*POP*!

It has been a busy month, and except for my mechanical trades (an update on those is coming soon), I haven't found the time to wander around looking at areas of the market that I don't usually trade.  About a week ago, though, I realized that I had heard a lot of buzz around the office about silver.  A month ago almost none of our traders were interested in trading silver futures, and now suddenly I was hearing about it from several different directions.  Curious, I brought up a chart.

(Silver ETF through May 2, 2011)

This, ladies and gents, is a bubble.  Having lived through the economic aftermath, we all have heard of the Tech Bubble of 2000 and the Housing Bubble of 2008.  Smaller financial instruments like silver don't get capitalized names, dates, and a lot of mainstream attention, because they don't push the economy around.  But here's a couple more from recent memory: the Oil bubble of 2007-2008, and the Agricultural bubble of 2007.  In the charts below, I have helpfully included the bubble-popping aftermath for 20/20 hindsight, which I held back in the Silver graph again (for the impatient, there is a full chart near the bottom of this post).

(Nasdaq ETF Apr1999-Apr2000)

(Oil ETF Mar2007-Jul2008)

(Commodity ETF Jan2007-Mar2008)

Sadly I can't find an ETF that captures the housing bubble well, but here is an excellent chart from another blog (thanks to James Parsons).  I haven't verified the source data, but it looks more or less correct.  The volume isn't pictured; in the context of home prices, that would be the real estate sales activity.  I could go do a bunch of research, but I won't.  We all remember the "flipping" craze of 2006-2007, right?

Housing prices 1970-2010, nominal and inflation-adjusted

In all of the charts above, notice the accelerating prices near the end of the bubble, and the corresponding accelerating daily volume.  This represents the "final blow-off phase", where everyone just has to be involved in this instrument.  Retail amateur investors do not belong in a frothy market like the ones pictured above, but the siren song of water-fountain stories about how Bob from Accounting doubled his money last month is a powerful draw.

In 2000, I had been reaping the rewards of the Tech Revolution, as I saw it, by working as an independent consultant on the side, more than doubling my salary by charging consultant rates and putting in 20-30 extra hours a week.  I suddenly realized that a lot of people had been making a lot of money in the stock market for a long time, and I was determined not to miss out on any additional free money.  I started reading the Motley Fool and buying more or less any stock that made a new high, with no regard for earnings (there weren't any) or prices.  I came late to the party, like most investors did, but I was convinced this New Economy (remember that?) was one that would love me and my technical mind, cradling me in its hammock of cash.  So I bought Yahoo at $120.  When it fell to $100, I listened to the Buy&Holders telling me what a great new bargain it was offering me, and I bought more.  When it fell to $60, I bought more.  When it fell to $40, I made my last purchase while gritting my teeth.  I don't remember where I sold it, but it certainly wasn't higher than $15.

I learned a lot in the next 8 years.  In 2008, when stock valuations were ridiculously high, the housing market was quietly imploding, and credit was rapidly shrinking, I heard a sudden increase in questions from people not involved in finance about how to get involved in finance.  I had doctors, dentists, and engineers wanting to argue with me about where oil was going in the next 5 years.  I had people telling me that $1.5million wasn't that much to spend on a 4-bedroom house with no land, and besides, you could just sell it for $1.8 in a couple of months! Suddenly everyone was a speculator, and everyone was loving the party.  Meanwhile I was reading economic analysis by folks like the Head Economist at Merrill Lynch, who was pointing out how silly it all was.  Every week he bemoaned the rapidly accelerating speculative frenzy, and forecasted a recession with increasing certainty and severity.  Finally in the summer 2008, I think in August, I decided it was time to take a position.  I bought puts on SPY, a lot of them.  I made about 800% on that trade; no, that is not a typo.  The money I made in that trade did not make up for the money I lost in my stock-index retirement accounts, but it certainly helped.

So a week ago, when I suddenly woke up and realized that I was seeing the top of a bubble in silver, I bought puts in silver.  I didn't buy many, because I'm unfamiliar with the market and I don't want to extend myself too far into a clearly volatile situation when I don't know what fundamental forces might be driving it.  Well, it turns out to be speculative craziness.  The CME decided to increase the margin requirements on its silver futures contract (SI), because it was seeing bigger daily ranges and was concerned that too many small speculators would be unable to make margin, leading to a meltdown (irony?).  Silver immediately turned about 120 degrees and headed straight for the floor.  I bought my puts the day after that announcement, so I missed the first big down day.  But here's the full-year chart of silver I held back at the top of this post:

SLV through present day

Is that not the most perfect bubble chart you've ever seen???

