Slope of Hope Blog Posts

Slope initially began as a blog, so this is where most of the website’s content resides. Here we have tens of thousands of posts dating back over a decade. These are listed in reverse chronological order. Click on any category icon below to see posts tagged with that particular subject, or click on a word in the category cloud on the right side of the screen for more specific choices.

Hedging Update — ETFs

By -

With weak economic data and renewed risks from the Euro zone, the Chicago Board Options Exchange Market Volatility Index (VIX) ticked up again Thursday to 22.73, its highest level since March. The table below shows the costs, as of Thursday's close, of hedging 18 of the 20 most actively-traded ETFs against greater-than-20% declines over the next several months, using the optimal puts for that. First, a reminder about why I've used 20% as a decline threshold, what optimal puts mean in this context, and a quick note about why there were no optimal puts for 2 of these ETFs.

Optimal Puts

Optimal puts are the ones that will give you the level of protection you want at the lowest possible cost. As University of Maine finance professor Dr. Robert Strong, CFA has noted, picking the most economical puts can be a complicated task. With Portfolio Armor (available on the web, and as an Apple iOS app), you just enter the symbol of the stock or ETF you're looking to hedge, the number of shares you own, and the maximum decline you're willing to risk (your threshold). Then the app uses an algorithm developed by a finance academic to sort through and analyze all of the available puts for your position, scanning for the optimal ones.

Decline Thresholds

You can enter any percentage you like for a threshold when using Portfolio Armor (the higher the percentage though, the greater the chance you will find optimal puts for your position). The idea for a 20% threshold comes, as I've mentioned before, from a comment fund manager John Hussman made in a market commentary in October 2008:

An intolerable loss, in my view, is one that requires a heroic recovery simply to break even … a short-term loss of 20%, particularly after the market has become severely depressed, should not be at all intolerable to long-term investors because such losses are generally reversed in the first few months of an advance (or even a powerful bear market rally).

Essentially, 20% is a large enough threshold that it reduces the cost of hedging but not so large that it precludes a recovery. When hedging, cost is always a concern, which is where optimal puts come in.

How Costs Are Calculated

To be conservative, Portfolio Armor calculated the costs below based on the ask prices of the optimal put options. In practice, though, an investor may be able to buy some of these put options for less (i.e., at a price between the bid and the ask).

Why There Were No Optimal Puts for VXX and FAZ

In some cases, the cost of protection may be greater than the loss you are looking to hedge against. That was the case with iPath S&P 500 VIX Short-Term (VXX) and the Direxion Daily Financial Bear 3X (FAZ). As of Thursday's close, the cost of protecting against greater-than-20% declines in those stocks over the next several months was itself greater than 20%. Because of that, Portfolio Armor indicated that no optimal contracts were found for them.

Hedging costs as of Thursday

The data in the table below is as of Thursday's close. The ETFs are listed in order of 125-day exponential moving average volume, with the most actively-traded name (SPY) at the top.

Symbol

Name

Cost of Protection (as % of position value)

SPY

SPDR S&P 500

1.64%*

XLF Financial Select Sector SPDR 3.44%*
EEM iShares MSCI Emerging Markets 2.82%*
IWM iShares Russell 2000 Index 2.82%*
QQQ PowerShares QQQ 2.13%*
SLV iShares Silver Trust 7.71%**
EWJ iShares MSCI Japan Index 3.21%*
SDS ProShares UltraShort S&P 500 3.87%*
FAS Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X No optimal puts at this threshold
XLE Select Sector SPDR — Energy 2.72%*
VXX iPath S&P 500 VIX Short-Term No optimal puts at this threshold
VWO Vanguard Emerging Markets 3.87%*
EFA iShares MSCI EAFE Index 3.72%*
XLI Industrial Select Sector SPDR 2.57%*
FXI iShares FTSE China 25 Index 2.99%**
GLD SPDR Gold Shares 0.40%*
USO United States Oil 4.57%**
EWZ iShares MSCI Brazil Index 3.61%*
XLB Materials Select Sector SPDR 3.12%*
SSO ProShares Ultra S&P 500 7.89%*

*Based on optimal puts expiring in December, 2011.

**Based on optimal puts expiring in January, 2012.

Are Women Better Investors?

