Option FanaticOptions, stock, futures, and system trading, backtesting, money management, and much more!

Strategies vs. Systems (Part VI)

In Part V of this series (http://www.optionfanatic.com/2012/06/05/strategies-vs-systems-part-v/), I concluded some commentary on discretionary trading.  Today I want to provide some argument for algorithmic (also known as “rules-based” or “systematic”) trading.

Rules-based trading systems may be tested for statistical reliability.  Robust systems have proven themselves over extended periods of time and different market environments.  This leaves us confident about trading them into an unknown future.

Systematic trading eliminates decision making.  An oft-cited quote is “prepare for war in a time of peace.”  In the heat of battle, adrenaline kicks in.  Decisions are then motivated by survival rather than profit.  These are the times when psychic pain causes us to realize huge losses if only to sleep restfully at night.  This is not the road to consistent profits over time.

Systematic trading ensures consistent application of trading rules.  Rules without enforcement are trades without rules.  No longer are we then trading systematically and no longer does our historical backtesting apply.  Based on nothing concrete we are now gambling, not trading.

Systematic trading eliminates emotion.  We program entries and exits to ensure they occur reliably and according to plan.  One of the largest uncertainties of discretionary trading is our emotional reactions to pleasant or unpleasant situations.  Systematic trading removes this.

Finally, systematic trading provides continuous risk control.  Profit targets and stop-losses were determined through the rigorous system development process yielding potential results with which we feel comfortable.  Gone will be the days of “I’ll hold on just a little longer because I think this market is about to reverse.”  The trading platform will exit our trades automatically.

In my next post, I will address some potential downside to systematic trading.

Strategies vs. Systems (Part V)

I’m in the process of breaking down quite the mouthful from Part III of this series (http://www.optionfanatic.com/2012/05/23/strategies-vs-systems-part-iii/):

“If you are a discretionary trader then you have trading strategies with guidelines… [this] relies somewhat on common sense and gut instinct.”

Today I will finish by discussing the latter.

“Gut instinct” is a type of knowledge that may be difficult or impossible to describe as binary statements or programmable criteria.  The guidelines are meant to be generalities subject to change depending on what discretionary traders believe to have typically occurred in the past when these observations were made.

Since this does not reduce to programmable criteria, the biggest problem with gut instinct is the inability to backtest trading strategies.  Maybe your gut would have proven correct one or two times.  Would it have proven correct most times out of a large number of instances, though?  These may be hard to determine without using software to scan the universe of markets over long periods of time.

Because it cannot be objectified, gut instinct lends itself to biased thinking.  Confirmation bias is the tendency for people to favor information that confirms their beliefs.  This leads to overconfidence because it’s not necessarily true that gut instinct has proven itself correct time and time again–it simply has yet to fail.

Gut instinct also falls prey to the availability heuristic, which is when you mistakenly believe something at the forefront of your mind is something that has occurred often.  For example, if you recently saw a moving average crossover generate a profitable trade then you may be more likely to trade similar crossovers in the future.  One instance does not make for a robust phenomenon; it may simply be good luck.

In the next post, I will break down characteristics and qualities of algorithmic trading.

Strategies vs. Systems (Part IV)

In my last post (http://www.optionfanatic.com/2012/05/23/strategies-vs-systems-part-iii/), I said quite a mouthful.

Let’s break it down.

“If you are a discretionary trader then you have trading strategies with guidelines… [this] relies somewhat on common sense and gut instinct.”

Discretionary traders claim to know their market through lengthy study and/or live trading experience.  They claim to have a feel for how the market moves–slow or fast, volatile or nonvolatile, cyclical ranges, etc.  They claim to have a feel for common price patterns, tendencies, and fake outs.  Based on this assumed understanding, discretionary traders develop trading strategies with guidelines.

“Common sense” includes tendencies that sound logical.  For example, it sounds logical to reduce exposure to the market ahead of big news announcements or known events when you don’t know how the market might react.  Discretionary traders often include logically sounding guidelines in their trading approach regardless of whether these boost or detract from profitability.

The unfortunate fact is that common sense trading guidelines often end up producing unprofitable trades.  This is evident in the thousands of trading systems based on common sense criteria that have generated unimpressive results.  The only way to know if inclusion of common sense guidelines is beneficial would be to define some trading rules and backtest them.  This is more work than most [discretionary traders] are willing or able to do.

In my next post, I will wax eloquent for a while about “gut instinct.”

Strategies vs. Systems (Part III)

In Part II of this series (http://www.optionfanatic.com/2012/05/16/strategies-vs-systems-part-ii/), I continued to argue that trading strategies are optionScam.com.  Let’s continue this analysis from another angle.

