VaR
VaR
I have never looked at this but someone recently asked me what the VaR would be for a diversified LTTF system. Obviously it depends on the markets traded and the risk taken but if someone is trading, say, 20 diverse markets and averages 15% margin:equity is there any way to approximate a VaR number?
Does anyone know of a free web page where a portfolio could be plugged in to calculate this?
Does anyone know of a free web page where a portfolio could be plugged in to calculate this?
http://www.gummy-stuff.org/VaR.htm
Excel spreadsheet included.
Excel spreadsheet included.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1493
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2003 10:32 am
- Location: Austin, Texas
Speaking of VAR, there is an interesting series of articles that debate its usefullness near the bottom of Nassim Taleb's web page at http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com. The links to the articles are under the heading "The Value-at-Risk Debate".
I tend to agree with Taleb's views on VAR, and I have never used it in my own trading.
Best,
Jake
I tend to agree with Taleb's views on VAR, and I have never used it in my own trading.
Best,
Jake
My interest in VaR is along the lines of being curious to what the number would be. I know banks and funds tend to use things like this and think it would be interesting to see what the numbers say. It is just a tool like anything else and people who over rely on the number generated and lose focus as to how and why their portfolios are being constructed will inevitably be in for a shock at some point. The only sure thing is that we do not know what our true risk is and there is no way of measuring it since we can not predict the future.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1493
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2003 10:32 am
- Location: Austin, Texas
IMHO, I think VaR is not applicable to the LTTF systems in which markets diversification plays an important role and the size of money allocated to every single market has to be allowed to be fluky. Thus even if a constant value of VaR is measurable, it will not significantly improve the performance of a LTTF system. At least in my testing experience I do not find it any good.
Just my 2 cents.
Just my 2 cents.
VAR is a decent measure of risk. It does have massive problems, like not accounting for fat tails in return distrubutions, and no standard way of calculating the measure, and the inability to sum VAR across portfolios.
However, it has some uses. Every risk manager will look at this value, so if you are trading OPM, you need to know and use it. Also, knowing what a big loss will be (not a max loss, but something to expect 1 in 20 times) is pretty useful.
Note that VAR for a LTTF system is going to vary depending on how many positions are being held at that time, and the calculation method used (historical, variance/covariance, monte carlo).
However, it has some uses. Every risk manager will look at this value, so if you are trading OPM, you need to know and use it. Also, knowing what a big loss will be (not a max loss, but something to expect 1 in 20 times) is pretty useful.
Note that VAR for a LTTF system is going to vary depending on how many positions are being held at that time, and the calculation method used (historical, variance/covariance, monte carlo).
I've been thinking the only way to get a reasonable number for VAR in a TF system would be to run a monte carlo simulation with proper assumptions on a fully loaded portfolio and calc the VAR. Once this number is in hand, then adjust VAR for the current level of 'loadedness' of the portfolio.
This is the only way I can see that accounts for the dramatic differences in levereage employed by this strategy. Like to hear some other suggestions, if you're thinking on this.
To be honest, I can't do this. Maybe someone else ( a MC expert) can create the strongly and loosely correlated sectors, run the numbers and come up with a percentage VAR. I wouldn't expect them to share this model - it would be pretty valuable to a FOF or family office.
This is the only way I can see that accounts for the dramatic differences in levereage employed by this strategy. Like to hear some other suggestions, if you're thinking on this.
To be honest, I can't do this. Maybe someone else ( a MC expert) can create the strongly and loosely correlated sectors, run the numbers and come up with a percentage VAR. I wouldn't expect them to share this model - it would be pretty valuable to a FOF or family office.
Any type of measurement that assumes a normal distribution ie: VaR, Sharpe, correlation is faulty if its application is in data that do not come even close to exhibiting a normal distribution.
Claiming to extract profits from the market from its non-random behavior then simultaneously use Gaussian-based metrics poses a contradiction.
Qualitatively understanding the dependency of each instrument, strategy or in Mike's case FOF is vital if one wants highly desirable returns. Unfortunately, the qualitative part cannot be quantified.
Kevin, would you backtest your system with this "something is better than nothing" data? Hope not (':D')
This particular FOF manager expects to get a 20% performance fee having everything delivered to him on a silver platter. ? These FOF people are dangerous.