Two days later, I had more than doubled my money on the puts.  I sold a little less than half of them for more than I paid for the full position.  Now that remaining part of the position is worth more than twice my original investment.  In just a week, I'm up over 350% overall.  I like to use options for short-term directional plays like this, because I get leverage and limited risk.  I bought options worth about 4x more than I would normally initially invest in anything, and I spent about 5% of that on premium.  That 5% of the notional value is my maximum loss; leveraged out, I'm risking 20% of a unit of capital on this play.  It carries a high risk of loss, since the option really can (and often does) go to zero, but the leverage carries with it a high reward potential. 

Disclaimer:  it's tough to make money buying options.  It usually only works out well when there is a sudden violent movement - in the right direction - of my underlying stock/ETF/etc.  The problem, though, is that the probability of a sudden violent movement is captured in the term "expected volatility", and that's one component in the price of the option.  Just as you would pay more for car insurance if you had a history of vehicular homicide, you'll pay more for a put option on a stock that has a history of portfolio homicide.  So buying options usually loses money, and the art is to control that money loss and not let the option price go to zero.  But when they make money, oh boy.  I can turn a 30% drop in silver into a 350% profit.  That makes up for a lot of lost option bets.

This is usually where someone (you know who you are, Dad) tells me that I'm "profiting off the misery of others".  I see it a different way.  Do we all remember how it was the Evil Speculators that caused the 2008 crash?  Well, it's those same Evil Speculators that drove the silver price up above all reason.  Keep in mind, the catalyst for bursting this bubble was the CME increasing its margin requirements.  Do you really think that increased margin requirements are going to stop a hedger from buying silver futures because he needs a few truckloads of silver in a few months?  Of course not.  Do you think it would seriously impair the normal healthy speculation activities of the professional trading firms that provide markets to the hedgers, thus facilitating the modern financial system, as is their Patriotic Duty?  Certainly not - most trading firms have millions, if not tens of millions, in their margin accounts.  The only people severely affected by increased margin requirements are small-size speculators with underfunded accounts:  those 1-lot and 2-lot traders that are in there driving up the volume and generating water-cooler war stories.  These guys are cruising along with $10,000 to $50,000 in a futures trading account, and they're sitting at their desks trading silver all day long when they should be doing something productive.  This is why the Chinese are winning, people.

Think of it as weeding.  Sometimes you have to kill off some buckthorn so the oaks can thrive.  Think of me as a chipper/shredder.

CS|MACO last week

Last week, SPY closed below its 25-day moving average on Tuesday, so I closed the CS|MACO long SPY position Wednesday morning.  Wednesday, SPY rocketed higher, closing back above the 25-day; but the AAII.com survey also came out Wednesday after the close, and individual investors have gotten bullish enough again to make the CS component bearish.  Bearish plus Bullish = Flat, so CS|MACO is once again on the sidelines.

CS saved money that MACO would have lost, since SPY has closed lower than Wednesday the succeeding two trading days.  These periods of consolidation, where SPY hovers around even for a while, can get expensive.  I'm glad I have those individual investors to fade.

Mini-Rant
Speaking of fading individual investors, the topic of conversation over coffee at the office this morning was privatization of Social Security so as to give individuals the ability to manage their own retirement investments.  The general consensus is that this would be a great thing... for us professionals.  Investing well is hard: like any other probability-based activity, looking backwards in time at what you should have done makes it look very easy.  But actually doing the right things traveling into the future takes a great deal of effort, discipline, time, and -- dare I say it -- luck.
I'm trying to stay away from the political quagmires around dinking around with Social Security.  Whether I'm for it or against it doesn't change my premise here, which is that individuals managing their own money, in the aggregate, will severely underperform just about any index you care to use.  Despite my "morons" tag I throw in whenever I talk about individual investors, it isn't because they're dumb.  It's just that they have other things on their mind than investing.  The folks taking the other side of their trades (i.e. fading them), on the other hand, are professionals.  They spend all day every day thinking about markets, and most of them have vast resources at their beck and call for maximizing their return.

The reason investment banks such as Goldman Sachs have done so well and generated such staggering amounts of wealth is because they're playing against amateurs: you.  So the next time you get the urge -- if you ever get the urge -- to argue for the privatization of Social Security, think about who is more likely to profit in a trade between you and Goldman Sachs.  If you answer, "Me! I am! I'm above average!" then I applaud your confidence.  But please don't be insulted if you find me on the other side of some of your trades.

