That is essentially correct, but be careful with the direction part. For example, imagine I am trading equities. I might have say a bond position with a negative correlation of -.85 to the equities position. So even though I might be long both, they are some sort of pair trade from a comovement perspective. Think of all the classical cointegrated trades, the crack spread, the Nob/Schatz/Bobl, TB/Eurodollar butterflies, etc etc. What I do differently is that I don't trade these instruments because I want two things:@nitro Great thread and interesting thoughts.
I'd like to breakdown and clarify your original premise, in minimising directional risk. I assume you do this by employing various mean-reversion AND trend following strategies together.
In the trend following case, yes the trades may be directional but the diversification across many asset classes ensures overall risk is directionless. Likewise mean-reversion strategies utilising co-integration techniques to form stationary series ensures there is no directional risk. Additionally, cross-sectional momentum strategies are directionless and market neutral, thus again limited directional risk.
In each case vol (using realised and implied) based position sizing is employed to control risk at the asset class level.
Is this correct? Also, I assume measuring and managing risk across the entire portfolio all of these strategies is the key to profitability and longevity?
1) Very strong underlying cointegration of the symbols. Not just statistical, but logical. That is satisfied by classical trades.
2) But, I also don't want them well known. This is key, imo.
The idea is to get as close to statistical arbitrage as possible. The ultimate would be say triangular FOREX trades. But that takes huge resources.
You could trade classical cointegrated trades and tons of traders make a good living doing it, but then you should go to an institution where you can have $10,000,000 notional position on. Otherwise, as a retail trade with $100,000 account, even with portfolio margining, you will probably starve. But, you won't go broke either!
Another caution, I don't trade equity pairs. I think you need really deep pockets for that. Merger Arb or say two symbols on the same underlying, e.g., BRK.A BRK.B are the only thing that a retail trader should trade. The risks are enormous otherwise imo.
Remember, the key is to be able to scale to huge size repeatedly, and hope the once in a lifetime event doesn't get you (a repeat of 2008-2009 would probably blow me out, or I might make a fortune, but that is too high an ulcer trade for my taste). Then let the logic of the position play out on whatever time frame you have done the trade on. In order to do that you have to have odds of blowing out at 1:50000 (one in fifty thousand) or better. In other words, you are more likely to die on an airplane flight.
Last edited: