Baja Volatilidad

Avatar de Usuario
Site Admin
Mensajes: 8966
Registrado: 09 May 2012 01:38

Baja Volatilidad

Mensajepor Dalamar » 11 Jul 2015 06:31

Es conocido que las hay una anomalia con las acciones de baja volatilidad y hay fondos que se centran en ello, sigue funcionando?

Portfolios of the 12 top ranked stocks of the iShares MSCI USA Minimum Volatility ETF provided much higher 1-year returns than the ETF.

For the period 6/30/14 to 6/18/15, our Best 12(USMV) Q3-Investor, a 1-year buy&hold portfolio, returned 26.0%,
The Best12(USMV)-Trader, re-balanced every 2 weeks, returned 29.3%, iShares MSCI USA Minimum Volatility ETF USMV returned 13.3% for the same period.

Minimum volatility stocks should provide exposure to the stock market with potentially less risk, seeking to benefit from what is known as the low-volatility anomaly.

Consequently, they should show reduced losses during declining markets, but should also show lower gains during rising markets. However, our backtests show that better returns than the broader market can be obtained under all market conditions by selecting 12 of the highest ranked stocks of a universe made up from minimum volatility stocks of the iShares MSCI USA Minimum Volatility ETF USMV.

To test these findings we launched the Best12(USMV)Q3-Investor and Best12(USMV)Trader on Jun-30-2014 and provided weekly reports of holdings and performance for the two portfolios on our website. The performances for almost one year are depicted in the figures below.

One notes that performance of the Investor model relative to USMV diminished from end of March 2015, whereas the Trader’s performance was marginally better than USMV over this period. This could be due to the Investor still holding 10 of the original stocks from inception onwards (353 days), while the Trader’s stock holdings were periodically renewed. The Investor model will be rebalanced for the first time at the end of the first week of July 2015 and should have the majority of its current holdings replaced by higher ranked stocks.
¿Te ha gustado este hilo? Compartelo en las redes sociales para que se sume mas gente a la conversacion!

Avatar de Usuario
Site Admin
Mensajes: 8966
Registrado: 09 May 2012 01:38

Re: Baja Volatilidad

Mensajepor Dalamar » 11 Jul 2015 06:39

Un sistema mas que interesante basado en Baja Volatilidad!

Best8(S&P500 Min-Volatility)-Tax Efficient Large-Cap Portfolio Management System With Minimum Volatility Stocks of the S&P 500

    This model invests periodically in eight highly liquid large-cap stocks selected from those considered to be minimum volatility stocks of S&P 500 Index.
    Most stock positions are held for longer than one year, resulting in a Tax Efficiency ratio of 81.4%.
    When adverse stock market conditions exist the model shorts the 3x leveraged Ultrapro S&P500 ETF (UPRO) – hedge/current holding ratio= 45%.
    The model produced a simulated average annual return of about 36% from Jan-2000 to end of June-2015.

The Minimum Volatility Stock Universe of the S&P 500

Minimum volatility stocks should exhibit lower drawdowns than the broader market and show reasonable returns over an extended period of time. It was found that a universe of stocks mainly from the Health Care, Consumer Staples and Utilities sectors satisfied those conditions.

This minimum volatility universe of the S&P 500 currently holds 117 large-cap stocks (market cap ranging from $4- to $277-billion), and there were 111 stocks in the universe at the inception of the model, on Jan-2-2000.

The Best8(S&P500 Min-Volatility)-US Tax Efficient

This model differs from our Best8(S&P500 Min-Volatility) system with regard to the hedge used and additional sell rules to make holding periods mostly longer than one year so that long term capital gain tax rates would apply. Also a position showing a loss greater than 25% may be sold earlier. All other parameters and ranking system are the same.

Under some conditions, such as mergers, a stock will be sold and replaced. This may invoking a short term gain for tax purposes if the holding period was less than one year.

The model assumes that stocks are bought and sold at the next day’s average of the Low and High price after a signal is generated. Variable slippage accounting for brokerage fees and transaction slippage was taken into account.

Tax Efficiency of the Best8(S&P500 Min-Volatility)-US Tax Efficient

An analysis of all the realized trades is shown in Table 1. There were 91 winning stock trades of which 86 had holding periods longer than 1 year. All winning hedge trades had holding periods less than 1 year.
The Tax Efficiency was defined as the ratio of total $ gains of winners held longer than 1 year to total $ gains of all winners: 81.4% for this model.

By comparison, the Tax Efficiency of the Best8(S&P500 Min-Volatility) system which trades frequently was only 18.6% as shown in Table 2. Since both models show the same annualized return of about 36% it would be more advantageous to follow the Tax Efficient system when trading outside a tax-sheltered account.


In the figures below the red graph represents the model and the blue graph shows the performance of benchmark SPY.

Figures 1, 2 and 3 show performance comparisons:

Figure 1: Performance 2000-2015 and hedging with short UPRO.

Annualized Return= 36.1%, Max Drawdown= -19.8%.
The model uses a hedge ratio of 45% of current holdings during down-market conditions.
(Note: The inception date of UPRO was June 23, 2009. Prior to this date values are “synthetic”, derived from the S&P 500.)

Figure 2: Performance 2000-2015 without hedging.

Annualized Return= 21.4%, Max Drawdown= -34.7%.
The drawdown figure confirms that minimum volatility stocks perform better than the broader market which had a -55% max drawdown.

Figure 3: Performance 2009-2015 with hedging.

Annualized Return= 35.8%, Max Drawdown= -17.4%.

Figures 4 to 8 show performance details:

Figure 4: Performance 2000-2014 versus SPY. Over the 15-year period $100 invested at inception would have grown to $9,889, which is 54-times what the same investment in SPY would have produced.

Figure 5: 1-year returns. Except for 2006 the 1-year returns were always higher than for SPY. There was never a negative return in one calendar year.

Figure 6: 1-year rolling returns. The minimum 1-year rolling return of the 3-day moving average was -2.9% early in 2008.

Figure 7: Distribution of monthly returns. One can see that the monthly returns follow a normal distribution, displaced to the right relative to the returns of SPY.

Figure 8: Risk measurements for 15-year and trailing 3-year periods.
¿Te ha gustado este hilo? Compartelo en las redes sociales para que se sume mas gente a la conversacion!

Volver a “Mixtos”