In trading, controlling the risk in a portfolio is
determined by position sizing. Most
trading firms employ a fixed fractional contract position sizing method. Under this methodology, positions are determined
using the following formula:
Fixed fractional bet sizing:
Amount risked per
trade = closing equity * fixed percentage risked per trade (e.g. 25bps)
Once the Fixed-Fractional Contract Position Sizing Formula
has been used to calculate the amount of risk to put on with a trade (in dollar
terms), the Risk-Basis Position Sizing method is employed to determine how many
shares or contracts of an instrument to buy or sell. The Risk-Basis Position Sizing method considers
the risk for each security, where risk per share is the entry price minus the
stop-loss point. It divides the total
risk allowance (e.g. 25bps in dollar terms) by the risk per share to determine
the number of shares to trade. Legendary
systems and Trend Following trader Ed Seykota offers the following insight on
this method, “over time the fixed-fraction
system grows exponentially and surpasses the fixed-bet system that grows
linearly.” In other words, one is
trading larger size positions (in dollar terms) as the account balance expands. This is when one’s trading is at its
best. Conversely, one trades the
smallest when experiencing a drawdown or when a trading process is out of
favor.
While this form of position
sizing offers a solid starting place for building a trading system, there are
many deviations employed by professional traders. For example, position sizing
algorithms can be customized according to position volatility or correlations
across the portfolio. In other words, if a security or market exhibits larger
price swings over a specified time period a process can be built to allocate
less risk to this position so that the position moves will not be excessively
large and cause too much disruption in the equity curve. Additionally, if a
proposed trade behaves too similarly with existing holdings (i.e. it displays a
high correlation) the trade can either
be ruled out or scaled down since it ultimately will be nearly the same as
adding to the existing position’s risk budget.
In addition to position
sizing traders must determine a method for scaling into a position that works
in one’s favor. In his book “Trading Systems and Methods” Perry Kaufman offers
three solutions for systems traders when profits accumulate after initiating a
position. These compounding structures offer different forms of leverage and
risk management. The first is called the Scaled-Down Size or Upright Pyramid.
Each incremental addition to the initial trade is progressively smaller and offers
only a little compounding. The second option allows the addition of equal
amounts of risk on each trade for a position. This is commonly referred to as
an inverted pyramid and offers the most compounding. Lastly, the Reflecting
Pyramid provides leverage and profit taking. When building a position using a
Reflecting Pyramid, it will resemble the upright pyramid where incremental risk
units diminish in size. However, when closing out of the position a trader
gradually scales down the risk proportionately.
Having a foundational
understanding of position sizing and compounding of a position will better
equip traders to run profitable trading businesses and take advantage of an
opportunity get the most from a winning trade, respectively. Through
back-testing as well as actual trading an ideal position size can be determined
based on the risk tolerance of the trader. The style of compounding will
require some experimentation as well as rules are established for the system
design and testing. Ultimately, a trader must find a process that best fits his
or her personality while providing the most desirable risk adjusted returns.
As always, please feel free to contact me with any
questions.
JD
Comments
Post a Comment