By -

Are women better investors than men? That's what David Weidner argued in his widely-tweeted MarketWatch column Tuesday, "Women are better investors, and here's why".

From Sex Scandals to Investing

After reminding readers of recent sexual scandals involving male politicians, Weidner actually made a broader argument, that women are better at pretty much everything:

Why is it that men so often self-destruct? In the political world, Weiner joins Eliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton, John Ensign, Arnold Schwarzenegger and John Edwards as hypocritic slimeballs who let their pants set their personal policy.

[…]

Women, on the other hand, do almost everything better. We’ve known this intuitively for a long time. If you didn’t, just ask your wife or your mother. But now there’s a raft of evidence that suggests women are better at everything — including investing.

Women take fewer risks

Weidner went on to cite studies by Barclays Capital, PLC (BCS) and Ledbury Research, and Merrilly Lynch, respectively, that found that women were more likely to make money in the market, because they take fewer risks, as well as Dan Abrams's new book, “Man Down: Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt That Women Are Better Cops, Drivers, Gamblers, Spies, World Leaders, Beer Tasters, Hedge Fund Managers, and Just About Everything Else.” This sort of cheerleading about the superiority of women, particularly in the context of financial decision making, isn't new.

Not a new argument

In his New York Times column two years ago ("Mistresses of the Universe"), Nicholas Kristoff made a similar argument:

At the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, some of the most interesting discussions revolved around whether we would be in the same mess today if Lehman Brothers had been Lehman Sisters. The consensus (and this is among the dead white men who parade annually at Davos) is that the optimal bank would have been Lehman Brothers and Sisters.

Wall Street is one of the most male-dominated bastions in the business world; senior staff meetings resemble a urologist’s waiting room. Aside from issues of fairness, there’s evidence that the result is second-rate decision-making.

Blaming men

Kristoff seemed to be unaware that the former Chief Financial Officer of Lehman Brothers (LEHMQ.PK) wasn't a "dead white man" at all, but the live woman pictured below, Erin Callan. This photo, which appeared in a Wall Street Journal article from May, 2008 ("Lehman's Straight Shooter: Finance Chief Callan Brings Cool Jolt of Confidence To Credit-Rattled Street") was captioned as follows: "Erin Callan is known for being frank, fashionable".

Original caption: "Erin Callan is known for being frank, fashionable"

Kristoff continued,

“There seems to be a strong consensus that diverse groups perform better at problem solving” than homogeneous groups, Lu Hong and Scott E. Page wrote in The Journal of Economic Theory, summarizing the research in the field."

Gender diversity and risk management

Perhaps Mr. Kristoff would have been a little more skeptical were he aware that gender diversity at high levels of financial firms didn't seem to help the problem-solving processes at those firms. In addition to Callan, other women held high roles at major financial firms that stumbled during the financial crisis, including  Sallie L. Krawcheck, former CFO at Citigroup, Inc. (C); Zoe Cruz, former head of trading and risk operations at Morgan Stanley (MS); and Amy Woods Brinkley, chief risk executive at the time at Bank of America Corporation (BAC).

Are women really better investors?

How to reconcile the studies cited by David Weidner, which showed that among individual investors, women tend to have higher returns, with the paucity of women on "greatest investors" lists (e.g., this one from Investopedia, which lists 19 men and 0 women)? Perhaps investing is a field where women are better on average, but men are better represented at the far ends of the bell curve. One thing seems clear though: women aren't better at everything than men. Men are clearly better at pandering.

Hedging costs of stocks discussed above

The table below shows the costs, as of Tuesday's close, of hedging four of the stocks discussed above against greater-than-20% declines over the next several months, using the optimal puts for that. First, a reminder about what optimal puts mean in this context, and why I've used 20% as a decline threshold.

Optimal Puts

Optimal puts are the ones that will give you the level of protection you want at the lowest possible cost. As University of Maine finance professor Dr. Robert Strong, CFA has noted, picking the most economical puts can be a complicated task. With Portfolio Armor (available on the web, and as an Apple iOS app), you just enter the symbol of the stock or ETF you're looking to hedge, the number of shares you own, and the maximum decline you're willing to risk (your threshold). Then the app uses an algorithm developed by a finance Ph.D. to sort through and analyze all of the available puts for your position, scanning for the optimal ones.

