Have you ever got the feeling that your market orders are often filled at prices worse than the NBBO displayed on your trading screen? Apparently, this may be the result of deliberate manipulation of the market by high frequency traders. These HF traders submit thousands of quotes per second to the NYSE ("quote stuffing") and then cancel them within 50 ms. This slows down the exchange data queue so much that by the time a quote is transmitted to you, it is stale already, even if your trading server is collocated at the exchange. (Checking the time stamp of the quote is of no help: the time stamp is based on the time the quote enters the queue, not when it exits the queue.)
If you can no longer believe in the quotes, is there any integrity left in the market? Much as I think that HFT may be useful liquidity providers, I can't see how this specific practice could be good for anyone over the long term.
(Hat tip: Jim Liew of Alpha Quant Club.)
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Saturday, August 14, 2010
What are we to do with Sharpe ratio?
I wrote several times before how useless Sharpe ratio is for certain types of strategies: see here and here. Not only is a high Sharpe ratio quite useless in telling you what damage extreme events can do to your equity, a low Sharpe ratio is also quite useless in telling you what spectacular gain your strategy might enjoy in the event of a catastrophe. I came across another brilliant example of the latter category in the best-selling book "The Big Short", where the author tells of the story of the fund manager Mike Burry.
Mike Burry started buying credit default swaps in 2005, essentially an insurance policy on mortgage-backed securities, betting that there will be widespread defaults on mortgages. Of course, we now know how this story would turn out: Mike Burry made $750 million in 2007 alone. But there was nothing but pain for the fund manager and his investors in 2005-2006, since they had to pay an annual premium of 8% of the portfolio. Investors who measured the performance of this strategy using Sharpe ratio, without knowing the details of the strategy itself, would be quite justified to think that it was an utter disaster prior to 2007. And indeed, many of them lost no time in trying to pull out their investments.
So what are we to do with Sharpe ratio, with its inherent reliance on Gaussian distributions? Clearly, it is useful for measuring high frequency strategies which you can count on to generate consistent returns every day, but which has limited catastrophic risks. But it is less useful for measuring statistical arbitrage strategies that hold positions over multiple days, since there may well be substantial hidden catastrophic risks in these strategies that would not be revealed by their track record and standard deviation of returns alone. As for strategies that are designed to benefit from catastrophes, such as Mike Burry's CDS purchases or Nassim Taleb's options purchases, it is completely useless. If I were to allocate my assets over different hedge funds, I would be sure to include some funds in the first category to generate cash flows for my daily needs, as well as funds in the last category to benefit from the infrequent black-swan events. As for the funds in the middle category, I am increasingly losing my enthusiasm.
Mike Burry started buying credit default swaps in 2005, essentially an insurance policy on mortgage-backed securities, betting that there will be widespread defaults on mortgages. Of course, we now know how this story would turn out: Mike Burry made $750 million in 2007 alone. But there was nothing but pain for the fund manager and his investors in 2005-2006, since they had to pay an annual premium of 8% of the portfolio. Investors who measured the performance of this strategy using Sharpe ratio, without knowing the details of the strategy itself, would be quite justified to think that it was an utter disaster prior to 2007. And indeed, many of them lost no time in trying to pull out their investments.
So what are we to do with Sharpe ratio, with its inherent reliance on Gaussian distributions? Clearly, it is useful for measuring high frequency strategies which you can count on to generate consistent returns every day, but which has limited catastrophic risks. But it is less useful for measuring statistical arbitrage strategies that hold positions over multiple days, since there may well be substantial hidden catastrophic risks in these strategies that would not be revealed by their track record and standard deviation of returns alone. As for strategies that are designed to benefit from catastrophes, such as Mike Burry's CDS purchases or Nassim Taleb's options purchases, it is completely useless. If I were to allocate my assets over different hedge funds, I would be sure to include some funds in the first category to generate cash flows for my daily needs, as well as funds in the last category to benefit from the infrequent black-swan events. As for the funds in the middle category, I am increasingly losing my enthusiasm.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Pair trading technologies update
Pair trading was invented two decades ago, but automating its implementation has only recently become fashionable with independent traders. But once the spotlight is on, innovations come fast and furious. Here are a number of recent developments that I find interesting:
1. I mentioned previously the software called quant2ib. It is an API which allows us to get market data and send orders from a Matlab program to Interactive Brokers (IB). I have used it extensively for our trading, and it is as reliable as IB's native API. Their latest version now includes functions for constructing a "combo" security. This combo security can be pairs of stocks, ETF's, futures, etc. (with the notable exception of currencies), and the API allows you to get market data as well as to submit orders on a combo. This is a huge improvement because you can now automatically trade a pair of securities as one unit by submitting limit orders on the combo. (Previously, you would have had to submit market order on at least one side of the pair, and this would have required your program to continuously monitor the market prices and send orders when appropriate. Or else you had to give up using the API and manually enter a "generic combo" limit order in IB's TWS.)
