Reversion To the Mean (RTM) Intraday Strategies

Whoa... sounds like Wilmott.

Let me simplify - if you really want intraday RTM, you'd better be trading highly correlated spreads. Why not just use the Beta scatterplot functionality on the Bloomberg and be done with it.

Jeez... you guys are making this way more complicated than it needs to be. FedEx vs. UPS, Conoco-Philips vs. Chevron, WalMart vs. Target, ad nauseum.

Just steer clear of earning season.

Nice phD thesis, though. (and I'm an Engineer by training)
 
Quote from lolatency:

You're right. Improved F(X) would just give you a better estimate of the mean in the presence of correlation at various lags. IOW, you would know more readily whether price is trading in a region that could be considered far from the mean. In theory, your system would be more accurate in the presence of stationarity. [Recall, however, that the confidence interval for small n on the prediction of the mean even in ARMA is still ridiculously wide.]

But, again, you're right -- how do you even know if you've got stationarity? This is one of the reasons why they have terms like weak stationarity and strong stationarity. Strong stationarity implies the joint distribution of two disjoint, sequentially time-ordered subsets of a time series are the same. No serious market participant would ever bet on strong stationarity being present in the markets. Weak stationarity just assumes a constant mean and variance at every time-step, which we also KNOW is a bogus assumption.

But to address your question of knowing whether the regime changed, you could mathematically detect such a thing -- but it would take some time for the formal test to register. Whether this time is long enough for you to save yourself depends on your strategy.

I mean, one possible way to figure out whether your regime has changed is to take the two disjoint time-ordered subsets of the same time-series and do a non-parametric comparison of the CDFs of the two subsets. If the CDFs don't match, you've got a different underlying distribution and no longer have stationarity. In theory, you could do this all day long for every tick. You could also use something like Brown-Forsythe or Modified-Levine test on the residuals -- non-parametric tests to assess there is homoscedascity.

The real question is -- what is breaking that stationarity? It's almost certainly the volatility parameter of the stock price process that changes. ARMA models and the like assume homoscedascity. Your regime changes are going to come from the fact that you are almost assured that the volatility of the price process itself changes -- or, what they call like heteroscedascity.

The genius in pairs trading is that two correlated, stochastic processes will evolve in a similar fashion. The pair-hedge accounts for the simultaneous shift in paradigm, so your reversion happens within the context of whatever distribution currently determines the empirically determined probability distribution function, or what you're calling "the regime."

Pairs trading is a clever way to transform an otherwise non-stationary process into say weak-stationary but it too is exposed to volatility shocks that happen extremely quickly. For example, financial stocks made great pairs trade for a number of years. And they still do offer good opportunities, but it became exposed to tremendous risk very quickly. Just ask those trading BSC and LEH pairs (before Oct. 08 very good candidates for pairs)

Unfortunately, and this is my opinion, the tests that you mention require data to perform, and by the time there is sufficient sample size, your already in a major DD. At the end of the day your stuck with some sort of understanding of human psychology/behavior theory and how markets operate and the participants so you can try to side-step these inevitable periods. So no holy-grail in time series analysis yet!

I have read some interesting ideas on neural nets for forecasting regime shifts....I haven't really researched enough to make any conclusions. Perhaps you have some thoughts?

As per your suggestions for the chart, I'm feeling a little lazy but I'll get around to it since I'm interested in what you have to say. In the meantime I'll wax philosophical in the NYC thread.
 
Quote from knocks420:

1) I short X+SMA and buy SMA-X, cover @ SMA.

How are you handling situations where price doesn't go in your favor? Do you have a set stoploss or are you averaging down?
 
For those interested in a very good and intuitive read on many of the questions posted; such as,
what is the optimal coefficient for out of sample exponential smoothing constant prediction, why are splines better than moving averages, etc... PM me.

Warning, it's more of an academic approach on par with some of the thinking that has surfaced here, not your typical TA ...
 
Quote from ivanbaj:

Her is an interesting info: (If you are miner that is)

http://www.thearling.com/text/sfitr/sfitr.htm

This article makes one wrong assumption. It considers constant mean to determine the deviation as an input for their predictor. Flexibility of the mean impacts prediction significantly. Any practical RTM method should be based on a stable relationship between the mean deviation and the price deviation to that mean. If the majority or runs ensure that the mean deviation is smaller than the price-to-mean deviation than the algorithm has positive expectations. if it is not than the method is under the danger of a significant ruin.
 
I like this thread. I don't trade at a frequency where much, if anything, is normal.

I'm trading sub-minute strategies in very liquid instruments and sub-second liquidity providing strategies. This is a plot of the distribution of some normalized[1] data from that time-frame.

[Attached]

If you go into R and run the shapiro.test() on the 5k most recent values, you get:

Shapiro-Wilk normality test

data: [filtered]
W = 0.8124, p-value < 2.2e-16

I'm using non-parametric procedures to work on results from this particular distribution.

In this particular strategy, I'm looking to collect a few cents per trade -- removing liquidity on entry.

Where I used to work, they used to move out of these time-frames just to get the normalized result. They were trading with a latency of around 40-80ms, with worse at higher rates.

[1] Normalized in a generic sense, not referring to a normal distribution.
 

Attachments

Back
Top