Quantitative Analysis = "Highly" Technical Analysis (?)

Branding Quantitative Analysis as "Technical Analysis" will probably bring in some violent reactions from quants. But I just want to point out the similarities that they share. In fact, it can be seen that Quantitative Analysis is a higher form of Technical Analysis.

Technical Analysis is commonly described as Charting. It is the study of charts (graphical representation of past price movements) and finding patterns in them. Investment decisions are then based on these patterns. People say this is superstition as price moves randomly and just forms these patterns by chance. Technical analysis also utilize quantitative techniques via Technical Indicators. Technical Indicators aren't just numbers, they are results of some statistical modelling. Indicators like MACD and Bollinger Bands are actually similar to statistical measures used by quants today (mean and standard deviation respectively). These measures are used for momentum and mean reversion strategies. Technical analysis also looks into other quantifiable variables found in the market like traded volume, open interest, bid ask spreads, etc. Technical analysis gives rise to automatic trading rules which is also done with quantitative analysis.

In the Jan/Feb 2007 Issue of CFA Magazine, there is an article ("Perpetual Motion by Susan Trammell, CFA") about a recent study on trends in quantitative investing. Below are some findings:

Phenomena Being Modeled:

• Fund Capacity: 20%
• Impact of Trades: 24%
• Textual Data: 2%
• Higher Moments: 2%
• Regime Shifts: 10%
• Volatility: 20%
• Extreme Events: 10%
• Momentum / Reversal: 31%
• Trends: 28%

Modeling Methodologies Used:

• Shrinkage / Averaging: 9%
• Regime Shifting: 4%
• Nonlinear: 7%
• Contegration: 7%
• Cash Flow: 17%
• Behavioral: 16%
• Momentum / Reversal: 28%
• Regression: 36%

As seen in the survey results, trends, momentum, and reversal models are quite popular in quantitative analysis. These are also the same phenomena being modeled by technical analysis but at a less "scientific" degree.

The relationship of Technical and Quantitative analysis can be likened to the relationship between Astrology and Astronomy. One is seen as superstition while the other as a science. Astrology came about due to the lack of sophisticated tools and theories. The same with Technical Analysis -- people relied on charts because it was easier to analyze than numbers. But in the advent of faster and more powerful computers, large amounts of numbers can be analyzed with ease.

To see the survey results, please refer to www.theintertekgroup.com.

Tags: financial engineering investments quant technical analysis

Losing Money When There is No Volatilty

It is common knowledge that there is more risk when there is more volatility. But it is also possible to lose (a lot of) money in the absence of volatility as well. This case was illustrated in a recent article published by Financial Engineering News. It was reported that Credit Suisse recently lost $120 million in Korean Derivatives -- particularly reverse convertible bonds.

A conventional convertible bond offers lower interest rates but gives the investors an option to call a company's stock. The bondholder is effectively the owner of the option and the issuer is the option writer. A reverse convertible bond gives investors higher interest rates but gives the issuer the right to put shares to the investor. In this case, the bondholder is the seller of the option and the issuer is the option buyer. When volatility increases, option prices increase as well. This added value stems from a higher possibility of going in-the-money. Conversely, a decrease in volatility will lower the option value. So if Credit Suisse was the one who "bought" the stock options via the reverse convertible structure, a decrease in volatility will decrease option value and will result into a mark-to-market loss on their end.

Now as market makers (structurers), shouldn't Credit Suisse be hedging their exposure? The problem with this particular structure is that the option is not based on one stock. It issued reverse convertibles on a number of shares. Hedging proved to be quite difficult and luck was not on their side, as stated in the article:

The problem however came in the hedging. Credit Suisse no longer had a single put option, nor did it have a portfolio of put options, since it could exercise its put into only one share. Instead it had an option on an option, a put option under which it could choose the share on which the option would be exercised. This instrument could be reasonably hedged by an appropriate portfolio of the shares provided volatility remained approximately constant, but it was effectively unhedgeable against a sharp change in volatility. If volatility in Korean shares had increased, there would be no problem; Credit Suisse’s multiple put option would be more valuable. There was, however, no effective way to hedge against a decline in volatility, which is what happened.

The lessons that we can learn here are the following:

1) You can lose when there is less volatility -- particularly in options since volatility is explicitly included in valuation.
2) When building a structure, one should know how to hedge it properly.

Tags: derivatives financial engineering investments valuation volatility structured products options

Hedge Funds Semantics

Hedge funds are very risky investments. They invest in derivatives, employ unconventional trading strategies, and are usually greatly leveraged... All for the pursuit of extraordinary profits. A lot of hedge funds have come and gone and the survival rate is not encouraging. So why are they called "hedge" funds in the first place?

When we hear the word "hedge" we usually think of protection and safety. In finance, a hedge, usually in the form of derivatives, is used to protect an investment from loss. But it also limits the gains of the position as well. This makes potential earnings predictable and constant. Risk is eliminated since risk is defined as "uncertainty".

But looking at the hedging instrument individually, it is just as exposed to losses as other instruments. Moreover, derivatives are leveraged and losses are potentially greater than conventional assets. The hedge only takes shape if the hedging instrument is taken together with another position, and their reaction to changes in market factors should cancel each other out.

Hedge funds act in the same way. Taken alone, hedge funds are risky investments. But when combined with conventional funds, they can provide diversification benefits and even enhanced returns due unconventional strategies and assets employed. These unconventional strategies and assets result into low correlations with conventional funds.

I guess a lot of people assume that hedge funds are supposed to be safe investments because of the word "hedge". But if these funds are meant to safe in the first place, they should be called "hedged" funds instead.

Tags: finance derivatives hedge funds investments

Are fund managers really overcompensated?

CFA Magazine recently published an interview with Barton Biggs in its July-August 2006 Issue. Mr. Biggs has been with Morgan Stanley for 30 years acting as chief global strategist and is well respected by Wall Street. In 2003, He retired from Morgan Stanley to form Traxis Partners (hedge fund) with colleagues. In the interview, the following quote struck me the most...

"The hedge fund is another way for people to run money. It happens to be a way in which there are high fees charged. Eventually, the sheer size of the money going into hedge funds and the number of hedge funds that exist are going to inevitably result in a decline in hedge fund fees. In fact, my guess is that compensation across the investment management business is beginning a secular decline. It's the most overcompensated business in the world. Never have so many been paid so much for adding so little. It's an evolutionary process."

I am aware that competition forces fees in a downward trend and compensation will surely follow. But I still don't see the evidence of this happening at the moment based on the postings I see in jobs boards and the number of fresh grads wanting to go into the business (because it pays well).

I think it's all a matter of supply and demand. As more and more fund managers are needed, it becomes more difficult to get really good managers. The lack of supply raises the price for talents. The lack of supply also forces some funds to employ sub-standard managers (whether intentional or not) which results into Mr. Biggs observation of so little value added.

Some articles about Barton Biggs:
Morgan Stanley
Turtle Trader
Weeden & Co.

Tags: finance investing hedge funds CFA