Tag Archives: mutfvasix

Diverse Momentum – Can We Do Better?

A Diverse Momentum System Using Vanguard Allocation Funds generated a plethora of feedback. Can we improve or simplify the system? And does it hold up well if variables are changed? The systems tested in the original article rarely held the Moderate Growth (MUTF: VSMGX ), which allocate 60% stocks/40% bonds, or Conservative Growth (MUTF: VSCGX ), with a 60% bonds/40% stock allocation. The majority of returns were generated by the Growth (MUTF: VASGX ), Income (MUTF: VASIX ), and the S&P 500 Fund (MUTF: VFINX ). VASGX’s objective is to hold 80% equities and 20% bonds and VASIX’s objective is to hold 80% bonds and 20% equities. For example, you can see below the returns of the dual momentum 12-month system without VSCGX or VSMGX. The system rotated between VFINX, VASIX, VASGX, and cash: Portfolio Initial Balance Final Balance CAGR Std.Dev. Best Year Worst Year Max. Drawdown Sharpe Ratio Sortino Ratio Timing Portfolio $10,000 $60,384 9.66% 10.46% 33.21% -6.73% -17.29% 0.71 1.09 Equal Weight Portfolio $10,000 $40,025 7.37% 10.71% 23.23% -27.31% -38.97% 0.5 0.71 S&P 500 Total Return $10,000 $48,177 8.40% 15.47% 33.36% -37.00% -50.95% 0.45 0.64 These returns are largely in line with the original test, which included all 5 funds and cash: Portfolio Initial Balance Final Balance CAGR Std.Dev. Best Year Worst Year Max. Drawdown Sharpe Ratio Sortino Ratio Timing Portfolio $10,000 $59,952 9.62% 10.45% 33.21% -6.73% -17.29% 0.71 1.09 Equal Weight Portfolio $10,000 $38,242 7.12% 9.85% 21.35% -25.59% -36.63% 0.51 0.73 S&P 500 Total Return $10,000 $48,177 8.40% 15.47% 33.36% -37.00% -50.95% 0.45 0.64 Thus, we are left with a system which largely generated returns based on an 80/20, 20/80, 100% equity, or, with the dual momentum systems, cash (which does not generate a return, but improved risk-adjusted performance by avoiding crashes). I found similar results with the 5-month relative strength and dual momentum systems – dropping the 2 moderate funds had minimal impact on results. However, another option is to employ a volatility adjusted momentum system to the strategy. This gets us closer to the Hoffstein paper referenced in the first article , which compares on a monthly basis, the Sharpe Ratio over a look-­back period and invested in the option with the greatest risk-adjusted return. Portfolio Visualizer allows users to make a “volatility adjustment” to momentum tests, whereby the “performance number can be volatility adjusted, in which case the model adjusts the asset return performance by calculating the average daily return over the timing period divided by the standard deviation of daily total returns over the volatility window period.” When adding a volatility adjustment to our momentum strategy, we would expect a more diverse source of returns in our 5-fund model. Since we are no longer ranking the funds based purely on momentum and instead on their risk-adjusted returns, the moderate funds should have a greater representation in our back tests. Moderate funds will tend to generate lower pure momentum because they are less concentrated in either stocks or bonds, but their risk-adjusted returns may score higher at times because they have greater balance and potentially lower volatility than the funds more concentrated in stocks or bonds. In addition to adjusting for volatility, we can also add a 100% bond fund, the Vanguard Intermediate-Term Treasury Fund (MUTF: VFITX ) to our tests, to offset our ( potential ) exposure to 100% stocks via VFINX. In addition, this gives us the full spectrum of stock/bond allocation, from 0-100%. A relative momentum system with a 5-month look-back period for returns and volatility adjustment (essentially a Sharpe ratio calculation, excluding the risk-free rate, which is a mute point since we are ranking funds relative to each other) in our 6 fund portfolio of VFINX, VASIX, VASGX, VSMGX, VSCGX and VFITX generates the following: Portfolio Initial Balance Final Balance CAGR Std.Dev. Best Year Worst Year Max. Drawdown Sharpe Ratio Sortino Ratio Timing Portfolio $10,000 $49,837 8.59% 6.82% 24.77% -1.70% -11.01% 0.89 1.49 Equal Weight Portfolio $10,000 $37,503 7.01% 8.08% 19.13% -19.10% -29.10% 0.59 0.86 S&P 500 Total Return $10,000 $48,177 8.40% 15.47% 33.36% -37.00% -50.95% 0.45 0.64 A 12 volatility adjusted momentum system on the same portfolio generates the lowest standard deviation and drawdown of any system tested yet: Portfolio Initial Balance Final Balance CAGR Std.Dev. Best Year Worst Year