

So, largely the same sort of results as we see with the annualized returns. A correlation of .5 gives some cause for concern, which will hopefully show up in the line plot of the rank of the four metrics (returns, Sharpe, drawdowns, and return to drawdown), which will reveal the regions with strong performance, and not-so-strong performances.

Here’s the ranking line plot.

aggReturns <- Return.annualized(retsList)
aggSharpe <- SharpeRatio.annualized(retsList)
aggMAR <- Return.annualized(retsList)/maxDrawdown(retsList)
aggDD <- maxDrawdown(retsList)

plot(rank(aggReturns)~as.numeric(colnames(aggReturns)), type="l", ylab="annualized returns rank", xlab="SMA", 
     main="Risk and return rank comparison")
lines(rank(aggSharpe)~as.numeric(colnames(aggSharpe)), type="l", ylab="annualized Sharpe rank", xlab="SMA", col="blue")
lines(rank(aggMAR)~as.numeric(colnames(aggMAR)), type="l", ylab="Max return over max drawdown", xlab="SMA", col="red")
lines(rank(-aggDD)~as.numeric(colnames(aggDD)), type="l", ylab="max DD", xlab="SMA", col="green")
legend("bottomright", c("Return rank", "Sharpe rank", "MAR rank", "Drawdown rank"), pch=0, col=c("black", "blue", "red", "green"))

And the resulting plot:

There are several regions that show similar, strong metrics for similar parameter choices for the value of SMA when we use a “delayed” entry. Namely, the regions around the 60 day SMA, the 150 day SMA, and the 125 day SMA.

Let’s look at those configurations.

truncRets <- retsList[,c(51, 116, 141)]
stats <- data.frame(cbind(t(Return.annualized(truncRets)),
                 t(SharpeRatio.annualized(truncRets)),
                 t(maxDrawdown(truncRets))))
colnames(stats) <- c("A.Return", "A.Sharpe", "Worst_Drawdown")
stats$MAR <- stats[,1]/stats[,3]
stats <- round(stats, 3)

And the results:

> stats
    A.Return A.Sharpe Worst_Drawdown   MAR
60     1.103    2.490          0.330 3.342
125    0.988    2.220          0.368 2.683
150    0.983    2.189          0.404 2.435

And the resulting performance, on both a regular, and log scale:

charts.PerformanceSummary(truncRets)

logRets <- log(cumprod(1+truncRets))
chart.TimeSeries(logRets)


Perfect strategies? There’s probably room for improvement. As good if not better than the volatility strategies posted elsewhere on the internet? Probably. Is there more investigation that can be done regarding the differences in signal delay? Yes.

So, in conclusion for this post, I’m hoping that the rank comparison heuristic and its new output gives people another tool to consider, along with another vol strategy to consider as well.

Thanks for reading.

NOTE: I am a freelance consultant in quantitative analysis on topics related to this blog. If you have contract or full time roles available for proprietary research that could benefit from my skills, please contact me through my LinkedIn here.