Tweaking the Target Portfolio

I've decided to slightly tweak the target portfolio weights to reflect a larger allocation to hedge funds. The top level allocation is 59% to equity and 41% to everything else. Then there is 10% to private equity (split between venture and buyout) and 49% to public equity. Within that 25% to long-only and 24% to hedge funds (was 21.5%) (also split 50/50 to Australian focused and foreign focused funds). And within the long-only 13% to Australia and 12% to the rest of the world. Within Australian 9% to large cap and 4% to small cap and within foreign 5% to the US and 7% to other countries. Within the "everything else category", 10% to gold, 10% to bonds, 10% to real estate, 5% to art, 5% to futures, and 1% to cash and everything else. So:

9% Australian large cap

4% Australian small cap

5% US stocks

7% ROW stocks

12% Australian focused hedge funds

12% Foreign focused hedge funds

5% Venture capital

5% Buyout PE

10% Gold

10% Real estate etc.

10% Bonds

5% Art

5% Futures

1% Cash etc.

Overall the whole portfolio is levered by about 20% (assets are 120% of equity). This 20% is roughly the value of our house, which isn't included in the above. We also try to maintain a 50:50 allocation to Australian Dollar exposure vs. foreign currency exposure. My job is mainly to choose funds and a couple of stocks and do a little trading in part of the futures allocation.

We are still overweight hedge funds after this change.

Plus500 Update

I got a statement from the new HSBC account and submitted it to Plus500 and it was approved! So, now I tried to withdraw $1,000. They at least allowed me to submit the request now. However, there was a statement that they will refund the original source of the money.... Which would mean they will send it back to the credit card we used to fund the account, even though that is a joint account. Let's see what happens. 

P.S. 8 February 

The money showed up in the new HSBC account! So we successfully withdrew money from Plus 500.

Hedge Funds Gained 0.92% in January

 HEDGE FUNDS GAIN IN JANUARY, NAVIGATING VOLATILITY

HFRI Event Driven, RVA & Crypto lead strategy performance;
Deep value Special Situations, Merger Arbitrage, Credit lead sub-strategies

CHICAGO, (February 5, 2021) – Hedge funds advanced in January to begin 2021, actively trading through a turbulent month dominated by a volatile surge in trading from retail investors concentrated in a handful of deep value equities with significant short interest. The HFRI Fund Weighted Composite Index® (FWC) gained +0.9 percent in January, while the investable HFRI 500 Fund Weighted Composite Index advanced +0.35 percent, according to data released today by HFR®, the established global leader in the indexation, analysis and research of the global hedge fund industry.

Reflecting the powerful trading trends, the HFRI FWC experienced a wide dispersion in constituent performance, as the top decile of the HFRI gained +11.6 percent, while the bottom decile declined -7.8 percent for the month. As reported previously by HFR, total hedge fund capital jumped to $3.6 trillion to begin 2021, a 4Q20 increase of $290 billion, representing the largest asset growth in industry history. Estimated 4Q20 net asset inflows totaled $3.0 billion, bringing total inflows for the second half of 2020 to $16.0 billion.

Event-Driven strategies, which often focus on out of favor, deep value equity strategies and situations, led strategy performance in January, with the investable HFRI 500 Event-Driven Index surging +3.0 percent for the month, while the HFRI Event-Driven (Total) Index gained +2.8 percent. ED sub-strategy gains were led by Merger Arbitrage, Special Situations, and Distressed exposures, strategies which categorically trade in deep value equity situations, including companies which are possible targets for restructuring, acquisitions or investor-driven strategy shifts. Following strong performance in 4Q20, the HFRI ED: Merger Arbitrage Index surged +4.0 percent in January, the HFRI ED: Special Situations Index advanced +3.8 percent, and the HFRI ED: Distressed Index added +2.6 percent. The investable HFRI 500 ED: Special Situations Index jumped +6.2 percent for the month, and the HFRI 500 ED: Merger Arbitrage Index advanced +5.1 percent.

