Live: Wednesday, Aug. 7, 2019

12 p.m. New York time

I’ve posted the analysis of SPY.

11:55 p.m. New York time

I’ve entered a short iron condor position on SPY. Details to follow.

10:10 a.m. New York time

Metals are all that’s worth buying out of my managed shares pool. I added SLV to GDXJ, and I still have three empty slots.

sym slot # price $ sector
GDXJ 1 40.79 metals
SLV 2 15.88 metals
(empty) 3
(empty) 4
(empty) 5

One reason for the paucity of trades is my new rule requiring that the symbol be in an uptrend. At this point I’m using the gut-feel method — I know an uptrend when I see it — and will, if the opportunity presents itself, use such things as Japanese candlestick patterns to resolve ambiguities.

Only SLV qualified for a trade when trend was added to the mix. The buy signals rejected because of their trends were BRZU, DBA, EEM, EPI, EWH, EWM, EWW, EWZ and RSX. So clearly, at this moment, the trend requirement is quite limiting. In a future up market, the trend requirement won’t be limiting at all, since almost every sector will be trending upward. That makes the trend an invaluable tool because it ties my trade selections to the Zeitgeist of the markets. Or, as wise old traders with a liking for shibboleths habitually put it, “The trend is your friend.”

By Tim Bovee, Portland, Oregon, August 7, 2019

Read More »

IWM Analysis

iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM)

Update 8/20/2019My short iron condor position on IWM reached 50% of maximum potential profit, and I exited for a $0.90 debit — half the credit received at entry. Shares at exit were trading at $149.25, which is $1.12 above their level at entry.

IWM meandered in a sideways movement during the holding period, and that was reflected in the implied volatility rate, which fell by 19.8 points from the entry level to 29.0% at exit.

Shares rose by 0.8% over 14 days, or a +20% annual rate. The options position produced a 100.0% return for a +2,607% annual rate.


I have entered a short iron condor spread on IWM, using options that trade for the last time 45 days hence, on September 20. The premium is a $1.80 credit and the stock at the time of entry was priced at $148.13.

The profit zone for this position is between $156.80 on the upside and $126.80 on the downside.

The implied volatility rank (IVR) stands at 48.8.

In building the trade, I skewed it to provide a deeper profit zone to the downside.

Premium: $1.80 Expire OTM
IWM-iron condor Strike Odds Delta
Long 162.00 93.0% 7
Break-even 156.80 84.0% 16.5
Short 155.00 75.0% 26
Puts
Short 132.00 87.0% 12
Break-even 126.80 90.0% 9
Long 125.00 93.0% 6

The premium is 25.7% of the width of the position’s wings.

The risk/reward ratio is $520 to $180 per contract, or 2.9:1.

By Tim Bovee, Portland, Oregon, August 6, 2019

Read More »

Tuesday, Aug. 6, 2019

11:55 a.m. New York time

My IWM order has been filled. I’ve posted the analysis.

11:35 a.m. New York time

And — happy days! — it’s time to begin repopulating my short iron condor options positions. And what a good time it is! Implied volatility rankings on market-wide exchange traded funds has leapt to high levels from the IVR swamp of despond where they have languished for much of the year.

This round, the options expiring September 20, 2019, I shall focus on those market-wide ETFs. I’ve entered an order for the first, IWM, which tracks, the Russell 2000, but have not yet gotten a fill.

Today is 45 days prior to expiration, and I’ll be pacing my position entries over several days in order gain some time diversification.

I’m choosing that strategy because of a study discussed last month on the financial network TastyTrade, an outfit that does the most useful options trading studies that I’ve seen, ever. This study looks at outcomes by the category of underlying, and find that the broad market positions tend to do best. The discussion, broadcast July 16, can be watched here.

10:40 a.m. New York time

In yesterday’s post, I mused about whether there’s an improvement to my signaling method that would reduce the likelihood of whipsaws. Having slept on it, I’ve concluded that there’s really no metric that would help. All it would do is take one of the most sensitive yet whipsaw-avoidant signaling algorithms around, the Fisher Transform, and turn it into something less sensitive.

The reality is that whipsaws tend to happen when markets are changing trend, topping or bottoming. And that’s something where we all have a built-in algorithm. Our vision and brains together constitute one of the best visual pattern recognition systems around. We know a trending stock chart when we see it. We know topping and bottoming behavior when we see them.

So going forward I shall confirm the Fisher Transform buy signal by looking a the stock chart and judging whether the greater trend is in to the upside. If it is, then it’s a buy. EWM, for example, was giving a Fisher Transform buy signal this morning. But the chart shows a decline from July 10. True, the price moved higher today compared to yesterday, but as a wise mentor told me years ago, “One day does not a trend make.” Another mentor added, ” Right. It’s three days. It takes three takes to make a trend.” Well, whatever. Like you, I know a trend when I see it.

So I rejected EWM, despite the signal. Another signal was GDXJ, and it is clearly in an upward trend. I entered GDXJ for a debit of $40.96 per share. It is, presently, the only managed shares position I have, the rest having been shot down by sell signals over the last two days.

By Tim Bovee, Portland, Oregon, August 6, 2019

Read More »

Live: Monday, Aug. 5, 2019

2:20 p.m. New York time

By the rule book on Tuesday I’ll start entering my options positions that expire September 20. Tuesday is 45 days prior to expiration.

My managed shares positions had been reduced to one by Friday’s sell signals, executed this morning, and a sell signal this morning removed the last position from the board.

Sold are EWM, XBI, XHB and XOP, with these results:

  • EWM, bought $28.55 on Aug. 1, sold $27.95 on Aug.  5, $-0.60 loss. Shares declined by 2.1% over three days for a -256% annual rate.
  • XBI, bought $86.76 on July 31, sold $82.08 on Aug. 5, $-4.68. Shares declined by 5.4% over five days for a -394% annual rate.
  • XHB, bought $42.07 on Aug. 1, sold $40.31 on Aug. 5, $-1.76 loss. Shares declined by -4.2% over four days for a -382% annual rate.
  • XOP, bought $25.16 on July 31, sold $22.43 on Aug. 5, $-2.73 loss. Shares declined by 10.9% over five days for a -792% annual rate.

The positions prepped for entry were CORN, GLD and XLU, and I added FXE for the position vacated this morning.

But I’m passing on those trades for now, given the Sturm und Drang in the markets after China allowed its currency to weaken.

As the economist Paul Krugman tweeted this morning, “Trump’s latest tariffs may look like the world trade equivalent of the assassination of Franz Ferdinand — the event that tripped an uneasy situation into all-out trade war.” I mean, who wants to hold shares as the guns of August are rolling into place?

Speaking of Sturm und Drang, my early results with this experimental method have produced way more churn than I anticipated. Could be intrinsic to all markets. Could be an artifact of this time and these markets. I’ll use the time-out enforced by the heightening tariff war to think about ways to smooth the signaling.

By Tim Bovee, Portland, Oregon, August 5, 2019

Read More »

Live: Friday, Aug. 2, 2019

1:35 p.m. New York time

I’ve updated my thought experiment on hedged earnings plays with a day-after observation. See Thought Experiment: An IBM earnings play.

10:05 a.m. New York time

I exited my managed shares positions XLE and XLV after each received a sell signal. I had only one buy signal that I could reasonably use to fill a slot: EWM, which I entered for $28.55 a share.

XLE produced a 0.6% loss over two days, or a -115% annual rate. The price change was down 39 cents.

XLV produced a 1.1% loss over four days for a -103% annual rate, a decline of $1.04.

Here’s the lineup:

sym slot # price $ sector
(empty) 1 #N/A
EWM 2 28.55 intl-malaysia
XBI 3 86.76 biotech
XHB 4 42.07 real estate
XOP 5 25.16 energy

By Tim Bovee, Portland, Oregon, August 2, 2019

Read More »

Live: Thursday, Aug. 1, 2019

1:40 p.m. New York time

I’ve updated Thought Experiment: An IBM Earnings Play with results and conclusions.

