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.
-
-
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 @therobotjames and
If you drop stock because it fell, and add a stock because it rose, then there is a bias in the data you collected. There will be more losses than gains in the data because you added it into your set after that happened.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @breakingthemark @therobotjames and
No, absolutely not. If you drop *future* observations after a fall or add *future* observations after a rise, there is no bias. It would induce a bias if you didn’t include the -ve return that took a stock below $5, or you *did* include the +ve return that took it above $5.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Honestly this is time series 101, it is incredibly basic.
-
-
Replying to @macrocephalopod @breakingthemark and
If you were holding this stock only, would your portfolio not reflect the return below 5? If it did, shouldn’t those observations count towards the avg daily return over your lifetime ownership ?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @clear_as_tar @breakingthemark and
If you held the stock below 5 then sure, it should. If you close the position below 5 then it should not. If you think that one of these two strategies introduces a bias (aka an edge) then you should trade that strategy and make millions from it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 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.