The fixed income-based HFRI Relative Value (Total) Index gained +1.3 percent in January, while the HFRI 500 Relative Value Index advanced +1.2 percent for the month, led by the investable HFRI 500 RV: Fixed Income-Convertible Arbitrage Index, which jumped +3.5 percent, and the HFRI RV: Yield Alternatives Index, which added +4.0 percent.

Following the 2020 surge, Blockchain and Cryptocurrency exposures continued to deliver strong performance as cryptocurrencies hit record highs and as hedge funds increasingly incorporated related exposures into new and existing fund strategies. The HFR Blockchain Composite Index and HFR Cryptocurrency Index each surged over +48.0 percent in January.

Through intense stock volatility, the HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index advanced +0.8 percent for the month. Equity Hedge funds experienced a wide dispersion of sub-strategy performance led by the high beta, long-biased Energy and Fundamental Growth exposures. Following strong 4Q20 gains, the HFRI EH: Energy/Basic Materials Index surged +4.8 percent in January, while the HFRI EH: Fundamental Growth Index added +2.3 percent. Partially paring these gains, the HFRI EH: Sector-Technology Index declined -1.1 percent, and the HFRI EH: Multi-Strategy Index fell -0.8 percent for the month.

Risk Premia, Risk Parity and Liquid Alternatives produced mixed performance in January, led by equity and commodity exposures. The HFR Bank Systematic Risk Premia Equity Index advanced +2.2 percent for the month, while the HFR BSRP Commodity Index gained +1.6 percent. The HFR Risk Parity Vol 12 Institutional Index fell -0.2 percent in January, while the HFRI-I Liquid Alternative UCITS Index posted a narrow loss of -0.14 percent for the month, driven by the -0.3 percent decline in the HFRI-I UCITS Macro Index.

Uncorrelated Macro strategies posted a narrow gain in January, with the HFRI Macro (Total) Index advancing +0.2 percent, while the HFRI 500 Macro Index added +0.1 percent. Macro sub-strategy performance was led by the HFRI Macro: Discretionary Thematic Index, which gained +1.8 percent for the month, and the HFRI Macro: Multi-Strategy Index, which added +1.1 percent.

"Hedge funds effectively navigated the idiosyncratic stock trading volatility which focused on deep value equities with high short interest, with this trend driving gains across Event Driven strategies which categorically focus on inexpensive, out of favor equities that are experiencing fundamental, structural transition in the underlying businesses. While certain sub-strategies declined in January, as is evidenced by the wide dispersion in performance, as a direct result of the size, breadth and diverse nature of hedge fund strategies, overall industry performance was positive for the month," stated Kenneth J. Heinz, President of HFR. "While significant financial market attention has been focused on a handful of funds and small number of equities impacted by these recent trading trends, the overall hedge fund industry is comprised of over 9,100 funds managing nearly $3.6 trillion across a highly diverse range of strategies, which include significant capital exposure to out of favor, deep value equities. With an emphasis also on opportunistic positioning and sustained capital appreciation achieved through specialized long-short portfolio management, leading institutions are likely to continue expanding allocations to hedge funds as a tool for achieving their long-term portfolio objectives."

Finished First Week of Trading

I traded each day according to the rules and had 3 wins and 2 losses and ended up AUD 219 for the week. If that is a typical week then I would need to trade ten times bigger to make a decent "wage" from this. That would be 4 full futures contracts (AUD 670k notional value). But that would expose the account to a possible daily loss of AUD 50k during a market crisis like the March crash last year. I would feel that is just too much for even a AUD 1 million SMSF, though for our full portfolio it is reasonable theoretically. So, we would need to use a constant risk strategy to reduce the risk to AUD 10k every day. That also feels like a big risk in trading if it is a daily thing. So, I doubt we get up to that size of trading any time soon. 

If this is a successful strategy I will likely pursue trying to build an automated system later this year. I previously explored Capitalise, but found they couldn't implement a system like this with variable position size based on risk. So, unless they have improved it'd probably mean learning Python, but that isn't a bad thing...

Why a Constant Risk Trading Strategy Works

A constant risk trading strategy in the day-trading context is where your maximum loss possible is a constant. There are other definitions in trend-following etc contexts where you choose a position size so that the typical or expected daily movement up or down is a constant over time and markets.