Trading Diary for Nov 19

CiG
On Tuesday, I closed a losing CiG trade at the open based on a view that the S&P Futures (ESZ0) were going to sell-off throughout the day.  It turned out I was right, and by the end of the day CiG had given a new Buy signal.  Following this signal with real money might have been psychologically difficult, since all Tuesday long the market was acting like the sky was falling; but that's the essence of a buy-the-dips strategy, and with paperMoney the buy decision was an easy one.

I closed that second long ESZ0 position on a standard CiG exit signal yesterday afternoon for a $900 profit.  I ended up with a $500 profit per $5500 in margin for the whole trade starting on Friday, which ends up being an overall above-average winning signal.  If I had gritted my teeth and held on instead of getting out Tuesday morning and getting back in Tuesday afternoon, the trade would be down $87.  Going with one's gut usually doesn't work this well, so I'm not sure whether to be proud of myself or not.  But I'm glad it worked out this time.

Yesterday's market was a perfect inverse of Tuesday's: everything was coming up roses, and nothing could ever stop the stock market's inevitable return to massive wealth-generating territory.  You know you're a contrarian if you read that last sentence and a little voice in your head screams "SELL"; in this case that was exactly the right thing to do.  At 9:05 CST, ESZ0 was back down to 1188.00, right back where it was when I dumped it on Tuesday.

I wonder if I'll get another buy signal today...

CS|MACO
On Wednesday, results from a new Independent Investor Survey were released and posted on aaii.com.  Not surprisingly, the rapidly falling S&P markets over the past week soured the backward-looking investors' outlook for the future; the bullish percentage dropped all the way to 40%, a massive 17.6% drop from the previous week.  This was enough to move CS from "initiate sell" to "no initiate, no exit".  Meanwhile, the bullish MACO signal had evaporated on Tuesday when SPY closed below its 25-day moving average.  So that meant the trade went from being locked flat due to opposing Sell!/Buy! signals to being flat due to apathetic meh/meh signals ("meh" is an official trading term I just made up that means "no clear view either way").

Yesterday, however, SPY shot up past its 25-day again and closed above it; this gives a clear new "Buy!" signal from MACO, and CS won't change its opinion until next Wednesday.  I should have bought SPY on the open today, but quite frankly I forgot all about it.  This calls for another official trading term to be thought up: I'll call this "psychological slippage".  In this case, however, I saved myself a little money since SPY was about 50c cheaper than yesterday's close when I realized my mistake and opened the position.  I'll take it.

Collaboration is Good

NeighborTrader has been making some comments lately about a trade he has been backtesting.  At first, he was trying to work out a way to make it an intraday trade so that he could run it at the office as part of his job.  A fairly new trader like him tends to prefer that route, because he has a lot more resources to throw at it sooner if it goes well than if he has to save his money to cover the margin.  Unfortunately for him, after playing with a lot of different variables he came to the conclusion that the trade worked best on daily charts, which means long-term holding times.  Since our firm has a day-trading culture and isn't really set up from a risk-management standpoint to hold trades for more than a few hours, that pretty much precludes him running it as part of his job.

Knowing that I've been running long-term trades in paperMoney, he chatted with me yesterday about his trade and the methodology he was using to backtest it.  I have to admit, I'm pretty impressed at how rigorous he's being with it considering: (a) he has no academic or professional experience with formal backtesting; and (b) it's something he's doing for himself on the weekends and committing very little capital to.  He even went so far as to buy historical data, something most of the guys at the office don't do for their big trades.  He also bought a book to learn proper backtesting methods to minimize the chance of sample bias and curve-fitting.

Since it's his trade, I don't think it's right for me to go into it in detail on a public blog.  He gave me all the information I need to run it myself, and suggested some products to run it in, and I plan to do so, although I can't think of a good name for it right now.  But I'll leave the parameters a little hazy to protect his intellectual property.  Suffice to say that it is pretty similar to CS|MACO in that it looks to enter positions contrary to market consensus, but only to do so when it isn't fighting a strong trend.  It seeks to buy dips and sell spikes, and it's purely technical, using indicators widely available on most charting packages.  It also trades very infrequently, so I might have to run it on more than one product just to avoid being bored.

He's been running it in S&P-500 Futures (it needs a lot of leverage to succeed, and he understands futures very well since that's his job) and a couple of other products.  He just exited a trade in it today for a nice fat profit.  Since I already have CS|MACO running on SPY (the S&P-500 ETF), and I have other trades running on other equity indexes (Iron Condors on Russell, Collars on Nasdaq-100), I think I'll run it against US Treasury 10-year Note Futures.  This trades at the CME since they merged with CBOT, and it's available in paperMoney. 