2. Alphacet Discovery also has the ability to send limit orders on pairs, due to its partnership with Knight Trading. Besides, based on a demo that I have recently seen, they also now have great pairs portfolio and execution reporting functionality. (Full disclosure: I used to consult for them.)
3. IB itself has released a "Scale Trader" algorithm that can be applied to combos (see 1. above. Hat tip: Mohamed.) I can't explain this better than their press release: "... ScaleTrader algorithm allows clients to create conditions under which a long position in one stock is built while simultaneously creating an offsetting short position in the other. The ScaleTrader is named because investors can 'scale-in' to market weakness by setting orders to buy as the market moves lower. Similarly, sell orders can be 'scaled' into when a market is rising. The ScaleTrader algorithm can be programmed to buy the spread and subsequently take profit by selling the spread if the difference reaches predetermined levels set by the user." In other words, it allows us to automatically implement the "parameterless trading" or the "averaging-in" strategy that I blogged about previously without any programming on our part!
Speaking of pair trading, I will be teaching my first New York workshop in October. (My editor inevitably picks touristy locations for these workshops. My London workshop takes place across the street from the Tower of London, my New York workshop is across from the new World Trade Center, and my Hong Kong workshop is in the "Golden Mile" shopping district of Tsim Sha Tsui.)
1. I mentioned previously the software called quant2ib. It is an API which allows us to get market data and send orders from a Matlab program to Interactive Brokers (IB). I have used it extensively for our trading, and it is as reliable as IB's native API. Their latest version now includes functions for constructing a "combo" security. This combo security can be pairs of stocks, ETF's, futures, etc. (with the notable exception of currencies), and the API allows you to get market data as well as to submit orders on a combo. This is a huge improvement because you can now automatically trade a pair of securities as one unit by submitting limit orders on the combo. (Previously, you would have had to submit market order on at least one side of the pair, and this would have required your program to continuously monitor the market prices and send orders when appropriate. Or else you had to give up using the API and manually enter a "generic combo" limit order in IB's TWS.)
2. Alphacet Discovery also has the ability to send limit orders on pairs, due to its partnership with Knight Trading. Besides, based on a demo that I have recently seen, they also now have great pairs portfolio and execution reporting functionality. (Full disclosure: I used to consult for them.)
3. IB itself has released a "Scale Trader" algorithm that can be applied to combos (see 1. above. Hat tip: Mohamed.) I can't explain this better than their press release: "... ScaleTrader algorithm allows clients to create conditions under which a long position in one stock is built while simultaneously creating an offsetting short position in the other. The ScaleTrader is named because investors can 'scale-in' to market weakness by setting orders to buy as the market moves lower. Similarly, sell orders can be 'scaled' into when a market is rising. The ScaleTrader algorithm can be programmed to buy the spread and subsequently take profit by selling the spread if the difference reaches predetermined levels set by the user." In other words, it allows us to automatically implement the "parameterless trading" or the "averaging-in" strategy that I blogged about previously without any programming on our part!
Speaking of pair trading, I will be teaching my first New York workshop in October. (My editor inevitably picks touristy locations for these workshops. My London workshop takes place across the street from the Tower of London, my New York workshop is across from the new World Trade Center, and my Hong Kong workshop is in the "Golden Mile" shopping district of Tsim Sha Tsui.)
Saturday, May 29, 2010
The Quants
Once in a while, a book about trading written for the general public contains some useful nuggets even for professionals. Fortune's Formula was one. It introduced me to the world of Kelly's formula, Universal Portfolios, and the maximization of compounded growth rate. The Quants, by WSJ reporter Scott Patterson, is another. (Hat tip to my partner Steve for telling me about it.)