1 p.m. New York time

My paper-trade on IBM, part of a thought experiment on hedging earnings plays, triggered an exit, for a $2.38 debit with shares at $151.88. I’ll update the analysis shortly with full results.

I’ve made three swap outs on the managed stocks account. I exited FXE and GLD on sell signals. I entered XLE and XHB, in the energy and real-estate sector, respectively. Here’s the new line-up:

sym slot # price $ sector
XLE 1 62.11 energy
XLV 2 92.21 health care
XBI 3 86.76 biotech
XHB 4 42.07 real estate
XOP 5 25.16 energy

The FXE exit credit was $105.19, producing a 0.8% (80 cents) loss over one day, or a -276% annual rate.

The GLD exit credit was $133.41 , producing a -1.1% ($1.45) loss over one day for a -392% annual rate.

The new line-up leaves me overweight in energy, with two positions.

By Tim Bovee, Portland, Oregon, August 1, 2019

Read More »

Live: Wednesday, July 31, 2019

10:20 a.m. New York time

Some sell signals on my Robinhood shares account: QAT and WEAT.  That gave me four slots to fill, which I did. Here’s the new line-up, with XLV being a hold-over:

sym slot # price $ sector
FXE 1 105.99 currency-euro
XLV 2 92.21 health care
XBI 3 86.76 biotech
GLD 4 134.86 metals
XOP 5 25.16 energy

The exits:

QAT, out at $17.93, producing a -0.4% (7 cents) loss over 2 days, or a -71% annual rate.

WEAT, out at $5.34, producing a -2.65 (14 cents) loss over 2 days, or a -466% annual rate.

Here’s a write-up on the methodology.

By Tim Bovee, Portland, Oregon, July 31, 2019

Read More »

Live: Tuesday, July 30, 2019

3:15 p.m. New York time

I’ve exited two share positions in my Robinhood account, on RSX and XRT, after each gave a sell signal on the Fisher Transform. The buy signals for RSX was given July 25 and for XRT, July 24, although I entered only for the final day of the signals’ durations, 5 days and 6 days, respectively.

RSX fell $0.05 during my one-day holding period and produced a 0.2% loss over one day for a -775% annual rate.

XRT fell by $0.53 in one day, producing a 1.2% loss for a -449% annual rate.

I shall enter two new buy-signal positions on Wednesday.

By Tim Bovee, Portland, Oregon, July 30, 2019

Read More »

Live: Monday, July 29, 2019

2:55 p.m. New York time

IBM has pulled back to within the profit zone, barely. The zone’s upper boundary is $150.88. IBM is presently trading at $150.80.

10 a.m. New York time

I’ve entered my first positions on Robinhood under the medium-risk trading method that I developed over the weekend and described in a post on Sunday, “A Robo Advisor Replacement“.

Here’s the lineup:

sym slot # price $ sector
RSX 1 23.66 intl-russia
XLV 2 92.21 health care
XRT 3 43.10 retail
WEAT 4 5.48 commodity-wheat
QAT 5 18.00 intl-qatar

Also, there’s movement in my thought experiment on hedging an earnings announcement in my options trades, which I described on July 17 in a post, “Thought Experiment: An IBM Earnings Play“. The iron condor position, which at entry had a high probability of success, was unprofitable after the earnings announcement, while remaining within the zone of profit at expiration.

Today my paper position IBM moved beyond the profit zone, and under my sudden death rules this close to expiration, will be subject to a mandatory exit if it moves a certain distance beyond the zone.

I calculate the exit point using the Rate of Change metric. If the share price moves far enough beyond the zone that it would take a day, or more, to return to the zone, then that triggers the exit.

