Monday, January 21, 2013

ETF Trading Using a Stop Loss - Limit Drawdowns, Maximize Returns

At SimpleAllocation.com we recommend the use of a stop loss when trading our model. This is frequently a source of questions from our users, as stop losses are considered by many to actually limit returns, not enhance returns. This article describes a simple trading system* that uses a stop loss, and shows how properly used stop losses can limit drawdowns and enhance returns.

First, lets cover how NOT to use a stop loss. The problems we generally see are:
  • Getting out of an open position too quickly; the stop loss is in the noise level of the security being traded.
  • Slow to reinvest, or no actual strategy for when and how to reinvest.
  • No strategy on what to do with cash while not invested.
Here is an example of a poorly executed stop loss strategy: trade SPY (SPDR S&P 500 ETF) using a 5% stop loss (tracking, split and dividend adjusted**), and on the last day of each quarter check the slope of the 250 day moving average and invest when the slope is positive and the account is in cash. (All examples assume an all-or-nothing strategy; the account is either 100% invested, or in cash.) 

(Green line - buy-and-hold results for SPY. Red line - return using the strategy described above. The same colors and scale will be used for all charts.) 


The stop loss did limit the drawdown, but also didn't generate much return during the market rallies.

Here is a better example of how to use a stop loss. Again trade SPY, but use a 10% stop loss (tracking, split and dividend adjusted**). On the last day of each quarter check the slope of the 100 day moving average and reinvest when the slope is positive and the account is in cash. (Note that this "better use" is slower to sell, and quicker to reinvest, compared to the "poor use" case above.)

(Green line - buy-and-hold results for SPY. Red line - return using the strategy described above.) 

We're on the right track. Again the drawdown was significantly limited as compared to a buy-and-hold strategy. (The drawdowns were about 25% for our "better strategy", and 56% for buy-and-hold of SPY.) The obvious problem is that we didn't do anything with the cash when we were not invested.

It's tempting to stop there; you've limited the drawdown during the financial crisis, and achieved an average annual return of about 5.4%, compared to an average annual return of about 4.2% for SPY. Wow! You beat the index and limited the drawdown. What could be better?

Well, how about doing something with the cash when not invested? For this next example, let's do just as above, with this exception: uninvested cash is put into SHY (iShares Barclays 1-3 Year Treasury Bond), and before buying, the slope of the 100 day moving average of SPY and SHY are compared and the purchase is made on the ETF with the higher slope.

(Green line - buy-and-hold results for SPY. Red line - return using the strategy described above. Blue line - SHY) 
ETF trading - stop loss limits drawdown

There are several interesting points to make about this final case.
  • Average annual return is now 7.9%.
  • The biggest drawdown was NOT the 2008 financial crisis, but a 10% stop hit in early 2010. 
  • By providing one alternative to SPY, which was very conservative by choosing 1-3 year Treasuries, we increase the overall return substantially. 
There were several instances in this data set where the timing, by chance, worked very well in favor of this strategy with these securities. By that we mean that if the reinvestment decisions were moved by only a few days one way or the other, the results changed significantly; generally for the worse, though better than the prior strategy that did not provide an alternative to SPY. When tested across many combinations of funds, we believe that providing one conservative alternative to your target fund provides beneficial results.

To prove that, we also tested this final strategy using SHY in combination with each of the following ETFs: AGG, EEM, EFA, HYG, IJH, IVV, IWF, IWM, IWN, IYY, VOE, VTI, and VYM. In all but 2 of 14 cases, providing SHY as an alternative increased the average annual return.


It is important to note that in all of the examples above, the investor was assumed to make just 4 purchasing decisions each year, all evaluated on the last day of each quarter. (Selling decisions were made as required by the use of the stops. After hitting a stop, the account was modeled as being in cash.)

Summary
We believe that a stop loss can be an important tool to all investors. Keys to properly using a stop loss are:
  • Having an appropriate stop value given the volatility of the securities you trade.
  • Having a strategy for how and when to reinvest after hitting a stop.
  • Providing at least one (conservative) alternative to the security you trade.

Thanks for reading!

Paul F. Dunn - Owner
Simple Allocation LLC - Simple investment allocation for the experienced investor
www.SimpleAllocation.com

* The trading strategy described in this article is a simple approach that anyone can implement using trading tools available on the internet. This does not represent the strategy employed by SimpleAllocation.com in our proprietary model.

