When evaluating your trading results, is it proper to compare to a simple buy and hold?

Hey all,

I am not an experienced trader, however, whenever I am looking to do some backtesting or evaluating results, my mind automatically goes to "how would this have done compared to just buy and hold?"

I have done some simple backtests and I automatically dismiss the system because they are worse than just buy and hold on a total return basis. However, maybe I am wrong with this mindset?

My question is, am I correct in my way of thinking when evaluating trading results?

Why or why not?

Thanks!
 
Risk-Adjusted return is usually a better way to look at performance.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/riskadjustedreturn.asp
Understanding Risk-Adjusted Return and Measurement Methods

By
James Chen, CMT is an expert trader, investment adviser, and global market strategist.

What Is a Risk-Adjusted Return?
A risk-adjusted return is a calculation of the profitor potential profit from an investment that takes into account the degree of risk that must be accepted in order to achieve it. The risk is measured in comparison to that of a virtually risk-free investment—usually U.S. Treasuries.


Depending on the method used, the risk calculation is expressed as a number or a rating. Risk-adjusted returns are applied to individual stocks, investment funds, and entire portfolios.


KEY TAKEAWAYS
  • A risk-adjusted return measures an investment's return after taking into account the degree of risk that was taken to achieve it.
  • There are several methods of risk-adjusting performance, such as the Sharpe ratio and Treynor ratio, with each yielding a slightly different result.
  • In any case, the purpose of risk-adjusted return is to help investors determine whether the risk taken was worth the expected reward.










0 seconds of 1 minute, 18 secondsVolume 75%




1:17
Risk-Adjusted Return

Understanding Risk-Adjusted Return
The risk-adjusted return measures the profit your investment has made relative to the amount of risk the investment has represented throughout a given period of time. If two or more investments delivered the same return over a given time period, the one that has the lowest risk will have a better risk-adjusted return.

Some common risk measures used in investing include alpha, beta, R-squared, standard deviation, and the Sharpe ratio. When comparing two or more potential investments, an investor should apply the same risk measure to each investment under consideration in order to get a relative performance perspective.



Different risk measurements give investors very different analytical results, so it is important to be clear on what type of risk-adjusted return is being considered.

Examples of Risk-Adjusted Return Methods
Sharpe Ratio
The Sharpe ratio measures the profit of an investment that exceeds the risk-free rate, per unit of standard deviation. It is calculated by taking the return of the investment, subtracting the risk-free rate, and dividing this result by the investment'sstandard deviation.


All else equal, a higher Sharpe ratio is better. The standard deviation shows the volatility of an investment's returns relative to its average return, with greater standard deviations reflecting wider returns, and narrower standard deviations implying more concentrated returns. The risk-free rate used is the yield on a no-risk investment, such as a Treasury bond (T-bond), for the relevant period of time.


For example, say Mutual Fund A returned 12% over the past year and had a standard deviation of 10%, Mutual Fund B returns 10% and had a standard deviation of 7%, and the risk-free rate over the time period was 3%. The Sharpe ratios would be calculated as follows:


  • Mutual Fund A: (12% - 3%) / 10% = 0.9
  • Mutual Fund B: (10% - 3%) / 7% = 1

Even though Mutual Fund A had a higher return, Mutual Fund B had a higher risk-adjusted return, meaning that it gained more per unit of total risk than Mutual Fund A.


Treynor Ratio
The Treynor ratio is calculated the same way as the Sharpe ratio, but uses the investment's beta in the denominator. As is the case with the Sharpe, a higher Treynor ratio is better.


Using the previous fund example, and assuming that each of the funds has a beta of 0.75, the calculations are as follows:


  • Mutual Fund A: (12% - 3%) / 0.75 = 0.12
  • Mutual Fund B: (10% - 3%) / 0.75 = 0.09

Here, Mutual Fund A has a higher Treynor ratio, meaning that the fund is earning more return per unit of systematic risk than Fund B.


Special Considerations
Risk avoidance is not always a good thing in investing, so be wary of over-reacting to these numbers, especially if the timeline being measured is short. In strong markets, a mutual fund with a lower risk than its benchmark can limit the real performance that the investor wants to see.



Beware of over-reacting to these numbers, especially if the timeline being measured is short. Greater risks can mean greater rewards over the long-term.