What is the most important take-away in The Quants? No, it is not that you should learn to become a master poker player or chess player before hoping to make it big, though you would think that given Patterson's exhaustive coverage of poker games played by the top quants. Among my own professional acquaintances, trader-poker-players are still a minority.
The most important take-away is what ex-employees said about Renaissance Technologies: "there is no secret formula for the fund's success, no magic code discovered decades ago by geniuses .... Rather, Madallion [Fund]'s team of ninety or so Ph.D.'s are constantly working to improve the fund's systems, ..."
In other words, though you may not have 90 Ph.D.'s at your disposal, you can still work on continuously improving/refining your strategies, improving the engineering of your trading environment, and increasing the diversity of your strategies. And though you may still not archive 60-70% annualized returns every year, you will nevertheless enjoy stable returns year after year.
By the way, it is good to see my ex-colleagues Lalit Bahl, Vincent and Stephen Della Pietra mentioned in the book, all of whom left IBM to join Renaissance many years ago, and who are extraordinarily nice and friendly guys, quite in contrast to the norm on Wall Street.
What is the most important take-away in The Quants? No, it is not that you should learn to become a master poker player or chess player before hoping to make it big, though you would think that given Patterson's exhaustive coverage of poker games played by the top quants. Among my own professional acquaintances, trader-poker-players are still a minority.
The most important take-away is what ex-employees said about Renaissance Technologies: "there is no secret formula for the fund's success, no magic code discovered decades ago by geniuses .... Rather, Madallion [Fund]'s team of ninety or so Ph.D.'s are constantly working to improve the fund's systems, ..."
In other words, though you may not have 90 Ph.D.'s at your disposal, you can still work on continuously improving/refining your strategies, improving the engineering of your trading environment, and increasing the diversity of your strategies. And though you may still not archive 60-70% annualized returns every year, you will nevertheless enjoy stable returns year after year.
By the way, it is good to see my ex-colleagues Lalit Bahl, Vincent and Stephen Della Pietra mentioned in the book, all of whom left IBM to join Renaissance many years ago, and who are extraordinarily nice and friendly guys, quite in contrast to the norm on Wall Street.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
A HFT primer
As a follow-up of my previous discussions on high frequency trading, I have invited guest blogger Jennifer Groton to share with us a quick survey of various common HFT strategies used by equities and FX traders.
==
High frequency trading strategies are under fire. The recent trading spike in our national exchanges was duly noted as a short-circuit waiting to happen and drew immediate industry criticism of auto-trading robots. Before a witch-hunt ensues, perhaps a review of the common HFT strategies in stocks and Forex is in order.
High-frequency firms employ a wide variety of low-margin trading strategies that are implemented by professional market intermediaries who have invested heavily in technology. These firms claim that they make markets more efficient by enhancing liquidity and transparent price discovery to the benefit of investors. The Forex market’s unique combination of high liquidity and low volatility make it an ideal environment for deploying HFT strategies, although many of the ideas and technology are from the equity markets. The basic strategies fall into three categories: market-making, trending or predictive, and classic arbitrage.
Market-making strategies tend to focus on a single stock or currency pair. Many firms in this area have been described as engaging in "rebate-capture trading", a reference to the credits that firms get for providing liquidity on most market centers.
The second group consists of mean-reversion and trending strategies. These utilize technical indicators for stocks or forex indicators for currencies, and seek to generate more return from individual trades.
The last group may involve a cross-section of trades from multiple markets. The classic arbitrage strategy is a form of the “carry trade” that uses the prices of a domestic bond, a bond denominated in a foreign currency, the spot price of the currency, and the price of a forward contract on the currency. If the market prices are sufficiently different from those implied in the model to cover transactions costs, then four transactions can be made to guarantee a risk-free profit.
High frequency trading is attributed with generating over 70% of the volume of trades on our equity markets. Similar statistics are not available for forex markets, but speculating disguised as commercially necessary trades have been reported to be over two-thirds of the volume. Liquidity and pricing transparency are the benefits offered by its advocates, but regulators and other market participants who disagree with this positive assessment are presently discounting these benefits. Transaction taxes and time limits on orders have been proposed to mitigate the perceived risk created by HFT firms, but the wheels of Washington move slowly, even in crisis. For the time being, there is no indication that their participation will be discontinued.
