- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: An Examination of The Golden and Death Crosses
Posted on 11/11/18 at 5:41 pm to Doc Fenton
Posted on 11/11/18 at 5:41 pm to Doc Fenton
quote:
warn an investor most strongly about the Death Crosses occurring after the 1929, 2000, & 2018, peaks
P.S. -- Of course I'm aware that the Death Cross for 2018 has not yet occurred, but we appear to be quickly approaching it, which is why I assume this thread was created. The spot price has been bobbing above-and-below the 200d MA the past month or so ( LINK), and moreover, the 50d MA has been bobbing above-and-below the 100d MA. If the S&P 500 dips down around 2,700 again for very long, we'll be at a Death Cross before too long.
This post was edited on 11/11/18 at 5:42 pm
Posted on 11/11/18 at 9:55 pm to Doc Fenton
There's a lot here to reply here; forgive me because I will jump around a bit.
Actually, I just recently learned enough about thinkorswim's automated backtesting abilities and thinkscript to adjust and test out strategies on a very basic level. I can't do too much because I'm not a programmer and don't understand programming language enough to do complex things (yet). However, by examining a few scripts, I was able to turn the default Golden Cross breakout script into the one I provided. I also adjusted the GC breakout script to buy GC's and go neutral at Death Crosses. As of close Friday, that strategy's profit was 2920.36, 160 points behind the GC-DC long-short strategy (SPX closed at 2781.01 and chart began at 17.76).
The two options that I'm aware of to determine position size only accept whole numbers, and having different sized longs and shorts requires editing the code.
As far as CAPE and the Buffett indicator go, if I don't have a thinkscript of them to look at, I can't include them in a strategy. For me, trying to code them would be like trying to bake a souffle in an easy bake oven.
The TL;DR was really for the buy and hold types here; they aren't likely to get into the nitty gritty trying to generate alpha or index-beating returns. So when I say buy the dips, I just mean that they should keep doing what many say they're doing: buying dips. I wouldn't advise them to wait to buy on GC's, for example, because several months or more than a year could pass before one happens, and they'd miss out on upside in the meantime. Likewise, I said to "ignore the Death Cross boogeyman" because only 30% of Death Crosses were profitable to short with the strategy (and it should be noted that 1 of those 14 profitable Death Crosses produced a whole 0.02 points). Plus, going neutral at a Death Cross would probably be worse than buy and hold due to taxes. I should have stated who I was speaking to, though.
But for you and me and anyone else actually interested enough in this to roll up their sleeves, there's more in the OP. I don't think the strategy, as shown, is that impressive, though. Like I said, taxes, fees, and slippage would have a negative effect on the strategy's outcome. I can't say how much because that would require accounting for those things in decades past. Also of note is that my chart only has daily open, high, low, and close data from 1962 onwards. Before then, I only have daily closes, which throws off the results a bit more when you consider that the strategy trades at the open, not close.
And when accounting for compounding, the GC-DC long-short strategy turns out to be a failure compared to buy and hold. The strategy would have produced a return of 10,090.05%. Buy and hold would've produced a return of either 15,414.92% (if starting from the beginning of the chart) or 12,848.54% (if starting when the GC-DC strategy first enters a position). Here's a spreadsheet I adjusted to compound the results.
quote:
Of course I'm aware that the Death Cross for 2018 has not yet occurred, but we appear to be quickly approaching it, which is why I assume this thread was created.
Actually, I just recently learned enough about thinkorswim's automated backtesting abilities and thinkscript to adjust and test out strategies on a very basic level. I can't do too much because I'm not a programmer and don't understand programming language enough to do complex things (yet). However, by examining a few scripts, I was able to turn the default Golden Cross breakout script into the one I provided. I also adjusted the GC breakout script to buy GC's and go neutral at Death Crosses. As of close Friday, that strategy's profit was 2920.36, 160 points behind the GC-DC long-short strategy (SPX closed at 2781.01 and chart began at 17.76).
quote:
why not set the positions at something like +1.5 and -0.5 instead?
The two options that I'm aware of to determine position size only accept whole numbers, and having different sized longs and shorts requires editing the code.
As far as CAPE and the Buffett indicator go, if I don't have a thinkscript of them to look at, I can't include them in a strategy. For me, trying to code them would be like trying to bake a souffle in an easy bake oven.
quote:
What is your methodology for buying the dips though? If your position is to advocate for passive investing over chasing better performance using market statistics, then you seem to be contradicting yourself if you advise people to buy on dips.
The TL;DR was really for the buy and hold types here; they aren't likely to get into the nitty gritty trying to generate alpha or index-beating returns. So when I say buy the dips, I just mean that they should keep doing what many say they're doing: buying dips. I wouldn't advise them to wait to buy on GC's, for example, because several months or more than a year could pass before one happens, and they'd miss out on upside in the meantime. Likewise, I said to "ignore the Death Cross boogeyman" because only 30% of Death Crosses were profitable to short with the strategy (and it should be noted that 1 of those 14 profitable Death Crosses produced a whole 0.02 points). Plus, going neutral at a Death Cross would probably be worse than buy and hold due to taxes. I should have stated who I was speaking to, though.
But for you and me and anyone else actually interested enough in this to roll up their sleeves, there's more in the OP. I don't think the strategy, as shown, is that impressive, though. Like I said, taxes, fees, and slippage would have a negative effect on the strategy's outcome. I can't say how much because that would require accounting for those things in decades past. Also of note is that my chart only has daily open, high, low, and close data from 1962 onwards. Before then, I only have daily closes, which throws off the results a bit more when you consider that the strategy trades at the open, not close.
And when accounting for compounding, the GC-DC long-short strategy turns out to be a failure compared to buy and hold. The strategy would have produced a return of 10,090.05%. Buy and hold would've produced a return of either 15,414.92% (if starting from the beginning of the chart) or 12,848.54% (if starting when the GC-DC strategy first enters a position). Here's a spreadsheet I adjusted to compound the results.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News