David Versus Goliath
Just a brief post nowadays. As most of you already know till multiple years in the past I worked for a huge systematic hedge fund. Now I manage my personal money. I'm doing comparable matters (systematically trading futures, with a maintaining period averaging a few weeks, and a number of trading rules with a trend following bias).
An thrilling question, which I'm regularly asked, is can a little guy like me compete with a massive behemoth of a fund? Should we little guys just surrender? After all clearly a big fund has a number of advantages over a one character "enterprise" like mine. Or does it? Let's weigh up the pros and cons of size.
 |
| That's me on the right. In a way of speakme. (researchcenter.Paloaltonetworks.Com) |
Advantages of massive over small
Here are what I see as the important thing blessings that a massive fund has over a small trader (or a small fund for that depend). I've listed them so as of importance - maximum vital first.
Wider set of markets traded
A large fund can trade a far wider set of devices; a hundred - three hundred as opposed to the 40 or so futures markets that I trade. Diversification is the simplest unfastened lunch in finance, and diversification across gadgets in preference to trading techniques is a good deal more powerful because the correlations are decrease.
I estimate that I have to be capable of get a sharpe ratio around 30% better if I should change three hundred devices in place of forty.
Why can big price range exchange greater markets? I can think of three motives:
Higher FUM
The principal purpose why massive price range can put money into greater markets is because they're ... Massive (this is the level of deep intellectual analysis you have come to expect from this blog). If you're a tiny investor with just a few thousand bucks in capital then inside the futures trading global as a minimum you'll change even a low danger market just like the German Shatz destiny. To change some thing like the japanese authorities bond destiny, which has a nominal size over a million greenbacks, you need to have a quite massive account size (assuming you do not want it to be a large chew of your portfolio threat allocation).
(I speak about this hassle in chapter twelve of my e-book)
Access to OTC markets
Institutions can change over-the-counter markets, while retail investors are often restrained to change traded (except for the wild west of retail FX trading of course). Large budget can find the money for to hire huge numbers of humans in lower back and middle places of work who can worry approximately painful such things as ISDA agreements.
 |
| Dave's office after he referred to in passing that he would possibly want to change Credit Derivatives a few day. (gettyimages) |
Also they can rent execution investors who recognize a way to exchange the markets, and who can ring agents and banks and say "Hi I'm calling from NAME OF LARGE FUND and I'd like to change credit score derivatives". Within minutes a team of salespeople may be spherical your fund salivating at the chance of being your commercial enterprise companion. If I known as brokers and banks I would possibly get lucky and find someone I used to paintings with to buy me lunch, however I won't get a buying and selling settlement installation any time soon.
Manpower for statistics cleansing
Even running a scientific, completely computerized, fund requires a few work. I spend a few minutes each month for every device I alternate managing awful expenses and finding out whilst to roll. If I were to exchange a couple of hundred futures, then my workload would be considerable - perhaps per week a month.
With a technical futures gadget however this workload remains in the scope of an person trader (as long as they aren't as lazy as I am). However in case you had been trading long-brief equities, with a larger universe of contraptions than in futures, and extra sorts of essential information, then having extra some more humans could be exact.
Better execution
For a given size of trade larger funds should get better execution - lower slippage between the mid price and the fill price.
* Clearly large budget will do larger trades - I'll communicate approximately this later within the publish.
Large funds can put money into studying clever execution algos, tons extra state-of-the-art than the less complicated stuff I do. However more importantly they can hire skilled execution buyers to execute trades manually. In sure markets those guys will do a lot higher than an algo (of route in positive OTC markets an algo may not be any correct besides, in view that there are not any automated buying and selling mechanisms).
I could execute my own trades manually if I wasn't so idle (and there may be no manner I'd rise up early enough to exchange Korea...), however I wouldn't do as exact a activity as a good execution man could.
Note that the advantages of smarter execution are more effective once you are doing large trades; so all this category does is permit large finances to in part triumph over certainly one of their essential disadvantages.
Lower commissions
Institutional buyers pay lower commissions than retail traders do. This is natural marketplace pricing electricity being exercised. If I'm trading billions of futures contracts a 12 months I'm going to get a better deal than if I'm buying and selling thousands.
I expect to pay around 30bp of my fund price in commissions; I'd expect which will halve that or higher if I become a large fund. Adding 15bp to performance isn't going to change the sector, however each little enables.
Economics of scale and specialisation
Having more people means you can have specialists. I'm an okay programmer, not a bad trader, I know a bit of economics, and I'm vaguely okay at statistical analysis. I've managed to teach myself the bare minimum of accounting to properly analyse my p&l. The point is I have to do all this stuff myself. I'm not even playing to my strengths; if I had a full time programmer working for me I'd be able to focus on developing better trading rules.
(I'm not moaning by the way, I enjoy dabbling in programming and having full control of the whole process).
However a large fund can hire people to do each of these functions seperately. They can afford to hire top notch programmers, excellent execution traders, super statisticians and brilliant economists; as well as all the other people you need to run an institutional fund.
This will add something to performance, but not a vast amount (except in specialist areas like high frequency trading where the difference between profits and losses is having someone who knows how to build a low latency trading system). It's hard to quantify how much exactly.
Large team of researchers
Related to the previous point most people assume the main advantage of a large fund is that they have a huge team of really smart people refining and developing models. Personally I'm less confident this is the case. I believe that a suite of relatively simple, well known, trading models will get you 95% or more of the performance of a more sophisticated complex set of trading rules (at least at the trading frequency I usually occupy).
So I believe one relatively stupid person (myself) can do almost as well as a team of very smart people. But maybe I'm being stupid.
Advantages of small over big
What is David's sling in this story, or if you prefer what can a small trader do that a large fund can't? Again I've listed these in order of importance, key point first.
More diversified signals
Large funds have investors, often themselves large institutions like pension funds. Large institutional investors buy funds not just because they think they are going to do well, but because they have a certain style such as trend following. To an extent this is rational because it's very hard to predict performance; but putting together a series of funds which are diversified across styles is an excellent way of constructing a portfolio.
What this means in practice is that funds might not be able to make as much in absolute return as they could in theory. If investors want to buy a trend following fund, but the optimal allocation to trend following is only 40%, then the fund will under perform someone who can put 60% into other trading rules even if the set of rules they haven't isn't quite as good.
No fees
If you invest in a fund you have to pay fees. If you invest or trade your own money, they you don't. Depending on how you value the opportunity cost of your own time, and how much time you spend on trading, this may or may not make sense. But it's certainly true that you'll get a higher absolute return from not having to pay fees.No institutional pressure
The biggest mistake when trading a systematic system is to meddle. As an individual trader it's not easy to avoid meddling, but I usually manage to do so as I can't face the work involved. However I do believe that institutional pressures lead to models changing and frequent overrides.
Lower execution slippage
Smaller traders do smaller trades (for a given average holding period and leverage). If your trading size is always less than what is available at the inside spread then the most you should have to pay is half the spread.
However as I noted above large funds can employ resources to reduce the size of this effect.
Conclusion
I would say that a large fund has the edge, but it's perhaps closer than you might think, and the advantages they have aren't necessarily those you'd expect to be the most important.
As it happens after my first year of trading I was being beaten by my former employer, AHL - a large fund, with a Sharpe of 4.0 vs my paltry 2.8 (okay it was a good year all round - this is about 3 times the long average SR I'd expect to see!).
So far this year (where both the large funds and myself haven't been doing quite as well) has been closer - and just for fun I'll update this comparision in April 2016.
