Tag Archives: portfolio-strategy

A (Partial) Solution For Narrative Risk: Probit Modeling

The search for objective analysis in the cause of making informed investment decisions is the Holy Grail of finance. Unfortunately, narrative risk continually threatens to derail us on our crucial quest for perspective. Everyone loves a good story, and it’s no different when it comes to finance and economics. The problem: there’s an excess of interesting narratives that too often are bereft of useful information. Genuine insight that’s earned by way of a clear-eyed review of the numbers, in other words, is the exception in a world that’s overflowing with story lines that appeal to emotion rather than intellect. Unfortunately, we’re bombarded with distraction. The self-proclaimed seer on TV who spins a good yarn about what’s really driving prices or the business cycle can draw a crowd by dispensing entertaining narratives about gloom and glory. Bigger is always better from a media vantage, even if the facts don’t easily fit the narrative. Meanwhile, a sober reading of the numbers is a yawn if you’re trying to maximize eyeballs pinned to the tube. Making reasonable decisions and producing compelling media content, in short, are often at cross purposes. What’s the solution? There are many paths to quantitative enlightenment, including the powerful analytics that arise from probit and logit regressions. There are no silver bullets here, but the ability to translate raw data into specific probability estimates for a particular condition offers a valuable resource for cutting through the noise. The flexibility and power that probit and logit models bring to the table suggest that running the numbers through these filters should be on everyone’s short list of analytical tools. As a simple review of how these models work, let’s run through the basics using R code as the quantitative lingua franca, although you could easily do the same in Python or even Excel. But first a warning: the illustration below is a toy example and not a very useful one as presented in terms of making real-world decisions. But the general outline is valid and so the process will offer a flavor of how to deploy this modeling framework. ( Here’s the R code to replicate the data discussed below.) Let’s say that you think that the VIX index, which tracks the implied volatility of the US stock market (S&P 500), offers useful information for monitoring and measuring equity risk. After eyeballing a chart of the two indexes (as shown below) you decide that a VIX reading above 20 is a warning sign for the market. But how threatening is a 20-plus reading? One way to quantify the danger is by analyzing the S&P 500 in context with the VIX by way of a probit model. The first step is creating a data set of binary signals that reflect your definition of “risk.” The sky’s the limit for customizing this definition, but in the interests of keeping this short review from becoming a consulting project let’s use one simple metric: rolling one-year return for the S&P 500. The research agenda is estimating the probability of a negative one-year return based on the current VIX reading. (Yes, this is a bit naïve not to mention superfluous, but it’s good enough to profile probit modeling.) With our research map in hand, it’s a simple matter of getting the data in shape. The first step is creating a set of binary signals to indicate the state of the market that we’re trying to model. Remember, a probit model is designed to estimate probabilities for one of two states, which is considerably easier and therefore more practical in the real world vs. trying to model a spectrum of conditions. In keeping with our simplistic example. any negative one-year return for the S&P is labeled as “1” and a positive return as “0”. The next step is instructing the probit model to estimate the probability that the S&P is in negative territory by way of analyzing the historical relationship between the VIX and the signal data as defined above. Right about now you’re probably complaining that we already know the state of S&P one-year return by looking at real-time market data without referring to the VIX. Agreed, and so creating a probit model to tell us what’s already obvious is a redundant exercise. True, at least in this case, but the point of all this is to outline a basic probit procedure. Keep in mind that a genuine effort in this corner would probably focus on modeling a state that’s unclear in real time, such as the start of a recession or some other aspect of market risk that’s not readily available. As for our toy example with the S&P, here’s the result of the probit model estimates for the probability that the S&P’s trailing return is below zero. Visual inspection suggests there’s some meat on this bone. The rising probability that eventually reached 100% in late-2008, for instance, tells us that there’s a relatively robust relationship between the S&P and the VIX. Well, of course there is! We already knew that. The probit model is simply quantifying the relationship per our specifications. The question is how or if such a model should be adjusted. Is modeling trailing 6-month return preferable to 1-year performance? Should we raise or lower the 20-plus VIX trigger? What about adding in additional variables – the 10-year Treasury yield, for instance. There’s a wide array of possibilities here, which is a benefit and a curse. A benefit because probit modeling (and its close cousin logit modeling) can be customized in an endless variety to extract estimates of a particular state from raw data. But that’s a curse if you’re unsure of how to proceed. In other words, doing preliminary research to map out a reasonable strategy is essential before you dive into the numbers. But with a bit of advance planning, deploying a probit model can offer deep insight into market and macro analysis. There are no guarantees, of course-probit models can lead us astray in some cases, particularly when we’re sloppy with assumptions about relevant variables. But compared with listening to someone’s interpretations of what the latest market moves suggest, probit modeling offers objective context without the baggage of behavioral biases. It’s not a complete solution to narrative risk, but it’s a good start.