Decline Thresholds

You can enter any percentage you like for a threshold when using Portfolio Armor (the higher the percentage though, the greater the chance you will find optimal puts for your position). The idea for a 20% threshold comes, as I've mentioned before, from a comment fund manager John Hussman made in a market commentary in October 2008:

An intolerable loss, in my view, is one that requires a heroic recovery simply to break even … a short-term loss of 20%, particularly after the market has become severely depressed, should not be at all intolerable to long-term investors because such losses are generally reversed in the first few months of an advance (or even a powerful bear market rally).

Essentially, 20% is a large enough threshold that it reduces the cost of hedging but not so large that it precludes a recovery. When hedging, cost is always a concern, which is where optimal puts come in.

Hedging costs as of Tuesday's close

The data in the table below is as of Wednesday's close. I've added SPDR S&P 500 (SPY) for comparison purposes.

Symbol Name Cost of Protection (as % of position value)
(BAC) Bank of America Corporation 6.94%**
(MS) Morgan Stanley 4.91%**
(C) Citigroup, Inc. 3.33%*
(BCS) Barclays, PLC 5.19%*
(SPY) SPDR S&P 500 1.28%*

*Based on optimal puts expiring in December, 2011

**Based on optimal puts expiring in January, 2012

Hedging Update – Stocks

By -

In order to cover more stocks and ETFs this week, I thought I'd break up the hedging update into two posts — one primarily for stocks, and one for ETFs. The table below shows the costs, as of Tuesday's close, of hedging 10 widely-traded NYSE stocks and 9 of the 10 most widely-traded Nasdaq names against greater-than-20% declines over the next several months, using optimal puts.

Comparisons

For comparison purposes, I've also added the costs of hedging the SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF (SPY) and the SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF (DIA) against the similar declines. The Nasdaq 100-tracking ETF PowerShares QQQ Trust ETF (QQQ) is also included, as it was on Nasdaq's most active list as of Tuesday. First, a reminder about what optimal puts mean in this context, and why I've used 20% as a decline threshold, plus a note on why there were no optimal puts available for one of the Nasdaq stocks.

Optimal Puts

Optimal puts are the ones that will give you the level of protection you want at the lowest possible cost. As University of Maine finance professor Dr. Robert Strong, CFA has noted, picking the most economical puts can be a complicated task. With Portfolio Armor (available on the web, and as an Apple iOS app), you just enter the symbol of the stock or ETF you're looking to hedge, the number of shares you own, and the maximum decline you're willing to risk (your threshold). Then the app uses an algorithm developed by a finance Ph.D to sort through and analyze all of the available puts for your position, scanning for the optimal ones.

Decline Thresholds

You can enter any percentage you like for a threshold when using Portfolio Armor (the higher the percentage though, the greater the chance you will find optimal puts for your position). The idea for a 20% threshold comes, as I've mentioned before, from a comment fund manager John Hussman made in a market commentary in October 2008:

An intolerable loss, in my view, is one that requires a heroic recovery simply to break even … a short-term loss of 20%, particularly after the market has become severely depressed, should not be at all intolerable to long-term investors because such losses are generally reversed in the first few months of an advance (or even a powerful bear market rally). 

Essentially, 20% is a large enough threshold that it reduces the cost of hedging but not so large that it precludes a recovery. When hedging, cost is always a concern, which is where optimal puts come in.

How Costs Are Calculated

To be conservative, Portfolio Armor calculated the costs below based on the ask prices of the optimal put options. In practice, though, an investor may be able to buy some of these put options for less (i.e., at a price between the bid and the ask).

Why There Were No Optimal Puts for LVLT

In some cases, the cost of protection may be greater than the loss you are looking to hedge against. That was the case with Level 3 Communications (LVLT). As of Tuesday, the cost of protecting against greater-than-20% declines in that stock over the next several months was itself greater than 20%. Because of that, Portfolio Armor indicated that no optimal contracts were found for it.