Claiming to extract profits from the market from its non-random behavior then simultaneously use Gaussian-based metrics poses a contradiction.
Qualitatively understanding the dependency of each instrument, strategy or in Mike's case FOF is vital if one wants highly desirable returns. Unfortunately, the qualitative part cannot be quantified.
--No information is better than wrong information: zero information works just fine for me.ksberg says:
(PRO) something is better than nothing
Kevin, would you backtest your system with this "something is better than nothing" data? Hope not (':D')
--True indeed, it always fades me when a FOF manager dissects a track record and run their "High-Tech Artificial Intelligence Analytics" (especially correlation)...one not too industrious FOF manager I encountered claims the return of a strategy is too volatile albeit the strategy having a MAR of 2. Well, that's his job as a FOF manager... which is to assemble varying asset classes which carries no dependency and create a portfolio that exhibits a smooth return...just like how fund managers do it albeit on a micro level working directly with the individual instruments.Mike S. says:
I wouldn't expect them to share this model - it would be pretty valuable to a FOF or family office.
This particular FOF manager expects to get a 20% performance fee having everything delivered to him on a silver platter. ? These FOF people are dangerous.
Ragnar D.-
You could use a non-normal distribution of returns in MC testing, even one based solely on historical returns.
There are many faults with VAR, but I do think its better than nothing. I think the main issue lots of people have with it is fact they want it to be a stress test style measure, and VAR is not a stress test. I am reading a book right now by a justifiably famous HF person, and this person blurrs the distinction several times in the book.
I think that people don't like to understand that 1 in 20 happens all the time, so they make it a stand in for a stress test/worst case loss. For example, this very smart person points to the loss for a particular strategy during the Russian crisis as exceeding VAR. Doh!!! Well a 95% monthly VAR is going to happen 1 in 20 times - thats less than every 2 years if it just was in order! Using some baysean(sic), you can easily determine that there is a great chance of experiencing this 95% VAR in the next year.
VAR just what you could expect to lose some defined percentage of the time. Its not a worst case scenario, or a likely loss under specific bad circumstances. It has lots of assumptions. It has lots of flaws. You pointed several out in your post. But, if you make wise assumptions and understand what VAR means, and its limitations, it can be a decent number to look at and use as a measure of risk in conjunction with other ways of evaluating risk.
Do I think its useful for LTTF? No. Do I think its useful for a FOF? Yep. So if you want an allocation, its good to have a number, and a good methodology that you can explain to this person.
Risk for me isn't one number, its many numbers and experience and common sense and structure. VAR is one small way to get a more complete picture of risk.
Perfection is not attainable, but excellence is.
You could use a non-normal distribution of returns in MC testing, even one based solely on historical returns.
There are many faults with VAR, but I do think its better than nothing. I think the main issue lots of people have with it is fact they want it to be a stress test style measure, and VAR is not a stress test. I am reading a book right now by a justifiably famous HF person, and this person blurrs the distinction several times in the book.
I think that people don't like to understand that 1 in 20 happens all the time, so they make it a stand in for a stress test/worst case loss. For example, this very smart person points to the loss for a particular strategy during the Russian crisis as exceeding VAR. Doh!!! Well a 95% monthly VAR is going to happen 1 in 20 times - thats less than every 2 years if it just was in order! Using some baysean(sic), you can easily determine that there is a great chance of experiencing this 95% VAR in the next year.
VAR just what you could expect to lose some defined percentage of the time. Its not a worst case scenario, or a likely loss under specific bad circumstances. It has lots of assumptions. It has lots of flaws. You pointed several out in your post. But, if you make wise assumptions and understand what VAR means, and its limitations, it can be a decent number to look at and use as a measure of risk in conjunction with other ways of evaluating risk.
Do I think its useful for LTTF? No. Do I think its useful for a FOF? Yep. So if you want an allocation, its good to have a number, and a good methodology that you can explain to this person.
Risk for me isn't one number, its many numbers and experience and common sense and structure. VAR is one small way to get a more complete picture of risk.
Perfection is not attainable, but excellence is.
MikeMike S wrote:......Risk for me isn't one number, its many numbers and experience and common sense and structure. VAR is one small way to get a more complete picture of risk. ......