==
High frequency trading strategies are under fire. The recent trading spike in our national exchanges was duly noted as a short-circuit waiting to happen and drew immediate industry criticism of auto-trading robots. Before a witch-hunt ensues, perhaps a review of the common HFT strategies in stocks and Forex is in order.
High-frequency firms employ a wide variety of low-margin trading strategies that are implemented by professional market intermediaries who have invested heavily in technology. These firms claim that they make markets more efficient by enhancing liquidity and transparent price discovery to the benefit of investors. The Forex market’s unique combination of high liquidity and low volatility make it an ideal environment for deploying HFT strategies, although many of the ideas and technology are from the equity markets. The basic strategies fall into three categories: market-making, trending or predictive, and classic arbitrage.
Market-making strategies tend to focus on a single stock or currency pair. Many firms in this area have been described as engaging in "rebate-capture trading", a reference to the credits that firms get for providing liquidity on most market centers.
The second group consists of mean-reversion and trending strategies. These utilize technical indicators for stocks or forex indicators for currencies, and seek to generate more return from individual trades.
The last group may involve a cross-section of trades from multiple markets. The classic arbitrage strategy is a form of the “carry trade” that uses the prices of a domestic bond, a bond denominated in a foreign currency, the spot price of the currency, and the price of a forward contract on the currency. If the market prices are sufficiently different from those implied in the model to cover transactions costs, then four transactions can be made to guarantee a risk-free profit.
High frequency trading is attributed with generating over 70% of the volume of trades on our equity markets. Similar statistics are not available for forex markets, but speculating disguised as commercially necessary trades have been reported to be over two-thirds of the volume. Liquidity and pricing transparency are the benefits offered by its advocates, but regulators and other market participants who disagree with this positive assessment are presently discounting these benefits. Transaction taxes and time limits on orders have been proposed to mitigate the perceived risk created by HFT firms, but the wheels of Washington move slowly, even in crisis. For the time being, there is no indication that their participation will be discontinued.
Saturday, May 08, 2010
Are flash orders to be blamed for Dow's 1,000 points drop?
Before the smoke is clear, fingers are already pointing at flash orders. See these two NYT pieces here and here. Our reader Madan has convinced me previously that flash orders can indeed be used to front-run other traders, but until more evidence comes in, I am yet to be convinced that they are the main culprit. Couldn't old-fashioned automated momentum programs accomplished the same thing after an initial erroneous transaction price and/or quote was reported? Perhaps you know of discussions elsewhere on the blogosphere that bring more light to the issue?
Sunday, May 02, 2010
An additional ETF pair
Many of you know that there are a number of dependable commodity-related ETF pairs that remain cointegrated ever since I mentioned them in 2006: IGE-EWC, IGE-EEM, IGE-EWA, EWA-EWC, etc. (Their latest zScores are available here to my book's readers and to Premium Content subscribers.) A recent visit to a client in South Africa prompted me to add a new one: EWA-EZA.
It is worth noting that for those country ETF pairs that cointegrate, their underlying currency cross-rates are often stationary as well. Now, there are several advantages in trading currency cross rates instead of ETF pairs. When trading a stationary cross rate, you can enter a limit order to enter and exit, but trading pairs of ETF's involve market orders on at least one side. Also, ETF's can sometimes be hard-to-borrow, and their margin requirements are much more onerous than that of currencies. However, the one major disadvantage in trading cross rates is that they are not always available on your brokerage. For example, based on the cointegration of EWA and EZA you would think that trading AUDZAR would be quite profitable. And you would be right, theoretically, except that AUDZAR is not available for trading on Interactive Brokers. If you know of a good Forex brokerage that have many emerging markets cross-rates for trading, especially those of Latin American countries, please let the rest of us know!