Using the first definition, once you choose a stop loss, you compute the loss per contract or share if the stop was triggered and divide the fixed maximum loss figure by that to find out how many contracts or shares to buy. For example, if you are willing to risk $2000 on a trade and a contract will lose $1000 in the worst case, you buy (or sell) two contracts. 

The reason this works is the maximum downside loss is capped but by trading more contracts when possible the upside is increased. This helps create asymmetry. 

This graph shows possible loss on the x-axis and trading results (in backtest) on the y-axis, when trading one SPI contract over the last 13 months:

And this is what happens to the returns when the maximum loss is set at the average $2,300 (yes the stop loss can occasionally be exceeded when the opening price of the day is above the entry stop):

 

This has a lower information ratio (similar to Sharpe ratio but without deducting the risk free rate) than the one contract strategy though. It misses out on really big gains when volatility is high. But if you combine the two and set a minimum maximum loss at $2,300 you get better results than either strategy alone. Below $2,300 potential loss you trade a variable number of contracts and above it one contract only:

This has a higher information ratio than either simple strategy but it does take on a lot more risk at times than the constant risk strategy, which for a small account trading full size futures contracts could mean just not trading when volatility is high.

2nd Day of Trading

Today's trade was a winner, recovering a bit more than half of yesterday's loss. This is going to need a lot more research. Especially around the relationship between volatility and returns. I suspect that it's not worth trading when volatility is low and maybe there is an upside limit to how much volatility to tolerate. Now I have 13 months of data (from Barchart) nicely organized. Just need to merge all the spreadsheets together and test hypotheses.

Trading Once Again

Just over a year ago, I decided to stop systematic trading. This wasn't the first time. The problem with my trading systems was that they were overfitted to the data. They worked well for a while but then didn't. I did try one similar approach that is not tuned to the data. Yes, I said that this wasn't for me. But then over this weekend, I thought: "Maybe it is?" :) So, I downloaded a bunch more data and did backtests. It would have done especially well during the COVID-19 crash and OK in other months in the last year. So, I decided to try it today again. I used the Plus500 account, which I had decided to shutdown but hadn't managed to do yet. At least this allowed me to trade a smaller position - only AUD 10 per SPI point. The full size futures contract is AUD 25 per point. Well, I was stopped out for a AUD 960 loss... In the backtesting, getting stopped out is fairly unusual. Initially, the market fell and the short trade was profitable. Then it reversed and had a steep rally. 

 

Most losing trades have to be manually closed at the end of the day. So bad luck on my first trade. I'll try a few more and see how I go...

Treasury Wine Estates Rises Sharply on No News

Treasury (TWE.AX) rose sharply today with no announcement from the company or news in the media. At one point it was up 9%. This was on a day when the market was sharply down. It closed up 5.92%. I added to my position on the basis that my thesis was working out and that this spike would be continued.

Incentives for Charitable Giving in Australia

As there is no estate or inheritance tax in Australia, I think it makes much more sense to give money to charity while you are alive rather than in your will. If I give money in my will, my children will have less but no tax benefit from giving money. If I give while I am alive then I can claim a tax deduction. Or am I wrong?

P.S. 6 February

I thought of an alternative approach. You can write in your will that your children need to make contributions to charity from the money they receive. That way they can take tax deductions instead. The advantage of this is that if you are unsure if you will run out of money in retirement you can direct your children to make donations if you didn't run out of money. The downside is that they may not follow your directions. Maybe there is some trust structure that enforces this. Also, you don't get to see the benefits of your donations.

Started SMSF Process

I made it my new year resolution to finally set up an SMSF. This is the next step in our financial restructuring process. The final step will be estate planning. The idea is to put relatively high tax investments into the SMSF. Also, we will put direct holdings of US stocks into the fund, so that they aren't part of our estate. Yes, there is a tax treaty between Australia and the US, which would mean that we wouldn't pay any tax at the moment. But it is likely that the threshold for inheritance tax in the US will be reduced under the Democrats and there is still paperwork to do.