A fund that entertains more risk than its benchmark may experience better returns. In fact, it has been shown many times that higher-risk mutual funds may accrue greater losses during volatile periods, but are also likely to outperform their benchmarks over full market cycles.
My favorite one is the Ulcer Performance Index.
 
Being aware of buy and hold returns isn't nothing but I focus more on CAGR compared to maximum drawdown for my strategies. I understand why people find comfort in buy and hold but when the S&P has annual returns of roughly 10%, depending on timeframe, along with semi-regular drawdowns of 25%-35% with the occasional drop over 50%, it concerns me.

I need anticipated drawdowns to be somewhere in the ballpark of annual return, at most double, not several multiple of it. A huge drawdown is when people get emotional and start thinking about selling everything to get a little catharsis which is the worst possible thing to do at that time and accounts for a lot of the underperformance active traders experience.

Nobody knows the future and past performance doesn't predict future results yada yada but the equity strategies I gravitate to prioritize smooth return with superior risk adjusted performance. If the returns must be juiced to get over the buy and hold annual return hurdle, leverage is available. As long as risk adjusted expectations are superior, leverage shouldn't be shied away from.

With that in place I look for strats that are non-correlated to equities and for me that equates to option selling, specifically iron condors, butterflies (if I'm feeling really precise about direction), and calendars (if volatility is really low since calendars are long vega unlike condors) depending on volatility and the specific underlying. Farming premium doesn't make up the bulk of my activity but it did outperform in e.g. environments like 2022 when stocks and bonds got equally rekt.
 
Last edited:
Hey all,

I am not an experienced trader, however, whenever I am looking to do some backtesting or evaluating results, my mind automatically goes to "how would this have done compared to just buy and hold?"

I have done some simple backtests and I automatically dismiss the system because they are worse than just buy and hold on a total return basis. However, maybe I am wrong with this mindset?

My question is, am I correct in my way of thinking when evaluating trading results?

Why or why not?

Thanks!
You cannot compare to B&H. You need to look risk adjusted. Best or most common is to use Sharpe Ratio as measurement, on how good the strategy is. If you want to beat the S&P500 or Nasdaq as B&H, you can just buy UPRO or TQQQ as built-in leveraged ETFs here. And you should outperform your benchmarks.
 
Hey all,

I am not an experienced trader, however, whenever I am looking to do some backtesting or evaluating results, my mind automatically goes to "how would this have done compared to just buy and hold?"

I have done some simple backtests and I automatically dismiss the system because they are worse than just buy and hold on a total return basis. However, maybe I am wrong with this mindset?

My question is, am I correct in my way of thinking when evaluating trading results?

Why or why not?

Thanks!
The only way I see you can make consistent returns which outperform your Buyandhold benchmark is daytrading based on Momentum plays, so you would care on stocks having their opening gap and then their common behavior thereafter. Then you can make by far more returns WITHOUT having more leverage than your Buyandhold comparison, if that is really important to you. But usually it is seen only risk adjusted, so the drawdowns play an important role. In that case you would need leverage when your absolute returns on your better risk adjusted strategy is smaller than your Buyandhold benchmark return. You also need to consider fees for paying interests on a non-zero interest rate environment, as the use of additional leverage cost you some extra money.
 
If you are considering daytrading stocks on Momentum plays, you have two options. You can either trade the Order Imbalance on the market opening, meaning that mean-revert trade but you need to be market neutral here. Or as second option you can also trade Momentum Breakout on opening gaps, maybe with entries on shorter term reversals to get better risk-rewards trades. I already posted in the past some successful youtuber here trading this second option, if you want to make a further search.
 
Hey all,

I am not an experienced trader, however, whenever I am looking to do some backtesting or evaluating results, my mind automatically goes to "how would this have done compared to just buy and hold?"

I have done some simple backtests and I automatically dismiss the system because they are worse than just buy and hold on a total return basis. However, maybe I am wrong with this mindset?

My question is, am I correct in my way of thinking when evaluating trading results?

Why or why not?

Thanks!

Hi Mike,

ignore the replys above, they’re inexperienced traders and they replied nonsense.