If you care to share, what risk metrics do you find most useful and how do you use/interpret them in trading for your own account ?
Thanks
Tom
-
- Roundtable Knight
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 9:44 am
- Location: Somewhere, Hyperspace
I use all the typical ones - look to the 'How do I know if a system is good thread' for a better discussion. MAR, sharpe, Sortino...
I also use something I cannot find the formula for right now. Actually two formulas. They are more gambling formulas, but come from bayesian statistics. One tells you the odds of having a losing streak lasting x number of times, given a winning percentage. The other tells you the percent odds of losing x times in over the next n samples.
These are useful for me bacause they can show you how your system is performing compared to its average performance. It helps me to keep my head when the system is performing well, and even better, gives me hope when its in a drawdown. By using them frequently with different scenarios or over a range of values, they give you a great feel for what to expect in the future.
When you know there is a 30% chance over the next 100 trades that your win % will be 1/2 its normal level, it tends to make you want to risk less and be more proactive in managing your risk. In addition, during good times, it they help to remind you this is essentially a random and expected good time - its not because the gods are smiling upon my ugly mug.
I also think in market time, not actual time. I take the average number of trades per month, and take this as a month of trading. So when I get that number of trades, its been a 'month', even if these trades happened over just a week. Of course, I also use real time, but I find that thinking in terms of number of trades helps to give me a standardized base of comparision.
In addition, I look to back tested results for periods of under and over performance and look to the win/loss percentage before trading a system.
I guess the reason I focus on this is because I've had those long streaks of losers and winners, and I like to put them into perspective. By looking at what might happen, I think its easier to trade through these times.
Also, it helps to tell if the system is 'broken'
I am not trading right now for a few different reasons, but this is what I looked at when I was actively trading. Thanks for the question. When I find these formulas again, I will post them.
I also use something I cannot find the formula for right now. Actually two formulas. They are more gambling formulas, but come from bayesian statistics. One tells you the odds of having a losing streak lasting x number of times, given a winning percentage. The other tells you the percent odds of losing x times in over the next n samples.
These are useful for me bacause they can show you how your system is performing compared to its average performance. It helps me to keep my head when the system is performing well, and even better, gives me hope when its in a drawdown. By using them frequently with different scenarios or over a range of values, they give you a great feel for what to expect in the future.
When you know there is a 30% chance over the next 100 trades that your win % will be 1/2 its normal level, it tends to make you want to risk less and be more proactive in managing your risk. In addition, during good times, it they help to remind you this is essentially a random and expected good time - its not because the gods are smiling upon my ugly mug.
I also think in market time, not actual time. I take the average number of trades per month, and take this as a month of trading. So when I get that number of trades, its been a 'month', even if these trades happened over just a week. Of course, I also use real time, but I find that thinking in terms of number of trades helps to give me a standardized base of comparision.
In addition, I look to back tested results for periods of under and over performance and look to the win/loss percentage before trading a system.
I guess the reason I focus on this is because I've had those long streaks of losers and winners, and I like to put them into perspective. By looking at what might happen, I think its easier to trade through these times.
Also, it helps to tell if the system is 'broken'
I am not trading right now for a few different reasons, but this is what I looked at when I was actively trading. Thanks for the question. When I find these formulas again, I will post them.
Yes!!!. exactly...most participants are unwilling to feel the probability of losing money...instead they cover it up with smart numbersMike S wrote: I think that people don't like to understand that 1 in 20 happens all the time, so they make it a stand in for a stress test/worst case loss. For example, this very smart person points to the loss for a particular strategy during the Russian crisis as exceeding VAR. Doh!!!
...From what i gather from your post, these smart ones also blamed the event to human factors??? They are claiming that 99% of the time he can predict the probability of the distribution of leaves when they fall. But if a human sweeps those leaves into a pile, that doesn't count because that's not part of the normal distribution...What is this guy thinking??? So this person blames his losses on the Russians, not his lack of perception that a risk of default is a high probability.
I dont need to know what the percentage numbers are, all i need to make is a binary decision that it may happen and i wont lose my shirt when it does. Its that simple.
The fortunate thing is most participants will continue to keep using random walk based metrics.