It is worth noting that for those country ETF pairs that cointegrate, their underlying currency cross-rates are often stationary as well. Now, there are several advantages in trading currency cross rates instead of ETF pairs. When trading a stationary cross rate, you can enter a limit order to enter and exit, but trading pairs of ETF's involve market orders on at least one side. Also, ETF's can sometimes be hard-to-borrow, and their margin requirements are much more onerous than that of currencies. However, the one major disadvantage in trading cross rates is that they are not always available on your brokerage. For example, based on the cointegration of EWA and EZA you would think that trading AUDZAR would be quite profitable. And you would be right, theoretically, except that AUDZAR is not available for trading on Interactive Brokers. If you know of a good Forex brokerage that have many emerging markets cross-rates for trading, especially those of Latin American countries, please let the rest of us know!
Saturday, April 17, 2010
How do you limit drawdown using Kelly formula?
As many of you know, I am a fan of Kelly formula because it allows us to maximize long-term growth of equity while minimizing the probability of ruin. However, what Kelly formula wont' prevent is a deep drawdown, though we are assured that the drawdown won't be as much as 100%! This is unsatisfactory to many traders and especially fund managers, since a deep drawdown is psychologically painful and may cause you to panic and shut down a strategy prematurely.
There is an easy way, though, that you can use Kelly formula to limit your drawdown to be much less than 100%. Suppose the optimal Kelly leverage of your strategy is determined to be K. And suppose you only allow a maximum drawdown (measured from the high watermark, as usual) to be D%. Then you can simply set aside D% of your initial total account equity for trading, and apply a leverage of K to this sub-account to determine your portfolio market value. The other 1-D% of the account will be sitting in cash. You can then be assured that you won't lose all of the equity of this sub-account, or equivalently, you won't suffer a drawdown of more than D% in your total account. If your trading strategy is profitable and the total account equity reaches a new high watermark, then you can reset your sub-account equity so that it is again D% of the total equity, moving some cash back to the "cash" account. Otherwise, you continue to keep the equity in the cash account separate from the equity of the trading sub-account.
Notice that because of this separation of accounts, this scheme is not equivalent to just using a leverage of L=K*D% on your total account equity. Indeed, some of you may be too nervous to use the full K as leverage, and prefer to use a leverage L smaller than K. (In fact, the common wisdom is that, due to estimation errors, it is never advisable to set L to be more than K/2, i.e. half-Kelly.) The problem with using a L that is too small is that, besides not achieving maximum growth, the portfolio market value will be unresponsive to gains or losses and will remain relatively constant. Using the scheme I suggested above will cure this problem as well, because you can apply a higher leverage L_sub to the sub-account (e.g. use L_sub = L/D%) as long as L_sub < K, so that the portfolio market value is much more sensitive to your P&L while still ensuring the drawdown will not exceed D%.
Has anyone tried this scheme in their actual trading? If so, I would be interested in hearing your experience and see if practice is as good as theory.
There is an easy way, though, that you can use Kelly formula to limit your drawdown to be much less than 100%. Suppose the optimal Kelly leverage of your strategy is determined to be K. And suppose you only allow a maximum drawdown (measured from the high watermark, as usual) to be D%. Then you can simply set aside D% of your initial total account equity for trading, and apply a leverage of K to this sub-account to determine your portfolio market value. The other 1-D% of the account will be sitting in cash. You can then be assured that you won't lose all of the equity of this sub-account, or equivalently, you won't suffer a drawdown of more than D% in your total account. If your trading strategy is profitable and the total account equity reaches a new high watermark, then you can reset your sub-account equity so that it is again D% of the total equity, moving some cash back to the "cash" account. Otherwise, you continue to keep the equity in the cash account separate from the equity of the trading sub-account.
Notice that because of this separation of accounts, this scheme is not equivalent to just using a leverage of L=K*D% on your total account equity. Indeed, some of you may be too nervous to use the full K as leverage, and prefer to use a leverage L smaller than K. (In fact, the common wisdom is that, due to estimation errors, it is never advisable to set L to be more than K/2, i.e. half-Kelly.) The problem with using a L that is too small is that, besides not achieving maximum growth, the portfolio market value will be unresponsive to gains or losses and will remain relatively constant. Using the scheme I suggested above will cure this problem as well, because you can apply a higher leverage L_sub to the sub-account (e.g. use L_sub = L/D%) as long as L_sub < K, so that the portfolio market value is much more sensitive to your P&L while still ensuring the drawdown will not exceed D%.
Has anyone tried this scheme in their actual trading? If so, I would be interested in hearing your experience and see if practice is as good as theory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
