Do Floor Traders Matter?

4.July 2020

The pandemic of COVID-19 brought many changes for the whole humanity. The financial markets where no exception, but the trading has continued. Nowadays, the order can be placed from anywhere around the world and almost all stock exchanges are electronic and algorithmic. However, there still is one exchange where the floor trading exists – NYSE. During these tough times, NYSE was also purely electronic, the floor trading was closed, and human interaction was not possible. A novel study by Brogaard, Ringgenberg and Roesch examines the role of floor traders in the recent era driven by computers. The conclusion is clear: in the current digital age, floor traders still matter.

Authors: Jonathan Brogaard, Matthew C. Ringgenberg, Dominik Roesch

Title: Does Floor Trading Matter?

Continue reading

Quantpedia in June 2020

1.July 2020

One more month is behind us and now it’s time for a short recapitulation. Nine new Quantpedia Premium strategies have been added into our database, and ten new related research papers have been included in existing Premium strategies during last month.

Additionally, we have produced 16 new backtests written in QuantConnect code. Our database currently contains over 310 strategies with out-of-sample backtests/codes.

Also, four new blog posts you may find interesting have been published on our Quantpedia blog:

Continue reading

YTD Performance of Crisis Hedge Strategies

25.June 2020

After a month, we are back with a year-to-date performance analysis of a few selected trading strategies. In the previous article, we were writing about the performance of equity factors during the coronavirus crisis. Several readers asked us to take a look also on different types of trading strategies, so we are now expanding to other asset classes. We picked a subset of strategies that can be used as a hedge at the times of market stress (at least, that’s what the source academic research papers indicate) and checked how they fared.

Continue reading

Transaction Costs Optimization for Currency Factor Strategies

18.June 2020

A lot of backtests of systematic trading strategies omit transaction costs (in the form of spreads and fees). Simulation is then simpler, but resultant model portfolio and its performance can be misleading. In the case of currency factor investing, backtest without the tcosts simulation can pick currencies with wider spreads and higher volatilities. And in real trading, with real-world transaction costs, a strategy can, therefore, perform significantly worse than expected. A research paper written by Melvin, Pan, and Wikstrom offers an elegant optimization methodology to incorporate transaction costs into the backtesting process which allows strategies to retain their alpha …

Authors: Michael Melvin, Wenqiang Pan, Petra Wikstrom

Title: Retaining Alpha: The Effect of Trade Size and Rebalancing Frequency on FX Strategy Returns

Continue reading

Trend Breaks in Trend-Following Strategies

9.June 2020

Trend-following strategies are very effective when markets are cleanly trending, but they suffer when trends end too soon. How markets behaved during the last few years, were they prone to last-longing trends? Are we able to immunize trend-following to endure the negative impact of trend breaks better? A research paper written by Garg, Goulding, Harvey, and Mazzoleni finds a negative relationship between the number of turning points (a month in which slow 12-month and faster 2-month momentum signals differ in their indications to buy or sell) and risk-adjusted performance of a 12-month trend-following strategy. The average number of turning points experienced across assets has increased in recent years. But we can implement a “dynamic” trend-following strategy that adjusts the weight it assigns to slow and fast time-series momentum signals after observing market breaks to recover much of the losses experienced by static-window trend following…

Authors: Garg, Goulding, Harvey, Mazzoleni

Title: Breaking Bad Trends

Continue reading

Embedded Leverage in High Beta Funds and Management Fees

4.June 2020

Risk-averse investors want higher returns at any cost. If they are constrained and are not able to use leverage on their own, they will look for other ways to increase their performance. Recent academic paper written by Hitzemann, Sokolinski, Tai suggests, that such risk-seeking investor will search for a high-beta fund that will give them requested embedded leverage, even when that fund charge higher than average fees. Resultant net alpha of those high-beta funds is then negative, and this effect can explain the significant part of the underperformance of the overall mutual fund industry. And now, the logical question follows: As hedge funds have even higher fees than mutual funds, what is embedded in them, that constrained clients normally can’t access? Higher leverage and access to option-like return distribution? Maybe…

Authors: Hitzemann, Sokolinski, Tai

Title: Paying for Beta: Embedded Leverage and Asset Management Fees

Continue reading

Subscribe for Newsletter

Be first to know, when we publish new content

The Encyclopedia of Quantitative Trading Strategies

Log in