Does Trend Following Work?

I’m not sure how I came across it, but I have had Jez Liberty’s Au.Tra.Sy blog in my reader since around 2009.

Since then, he has tracked well-known trend following systems and reported monthly performance figures. These are things like moving average crossovers, Bollinger band breakouts and stuff like that.

The systems had a very good month in November, and a very good year, up ~45% YTD.

I thought I would take a look and how things have gone over the time it has been tracked. Helpfully, Jez posts annual summaries for each system and a composite average, which is what I used. You can find the links to specific posts in the script linked under the table below. N.B the first two years are the average of actual trend following funds not the generic strategies.

There are results for 6 years, from 2009 to 2014, using the YTD November figure for 2014. We end up with a series like this, starting from 100.

Source [R]

We can see that 4 of the 6 years ended under water. Over the same time there has been a huge surge in US equities. A simple buy and hold in 2009 would have more than doubled equity.  

The pain of losing

I have been following Jez posting results every month for 5 – 6 years now. When I think back to where I was in 2009 versus where I am today, five years is a really, really long time.

You can get historical data from 1920s and even further back in time. If you run a backtest over 80 – 90 years of data, a 3 – 5 year period of underperformance is barely noticeable on an equity curve.

Sometimes I see people get excited about their backtests even though they include these periods of poor performance. There is plenty of research and evidence that humans in general find it very hard to stick with a losing system.

How seriously would you take someone touting a system that is underwater after five years, but they assured you a 45% year was just around the corner?

Professional CTA

I believe the Au.Tra.Sy data is based on commodities and futures trading, so thought I would take a look at the Barclay CTA Index as a comparison. The results seem somewhat similar, it has struggled somewhat since 2010, though both the upside and downside returns are smaller. 

In the 29 years from 1980 to 2008 inclusive, there were only 3 down years in total, none of them consecutive.

In the period we are examining here, the 6 years from 2009 – 2014, four of them have been down years, including three down years in a row (2011 - 2013).

Proselytizing

In some ways, you can think of mechanical trend following as being long tail risk. Effectively it wants a big sustained move in either direction. If you think about the distribution of returns, the big moves that are “pay days” are out in the tails.

I don’t follow commodities vol at all, but apparently it has been low for several years, according to this article from September, 2014. It probably shouldn’t be a surprise that strategies dependent on big moves have not performed well in an environment of low volatility. 

I personally dislike these indicator-based trend following systems, even though I think they give entries as good as any. The problem is they are too slow to close positions and give back too much profit.

They only really make serious money when a megatrend eventuates, and these are relatively rare and IMO getting rarer. In the mean time they can get chopped around and experience significant drawdowns.

I don’t want to draw any final conclusions about classical trend following, but I know I would have a lot of trouble sticking to systems like these in practise, even though a long term backtest might look really nice.

However, if you understand the conditions under which your system does well or is likely to underperform, it is a lot easier to stick with it during periods of underperformance, which are inevitable over the long run.

It is worth spending the time thinking about the conditions in which your system does well and does poorly. 

Trading in a low vol world

I wanted to take a look at what works in low vol environments, such as we are currently experiencing. I am open to the idea we have entered a period of structurally low volatility due to increased regulatory burden and flow on effects from the decline of institutional FICC trading. Or it may just be a function of QE, and post-tapering we will see a return to higher levels.

The plan

The main idea is to compare mean reversion (MR) vs. follow through (FT). For simplicity I define mean reversion as an up day being followed by a down day, and a down day being followed by an up day. Conversely, follow through sees an up day followed by another up day, and a down day followed by a down day.

I took a look at the major US equity indices, SPX (GSPC), NDX and RUT.

For each series we calculate daily log returns for the current period and shift the forward to get the return for the next period. Then we calculate realized volatility (RV) and split the data set into "low volatility" and "high volatility", by looking at median realized vol for the whole series.

Then, for each series, we use bootstrapped samples to simulate a number of trajectories/equity curves for each strategy (MR/FT) under the two classes of RV. Finally we take an average of the total return of each trajectory to get a ballpark idea of how they went.

Results

The data is from the start of 1999 to the present, so roughly 15 years. Each run generates 1000 trajectories with a sample size of roughly 950.

For the low vol case, the results are unfortunately ambiguous. Follow through in a low vol environment seemed to do well for NDX and RUT, but the opposite was the case for SPX.

The TR column is the sum of the series over the whole period for the volatility class (i.e. a simple long only strategy), giving an idea of a directional bias that may be present in the sampling.

In the high vol environment, mean reversion was a clear winner, and consistent over the different underlyings.

The results seem relatively stable across trajectory size/sample size.

Outro

I'm not really sure what is going on SPX. My intuition was that FT would do well in low vol environments, but that doesn't seem to be the case, at least not for SPX.

I was actually getting consistent votes for FT in the low vol case, then restarted R to run with a clean environment and started getting the above instead. You can't spell argh without R it seems.

Source is up here. As always you can find me on twitter here. Thanks for stopping by.