I have now started the process with SuperGuardian who seem to provide a lot of service with a lot of flexibility and have very good recommendations. All I've done so far is send in the client engagement form. The decisions I made so far are to use a corporate trustee and to use a Macquarie CMA as the fund's bank account. Apparently, one third of SMSFs use a Macquarie CMA and SuperGuardian's representative said a lot of their clients do too. A corporate trustee is a little more complicated and expensive in the short run, but seems more sensible in the long run. An SMSF with only individual trustees must have at least two trustees, while the corporate trustee can have a single director. As I am 11 years older than Moominmama, it's likely that she will end up being the only trustee/director unless we bring our children into the fund, or she involves at outside person as an additional trustee. She would also have to deal with all that and she currently isn't at all interested in any of this financial stuff.

January 2021 Report

The rallies in the Australian Dollar and the stock markets continued this month. The Australian Dollar fell from USD 0.7725 to USD 0.7663. The MSCI World Index fell 0.43% and the S&P 500 by 1.01%, but the ASX 200 rose 0.93%. All these are total returns including dividends. We gained 0.59% in Australian Dollar terms or -0.22% in US Dollar terms. The target portfolio is expected to have lost 0.09% in Australian Dollar terms and the HFRI hedge fund index is expected to lose 0.24% in US Dollar terms. So, we outperformed all benchmarks apart from the ASX 200.

Here is a report on the performance of investments by asset class (currency neutral terms): 

Hedge funds added the most to performance and gold detracted the most. Things that worked well this month:

• Tribeca was the best performer in dollar terms. Treasury Wine was maybe the best in percentage terms.
  

What really didn't work:

• Pershing Square Holdings was the worst performer, giving back AUD 11k of gains. Gold was second worst, losing AUD 9k.
  

The investment performance statistics for the last five years are:

 

The first two rows are our unadjusted performance numbers in US and Australian Dollar terms. The following four lines compare performance against each of the three indices. We have the desired asymmetric capture for all three indices now and positive alpha compared to all of them. 

 

We moved further towards our long-run asset allocation. Real assets (real estate and art) are the asset class that is furthest from their target allocation (7.4% of total assets too little) followed by hedge funds (3.6% too much): 

 

 

On a regular basis, we invest AUD 2k monthly in a set of managed funds, and there are also retirement contributions. Other moves this month:

• I invested USD 10k in another painting with Masterworks.
• USD 50k of HSBC bonds matured.
• The remaining USD 3.75k of General Finance baby bonds were called.
• I sold 2000 shares of the Boulder Income Fund (BIF) closing our position and buying 100 shares of Berkshire Hathaway (BRK/B) instead. 
• I also closed our position in Pendal Property Securities and switched the funds to Generation Global. Both are funds offered by Colonial First State.
• To then rebalance a bit towards real estate I bought 50,000 shares of URF.AX.
• As part of a long term plan to not hold US stocks directly, I reorganized my holdings in my Interactive Brokers and CommSec brokerage accounts. In the end, the CommSec account ended up holding gold (PMGOLD), unlisted funds from Colonial First State and Macquarie, and small positions in each of our listed Australian funds. The latter are so we get the correct tax information from the share registries as IB isn't strong on this. My main holdings of these funds are now at IB, which has a much lower borrowing rate. IB has all my other stock positions in Australian, UK, and US markets. The latter will eventually move to the new SMSF. There are also some bond positions there which we will hold to maturity.
  

Berkshire Hathaway

 

I sold 2000 shares of the Boulder Income Fund (BIF) closing our position and bought 100 shares of Berkshire Hathaway (BRK/B) instead. Berkshire is BIF's largest holding and seems to recently be outperforming BIF. Additionally, it doesn't pay dividends and so is more tax effective. Berkshire has a relatively low valuation by several metrics compared to the US stock market in general. I think the company could become much more valuable after Buffett steps down as CEO as I expect the future managers will break it up. The position is quite small (less than 1%) as our whole target US stock allocation is only 5% of net worth.

I have held Berkshire in the past, a long time ago.