Speaking of CS|MACO, it's been quiet for a while now.  Individual investors have stayed bullish (they've been right for once), and SPY has stayed above its 25-day moving average.  Long+short = flat, so I've been watching this whole move from the sidelines.  The last couple of weeks haven't been good for any trade except iron condors, with the stock market going pretty much sideways.  Something has to give with CS|MACO soon, though, because the 25-day moving average and the closing price are converging.

So Much For That Plan

Gold for Cash
In my last post, just two days ago, I briefly outlined my plan for disposing of my GLD Dec calls.  I said that I wanted to hit a price or time target, and when either thing happened I was out.  Of course the very next day gold prices dropped 3%, and then another 2% today, wiping out 20% of the value of my calls.  I'm not quite sure what's going on, but that was outside my comfort zone, and I dumped the calls today for quite a lot less than I planned.  Now that I'm out, I'll detail my price/time limits a little more.

I bought the then-ATM calls over the summer for $5/share of GLD, believing that gold would appreciate in the fall.  Boy did it, and it wasn't long before I was able to sell less than half of them for about $11/share.  That took my initial investment off the table, and I kept the rest riding.  I saw them reach somewhere around $17/share at their high, and I had a price target of $25/share to get out of the rest.  That was pretty aggressive, but I also had a time limit.

Uncomfortable, as I said on Tuesday, with the many small indications of a coming correction in gold, I wanted out soon.  I think most people are idiots (see the CS part of the CS+MACO trade), and when everyone's bullish, it's time to sell.  Worse, literally the whole world is hanging on QE2-related verbiage expected in the minutes from the FOMC's meeting on November 2 & 3.  That economic release is doomed: QE2 is already fully priced in, and all the Fed can do now is disappoint.  At the very least, all the IV comes out of the options after the announcement because the inflection point will have passed.  I definitely wanted out by Nov 2.

I have assumed for quite some time that I am riding a bubble forming in gold, and I swore that unlike the turn-of-the-century tech bubble, I would neither miss the run-up nor hang on for dear life during the pop.  That's why I have been in and out of leveraged gold positions via calls for the last year or so, and that's why I'll get back in after the mid-bubble correction makes everyone hate gold again.  I'm pretty bummed that I gave up so much of my profits by dumping today, but I still made about 150% on the trade since August, so I have no major complaints.

Speaking of CS+MACO...
Adding to the bearish signals this week, AAII published its survey results yesterday after the close: more people are bullish again.  With the CS portion screaming "sell!" and the MACO portion insisting "buy!", CS+MACO is still flat and will stay there for at least another week.

Well That's a Bummer

The first negative experience with Think or Swim I've had:

Hello - 

I use your trading platform under paperMoney to test out trades, and I find it extremely valuable.  It has taken me far longer than I expected to approach the stage of being able to fund my account and start trading with real funds, but this is not a reflection on your software at all. On the contrary, I have been consistently impressed with its high level of quality and richness of features.

I would like to kindly request your permission to include a screenshot from your Analyze tab on my new blog from time to time.  I am not sure what restrictions I might violate by doing this without permission, so I felt it would be better to ask first.  Here's a link if you want to see what I've said about thinkorswim so far: 

http://riskofruin.markmccracken.net

I am not writing reviews or detailed descriptions of your software (if I were they would be positive!) - rather I feel a value-at-expiration graph would be much clearer than a bunch of prose describing my option research positions.  Without your permission I can muddle through with Excel, but that is a distant second choice.

Thanks in advance,

Mark McCracken

Mark,

Thank you for the reach out and the kudos.  Unfortunately, we must respectfully deny your request to publish our firm’s copyrighted materials.  This ability is strictly reserved for those companies/individuals with which tos has a Marketing Agreement in place.

We wish you the best of luck in your trading and your endeavor.

Sincerely,

Scott Garland

Scott Garland

Compliance Manager

Scott -

How might I go about securing a Marketing Agreement with ToS?

- Mark McCracken

Mark,

With the recent acquisition by TD Ameritrade all Marketing Agreement activity has been frozen at this time. Sorry.

Sincerely,

Scott Garland

Scott Garland

Compliance Manager

Well, Scott Garland and Scott Garland have spoken (twice each).  No screenshots on the blog.  That's going to make it more difficult to illustrate my point, and it means no free marketing for Think or Swim, but I understand that there's no such thing as good publicity, or something like that.