Hedging Costs as of Tuesday's Close

Symbol

Name

Cost of Protection (as % of position value)

  Nasdaq Stocks  
(CSCO) Cisco Systems 5.84%**
(LVLT) Level 3 Communications No optimal puts at this threshold
(MSFT) Microsoft 2.35%**
(INTC) Intel Corporation 3.71%**
(MU) Micron Technologies Inc. 19.3%**
(QQQ) PowerShares QQQ Trust ETF 1.64%*
(ORCL) Oracle 3.02%*
(DELL) Dell, Inc. 4.72%**
(CMCSA) Comcast Corporation 3.34%**
(YHOO) Yahoo! Inc. 7.24%**
(FITB) Fifth Third Bancorp 5.93%**
  NYSE Stocks  
(BAC) Bank of America Corporation 6.94%**
(F) Ford Motor Co. 4.69%*
(S) Sprint Nextel Corp. 9.76%**
(C) Citigroup, Inc. 3.33%*
(PFE) Pfizer, Inc. 1.90%*
(GE) General Electric Co. (GE) 3.01%*
(WFC) Wells Fargo & Company 5.48%**
(NOK) Nokia Corporation 10.70%*
(RF) Regions Financial 12.46%**
(JPM) JPMorgan Chase & Co. 2.69%*

(SPY)

SPDR S&P 500

1.28%*

(DIA) SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Avg. 1.09%*

*Based on optimal puts expiring in December, 2011.

**Based on optimal puts expiring in January, 2012.

Betraying Myself

By -

It's a very rare day that I don't wish I had done some things better in my trading. I wish I had a little more of this, or a little less of that; I wish I hadn't set a stop quite so tight; I wish I had anticipated a broad direction better. But on the whole, I generally can give myself a "B" – sometimes a B-, sometimes a B+, but usually I'm pretty happy with how I handled myself.

Today isn't one of those days. I think a D+ is about the kindest grade I could offer. What happened? Did I lose money? Yes, about half a percent. Nothing horrible, certainly, but a loss nonetheless. But that isn't the reason I'm upset – – I've had plenty of occasions where I've lost more than that and didn't feel the way I feel right now.

The reason for my present self-loathing is that I acted in haste out of fear, and that rarely is wise in trading. Simply stated:

+ I was about 63% committed in my portfolio, entirely to short positions;

+ I was quite concerned that we would have a very strong up-move today, which would merely be the kick-off to a substantial countertrend rally that may have lasted weeks;

+ Since I'm profitable for this month as well as last, and profitable for the quarter in general, I am jealously guarding those profits and don't want them threatened.

Given the above mindset, I wanted to get out of my shorts and get into either cash or some long positions. The market opened a little strong, and it got a little stronger, and I fell all over myself closing out all my positions. I breathed a sigh of relief. And then the market started weakening.

If you read my Measuring post – which is quite important –  you'll recall that I keep a spreadsheet available which shows what my P/L would be if I had done nothing on a given day. In this instance, now that I was entirely in cash, I watched the day's loss get smaller……..and smaller……..and smaller…..

And then I watched it turn into a profit and get bigger…….and bigger……..and bigger.

You can imagine how I felt. Here I am, the bear of bears, and I had covered what turned out to be brilliantly-crafted positions that were doing precisely what they were supposed to do. I had, out of an abundance of fear and caution, covered at pretty much the high prices of the day and watched my former positions flourish.

It was really tortuous.

I did wind up re-entering a portion of these shorts (at worse prices, naturally), but the psychology behind these positions is wholly different now. The risk profile is different, and my attitude toward them is different. None of this is good.

Well, what if the market did blast off higher, and my covering positions preserved profits that I would have otherwise lost? Well, yeah, what if? While we're playing games, what if the Dow flash-crashed a thousand points today? Anything is possible. It's pointless to play these endless what-if games. The fact is that I need to work within the confines of a logical, rules-based framework, and my desire to protect profits, ironically, made me lose money.

So what to do now? I think having a poisoned mindset when trading is awful, and I am clearing my mind of these thoughts of regret and anger. Tomorrow is a new day, and I can simply re-commit myself to a more steadfast rules-based discipline and remember the pain of today. Pain can be instructive, and I must take value out of today to inform my decisions in the years to come.

