• Print
  • Default text size A
  • Larger text size A
  • Largest text size A

Money management and trading

  • Wiley Global Finance WILEY GLOBAL FINANCE
  • Risk Management
  • Trading
  • Facebook.
  • Twitter.
  • LinkedIn.
  • Google Plus
Please enter a valid e-mail address
Please enter a valid e-mail address
Important legal information about the e-mail you will be sending. By using this service, you agree to input your real e-mail address and only send it to people you know. It is a violation of law in some jurisdictions to falsely identify yourself in an e-mail. All information you provide will be used by Fidelity solely for the purpose of sending the e-mail on your behalf.The subject line of the e-mail you send will be "Fidelity.com: "

Your e-mail has been sent.

To best outline a comprehensive price risk management program, there is the Risk Management Pyramid, shown in Figure 1. As you can see, the pyramid contains three tiers.

Figure 1: Weissman's Risk Management Pyramid

55_Fig01

Base of Pyramid

Tools at the base of the risk management pyramid are simple, robust, purely quantitative, and universally accepted throughout the speculative trading community.

The simplest and one of the most essential ingredients in the development of a robust risk management methodology is placement of stop losses. A stop loss is the cornerstone upon which all more complex risk tools are built. Why are stop losses so essential to successful risk management trading programs? Because a stop loss becomes a market order to exit once its price level has been triggered. Stops force traders to quantify risk before entry and therefore habituate us to their placement instantaneously following entry. Placing stops immediately after entry means that risk management maintains its objective, rule-based criteria as opposed to being placed after the onslaught of the greed and fear that typically characterize our emotional response to open positions in the markets. The stop order cannot rationalize or debate. It does not understand supply, demand, weather patterns, or geopolitical anomalies. It only knows that our predetermined criterion for trade exit has been triggered and therefore forces that exit despite any reason for abandonment of discipline.

Rookie traders become optimistic when studying price histories. They look at lows toward the chart's lower right-hand corner, then at highs toward the upper left-hand corner and imagine untold wealth in simply buying those lows and selling the highs. They tend to assume away all the price action in between. Unfortunately, as illustrated in Figure 2, it is not enough to have bought the 10-year U.S. Treasury note futures at 120-18 on May 25, 2010, even though they traded at 126-28 on August 25, 2010. Instead, after buying on May 25, 2010, at 120-18, we have to immediately manage the risk by placing a protective sell stop order. In other words, despite correctly assessing the market's overall bullish trend, it is quite possible that our risk management stop would have triggered a loss as the market dropped to its cycle low of 118-26 on June 3, 2010 (see Figure 2). Bottom line, it is not enough that our model makes money in general; it has to be robust enough to make money even when coupled with a stop loss order.

Figure 2: Daily Chart of September 2010 CME Group 10-Year U.S. Treasury Note Futures

55_Fig02

Source: CQG, Inc. © 2010. All rights reserved worldwide.

Middle of Pyramid

Quantitative tools in the middle level of the risk management pyramid offer robust solutions to issues, including correlations between assets held in a portfolio as well as the volatilities of those assets.

A more robust answer regarding stop loss placement is that our stop levels should be attuned to the current volatility of the asset traded. In other words, in higher volatility environments, we will need to place our stops further from our entry price so we can avoid being needlessly stopped out of trades that would eventually result in profit, while in lower volatility markets we can place our stop levels much closer to entry without getting stopped out on false countermoves. This relationship between volatility and stop level placement is the reason we never look at stop losses in a vacuum but instead examine them in conjunction with volumetric position sizing. In other words, when the volatility of the asset is higher, we place our stop further from the entry price level but we could potentially trade fewer contracts, whereas when the volatility is lower, we place the stop closer to our entry price and could therefore potentially trade a larger number of contracts without violating rules of prudent risk management.

This relationship between stop loss placement level, volumetric position sizing, and the volatility of the asset—or assets—traded transitions us to the middle tier of our risk management pyramid and specifically to Value-at-Risk, or VaR. VaR adds two indispensable elements to our risk management models: volatility and correlations. VaR examines the historical volatility of assets held in a trading portfolio and the correlations between those assets so as to make our stop loss placement and volumetric position sizing more robust.

Apex of Pyramid

By definition, the term management discretion suggests tools that defy purely quantitative mathematical modeling. It is consequently virtually impossible to provide an exhaustive list of all the possible ways in which management discretion can supplement a quantitative risk management model. Instead, let me outline a scenario in which management experience and discretion could be used to complement such quantitative risk models. On September 11, 2001, acts of terrorism are shifting markets to heightened levels of panic. A hedge fund's risk manager checks portfolio exposures against VaR limits, even runs a stress test to determine if the fund's trading book is enduring excessive levels of risk. Despite the fact that all her quantitative models suggest exposure is within normal tolerances, she calls the fund's head trader, suggesting a reduction of portfolio exposures.

Another example of management discretion is especially instructive as it simultaneously illustrates how manager experience can be used to augment quantitative risk tools of our pyramid's lower rungs while highlighting instances in which we might ignore entry signals generated by mechanical trading models. As an example, see Figure 3.

Figure 3: Daily Chart of September 2010 CME Group Wheat Showing Extraordinary Levels of Volatility

55_Fig03

Source: CQG, Inc. © 2010. All rights reserved worldwide.

On August 5, 2010, wheat futures closed locked limit up. The following day, August 6, 2010, it traded up almost the 60-cent daily limit, only to turn around and settle locked limit down on the day. The following trading day, August 9, 2010, saw some good follow-through selling in the market, which resulted in the triggering of a sell signal for one of my countertrend trading models. Despite the fact that a trader could have sold September wheat futures without violating volumetric position-sizing limits (or any other purely quantitative risk criteria), the trader used discretionary risk management as an overlay of those purely quantitative tools and chose to ignore the sell signal for wheat generated by the mechanical trading system.

  • Facebook.
  • Twitter.
  • LinkedIn.
  • Google Plus
Please enter a valid e-mail address
Please enter a valid e-mail address
Important legal information about the e-mail you will be sending. By using this service, you agree to input your real e-mail address and only send it to people you know. It is a violation of law in some jurisdictions to falsely identify yourself in an e-mail. All information you provide will be used by Fidelity solely for the purpose of sending the e-mail on your behalf.The subject line of the e-mail you send will be "Fidelity.com: "

Your e-mail has been sent.
Article copyright 2011 by Richard L. Weissman. Reprinted and adapted from Trade Like a Casino: Find Your Edge, Manage Risk, and Win Like the House with permission from John Wiley & Sons, Inc. The statements and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author. Fidelity Investments® cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any statements or data. This reprint and the materials delivered with it should not be construed as an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy shares of any funds mentioned in this reprint.
The data and analysis contained herein are provided "as is" and without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. Fidelity is not adopting, making a recommendation for or endorsing any trading or investment strategy or particular security. All opinions expressed herein are subject to change without notice, and you should always obtain current information and perform due diligence before trading. Consider that the provider may modify the methods it uses to evaluate investment opportunities from time to time, that model results may not impute or show the compounded adverse effect of transaction costs or management fees or reflect actual investment results, and that investment models are necessarily constructed with the benefit of hindsight. For this and for many other reasons, model results are not a guarantee of future results. The securities mentioned in this document may not be eligible for sale in some states or countries, nor be suitable for all types of investors; their value and the income they produce may fluctuate and/or be adversely affected by exchange rates, interest rates or other factors.
1. Active Trader Services are available to investors in households that place 120 or more stock, bond, or options trades in a rolling twelve-month period and maintain $25K in assets across their eligible Fidelity brokerage accounts.
605655.2.0