In the quest for consistent trading profits, traders are commonly discretionary or algorithmic in their approach.

Much ado has been made about the differences between these two.  If you are a discretionary trader then you have trading strategies with guidelines.  If you are an algorithmic trader then you have trading systems with rules.  The former relies somewhat on common sense and gut instinct.  The latter depends on programmable criteria that can be evaluated and executed by a computer.

At this point in my trading career, I strongly suspect that through a complex interplay of logic and human psychology including but not limited to the effect of wins and losses on emotions and memory, Maslow’s hierarchy, and ego fulfillment, discretionary trading may be optionScam.com at its finest.

That’s nothing short of a mouthful.  In future posts, I will break down each and every one of these elements.

Strategies vs Systems (Part I)

Trading systems are capable of generating consistent profits while trading strategies are optionScam.com (see http://www.optionfanatic.com/2012/04/21/optionscam-com/).

Trading strategies are available everywhere you look.  You can find trading strategies in books, through webinars, on internet sites–this list goes on and on.  Strategies are often marketed through long advertisements that promise huge ROIs and large compounded returns.

Trading strategies appeal to human greed.  They are sought after and commonly sold for hundreds to thousands of dollars.  Expensive trader education programs generally teach strategies.  If the market is bullish (bearish) then do X (Y) trade.  If the market is stagnant then do Z trade.  You can spend lots of money learning what kinds of trades will optimize what trends.  At the very least, this makes you dangerous although it may not make you profitable.

Trading strategies are well illustrated by single trades in isolation, which is hardly the reality of live trading.  By applying the strategy guidelines to a particular trade, you can learn its strengths and weaknesses.  Annualize that ROI (as if!) and human nature has already taken over.  “Imagine what X%/year can become over the course of decades!”  Human nature needs a reality check.  The only way to generate consistent income and meaningful growth is to trade as a business, which single trades in isolation are not.

A trading strategy is not a trading system because it lacks detail about money management.  Money management addresses Risk of Ruin for the entire portfolio.  Making money without studying this is luck at its finest–luck that will eventually run out.

For these reasons, trading strategies are generally not actionable.  This makes trading strategies optionScam.com.  In future posts I will go into more detail about this important concept.

optionScam.com

How can I trade in order to generate consistent profitability over time?  That is the $6M question most any trading mentorship program, educational program, or investing service is trying to answer.  None of them have the answer but all of them purport to have an answer.  Since my focus is mainly on options, I’m going to call this misnomer “optionScam.com.”

A scam is a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation.  A scam is when you pay for something promised that you don’t end up getting.

Most all retail traders dream of making consistent profits over time.  Out of fear and greed, the two emotions most commonly attributed to traders, we tend to be pulled toward outlets that promise this consistent profitability.

No program or service can truly provide us with such consistent profitability, however.  Regardless of whether we pay a couple hundred dollars or several thousand dollars, nobody can deliver on this promise.  Paying money to not receive the service promised is optionScam.com.

Proof of optionScam.com is like proof of arbitrage bounds.  A higher strike put must always cost more than a lower strike put.  A longer dated put (call) must always cost more than a shorter dated put (call) at the same strike.  A call must always cost less than or equal to the underlying price.  If any of these are violated then you could place a trade for guaranteed profit.  Similarly, if someone absolutely knew how to generate consistent profit over time then they could do the trade for guaranteed profit.  What would happen with arbitrage bound violations or the profitability promise is that others would execute the trade until the profit was no longer [guaranteed].

This is what makes any such promises optionScam.com.

Let me be absolutely clear:  IN ORDER TO BE A SUCCESSFUL TRADER YOU MUST AVOID optionScam.com.

The Naked Put (Part III)

Option income trading purports to generate consistent profits on a daily basis.  As defined in my post on March 20 (http://www.optionfanatic.com/2012/03/20/the-naked-put-part-i/), an option income trade is a positive theta position.  The exemplar I have been studying is an April 510 naked put on AAPL (see http://www.optionfanatic.com/2012/03/22/the-naked-put-part-ii/).  The profit potential for this trade is $240/contract.

To better understand this trade, we need to know the risk.  If AAPL sinks below $510 then the naked put could be assigned.  The max risk of this trade is therefore $510/share * 100 shares = $51,000.  While your stock would most probably have significant market value, in the worst-case scenario with AAPL stock crashing to zero, you would be out $51,000.  The max potential return on this trade is therefore $240 / $51,000 = 0.47%.