I likewise hope that, as I hopefully learn from my own experience, you likewise can take something away from it. Everyone has their own style. My style is very focused on large quantities of individual equities. Those equities have to stand or fall on their own merits, and keeping their stops up to date is the only task I need to manage well. Making sweeping conjectures about market direction can be a fool's game, and in my style of trading, I can't let macro speculations ruin individual decisions.

0613-selffoot

How to Measure Yourself

By -

In spite of the potentially provocative title of this post, it has absolutely nothing to do with Weinergate. On the contrary, it's about a relatively dry subject but one which is very close to my heart – – my portfolio spreadsheet and what it tells me each day.

I've got three laptops and seven monitors for my trading system. One of those monitors shows me the most important data, which relates to my positions, their individual profits and losses, and the cumulative profit and loss. This updates second to second, and it gives me an excellent way to gauge the pulse of the market.

The spreadsheet has a huge amount of information on it, but one chunk of cells in particular is very important to me (I've blotted out the private information with actual dollar figures). It shows me my P/L for the day as well as the cumulative P/L for all time as well as interest expenses, dividends, and long-term P&L.

More important than that is the information in the column next to it, which I called my ISQ column. That stands for the three ETFs IWM, SPY, and QQQ, which represent three different slices of the market (small caps, big gaps, and the NASDAQ 100). Sometimes these items are relatively close together, but often they are quite different illustrating where strength or weakness is. Today, for instance, the NASDAQ was quite weak compared to the S&P 500. Below these figures, in bold, is the average of all my presently open positions (in this instance, a gain of 0.21%).

What's in yellow, however, is the single most important data point of all – it shows how I am doing during the current day versus of average of the IWM, SPY, and QQQ. In this example, I was down 0.42% versus a market that was unchanged. I'm not very happy with that, of course, but this is the kind of data point that tells me, for the day, how my portfolio is holding up.

TKOvsMkt

There's another chunk of the spreadsheet that repeats this percentage figure and also computes the percentage if I was 100% committed. In other words, if I am up 0.25% on a given day, but I am 50% in positions and 50% in cash, then the weighted percentage would be 0.50% (in other words, what it would be if I had all of my portfolio in these same positions). By the same token, if I was using margin and had 200% commitment, then the weighted percentage woudl be merely 0.125%.

Weighted

Since my portfolio is, more often than not, bearishly tilted, my goal is pretty simple:

(a) On UP days in the market, have a correlation of less than -1. For instance, if the market was up 1%, I would be happy being down, for instance, 0.5%. In other words, I understand that I should be losing money on a strong up day, but I'd like to be losing less than I would if I simply were short indexes. This can be achieved by either being "light" in my portfolio (being partly in cash, which isn't harmed by market moves) and/or by having portfolio components which aren't rising as much as the market in general.

(b) On DOWN days in the market, have a correlation of greater than -1. So if the market is down 1%, I'd like to be up more than 1%. Yesterday (June 6th) was such a day. As difficult as it is to make money on the short side in a market like this, what I certainly want to do is make a lot of money during those instances when the market actually manages to go down!

The last thing I'll point out is this: before my trading day begins, I make sure all my spreadsheet figures are accurate to the penny, then I save a duplicate copy of my positions spreadsheet called Positions Comparison. Therefore, as the day wears on, and I move in and out of positions, I have two reference points – one of them is my real spreadsheet (which shows real life), and the other shows what would have happened if I had done absolutely nothing at all (no stop-outs, no new positions). Naturally what I want to see is that I do better on my real-life spreadsheet than on my original one, since the contrary indicates that I'm only hurting myself!

Today, for instance, I was somewhat irked when I checked my Positions Comparison spreadsheet and saw this:

TKOvsCompare

As you can see, I was down 0.22% in this portfolio, which is half as bad as my other one. In other words, my efforts (and my stop-outs) resulted in doing worse than if I had simply let everything "ride" for the day. It's not always like this, of course, but today is a good example of how a single data point can be very illuminating (and perhaps painful).

We live in a "bottom line" society, and there's no better bottom line for me than these spreadsheets. It tells me, tick by tick, if I am adding (or subtracting) value to my portfolio via my efforts, and it gives me a sense as to how I'm doing when stacked up against the market. I urge any active traders out there to help craft their own spreadsheets to provide the same insights for their trading days ahead.