Max. Drawdown Sharpe Ratio Sortino Ratio Timing Portfolio $10,000 $49,085 8.50% 6.48% 23.09% 0.36% -4.88% 0.92 1.64 Equal Weight Portfolio $10,000 $37,503 7.01% 8.08% 19.13% -19.10% -29.10% 0.59 0.86 S&P 500 Total Return $10,000 $48,177 8.40% 15.47% 33.36% -37.00% -50.95% 0.45 0.64 (click to enlarge) In both the 5 and 12-month volatility adjusted system, we also see much greater representation of all funds, unlike the momentum-only system. We could test variations of this strategy almost indefinitely. However, two final tests are relevant for today’s article. What if we exclude the conservative growth and moderate growth funds in our volatility-adjusted system? Can we simplify things without impacting results? A 5-month volatility adjusted system and a portfolio of VFINX, VFITX, VASIX, and VASGX generates comparable returns to the 6 fund portfolio: Portfolio Initial Balance Final Balance CAGR Std.Dev. Best Year Worst Year Max. Drawdown Sharpe Ratio Sortino Ratio Timing Portfolio $10,000 $50,103 8.62% 7.00% 22.79% -1.49% -11.01% 0.87 1.46 Equal Weight Portfolio $10,000 $38,487 7.16% 7.86% 19.66% -17.15% -27.12% 0.62 0.91 S&P 500 Total Return $10,000 $48,177 8.40% 15.47% 33.36% -37.00% -50.95% 0.45 0.64 And the 12 month system and 4 fund portfolio also generates comparable returns to the 6 fund portfolio: Portfolio Initial Balance Final Balance CAGR Std.Dev. Best Year Worst Year Max. Drawdown Sharpe Ratio Sortino Ratio Timing Portfolio $10,000 $51,111 8.73% 6.67% 27.77% 0.36% -6.12% 0.93 1.67 Equal Weight Portfolio $10,000 $38,487 7.16% 7.86% 19.66% -17.15% -27.12% 0.62 0.91 S&P 500 Total Return $10,000 $48,177 8.40% 15.47% 33.36% -37.00% -50.95% 0.45 0.64 (click to enlarge) In both cases, the 4 fund system had only slightly higher volatility but comparable risk-adjusted returns. Hopefully, these tests, while not intended to be exhaustive, provide some insight into the potential for a Diverse Momentum strategy. My initial thoughts are that a momentum system of asset allocation funds has merit. Diversification within the assets themselves appears to improve risk-adjusted returns, but the bulk of the returns is in the extremes and not in the moderate allocation funds. In addition, using risk-adjusted returns to select assets generates superior returns compared to purely momentum systems like the ones in our first article. Areas of further exploration could include additional asset allocation funds, such as The Permanent Portfolio (MUTF: PRPFX ), or other alternative allocation models, changes to the look-back period, modifications to the 100% stock and bond funds, and/or additional trend filters. Disclosures: None

A Diverse Momentum System Using Vanguard Allocation Funds

One of the criticisms of momentum systems is they are prone to crashes when momentum reverts. The system highlighted in this article can be implemented using any number of “life style” or target-risk funds or ETFs. The system chooses from a small number of funds that reflect a range of asset allocation models. The purpose is to employ a diverse, momentum-based asset allocation system. Rather than allocate based on momentum to singular asset classes which increases the potential for momentum crashes, we allocate to asset allocation models themselves. The tests were conducted using Portfolio Visualizer . If you have not checked out their site I highly recommend this free tool. Also, for additional research on this topic please see this award-winning paper by Corey Hoffstein of Newfound Research which served as the original inspiration for these tests. I ran 5 tests using Vanguard Target-risk funds and the Vanguard Five Hundred Index Fund (MUTF: VFINX ) . The Target-risk funds used were the Vanguard LifeStrategy Conservative Growth Fund (MUTF: VSCGX ) , the Vanguard LifeStrategy Growth Fund (MUTF: VASGX ) , the Vanguard LifeStrategy Income Fund (MUTF: VASIX ) and the Vanguard LifeStrategy Moderate Growth Fund (MUTF: VSMGX ) . According to Vanguard these funds are “a series of broadly diversified, low-cost funds with an all-index, fixed allocation approach that may provide a complete portfolio in a single fund. The four funds, each with a different allocation, target various risk-based objectives.” The funds allocate different percentages to bonds (international and domestic) and stocks (international and domestic). The tests consisted of two simple momentum systems I frequently use on Scotts Investments . The first is a simple relative strength system where the best performing asset based on trailing returns is purchased. The