Again with variability of long-short decile tests

December 6, 2012

A simpler approach to producing the variability.

Previously

The post “Variability in long-short decile strategy tests” proposed a way of assessing the variability of strategy tests in which a long-short portfolio is created by equally weighting the top and bottom deciles.

Improved idea

Joe Mezrich suggests maintaining equal weights but bootstrapping the assets within the deciles.  For me that passes the jealousy test — why didn’t I think of that?

It eliminates the arbitrariness of the selection of the range of weights to use in the previous method.

Figure 1 shows the variability of 1000 bootstrap paths for the MACD signal that the previous post used.

Figure 1: Efficacy of MACD via long-short deciles with bootstrapped equal weights. The bootstrap variability is bigger than the biggest of the variabilities investigated previously.

Appendix R

The function to do the bootstrapping is a very mildly revised version of the function that does the random weighting.

pp.decileTestBoot <-
  function(signal, prices, trials=1000, groups=10)
  {
    # R function to test a signal 
    # via long-short deciles
    # and bootstrapping the deciles

    # put in the public domain 2012 by Burns Statistics

    # testing status:
    # seems to work

    stopifnot(all(dim(signal) == dim(prices)), 
              length(groups) == 1,
              identical(sort(colnames(signal)), 
              sort(colnames(prices))))

    ntimes <- nrow(prices)
    eqwtval <- rep(NA, ntimes)
    names(eqwtval) <- rownames(prices)
    randwtval <- array(NA, c(length(eqwtval), trials),
                       list(names(eqwtval), NULL))
    uret <- tail(prices, -1) / head(prices, -1) - 1
    randwtval[1,] <- eqwtval[1] <- 100

    nside <- round(ncol(prices) / groups)

    if(trials) {
      tseq <- 1:trials
      t.eret <- numeric(trials)
    }

    for(i in 1:(ntimes-1)) {
      tb <- pp.topBottom(signal[i, ], n=nside)
      botret <- uret[i, tb$bottom]
      topret <- uret[i, tb$top]
      this.eret <- mean(topret) - mean(botret)
      eqwtval[i+1] <- eqwtval[i] * (1 + this.eret)
      if(trials) {
        for(j in tseq) {
          t.eret[j] <- mean(sample(topret, nside, 
            replace=TRUE)) - mean(sample(botret, 
            nside, replace=TRUE))
        }
        randwtval[i+1, ] <- randwtval[i, ] * 
            (1 + t.eret)
      }
    }
    ans <- list(equal.weight=eqwtval, 
        random.weight=randwtval, nside=nside, 
        call=match.call())
    class(ans) <- "SignalTest"
    ans
  }

Latest posts

Leave a Reply

  1. […] ← Popular posts 2012 November Again with variability of long-short decile tests → […]

Related posts

  • August 20, 2011

    Yes, the title is meant to have two readings. The effect The Numbers Guy, among other examples, talks about the UK Office for National Statistics needing to revise its [...]

  • August 9, 2011

    The first 6 trading days of August have been bad for the major indices, but how variable is that across portfolios? To answer that, two sets of random portfolios [...]

  • August 2, 2011

    Empirical Finance Blog has a post called "How to use the Fama French Model". I find  the first part of the post most interesting.  This shows some examples of [...]