Cos stock price processes are pretty much martingales and their past returns don't really predict their future returns. This is indexing 101
-
-
Replying to @therobotjames @edwin_teejay and
But a stock could go from $5.20 to $4.80 and then back to $5.20, and instead of showing a flat geometric return and a positive arithmetic return, you just have an 8% loss in your data and not the 8.3% gain.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @breakingthemark @edwin_teejay and
Yeah and a bunch of equally probable unpredictable things could also happen to all the stocks that go in and out of the index.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @therobotjames @edwin_teejay and
Its a one way problem isn't it? How often does a stock rise in price and then get dropped from the index for a stock that just fell in price?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @breakingthemark @edwin_teejay and
Stocks that get removed tend to be those that have decreased in market cap. Stocks that get added tend to be those that have increased. I'm unclear why you think this is a form of performance bias in the index.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @therobotjames @breakingthemark and
To bias the performance of the index you would need to believe that the stocks being added would have different future expected returns than the stocks being removed.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @therobotjames @edwin_teejay and
This isn't about the index its about the performance of the individual stock. If a stock falls below $5 and then comes back above it later, your data set does not include the gain the stock received. I the above example, your data says stock lost 8%. In real life it was flat.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @breakingthemark @therobotjames and
That's a bias because there is no way for the opposite to occur. And this isn't about momentum or mean reversion, its just about randomness.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @breakingthemark @therobotjames and
There’s no bias. The data doesn’t include moves from $4.80 to $5.20 but it also doesn’t include equally likely moves from $4.80 to $4.40. Adding or dropping stocks based on their past price moves can’t introduce a bias unless future price moves are correlated with past moves.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @macrocephalopod @breakingthemark and
Adam Goldstein Retweeted Adam Goldstein
This could all be simulated with a portfolio of random "coins" to find out.https://twitter.com/goldstein_aa/status/1372308799911047177 …
Adam Goldstein added,
Adam Goldstein @goldstein_aaReplying to @breakingthemark @therobotjames and 5 othersBTM: I agree there's at least a tiny bias due to deletions/additions for the index, but it would seem that's a small effect. Maybe you could model this with coin flipping and see how much you'd expect this to affect results based on pure randomness?1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
You definitely could, although you don’t need to do that because you can reason mathematically about the behaviour of coin flips.
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.