It's been a few months since anyone posted here, but I'll add this anyway. I just read the Taleb interview at derivativestrategy.com and the VAR article on his own site and it seems clear now, at least in my mind, that the entire VAR model & related assumptions are highly flawed.
This exchange between Taleb(NT) & the interviewer (DT) really does sum it up:
DS: Proponents of VAR will argue that it has its shortcomings but it's better than what you had before.
NT: That's completely wrong. It's not better than what you had because you are relying on something with false confidence and running larger positions than you would have otherwise. You're worse off relying on misleading information than on not having any information at all. If you give a pilot an altimeter that is sometimes defective he will crash the plane. Give him nothing and he will look out the window. Technology is only safe if it is flawless.
Think about that... if there is even the slightest chance that you can die, (or in a trader's case, blowup. ie Niederhoffer) using such a model, isn't that particular risk model effectively useless?
The Turtle risk management system, or similar variations thereof, while not perfect (which doesn't exist anyway), will never cause you instant death.
Any remarks would be welcome.
This exchange between Taleb(NT) & the interviewer (DT) really does sum it up:
DS: Proponents of VAR will argue that it has its shortcomings but it's better than what you had before.
NT: That's completely wrong. It's not better than what you had because you are relying on something with false confidence and running larger positions than you would have otherwise. You're worse off relying on misleading information than on not having any information at all. If you give a pilot an altimeter that is sometimes defective he will crash the plane. Give him nothing and he will look out the window. Technology is only safe if it is flawless.
Think about that... if there is even the slightest chance that you can die, (or in a trader's case, blowup. ie Niederhoffer) using such a model, isn't that particular risk model effectively useless?
The Turtle risk management system, or similar variations thereof, while not perfect (which doesn't exist anyway), will never cause you instant death.
Any remarks would be welcome.
CME's SPAN margins and VaR are very similar in concept. The 95% daily VaR for a TF portfolio, as a percent of trading level, in my experience, is usually significantly less than a SPAN'ed margin to equity ratio on the TF portfolio.
Dan G. wrote:
The original Turtle System incorporated these concepts in a different way but did utilize these concepts and that was several years before the first VaR literature was published.
Dan G. wrote:
The VaR numbers I have seen on TF portfolios did use this method, historical simulation, which is one of several ways of calculating VaR. I believe the VaR literature suggest different lookback window lengths for which to calculate VaR. 30 or 90 days are the typical lookback lengths I have seen used. The lookback period is used to simulate the market volatility and correlations which VaR incorporates. Since positions and degree of leverage can change considerably in most TF portfolios, so will a 95% (or 99%, etc.) VaR. The VaR depends to a large extent on the long/short offsets among markets and sectors as well as how volatile markets (with current positions in the portfolio) are in the lookback period.I've been thinking the only way to get a reasonable number for VAR in a TF system would be to run a monte carlo simulation with proper assumptions on a fully loaded portfolio and calc the VAR. Once this number is in hand, then adjust VAR for the current level of 'loadedness' of the portfolio.
The original Turtle System incorporated these concepts in a different way but did utilize these concepts and that was several years before the first VaR literature was published.
I tend to agree with this view, particularly when Taleb used the analogy of a pilot using a faulty altimeter to summarize VaR theory:wonkabar wrote:My interest in VaR is along the lines of being curious to what the number would be. I know banks and funds tend to use things like this and think it would be interesting to see what the numbers say. It is just a tool like anything else and people who over rely on the number generated and lose focus as to how and why their portfolios are being constructed will inevitably be in for a shock at some point. The only sure thing is that we do not know what our true risk is and there is no way of measuring it since we can not predict the future.
This is an excerpt from the Derivatives Strategy interview titled "The World According to Nassim Taleb" which can be dowloaded from his site:
"DS: Proponents of VAR will argue that it has its shortcomings but it's better than what you had before.
NT: That's completely wrong. It's not better than what you had because you are relying on something with false confidence and running larger positions than you would have otherwise. You're worse off relying on misleading information than on not having any information at all. If you give a pilot an altimeter that is sometimes defective he will crash the plane. Give him nothing and he will look out the window."
This is a very intelligent analogy, one the nobel prize winners at LTCM might have pondered. If you had to compare trading to another activity, flying would probably a fairly close comparison.