** Tracking, split and dividend adjusted stop loss - "Tracking" means that the stop loss tracks upward movements, and applies to the highest price since purchasing the security. "Dividend adjusted" means that you adjust price changes for dividends. The "adjusted price" quoted on many websites is just that, dividend and split adjusted.

Where to find us



 


 


 


 


 


 

*Please do not use our Tweets as a substitute for stop orders. The Tweets will be based on end-of-day data after market close; these are NOT real-time alerts. Further, delays in, or corrections to, end-of-day data or other technical problems could result in significant delays. Complete stop loss history is now available. 

Sunday, January 13, 2013

How does Simple Allocation compare to a buy-and-hold strategy?

At www.simpleallocation.com, we have created a rotating allocation model. The model picks the recent "best" performers from a specified portfolio for investment during the next month or quarter. (We have two time frames that we model; monthly and quarterly.) The model is a "rotating" model due to this nature of rotating-in the top performers, selected from a larger portfolio of securities. The model will only allocate to a maximum of 6 securities at any given time, and may allocate to as few as zero securities. This article is a review of performance of this model to a buy-and-hold strategy using a variety of allocations with the buy-and-hold portfolio.

A frequent source of confusion is that we publish "annualized gains" with our model output, while most people will refer to the average annual return generated by some other model or system. Please read this blog post (Volatility - why two strategies with the same average gains can have very different total return) to understand that annualized gain and average annual gain can be very different. Average annual gain "inflates" the actual gain compared to what most expect. It is not a real reflection of what an investor could expect to achieve after compounding. The result is that people often see our modeled annualized gain, and not realize how good the modeled returns really are. (Yes, we could fool you with average annual gain, but we'd rather be honest. To us that means if you compound your annual gain, you get the expected return; not the case with average annual gain.)

That said, lets move to comparing the Simple Allocation method to a more common buy-and-hold approach. (Link to Google document used for the modeling. Make a copy and try it yourself. )

For all comparisons we will use the Simple Allocation ETF Portfolio 001 (http://www.simpleallocation.com/allocation-plans/etf/etf-portfolio-001) compared to some other mix of ETFs using a buy-and-hold strategy.

Simple Allocation ETF Portfolio 001 versus Lazy Portfolio (60% stock, 20% bond, 20% real estate)

For this first comparison we will use the following portfolio: 
  • 30% - iShares Dow Jones U.S. Index (IYY)
  • 30% - iShares MSCI EAFE Index (EFA)
  • 20% - iShares iBoxx $ Invest Grade Corp Bond (LQD)
  • 20% - iShares Dow Jones US Real Estate (IYR) 
Clearly the Simple Allocation model, with ETF Portfolio 001, is the winner.
  • The Simple Allocation plan has higher return; $3.02 for Simple Allocation compared to $2.07 for buy-and-hold (starting with a $1 balance)
  • The Simple Allocation plan had about an 18% drawdown during the 2008 downturn, compared to over 50% for the buy-and-hold strategy.

But this buy-and-hold portfolio does have a large real estate exposure. So lets try another allocation more weighted to stocks.

Simple Allocation ETF Portfolio 001 versus Lazy Portfolio (60% stock, 40% bond)

For this comparison we will use the following portfolio: 
  • 30% - iShares Dow Jones U.S. Index (IYY)
  • 30% - iShares MSCI EAFE Index (EFA)
  • 40% - iShares iBoxx $ Invest Grade Corp Bond (LQD)
Again, the Simple Allocation plan is better; more gain, less volatility.


Lets try more stock, this time adding in value stocks.

Simple Allocation ETF Portfolio 001 versus Lazy Portfolio (80% stock, 20% bond)

For this comparison we will use the following portfolio: 
  • 30% - iShares Dow Jones U.S. Index (IYY)
  • 30% - iShares MSCI EAFE Index (EFA)
  • 20% - iShares Russell 1000 Value Index (IWD)
  • 20% - iShares iBoxx $ Invest Grade Corp Bond (LQD)
Again, the Simple Allocation plan is better; more gain, less volatility.


We are going to stop there, as we think you get the point.

There is one major issue we do want to address prior to concluding. The ETF Portfolio 001 has 36 securities from which the model chooses on any given month. When we model the lazy portfolio, we only modeled a maximum of 4 different securities. Of course, the Simple Allocation plan is never allocated to more than 6 securities at one time, sometimes less, so the comparison is more valid than it may seem.

Also, the whole point of the Simple Allocation strategy is that if you had a list of 36 securities from which YOU had to chose each month, what would you do? You'd pick a simple portfolio of 3-5 securities and buy-and-hold.

