Subscribe
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!
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.
Conference on the sociology of quantitative finance
A new conference called Psi-Q will be held in London this June, featuring luminaries in the academic quantitative finance world, as well as risk and fund managers from various banks and hedge funds. Example topics:
- How did shared beliefs, practices, ways of calculating, and technical systems impact evaluation of asset-backed securities and CDOs before and during the credit crises?
- Was that Lucky or Good? Creating a framework for skill attribution in finance, business management and other risky endeavors.
- The “backing out” phenomena observed in options markets: how traders use models to imply independent variables consistent with market observed pricing, and where enough traders can be wrong about the expected results and the backed-out positions can send the wrong message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
