Well, you're clearly making some assumptions on the (1+R) noise multiplier with geomean=1. If it's highly volatile noise, you could get rich as as fast as Rentech did with Medallion. And it's just random noise!
-
-
Yes I'm assuming it's similar to real-world stocks. If you took Bitcoin with 100% annualized vol you would only have a Sharpe of 0.5 so you need to compound for 16 years to be 95% sure of profit. For a stock with 50% vol you need to compound for 64 years to be 95% sure.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @macrocephalopod @goldstein_aa and
Shannon's original example used 50% vol for each period -- if we assume that a period is one day, the asset in his example would be 8x more volatile than Bitcoin (!)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
More volatility is easy to find. It just requires leverage.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I see, so you will increase leverage to get the desired volatility, and then decrease leverage to get the desired returns?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
why would you decrease leverage to get the desired returns?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The whole point of “volatility pumping” is that an asset with zero geometric return can be made to have positive geometric return if you reduce the leverage. My claim is that you can’t find assets with high enough volatility for that to be interesting in practice.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
That is a very simplistic view of what vol pumping is. Vol pumping isn't abut an asset with zero geo return, its just the most eye catching type. There are plenty of articles on vol pumping where cash isn't involved, and the "pumping" is just between a bunch of risky assets.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This is exactly the same as saying that by diversifying you can reduce the volatility drag of a portfolio of assets, right? ie “diversification is the only free lunch in investing”.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
No it's not. The most diversified portfolio it not the right portfolio to rebalance back to capture the full effect. Typically the most diversified portfolio should be held and not rebalanced freqently to increase returns.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
You’re gonna have to point me to some literature to convince me that there is anything here other than “risk parity works”. Not rebalancing a diversified portfolio is equivalent to a momentum tilt. Maybe that works but it’s a claim about the world, not an immutable fact.
-
-
Have you not seen articles that show that rebalancing a 60/40 portfolio frequently reduces returns? It's worse with a 40/60 portfolio (closer to risk parity). This effect has nothing to do with momentum.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @breakingthemark @macrocephalopod and
It would reduce "returns" because the slowly rebalanced one contains more of the more volatile, higher return asset, on average than the fast rebalanced one. (And both portfolios are not very volatile.) I don't think rebalancing slower would increase risk-adjusted returns.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.