Risk Asset Update: Vast Majority Agonize Since The S&P 500’s August Lows

The fact that lower energy prices are not providing the anticipated windfall to economic sectors that should benefit from lower oil prices continues to confound analysts and economists alike. Rapidly falling oil and commodity prices have hampered energy stocks, materials stocks and resources-dependent exporting countries. Yet investor trepidation has spread to other risk assets as well. If risking one’s capital in non-U.S. stocks, small-cap U.S. stocks, high yield bonds, foreign bonds commodities, and a wide range of U.S. sectors is proving detrimental, what’s left? Weren’t lower oil prices supposed to act like a “tax cut” for U.S. households? If families spend less at the gas pump, then they will spend more of their dollars at the mall. At least that’s what mainstream media cheerleaders like CNBC’s Jim Cramer have insisted throughout the year. In contrast, the S&P SPDR Retail Index (NYSEARCA: XRT ) demonstrates that investors are not particularly impressed by the prospects of American retailers. The current price for the exchange-traded fund tracker is lower than the price during the summertime stock market correction. What’s more, XRT is trading 14% below its 2015 high. Well, okay. Maybe consumers are pocketing some of their gasoline savings. Maybe they’re choosing to pay down some of their debts. No matter. Lower energy costs surely must boost bottom line profits of transportation companies – truckers, airlines, shippers, railways. Maybe not. The iShares DJ Transportation Average ETF (NYSEARCA: IYT ) shows that investors see big troubles for American transportation corporations. The current price on IYT is near a 52-week low and sits approximately 10% below a long-term 200-day trendline. Equally troubling, IYT is trading near the lows of the August-September sell-off and it remains down 16.5% year-to-date. The fact that lower energy prices are not providing the anticipated windfall to economic sectors that should benefit from lower oil prices continues to confound analysts and economists alike. For one thing, most of them have completely missed the cons of of commodity price depreciation; that is, gains for commodity users would be offset by losses for the producers (e.g., energy, materials, natural resources, etc.). Second, if the losses by the producers become bad enough, the number of resources-dependent exporters crimping global world product (GWP) can play into the notion of worldwide recessionary pressures. In other words, the U.S. is not an island; the well-being of the global economy matters more for risk taking in market-based securities than a simplistic assessment of oil savings benefiting retailers and/or transporters. Just how bad do resource-dependent exporters have it? The second largest non-OPEC provider of oil to the world is Canada. The iShares MSCI Canada ETF (NYSEARCA: EWC ) is in a bear market with price depreciation in the realm of 32%. Myopic S&P 500 bulls dismiss the bear market in energy stocks and energy-dependent producers like Canada. Yet the problems extend far beyond the oil patch. There is a 46% bearish decline across the entire commodity complex via the GreenHaven Continuous Commodity Index ETF (NYSEARCA: GCC ) due to weakening demand for “stuff” in the developing world and a surge in the U.S. dollar. When China, the world’s second largest economy and the world’s largest trader of goods witnesses year-over-year import declines of 18.8%, something’s not quite right. Rapidly falling oil and commodity prices have hampered energy stocks, materials stocks and resources-dependent exporting countries. Yet investor trepidation has spread to other risk assets as well. The demise of appetite for high yield bonds in the SPDR Barclays High Yield Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: JNK ) has been blamed on everything from energy company debt woes to the collapse of the mutual fund, Third Avenue Focused Credit. However, an in-depth look at the high yield bond space shows that “Ex-Energy” high yield bonds have been diverging from the S&P 500 throughout the year . In other words, people want out of junk bonds because they are lowering their overall risk profile, not simply because of the asset class association with the beleaguered energy sector. It is worth noting, then, that a wide range of risk assets are trading at prices that are in the same shape or in worse shape as they were back when the S&P 500 hit 52-week lows (1867). Energy stocks, retail stocks, transportation stocks, oil exporting countries, high yield bonds, commodities – each of these asset types are struggling mightily. And that’s not all. The iShares MSCI ACWI ex-U.S. Index ETF (NASDAQ: ACWX ) is more or less constrained. Small-cap U.S. stocks via the iShares Russell 2000 ETF (NYSEARCA: IWM ) are timid. In fact, both ACWX and IWM are below respective long-term moving averages and both are more than 10% off 52-week peaks set back in the first half of the year. If risking one’s capital in non-U.S. stocks, small-cap U.S. stocks, high yield bonds, foreign bonds commodities, and a wide range of U.S. sectors (e.g., energy, materials, utilities, retail, transports, etc.) is proving detrimental, what’s left? Large-caps via the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ . Even here, though, some of the leadership in biotech names have yet to recover former glory. The SPDR Biotech ETF (NYSEARCA: XBI ) trades lower today that it did when the S&P 500 hit its 1867 bottom; it is 25% off its 2015 pinnacle and well below its long-term trendline. In sum, leadership across risk assets is so narrow, risking one’s capital in anything other than the large-cap indexes may not be worth it. Indeed, one may wish to keep in mind that while the S&P 500 has been resilient in 2015, it has remained below its May record (2134) for close to seven months. More resilient? Long-term treasury bonds in the face of a Fed that intends to hike overnight lending rates. The iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: TLT ) is 5% higher than it was in the heat of July. For Gary’s latest podcast, click here . Disclosure: Gary Gordon, MS, CFP is the president of Pacific Park Financial, Inc., a Registered Investment Adviser with the SEC. Gary Gordon, Pacific Park Financial, Inc, and/or its clients may hold positions in the ETFs, mutual funds, and/or any investment asset mentioned above. The commentary does not constitute individualized investment advice. The opinions offered herein are not personalized recommendations to buy, sell or hold securities. At times, issuers of exchange-traded products compensate Pacific Park Financial, Inc. or its subsidiaries for advertising at the ETF Expert web site. ETF Expert content is created independently of any advertising relationships.

