Below I continue my series of posts highlighting some of the more interesting blogs in my last three years of writing. The below is a nice prelude to the new paper I’m writing, so stay tuned!
Here is the post that announces the publication of my “A Quantitative Approach To Tactical Asset Allocation” paper way back in Feb 2007.
As a somewhat amusing aside, below is a review Victor Niederhoffer gave my paper back in September 2006. Note that before I get a ton of hatemail, realize I am a huge fan of his published writings. He is the author of The Education of a Speculator and Practical Speculation. (verbatim, no edits, my bolding):
VN: “(your paper) is based on 100 year old data, doesnt take account of the higher returns of
stocks, and doesnt use real prices and suffers from the law of small numbers in
chooinsg periods and marketst that beat stocks alone with or without leverage. a
very ad hoc and worthless article that will lead many to stay out of stocks
when they shouldnt. v”MF: (my reply which was not responded to)
“A couple notes:
The portfolio is invested in each asset class roughly 70% of the time. So, it is in effect “in” stocks the vast majority of the time.
Also, the portfolio is allocated 40% to stocks (foreign and domestic). [Note: technically that is a 60% equity allocation with REITs] That is pretty much in line with the Harvard and Yale endowments. But this figure was arbitrary to showcase the effects of diversification as well the timing system working in many varied markets.
The main point of the article (which I may have not done a good job of conveying) is that a simple timing system (in this case a moving average) does NOT improve returns but simply reduces risk. However, with leverage, returns can be improved.
Siegel’s results in his book confirm these results (as do many others)
Thanks again for your time!!
Regards,
Mebane
I don’t take any joy in people blowing up their funds like Vic did (twice) (also here- The Blow Up Artist) -, but I am proud of how the timing model has performed since publication (and it is the #1 most read academic paper in the world over the past year). Real time performance since publication is outperformance of over 20% with massive reductions in volatility and drawdown.
Looking at the ETF version, the model is mostly invested for the first time in a long, long time.
Some good related quotes from the chapter “A Tail of Two Worlds: Fat Tails and Investing“ in the book More Than You Know by Mauboussin (I love the last quote!!):
“[Victor Niederhoffer] looked at markets as a casino where people act as gamblers and where
their behavior can be understood by studying gamblers. He regularly made small amounts of
money trading on that theory. There was a flaw in his approach, however. If there is a…tide…he
can be seriously hurt because he doesn’t have a proper fail-safe mechanism.”
George Soros
Soros on Soros (1995)
“In statistical terms, I figure I have traded about 2 million contracts…with an average profit of
$70 per contract. This average profit is approximately 700 standard deviations away from
randomness, a departure that that would occur by chance alone about as frequently as the
spare parts in an automotive salvage lot might spontaneously assemble themselves into a
McDonald’s restaurant.”
Victor Niederhoffer
The Education of a Speculator (1997)
“On Wednesday Niederhoffer told investors in three hedge funds he runs that their stakes had
been ‘wiped out’ Monday by losses that culminated from three days of falling stock prices and
big hits earlier this year in Thailand.”
David Henry
USA Today (October 30, 1997)“Much of the real world is controlled as much by the ‘tails’ of distributions as by means or
averages: by the exceptional, not the mean; by the catastrophe, not the steady drip; by the very
rich, not the ‘middle class.’ We need to free ourselves from ‘average’ thinking.”
Philip Anderson
Nobel Prize Recipient, Physics
Some Thoughts About Distribution in Economics


Mebane:
Congrats on the success of the paper; my only concern regarding the model is that one outlier trade in the S&P500 accounted for a significant amount of profits; I think this was one of the trade in the 1990's. Curious to hear your thoughts on this.
Other than that, your point is very well taken; you achieve equity like returns with bond like risk. Or to put another way, avoid losing money! Thanks for all your work
I think Victor could stand to learn something about reducing risk … maybe he should have re-read the paper.
I've done a lot of simulation on your system with my prop data. I can't post graphs here, but if you send me your email, I'll send them. I also looked at other asset classes on the same basis.
mf@cambriainvestments.com
Your article is definitely the most read SSRN article in the last year. But the most read academic? How do you know that?
I liked Niederhoffer's books, too, especially the first one, and his attack on your paper does seem unreasonable. One can see from Niederhoffer's writings that he prefers mean reversion over trend-following strategies (and there are time frames where mean-reversion has worked), so I think he is inclined to bash trend-following strategies such as yours.
A lot of similar timing systems, at least in the stock market are similar. Really what you accomplish is to get with the trend most of the time. When the outliers come that are multi-year, you are in most of the time.
A few gurus made most or all of their out-performance for a decade or more during the '80's by not being long stocks during the '87 crash and long most of the other times. That's all it takes, and it is systematic (can be modeled).
Ah Victor Niederhoff… He thinks it's worthless… maybe it wouldn't have been so worthless to his investors, which he has blown up 3 times already…
What good is to be able to outperform the market, if in the end you may lose 100% ?
He should look more into his risk management… I cannot conceive how these guys that blow up funds after funds, can try to discredit any other strategies that go against their views… Sigh
Ah Victor Niederhoff… He thinks it's worthless… maybe it wouldn't have been so worthless to his investors, which he has blown up 3 times already…
What good is to be able to outperform the market, if in the end you may lose 100% ?
He should look more into his risk management… I cannot conceive how these guys that blow up funds after funds, can try to discredit any other strategies that go against their views… Sigh