In IBM’s case, the metric stands at 0.83, meaning that it would that that portion of a trading day to return to the zone of profitability. So, no exit yet, but it’s close.

By Tim Bovee, Portland, Oregon, July 29, 2019

Read More »

A Robo Advisor Replacement

(A version of this post was published as an essay on Medium.)

(This rule set was updated on August 14, 2019 by replacement of the Fisher Transform with the DMI as the trading signal. See the new version here.)

Last week, as I watched with sadness as the return on 13-week Treasury bills decline yet again, I scratched my head and thought, yet again, about where to put funds for a return that would meet my two goals: 1) Beat inflation, and 2) make a reasonable profit. The Federal Open Market Committee has turned to stimulating the economy, lowering interest rates to make that happen, and lowering my return on my T-bill cash reserves.

We who lived through the Great Recession of 2008 are quite familiar with the problem. Interest rates fell rapidly, closing in on zero percent, what the Federal Reserve folk call the ZLB, the Zero Lower Bound. I think of it as something like an absolute zero for central bankers.

We had retirement savings to manage. We couldn’t allow it to be chewed and mangled by inflation, a clear danger in the minds of we who lived through the horror show of the 1970s. But with interest rates bouncing along near zero, we had safe haven to turn to.

It was that realization that convinced me to start trading heavily managed options trading. It proved to be a learning curve, and I took losses. And as I got better at it, options trading proved to be a good way to make higher risk trades.

Of course, it’s usually not very wise to put all funds at high risk. I divide my funds into three groups: High risk (options, which are leveraged), mid-risk (stocks, which aren’t leveraged), and low risk (Treasury bills, whole-life insurance policies with a cash value that can be borrowed against or cashed in). If I owned property, I would add a fourth category, real property, which is low risk, leveraged and somewhat illiquid, with high carrying costs.

One consequence of the lower interest rates environment is that the low-risk Treasury bills become inadequate to my needs. Some of that money needs to go to elsewhere in order to earn a return.

So last week I checked out the Big New Thing of the last couple of years in financial management, the robo advisor. They’re a species of fin-tech that is pitching heavily to adults of the Millennial generation who are flooding into the workforce.

The robo advisors I check out use modern portfolio theory to construct a high diverse mix of stock exchange-traded funds and bond ETFs, both U.S. and global, with the percentages set according to a customer’s age and risk aversion. Some of the funds set it up so that the customer can fully invest, rather than having money left over because of low granularity imposed by a share price. Some also will automatically adjust the holdings to maintain a balance among the various types of holdings in the account. The cost is low. Most that I saw charge 0.25% of holdings annually. Some charge 0.5%, and I saw some that are free. All to the good.

The downside, it turns out, is that none of the robo advisors I checked out won’t allow funding from a brokerage account, only from a checking account. Think of it. An investment platform that won’t allow funding from a brokerage account. It seems senseless to me, an unforced error, perhaps an effect of highly restrictive work rules imposed by the robo advisors union. And since my personal finances rely heavily on brokerages, I sadly turned from robo advisors, convinced that if I wanted a method of  managing funds for greater return but no more than middlin’ risk, I would have to invent  it myself.

Robinhood came to the rescue. Robinhood Markets Inc. is a brokerage founded in 2013 with the goal of easy trading online without trading fees. I underlined the no trading fees part because that change overturns the long-standing preference most private traders have to holding stocks for the long term. In traditional brokerages, each trade into a position produces fees, and each trade out produces fees. Stocks generally aren’t leveraged, and trade in and out enough, the trader will find his exits have been eroded away.

Robinhood, by eliminating trading fees, liberates the trader from the buy-and-hold  restriction, making it possible to follow trading signals closely, even if it turns out to be a buy signal on Wednesday and a sell signal on Thursday. It puts an end to the two ancient laments, “Well, if I had bought Amazon back in the day, I’d be a millionaire today,” and “I know the markets down 10%, but if I just hold on long enough, it’s sure to come back.”

Adherence to trading signals in Robinhood’s first advantage.

