Volatility Effects
Reward goes with risk, and volatility represents risk. Therefore, volatility means reward; investors/traders get paid for riding roller coasters. Right? These blog entries relate to volatility effects.
November 25, 2020 - Volatility Effects
Do differences in equity sector responses to stock market crashes (and associated volatility spikes) support an exploitably attractive sector rotation strategy? In the November 2020 update of his paper entitled “Actively Using Passive Sectors to Generate Alpha Using the VIX”, Michael Gayed examines a cyclical-defensive sector rotation strategy using the level of the CBOE S&P 500 Volatility Index (VIX) as trigger. Specifically, he iteratively favors defensive sectors (Utilities, Consumer Staples and Healthcare) when daily VIX is relatively low in anticipation of VIX increases and favors cyclical sectors (Technology, Industrials, Materials and Consumer Discretionary) to buy into high-VIX panics and benefit from VIX reversion. He considers:
- Three allocation schemes: (1) 100% long favored sectors and 100% short unfavored sectors; (2) 100% long favored sectors; and, (3) overweighting (underweighting) favored (unfavored) sectors by 5% to form a modified S&P 500 Index.
- Two weighting schemes for sets of defensive and cyclical sectors: (1) equal weighting, and (2) S&P 500 sector weighting.
- Two ways of applying the Nelder-Mead method to identify daily VIX levels that trigger defensive-to-cyclical and cyclical-to-defensive switches: (1) using only the first five years (1999-2004) of the full sample, and (2) using a 5-year rolling window throughout the sample period.
Using daily levels of VIX and the S&P 500 Index and daily prices of Select Sector SPDR Exchange Traded Funds (ETF) during January 1999 through October 2020, with strategy tests starting January 2005, he finds that: Keep Reading
September 9, 2020 - Investing Expertise, Mutual/Hedge Funds, Volatility Effects
How do mutual funds and hedge funds change their stock holdings in response to a sharp market crash? In their July 2020 paper entitled “Where Do Institutional Investors Seek Shelter when Disaster Strikes? Evidence from COVID-19”, Simon Glossner, Pedro Matos, Stefano Ramelli and Alexander Wagner analyze changes in institutional and retail stock holdings during the first quarter of 2020. Using a February-March 2020 snapshot of returns and firm accounting data for non-financial stocks in the Russell 3000 Index, institutional holdings of these stocks as percentages of shares outstanding during the fourth quarter of 2018 through the first quarter of 2020, and number of Robinhood clients (representing retail investors) holding these stocks on December 31, 2019 and March 31, 2020, they find that:
Keep Reading
September 2, 2020 - Strategic Allocation, Volatility Effects
How well did previously identified portfolio risk management strategies work during the COVID-19 market crash? In their July 2020 paper entitled “Strategic Risk Management: Out-of-Sample Evidence from the COVID-19 Equity Selloff”, Campbell Harvey, Edward Hoyle, Sandy Rattray and Otto Van Hemert extended analyses of risk management strategies they identified in a 2016-2019 series of papers with an out-of-sample test of the February-March 2020 stock market sell-off. These strategies include:
- Long put options, short credit risk, long bonds or long gold.
- Trend following based on time series/intrinsic momentum (past return divided by volatility of returns over a specified lookback interval) or on moving average crossovers.
- Holding defensive stocks (based on profitability, payout, growth, safety or quality).
- Volatility targeting (increasing/decreasing exposure when past volatility is relative low/high).
- Rebalancing a stocks-bonds portfolio only half way and only when recent (1, 3 or 12 months) portfolio return is above its historical average.
Extending analyses from their prior papers through March 2020 to capture the COVID-19 crash, they find that:
Keep Reading
August 21, 2020 - Currency Trading, Gold, Volatility Effects
How might an investor construct a portfolio of very risky assets? To investigate, we consider:
- First, diversifying with monthly rebalancing of:
- Bitcoin Investment Trust (GBTC), representing a very long-term option on Bitcoins.
- VanEck Vectors Junior Gold Miners ETF (GDXJ), representing a very long-term option on gold.
- ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures (SVXY), to capture part of the U.S. stock market volatility risk premium by shorting short-term S&P 500 Index implied volatility (VIX) futures. SVXY has a change in investment objective at the end of February 2018 (see “Using SVXY to Capture the Volatility Risk Premium”).
- Second, capturing upside volatility and managing drawdown of this portfolio via gain-skimming to a cash position.