Is UVXY Shutting Down Due To New SEC Rules?

Summary A look at newly proposed SEC rules. How they could affect ProShares products. A look at the current volatility landscape. Before we get started I wanted to highlight my last article: Neuroeconomics and Volatility . I really enjoyed writing this piece and it is a very different take on your normal volatility reading. Feel free to share this unique piece. A reader of mine recently alerted me to an article that claimed many leveraged ETFs would need to close due to a newly proposed Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rule. This article will serve to properly inform readers on how this may affect the ProShares Ultra VIX Short-Term Futures (NYSEARCA: UVXY ). Article In reference to the original article that made this claim, I would like to focus for a minute on the strategy they are talking about. This strategy is close to the ones I have shared with you here on Seeking Alpha in regards to shorting volatility and taking advantage of contango and the effects of leverage. David Miller’s Catalyst Macro Strategy Fund uses a bread basket of many leveraged ETFs to short and take advantage of the decay of the underlying assets over time. He specifically mentions UVXY as one of the funds holdings and maintains a net short position in the volatility ETF. I encourage you to read the article as it presents other ETFs and strategies that we have not discussed in relation to volatility and leveraged ETF investing in general. SEC Comments On 12/11/2015 the SEC proposed new derivatives rules for registered funds and business development companies. You can read the full release here . The bottom line of the proposal, in relation to ETFs, is to prevent funds from liquidating due to extreme moves in their underlying indexes. It appears that this rule may put an end to my dream for a leveraged inverse volatility fund. ProShares Comments According to ProShares (view release here ), they are confident that this proposal will not impact their ability to offer the current 2x inverse and 2x ETF and mutual funds which include UVXY. However, it may impact their ability to operate 3x leverage funds. These funds mainly track broader market indexes and sectors. You can view a list of those funds here . My take I wouldn’t be concerned with the talk about UVXY shutting down and I also wouldn’t let it affected your trading objectives. The only affect this has on my current objectives would be to switch to the iPath S&P 500 VIX ST Futures ETN (NYSEARCA: VXX ) options if I am looking at more than a year until expiration, just in case. Any decision the SEC makes will be phased in over time and this proposed rule must still be approved by the Commission and will then be subject to a 90 day comment period. Seeking Alpha is a great place to get up to date information on these types of changes and any new information will surely be covered by myself or other fine contributors. Current Volatility Futures Backwardation has once again appeared. See below: (click to enlarge) Current Futures: (click to enlarge) Conclusion As we move into 2016 I am looking forward to the change in pace of volatility spikes. Hopefully we will move toward a trading environment where we see backwardation events on average every 2-3 months. I am not currently shopping for a large short volatility position unless market conditions deteriorate a little further. I may take small short positions here and there with very short-term trading objectives. Coming up you have the start of a Federal Reserve meeting that wraps up mid-week with a widely held notion that rates will be raised for the first time since 2006. The government shutdown is still on for the end of the week with a consensus that a deal will be struck before then. It doesn’t appear that UVXY is shutting down anytime soon due to the proposed SEC requirements. I wouldn’t panic and recommend you wait until more information becomes available. Have a great end to 2015 and thank you very much for reading.