Feb
1
January as a Predictor (or: Fun with Numbers), from Alston Mabry
February 1, 2016 |
Question: Does January serve as a predictor of volatility over the next 11 months?
For fun, I dug up an old measure of volatility I used to use, where I calculate the "minimal path" that a price would have to traverse through the normal Open-High-Low-Close data, i.e., either C-O-H-L-C or C-O-L-H-C. This can be over any given time period. (For many calculations, the High-Low range gives similar results. Note at bottom on calculation.)
Using SPY, calculate the minimal path for January, as a % of the December Close, along with the minimal path for February-December, as a % of the January Close. The results:
Date / Jan minpath / Feb-Dec minpath
Jan-15 5.1% 29.9%
Jan-14 6.0% 28.7%
Jan-13 7.4% 25.9%
Jan-12 10.1% 25.0%
Jan-11 6.6% 43.8%
Jan-10 10.6% 31.0%
Jan-09 23.7% 76.4%
Jan-08 22.7% 67.5%
Jan-07 4.9% 27.7%
Jan-06 6.8% 22.2%
Jan-05 6.7% 19.4%
Jan-04 9.2% 20.4%
Jan-03 19.6% 45.6%
Jan-02 15.8% 50.3%
Jan-01 13.8% 47.9%
Jan-00 13.1% 37.3%
Jan-99 9.8% 27.7%
Jan-98 17.1% 44.0%
Jan-97 14.1% 42.5%
Jan-96 9.6% 35.3%
Jan-95 4.0% 36.8%
Jan-94 4.7% 15.2%
Correlation between the two series: +0.843
R square: +0.711
Given the strong R square, I ran a regression with "Jan minpath" as the independent variable, and got the equation:
Feb-Dec minpath = 0.123062 + 2.197213779 * Jan minpath
The minimal path for January 2016 is 18.8%. Plugging that into the equation:
Feb-Dec minpath = 0.123062 + 2.197213779 * 0.188208
= 53.7%
Multiply that by SPY December Close of 193.72
= 103.95
Or approximately 1040 points on the S&P, i.e., the equation predicts that the minimal path for the S&P for Feb-Dec 2016 will be 1040 points.
Even assuming this estimate is accurate, it doesn't tell you what
*shape* the market will have over the next 11 months. You can, however, model some scenarios.
For example, I saw a recent collection of big-bank predictions for where the S&P (cash) would end 2016, the highest of which was 2350. If you plug 2350 in as the Close and also assume it is the High, then the minimal path for the next 11 months looks like this:
Jan Close: 1940
2016 High: 2350
2016 Low: 1623
2016 Close: 2350
In that scenario you get a predicted Low of 1623.
Assume that the Close is 2350, and raise the High to 2450, and you
also raise the low by 100 points, but still have to get down to 1723:
Jan Close: 1940
2016 High: 2450
2016 Low: 1723
2016 Close: 2350
Assume a Close of 2100 and a High of 2200:
Jan Close: 1940
2016 High: 2200
2016 Low: 1598
2016 Close: 2100
Et cetera…
For me, this analysis works as a mental exercise to help me with a severe shortcoming: My idea of what is possible is always much narrower than the market's version. For example, if from here we drop to 1600, it will be hard for me to think, "We could easily pop back up to 2200 and then finish at 2100".
_____
The minimal path calculation looks like this:
abs(Open - prevClose)
+ (High - Low)
+ min(
[ (H-O)+(C-L) ],
[ (O-L)+(H-C) ]
)
Divide the result by the previous Close to get the %.
Comments
WordPress database error: [Table './dailyspeculations_com_@002d_dailywordpress/wp_comments' is marked as crashed and last (automatic?) repair failed]
SELECT * FROM wp_comments WHERE comment_post_ID = '10871' AND comment_approved = '1' ORDER BY comment_date
Archives
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- Older Archives
Resources & Links
- The Letters Prize
- Pre-2007 Victor Niederhoffer Posts
- Vic’s NYC Junto
- Reading List
- Programming in 60 Seconds
- The Objectivist Center
- Foundation for Economic Education
- Tigerchess
- Dick Sears' G.T. Index
- Pre-2007 Daily Speculations
- Laurel & Vics' Worldly Investor Articles