We assume equal initial allocations of $10,000 to each of the three risky assets. We execute a monthly skim as follows: (1) if the risky assets have month-end combined value less than combined initial allocations ($30,000), we rebalance to equal weights for next month; or, (2) if the risky assets have combined month-end value greater than combined initial allocations, we rebalance to initial allocations and move the excess permanently (skim) to cash. We conservatively assume monthly portfolio reformation frictions of 1% of month-end combined value of risky assets. We assume accrued skimmed cash earns the 3-month U.S. Treasury bill (T-bill) yield. Using monthly prices of GBTC, GDXJ and SVXY adjusted for splits and dividends and contemporaneous T-bill yield during May 2015 (limited by GBTC) through June 2019, we find that:
Keep Reading
August 5, 2020 - Strategic Allocation, Volatility Effects
How should investors evaluate the effectiveness of a safe haven asset? In their July 2020 paper entitled “A Safe Haven Index”, Dirk Baur and Thomas Dimpfl devise and apply a safe haven index (SHI) to evaluate over 20 individual potential safe haven assets. SHI consists of seven equal-weighted assets: gold, Swiss franc, Japanese yen, 2-year, 10-year and 30-year U.S. Treasuries and 10-year German government bonds. For evaluations, they focus on four safe haven events: the October 1987 stock market crash, the September 2001 terrorist attacks, the September 2008 Lehman collapse and the March 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. Using daily data for index components and other potential safe haven assets as available during January 1985 through May 2020, they find that:
Keep Reading
June 3, 2020 - Volatility Effects
What are rational uses of leveraged and inverse exchange-traded products (ETP), which offer easy access to amplified positions in various benchmark indexes spanning stocks, bonds, commodities and volatility? In their April 2020 paper entitled “Levered and Inverse ETPs: Blessing or Curse?”, Colby Pessina and Robert Whaley review the mechanics of leveraged and inverse ETPs, simulate their expected performance of those based on six popular benchmarks and document actual performance of 35 ETPs. They employ Monte Carlo simulations assuming normally distributed log returns for underlying indexes, with mean and standard deviation estimates based on historical daily returns during December 20, 2005 through March 13, 2020. Using simulation inputs as specified and data for 35 actual ETPs as available through mid-March 2020, they find that:
Keep Reading
May 18, 2020 - Momentum Investing, Size Effect, Value Premium, Volatility Effects
Are there equity styles that tend to perform relatively well during and after stock market crashes? In their April 2020 paper entitled “Equity Styles and the Spanish Flu”, Guido Baltussen and Pim van Vliet examine equity style returns around the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918-1919 and five earlier deep U.S. stock market corrections (-20% to -25%) in 1907, 1903, 1893, 1884 and 1873. They construct three factors by:
- Separating stocks into halves based on market capitalization.
- Sorting the big half only into thirds based on dividend yield as a value proxy, 36-month past volatility or return from 12 months ago to one month ago. They focus on big stocks to avoid illiquidity concerns for the small half.
- Forming long-only, capitalization-weighted factor portfolios that hold the third of big stocks with the highest dividends (HighDiv), lowest past volatilities (Lowvol) or highest past returns (Mom).
They also test a multi-style strategy combining Lowvol, Mom and HighDiv criteria (Lowvol+) and a size factor calculated as capitalization-weighted returns for the small group (Small). Using data for all listed U.S. stocks during the selected crashes, they find that: Keep Reading
April 23, 2020 - Volatility Effects
Does shorting the iPath S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures ETN (VXX) with crash protection (attempting to capture the equity volatility risk premium safely) work? To investigate, we apply crash protection rules to three VXX shorting scenarios:
- Let It Ride – shorting an initial amount of VXX and letting this position ride indefinitely.
- Fixed Reset – shorting a fixed amount of VXX and continually resetting this fixed position (so the short position does not become very small or very large).
- Gain/Loss Adjusted – shorting an initial amount of VXX and adjusting the size of the short position according to periodic gains/losses.
We consider two simple monthly crash protection rules based on the assumption that volatility changes are somewhat persistent, as follows:
- Prior Month Positive Rule – short VXX (go to cash) when the prior-month short VXX return is positive (negative).
- Prior Week Positive Rule – short VXX (go to cash) when the prior-week short VXX return is positive (negative).
For tractability, we ignore trading frictions, costs of shorting and return on retained cash from shorting gains. Using monthly closes for the S&P 500 Volatility Index (VIX) and monthly and weekly reverse split-adjusted closing prices for VXX from February 2009 through March 2020, we find that: Keep Reading
April 16, 2020 - Volatility Effects
Low-risk investment strategies buy or overweight low-risk assets and sell or underweight high-risk assets. Growth in low-risk investing is stimulating much pro and con debate in the financial community. Which assertions are valid, and which are not? In their February 2020 paper entitled “Fact and Fiction about Low-Risk Investing”, Ron Alquist, Andrea Frazzini, Antti Ilmanen and Lasse Pedersen identify five facts and five fictions about low-risk investing. They employ long-short U.S. stock portfolio strategies to illustrate relative performance of low-risk versus high-risk assets. They consider six statistical and four fundamental risk metrics, emphasizing differences between dollar-neutral and market-neutral strategy designs. Focusing on a few prominent low-risk metrics, they compare performances of low-risk strategies to those based on conventional size, value, profitability, investment and momentum factors. Using daily returns for U.S. stocks since January 1931 and firm fundamental data since January 1957, all through August 2019, they find that:
Keep Reading
April 9, 2020 - Technical Trading, Volatility Effects
Findings in “Add Stop-gain to Asset Class Momentum Strategy?” suggest that systematic capture of upside volatility may enhance the base strategy. Does this conclusion hold for a simpler application to a single liquid asset over a longer sample period? To investigate, we apply a stop-gain rule to SPDR S&P 500 (SPY) that: (1) exits SPY if its intra-month return exceeds a specified threshold (sacrificing any dividend paid that month); and, (2) re-enters SPY at the end of the month. We also look at a corresponding stop-loss rule. Using monthly unadjusted highs, lows and closes (for stop-gain and stop-loss calculations) and dividend-adjusted closes (for return calculations) for SPY during February 1993 through February 2020, we find that:
Keep Reading