Quote from marketsurfer:
interesting. I agree with the first line....However not with the rest of your statement. Institutional investors dont always make winning trades. See JWH over the last several years, etc. The retail guy following JWH's trades would have been wiped out multiple times. You are talking about sub trends in the last line??
Surf,
Instead of boring everyone with your never ending discussion with Proflogic, just cut to the chase man. What you want to know is whether trend following is a superior strategy to buy and hold correct?
Firstly, acknowledge that it is statistically patently stupid/unreasonable to focus on just one manager's performance as an indictment of trend following. If you think of trend following as a strategy, then consider each manager as one data point in a sample of managers. To test the performance of the whole sample, then run significance tests (student t would be a good start because we don't have the true population stdev) on the data and see if you can reject the null hypothesis that trend following returns are no better than the average buy and hold long term return of the stock market, circa 7-8%.
I am sure the above has been done somewhere (if anyone has a link please post) and I can anticipate the result. What you will likely find is that the null will be rejected even using higher power tests. However, you will likely also find that the volatility of the returns is higher than the stock market's and hence, it makes more sense to think of trend following as an ASSET CLASS and not the one and only get rich quick strategy.
I'm pretty sure Niederhoffer has looked into the return of the trendfollowers and probably has a LOT To say about the statistical significance of their returns. Since you are close to him, would you care to ask him and share with the rest of us? Since I no longer live in NYC, I cannot attend a Junto meeting and ask him myself.