I Spy a Crossover

I'm running a mechanical trade in paperMoney on SPY that is based on Simple-Moving-Average Crossovers.  I just started running this trade, but I did a little back-of-the-envelope backtesting before I started and I really liked the way it performed over the last couple of years.  Since the 25-day SMA crossed the 200-day SMA to the upside today, it bears mentioning.

There are two competing indicators in this trade: moving average crossovers (MACO) and individual investment sentiment, which I use as a contrary indicator (CS).

Moving Average Crossovers
MACO is bullish when the SPY daily closing price is higher than the SPY 25-day SMA, which in turn is higher than the SPY 200-day SMA.  MACO is bearish in the opposite situation: when SPY closes below the 25-day SMA, which in turn is below the 200-day SMA.  In any other closing price configuration, MACO is neutral/flat.

If this was where it ended, this would be a classic long-term trend-following trade.  It would have killed in 2009, and been killed in 2010.

Contrary Sentiment
The American Association of Individual Investors publishes a set of weekly indicators based on surveys of their members.  They give the percentage of their responding members that are bullish, bearish, and neutral.  I have arbitrarily chosen the bullish indicator, and I use the prior calendar year's average value as a midpoint - this year, that midpoint is 36.8%.  I then set the entry lines 10% above and below that value.  I get a new value from AAII every Wednesday, when they publish the survey.

CS is bullish when the surveyed value is below (yes, below) the low entry line, bearish when the surveyed value is above (yes, above) the high entry line, and signals "exit" when the surveyed value crosses the midpoint.  I basically use it to fade individual investor sentiment, because I think most people are morons - especially those who spend money on a membership to a website so they can donate their time filling out surveys.

So when that bullish indicator is above 46.8%, CS will initiate a "short" signal, remaining in "short" state until the indicator drops below 36.8%.  When the bullish indicator is below 26.8%, CS will initiate a "long" signal, remaining in "long" state until the indicator rises above 36.8%.  I'm trying to only place bets against other investors when it is more or less universally agreed upon how great/shitty the world is.

As a momentum-fading indicator, CS kills in sideways markets like most of 2010 has been.  It gets killed in trending markets like 2009, where everyone got really excited and stayed really excited while the stock market rallied a gazillion points for no reason.

Putting it all together
Now I aggregate the signals thus:

• If both CS and MACO say "flat/neutral", my position is flat
• If CS and MACO disagree (long/short or short/long), my position is flat
• If CS and MACO agree on a position (rare), I take that position
• If one says "long" and the other "neutral", I'm long (but see below)
• If one says "short" and the other "neutral", I'm short (but see below)
• If there was a disagreement (long/short, short/long), and MACO goes to neutral/flat, I do not initiate a position until the next CS survey release is in the "initiate" zones.  I do not "back into" positions.
• I only use closing prices for the MACO portion, and I trade the next day on the open.  If SPY gaps back through into neutral territory before the open, I treat it as no signal.  This basically just makes the backtesting easier.

In my backtesting, I compared various combinations of CS and MACO to a simple "buy and forget" strategy, resetting the entry price on 1 January each year.  I found that CS tended to keep MACO out of trouble by catching the tops and bottoms of the market trends really nicely.  On the other hand, MACO would keep CS from gritting its teeth and fading a long-term trend for a huge loss.  In fact, as a long-term trend asserted itself, CS would gradually drift into neutral territory, allowing MACO to get a position on and chase the trend.

The combination I describe above didn't consistently beat the "buy and forget" strategy, but: (a) it was a lot more fun; (b) buy-and-forget is what we all already do in our 401(k)s anyway - this whole trade is a diversification, in my opinion.  And, honestly, it has beat the snot out of "buy and forget" so far this year.

Where are we now?
The last entry signal in CS was "short" on 16 September, when the survey came out 50.89% bullish.  It has since drifted lower.  The most recent survey on 30 September was 42.5%, which would not cause a new position, but it remains "short" because we haven't gone through 36.8% yet.  We get a new survey tomorrow, and I'll go out on a limb and predict that it will remain above 36.8%.  In fact, for double-or-nothing I'll predict an up-tick from last week.

MACO, on the other hand, has been flat/neutral since 2 September, when SPY closed at 109.47: above the 25-SMA of 109.09 but below the 200-SMA of 111.79.  SPY has been trading above both of its moving averages since gapping higher over the weekend before 13 September, and today it finally dragged the 25-SMA higher than the 200-SMA at the close, generating a "long" signal:

• SPY Close: 116.04
• 25-day moving average: 112.46
• 200-day moving average: 112.05

With MACO transitioning from "neutral/flat" to "long", there is a disagreement so the trade is flat.