If you'd like to suggest a different portfolio for comparison, contact us via private message from one of our social media sites.

Thanks for reading!

Paul F. Dunn - Owner
Simple Allocation LLC - Simple investment allocation for the experienced investor
www.SimpleAllocation.com



Where to find us



 


 


 


 


 


 

*Please do not use our Tweets as a substitute for stop orders. The Tweets will be based on end-of-day data after market close; these are NOT real-time alerts. Further, delays in, or corrections to, end-of-day data or other technical problems could result in significant delays. Complete stop loss history is now available. 

Saturday, January 12, 2013

Volatility - why two investment strategies with the same average gains can have very different total return

On the SimpleAllocation.com website, we frequently mention "lower volatility" being a benefit of using our model. Most people have a sense that volatility is only important because it can cause them emotional stress to see their portfolio value drop; though they don't mind the upside volatility.

There is more to volatility though, than just the emotional roller coaster it can create. Volatility actually reduces return. We'll say it a different way - two investment strategies can have the same average gain, yet very different total return. 

How can this be? Here is a very simple example: If I have $1, and I make 10% each year for 3 years, then at the end of the 3 years I have $1.33. ($1 + $1 * 10% = $1.1,  $1.1 + $1.1 * 10% = $1.21, $1.21 + $1.21 * 10% = $1.33). Clearly the average gain was 10%/year.

Now lets say I have variable gain each year; 20% the first year, -5% the second year, and 15% the third year. That is still an average gain of 10%/year. But at the end of 3 years, I only have $1.31.($1 + $1 * 20% = $1.2,  $1.2 - $1.2 * 5% = $1.14, $1.14 + $1.14 * 15% = $1.31)

OK, so with constant 10% gain, I got $1.33 after 3 years, and with a more variable but still 10%/year average gain, I wound up with $1.31. That doesn't seem like too big of a deal. Well, each year these issues compound; the more time that passes, the bigger the difference will become. Also the more volatility, the bigger the differences become. 

The data below is a simulation of variable versus constant gain. (Link to the Google spreadsheet used to create the chart and data.) Notice that the constant gain model on the left has a 9.07% gain, each year, for 20 years, just as the variable gain model on the right has an average annual gain of 9.07%. Yet at the end of 20 years, the constant gain account has $5.67, yet the variable gain account balance is only $4.47. (Both accounts started with $1.00) In this case the volatility was 17.32%. (That is the standard deviation of the annual gains was 17.32%)

How does this compare to the "real" market volatility? SPY, an S&P500 index ETF, since 1994 has had:
  • An average annual gain of 9.86%
  • A volatility of 19.54%
  • Resulting in a average annualized gain of only 7.99% ("Average annualized gain" is the equivalent "constant gain". Link to a Google spreadsheet for the calculations.)
Investing in the S&P500, you would only have achieved 81% of the gain you might have thought you would achieve by looking at the average annual gain.

The moral of the story is that just because two strategies have the same average annual gain, does not mean they will generate the same return. Lower volatility generally means better total return.





Epilogue
An even easier example is this: You have $1, you make 100% one year, lose 100% the next. You have $0, yet your average return was 0%.

The message here is that you should not use arithmetic average, but geometric average. This is well known by professionals, but often not known by individuals. Individuals often get confused, because if there is no volatility, the arithmetic and geometric averages are the same. This article was written with individuals in mind; not as a piece to suggest that professionals do not know who to properly compute average return.

To compute the return, solve this equation for compound_return: (compound_return)^time = (final_value / starting_value)
compound_return = 10^(log10(final_value / starting_value) / time)
Where "^" means: raise to the power of

I.E. you start with $1, end with $5, over an 8 year period.
compound_return = 10^(log10(5/1)/8) = 1.2228, or 22.28% annual return.

An alternative method:
compound_return = (final_value / starting_value) ^ (1/time)
Or, using the values above:
compound_return = (5/1)^(1/8) = 1.2228, or 22.8%

Check this by noting that 1.2228^8 = 5.


Thanks for reading!

Paul F. Dunn - Owner
Simple Allocation LLC - Simple investment allocation for the experienced investor
www.SimpleAllocation.com


Where to find us



 


 


 


 


 


 

*Please do not use our Tweets as a substitute for stop orders. The Tweets will be based on end-of-day data after market close; these are NOT real-time alerts. Further, delays in, or corrections to, end-of-day data or other technical problems could result in significant delays. Complete stop loss history is now available.