Repeating this sort of trade every month would roughly generate an annualized return of 0.47% * 12 =  5.6%, right?  Not exactly.  With the trade being placed with 33 days to expiration, the possibility is great for two overlapping positions to be on at once.  The max risk therefore has to be 2 * $51,000 or $102,000.  This now yields a max annualized return of 2.8%.

While 2.8% is a very small return, realize how conservative this trade is.  AAPL would have to fall 15% within 33 days in order for the profit not to be made on this trade.  If you look back on a price chart, you’ll find it has been years since AAPL has fallen 15% in 33 days.  Anything is possible, but because this would be such a rarity, many market observers would consider this trade to be reliable like an ATM machine.

Is this an accurate portrayal?  I’ll cover some further insights in my next post.

To Optimize or Not to Optimize?

In the quest for consistent trading profits, backtesting is generally regarded as useful but optimization is viewed by some as a four-letter word.

If a system captures profits from consistent human behavioral characteristics reflected in the market then the past should reasonably approximate the future.  This will never be perfect but it may be profitable.

Optimization is the determination of what trading parameters applied to past market action would have resulted in maximal returns.  After all, if it worked well in the past then shouldn’t be likely to work in the future if the past is at least some small reflection of the future due to those consistent behavioral characteristics?  This is called curve-fitting.

One of the biggest scams on Wall Street is to present a system with brilliant historical returns (anyone can run an optimization procedure on backtested data to do this) and sell it as a system to be used in live trading.  Trading an optimized system into the future is almost guaranteed to underperform the past.  Selling an optimized system can be like selling snake oil, and charlatans abound in financial circles who aim to do just that.

To avoid excessive curve-fitting, some think that if you don’t optimize then you can’t fall prey to the illusion.  Choose only one parameter value and backtest it; if you come up with impressive results then they’re likely to persist into the future, right?

Not necessarily!

Suppose a system has one parameter (e.g. period for a moving average).  Imagine backtesting the system repeatedly over the historical time period while changing the period each time.  When you plot performance, does it look like this…

…or like this?

In both cases, using a period of A would have resulted in the best historical performance. However, in the latter case, if the period varied just a tad higher or lower then system performance was devastated. In the former case, trading with a period higher or lower than A would still have generated solid performance. Since the past is never identical to the future, which do you think has a better chance of generating profits going forward?

The bottom line is that “curve-fitting” and “optimization” are not four-letter words if used to know what you do not know.  Optimize not with the intent of finding the perfect parameter to trade going forward. Optimize with the intent to determine whether encouraging past results are likely to persist into the future.

 

Curtis Faith on Accountability

As mentioned yesterday in my post “Words to Profit By” (http://www.optionfanatic.com/2012/03/10/words-to-profit-by/), just because this may sound good does not make it relevant.  Give it some thought to see if it might apply to you:

“The idea that Rich had left out some key ideas was the easiest way for our paranoid Turtle to explain his inability to trade successfully during the program. This is a common problem in trading and in life. Many people blame their failure on others or on circumstances outside their control. They fail and then blame everyone but themselves. Inability to take responsibility for one’s own actions and their consequences is probably the single most significant factor leading to failure…

Trading is a good way to break that habit. In the end, it is only you and the markets. You cannot hide from the markets. If you trade well, over the long run you will see good results. If you trade poorly, over the long run you will lose money…

The bottom line is that you make the trades and you are responsible for the outcome. Don’t blame anyone else for giving you bad advice or withholding secrets from you. If you screw up and do something stupid, learn from that mistake, don’t pretend you didn’t make it. Then go figure out a way to avoid making that same mistake in the future…

Blaming others for your mistakes is a sure way to lose.”

–From Way of the Turtle (McGraw-Hill, 2007)

Words to Profit By

With today’s post, I am going to introduce a new category:  “Wisdom.”  I do a lot of reading and occasionally I come across a quote or passage that really rings true with me or seems to be of great significance.

Just because something sounds good does not mean it has any necessary relevance at all.   This is my grand disclaimer.  Some people make a habit of collecting “great quotes,” posting them, and including them in e-mail signatures.  Some people think just reflecting these “great quotes” makes them look all educated and brilliant.  I believe what makes you brilliant is not the “great quotes” themselves but critical evaluation to determine whether they can be applied to you or anyone else.

This echoes an interesting concept in the world of trading systems.  Upon first glance, many ideas for trading systems make good technical or fundamental sense.  When you backtest them, though, you’ll find their performance to be in the toilet.

Just because something sounds good does not mean it is actionable or will lead to consistent profitability.  We need to differentiate between the two in order to be successful traders.