seconds is a “dual momentum” system that holds the best performing fund based on trailing returns. A second filter is used, absolute momentum, to switch the best performing asset to cash if its total returns were below the risk-free rate of cash over the lookback period. This is similar to my Dual Momentum Portfolio , which is inspired by a paper written by Gary Antonacci and available on Optimal Momentum . Antonacci’s book, Dual Momentum Investing: An Innovative Strategy for Higher Returns with Lower Risk , also highlights his specific system in greater detail. The test results for the relative momentum system is below. All tests were from 1996 – present. The first model used a single performance window of 5 months. The best performing fund was held, and trades were performed at the start of each month. For comparison purposes an “equal-weight” version each portfolio is also provided but since these are asset allocation funds the comparison is a bit redundant (equal weight is essentially a balanced fund itself): Timing Model Assets Ticker Name VSMGX Vanguard LifeStrategy Moderate Growth Fund VASIX Vanguard LifeStrategy Income Fund VSCGX Vanguard LifeStrategy Conservative Growth Fund VASGX Vanguard LifeStrategy Growth Fund Portfolio Initial Balance Final Balance CAGR Std.Dev. Best Year Worst Year Max. Drawdown Sharpe Ratio Sortino Ratio Stock Market Correlation Timing Portfolio $10,000 $51,597 8.78% 8.53% 24.22% -10.53% -18.49% 0.75 1.14 0.84 Equal Weight Portfolio $10,000 $35,621 6.73% 8.56% 19.57% -22.73% -32.75% 0.53 0.75 0.96 S&P 500 Total Return $10,000 $48,177 8.40% 15.47% 33.36% -37.00% -50.95% 0.45 0.64 0.99 What if we add VFINX to the pool of potential assets? We would expect higher volatility with potentially higher returns since a 100% stock allocation is held at various times ( you will also see the equal weight portfolio has slightly higher returns/volatility because it is tilted towards stocks with its allocation to VFINX): Portfolio Initial Balance Final Balance CAGR Std.Dev. Best Year Worst Year Max. Drawdown Sharpe Ratio Sortino Ratio Stock Market Correlation Timing Portfolio $10,000 $70,161 10.51% 10.21% 33.21% -10.53% -18.49% 0.8 1.24 0.82 Equal Weight Portfolio $10,000 $38,242 7.12% 9.85% 21.35% -25.59% -36.63% 0.51 0.73 0.98 S&P 500 Total Return $10,000 $48,177 8.40% 15.47% 33.36% -37.00% -50.95% 0.45 0.64 0.99 (click to enlarge) Returns and standard deviation increase, which may have been expected. However, max drawdown and the worst year remained the same, so adding a 100% stock allocation did not impact our biggest loss. Next, we test a dual momentum approach with a 12-month look back period. The top 1 fund is purchased based on 12-month returns, but only if the returns are also greater than the return on the risk free rate of cash. Testing the 4 life style funds (excluding VFINX) yielded the following results: Portfolio Initial Balance Final Balance CAGR Std.Dev. Best Year Worst Year Max. Drawdown Sharpe Ratio Sortino Ratio Stock Market Correlation Timing Portfolio $10,000 $49,142 8.51% 8.78% 22.26% -7.61% -16.17% 0.71 1.08 0.73 Equal Weight Portfolio $10,000 $35,621 6.73% 8.56% 19.57% -22.73% -32.75% 0.53 0.75 0.96 S&P 500 Total Return $10,000 $48,177 8.40% 15.47% 33.36% -37.00% -50.95% 0.45 0.64 0.99 What if we include VFINX? Portfolio Initial Balance Final Balance CAGR Std.Dev. Best Year Worst Year Max. Drawdown Sharpe Ratio Sortino Ratio Stock Market Correlation Timing Portfolio $10,000 $59,952 9.62% 10.45% 33.21% -6.73% -17.29% 0.71 1.09 0.73 Equal Weight Portfolio $10,000 $38,242 7.12% 9.85% 21.35% -25.59% -36.63% 0.51 0.73 0.98 S&P 500 Total Return $10,000 $48,177 8.40% 15.47% 33.36% -37.00% -50.95% 0.45 0.64 0.99 (click to enlarge) Finally, what is we use a 5-month look back period, like the relative strength tests, instead of 12 months? Portfolio Initial Balance Final Balance CAGR Std.Dev. Best Year Worst Year Max. Drawdown Sharpe Ratio Sortino Ratio Stock Market Correlation Timing Portfolio $10,000 $62,456 9.85% 9.72% 33.21% -4.74% -15.38% 0.77 1.22 0.7 Equal Weight Portfolio $10,000 $38,242 7.12% 9.85% 21.35% -25.59% -36.63% 0.51 0.73 0.98 S&P 500 Total Return $10,000 $48,177 8.40% 15.47% 33.36% -37.00% -50.95% 0.45 0.64 0.99 (click to enlarge) The sharpe ratio in all 5 tests ranged from .71 – .80 and in each instance outperformed an equal weight portfolio and the S&P 500. Investors looking for a simple, momentum based system that avoids “all-in” investments in single asset classes should consider a system using asset allocation funds. Disclosures: None