Quantitative Trading: VIX Factor Model and Trend Following
More and more investors are using the power of computing
technologies and quantitative techniques to manage their portfolios
these days. They believe that quantitative trading can help reduce the
PnL volatility resulted from emotional decision making and thus increase
the consistency of returns. However, sometimes the machine beats the
man, and sometimes it does not. Recently, quantitative funds seemed to
suffer considerable losses after British Prime Minister Theresa May
shocked markets by calling a snap election.
Among the most high-profile losers was Connecticut-based
investment firm AQR Capital Management’s $13.3 billion computer-driven
Managed Futures Strategy, which lost 1.1 percent on Tuesday, according
to an investor who was told by the hedge fund, representing a loss of
more than $130 million. The same strategy made 5.2 percent on the day
the results of Britain’s EU referendum were revealed in June. Two other hedge funds run by machines, which the investor declined to name, lost 2.8 percent and 1.9 percent. Read more
As pointed out by Maiya Keidan et al, the strategies that lost money were mostly trend-following in nature.
Trend following is a very popular strategy. Another, lesser-known
type of quantitative trading, which we write extensively about in our blog,
takes place in the volatility space. Specifically, volatility traders
and hedgers bet on the future volatility dynamics or distribution of
returns. They can do so by using mathematical models to predict the
implied and/or realized volatilities. One of the most popular volatility
prediction methods is the GARCH
model. However, there exist other lesser-known quantitative methods,
such as factor model that can be used to predict the volatility and help
with decision making. As reported by Andrea Wong, such a factor model
is being used by a hedge fund.
VIX as of Apr 28, 2017. Source: Yahoo financeThere are a number of reasons to heed the signals from Noorani
and his team: their model, which analyzes around 30 macroeconomic
factors from rate differentials to China’s credit default swaps,
explains 91 percent of the movement in dollar-yen over a rolling
four-month period. It sent out warning signals in mid-February before
the dollar peaked. The framework was developed by Michael Hobson, a
professor of astrophysics at the University of Cambridge. Read more
While quantitative trading is believed to be beneficial to many
market participants, some observers and regulators are worried about its
negative impact on the market, especially during a downturn. Recently
Keith Savard wrote:
The risk of turmoil is even greater given that markets already
are trying to absorb a technological revolution that includes enhanced
algorithmic trading, the proliferation of electronic bond trading
platforms and increased reliance on exchange-traded funds (ETFs).Read more
So is the jury still out whether we should embrace quantitative trading or not?
No comments:
Post a Comment