Here is the thing. Because you’re inexperienced, whatever you’ll do will initially fail, and if it will work, then it will be due to luck and won’t last long. We all went through it. Trading is a craft, you need to slowly chip away at it, and it takes years of frustration. You need to be realistic and stay committed.

To your question, yes, the strategies need to outperform buy&hold, but you need to know which part of your system is letting you down, because sometimes a “bad” system can be turned into an OK system with some tweaks, but obviously it takes experience to know what to tweak.

In your other thread, I wrote “computer tested methods will down the road result in inefficient use of trading capital vs learning to trade and manual backtests (you have to pick your poison)”.

What I meant is that computer tested methods usually lack robustness (“one size fits all”), are dependent on market conditions, have large drawdowns and the annual profits are very low.

On the other hand, (all things being equal) rule based discretionary trading (pattern recognition) is harder to master, but less drawdowns, and much higher returns, therefore more capital efficient. Obviously, most people fail with both methods, but either way, you’ll need to decide which way you want to go. Hybrid, i.e. mixture of both works well with stocks, but not as good with other markets. You’ll need to experiment to find out which approach fits your own personality.

Meanwhile you can do manual backtests of say 20 trade samples, and it should start giving you some feedback. If that seems to work, then you’ll need to start to fine tune it (not optimising) and do far more through research. It takes commitment and time.

You can post your manual backtests here (charts with the trading logic) and the spreadsheet with the results.

That way you might get more accurate reply to your question. Manually backtesting 20 setups and marking up the charts takes very little time, few hours max.
 
The only way I see you can make consistent returns which outperform your Buyandhold benchmark is daytrading based on Momentum plays, so you would care on stocks having their opening gap and then their common behavior thereafter.


That’s not true at all, there are so many ways to outperform the market. Also, advising beginner to day trade is inappropriate advice, dyatrading is far more demanding than EOD trading.

PS: the other poster deleted his reply after he saw my response. Interesting. :)

Come on guys, we all were beginners once, so why not help those who are struggling when they politely ask for help, what's the point of trying to "impress" them with the nonsense with options, etc, that the other poster (not you @TrAndy2022) deleted.
 
Hi Mike,

ignore the replys above, they’re inexperienced traders and they replied nonsense.

Here is the thing. Because you’re inexperienced, whatever you’ll do will initially fail, and if it will work, then it will be due to luck and won’t last long. We all went through it. Trading is a craft, you need to slowly chip away at it, and it takes years of frustration. You need to be realistic and stay committed.

To your question, yes, the strategies need to outperform buy&hold, but you need to know which part of your system is letting you down, because sometimes a “bad” system can be turned into an OK system with some tweaks, but obviously it takes experience to know what to tweak.

In your other thread, I wrote “computer tested methods will down the road result in inefficient use of trading capital vs learning to trade and manual backtests (you have to pick your poison)”.

What I meant is that computer tested methods usually lack robustness (“one size fits all”), are dependent on market conditions, have large drawdowns and the annual profits are very low.

On the other hand, (all things being equal) rule based discretionary trading (pattern recognition) is harder to master, but less drawdowns, and much higher returns, therefore more capital efficient. Obviously, most people fail with both methods, but either way, you’ll need to decide which way you want to go. Hybrid, i.e. mixture of both works well with stocks, but not as good with other markets. You’ll need to experiment to find out which approach fits your own personality.

Meanwhile you can do manual backtests of say 20 trade samples, and it should start giving you some feedback. If that seems to work, then you’ll need to start to fine tune it (not optimising) and do far more through research. It takes commitment and time.

You can post your manual backtests here (charts with the trading logic) and the spreadsheet with the results.

That way you might get more accurate reply to your question. Manually backtesting 20 setups and marking up the charts takes very little time, few hours max.
20 trade samples seems like a way too small sample size to get a true sample of if the pattern truly has an edge though, no?
 
That’s not true at all, there are so many ways to outperform the market. Also, advising beginner to day trade is inappropriate advice, dyatrading is far more demanding than EOD trading.

PS: the other poster deleted his reply after he saw my response. Interesting. :)

Come on guys, we all were beginners once, so why not help those who are struggling when they politely ask for help, what's the point of trying to "impress" them with the nonsense with options, etc, that the other poster (not you @TrAndy2022) deleted.
I didn't get a chance to see the reply so not sure what it was about or the context.
 
Back
Top