By allowing quick trading without a financial penalty, Robinhood also allows for diversification over a period of time rather than static diversification. Exchange traded funds provide diversity in a holding, but under a buy-and-hold scenario the diversification is limited to the holdings of that fund. If I hold fund A for a week (during a buy signal), and then switch it for fund B for three weeks (during a buy signal), and so forth with funds C, D, E and F, then I’ve achieved a higher degree of diversification than a single fund will allow.

Diversification over time is Robinhood’s second advantage.

And so I came up with a plan, and trading rules, for managing stocks by closely adhering to trading signals on exchange-traded funds, providing diversification both statically and over time.

Here, the, are my trading rules for a self-managed alternative to the robo advisors.


Stock Trading Rules: Mid-Risk

Introduction

The goal of my Robinhood rules is to create a highly diversified managed weekly according to changes in the Fisher Transform technical analysis tool that signals trend changes. A trend change signal is generated with the Fisher Transform crosses its signal line, which is a moving average. (See the appendix, below, for a description of the Fisher Transform.) Any unambiguous trend analysis, such as a moving average or the MACD, could be used in place of the Fisher Transform.

Method

My holdings consist of a portfolio of five exchange-traded funds picked from a pool of funds. For signalling, I use the Fisher Transform applied to a daily chart. If the Fisher Transform is above the signal line, then it is a buy signal. If it is at or below the signal line, it is a sell signal.

I shall begin the method with a pool of nearly 90 exchange traded funds, including U.S. general index funds, sector funds, international global and country-specific funds, and a few futures-oriented funds in metals and agriculture.

Each trading day, I do the following tasks:

Update the pool with new Fisher Transform trend readings (which are binary: Above the signal line or at or below the signal line).

  1. Compare with the final trend signal of the day.
  2. Exit any holdings whose signals have changed from buy to sell.
  3. Bring the holdings count up to five positions by selecting according to these criteria:
    1. The Fisher Transform is showing a buy signal.
    2. The most recent date that the signal for each symbol switched from sell to buy is preferred over earlier signal dates. If the number of symbols on the most recent signal date is insufficient fill out the portfolio, use the next most recent date. For any selection date where there’s a choice of symbols to use, make each selection using a random number.
    3. Each fund in the portfolio represents a unique sector compared to the others.

More briefly, the selection criteria for my five positions:

1) Buy signal. 2) Newest trend. 3) Unique sector.

Appendix: The Fisher Transform

The Fisher Transform, created by John F. Ehlers, converts prices into a Gaussian normal distribution, highlighting when the prices are at an extreme based on their recent range. The goal of the conversion is to spot potential turning points.

An article in Investopedia (“Fisher Transform Indicator“, April 19, 2019) describes the steps in calculating the Fisher Transform: 

  1. Choose a look-back period, such as nine periods. This is how many periods the Fisher Transform is applied to.
  2. Convert the prices of these periods to values to between -1 and +1 and input for X, completing the calculations within the formula’s brackets.
  3. Multiply by the natural log.
  4. Multiply the result by 0.5.
  5. Repeat the calculation as each near period ends, converting the most recent price to a value between -1 and +1 based on the most recent nine-period prices.
  6. Calculated values are added/subtracted from the prior calculated value.

I use a derivative metric, the FTtrend, that I coded using the ThinkOrSwim programming language, ThinkScript. It returns a 1 for a buy signal and a -1 for a sell signal. Here is the code:

declare lower;

plot status = if(reference FisherTransform().FT > reference FisherTransform().FTOneBarBack,1,-1);

status.setDefaultColor(color.ORANGE);


And that’s it. I anticipate that updating the fund each trading day will take 5-10 minutes, max.  It seems like time well spent.

I shall list the initial holdings using this method on Monday in my Live post, and update the list whenever the trend signal changes on a position, causing an exit from the old and replacement by the new.

By Tim Bovee, Portland, Oregon, July 28, 2019

Read More »