Investment
Tactical Investment Strategy For The S&P 500 Index With Potential Market Beating Returns


|
wildpixel/iStock via Getty Images
Financial Stress Index
Has this market got you stressed out? Worried about mortgages, debt, or the stock market and whether you can retire on time?
Unfortunately I don’t have a fix for that, but there’s a pretty close second, and it comes in the form of a composite index that can help you understand the daily state of the stock market and quantify what “financial stress” actually means for the global financial system.
The OFR Financial Stress Index is provided by the Office of Financial Research and it is constructed using 33 financial market variables. When the FSI index is positive it means that stress levels are above average and worth taking note of, and when it is negative stress levels are less worrisome. We go into further detail on that below.
What’s worth noting is that these are pretty heavy weight measures, many of which are used by the Fed and investment banks to gauge risk. For those with experience in financial markets the FSI includes:
- Credit – Credit spreads, both HR and IG Corporate
- Equity valuation – Stock valuations, the stock index price levels
- Funding – Bank lending standards, credit conditions index
- Safe Assets – Valuations for assets like Yen, CHF, Gold that are considered safe stores
- Volatility – VIX Index, Move Index, implied and realised volatility
What we are going to do in this article is take this existing index and back-test it against the S&P 500 index to turn it into a very valuable and actionable resource.
Overview of the Financial Stress Index and S&P 500
Let’s look at the whole dataset from the top:


OFR Financial Stress Index site
The FSI has done a good job of covering the recessions over the past 22 years and being aligned to forecasting them with a degree of accuracy.
Furthermore if we look closely, unlike quite a few indicators, it actually correctly responds to the drawn out nature of the Dot Com bust and remains elevated from 2000 until early 2003.
Overall the index appears to have a good correlation with the stock market. But how good? We can do a deep dive into two major crises and then backtest the model against the S&P 500.
Analysis of Dot Com Bust (2000-2003)
The Dot Com bust began in late 2000 at the height of the internet boom. Many of us know the story so we won’t feel the need to go into too much detail about what started the bust and the factors leading up to it.


OFR Financial Stress Index site
The FSI registered 2.236 in February of 2000 and this represented elevated credit spreads, volatility rising and minor funding issues in the financial system. The model remained elevated straight through to the formal onset of recession in 2001, where it peaked at 5.68 in April 2001 and then troughed but remained above 2.5 into 2002. The model was elevated throughout 2002 and peaked even higher at 7.28 in October of 2002. By the end of the Dot Com bust it hit a negative value in July of 2003.
If you had sold in January 2000 – when FSI was above 0, and bought again at the beginning of July 2003 – when FSI was below 0, you would have avoided the -31.75% drawdown. This isn’t the full drawdown but represents a decent proportion of it.
Analysis of Global Financial Crisis (2008-2009)
It’s a similar picture for the Global Financial Crisis that started in 2007 but really picked up steam in 2008.


OFR Financial Stress Index site
The FSI Index went above 0 in August of 2007 and remained slightly above that level into 2008, where it steadily rose towards a first peak in April 2008 at 11.39. The index remained at this elevated level until it really took off, when the financial system was melting down over the winter of 2008 between October and December – hitting an ear splitting all time high of 26.42 in October.
The model returned to zero by January 2010. If you had sold in August 2007 and then bought back in when it hit zero in January 2010, you would have avoided -23.24% of the drawdown.
There were repeat occurences linked to the financial crisis that appeared in April to December of 2010, and again in 2011 during the Occupy Wallstreet protests and the European Debt Crisis. However rather than cover those in detail we’ll refer you to the following chart:


OFR Financial Stress Index site
This shows, again, the model capturing the moves fairly well at the 0 point.
Overall Model Accuracy – Adjusting the Model
Clearly if you can avoid a major drawdown in two bear markets then the model must have some utility, right? That of course depends on whether the other time periods when it gives false signals (the model shows financial stress but instead of stocks going down, they go up) compensate for the value that you save during genuine financial crises.
It’s very important when we backtest a system that we don’t cherry pick data or assess it simply off of the outputs from a graph. Instead we must set fair parameters and account for trading costs, transactional lag (by one day) and periods when the model underperforms.
In order to fairly assess the model we looked at blanket rules across the whole data set and then we used Python to backtest the performance of the model under those conditions.
Basic System – Rules & Conditions
The first test was for the basic system articulated above.
- If the FSI is below 0, the system is a buy and you own the S&P 500 index (SPY)
- If the FSI is above 0, the system is a sell and you own cash through SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill index (BIL)
The results of the first test are:


David Huston
The vanilla system trading out of the box produces a respectable return of 671% between the year 2000 and March 2023 YTD. That’s compared to a price return on the S&P 500 index of 396%.
To demonstrate that there is no financial chicannery going on here we also separately looked at the S&P 500 total return including dividends, and having a more aggressive fixed income option. Our backtesting shows that if you use the S&P 500 total return index and also have your money invested in TLT or LQD, you get a similar level of ourperformance.
But we can do better!
Recursively Optimised System – Rules & Conditions
The second test was for an improved level of the FCI index. If you notice, it triggers slightly early during both crises. What if we tested all of the possible trigger levels and set upon the most optimal?
To do so we use a recursive Python model that loops through the data and back-tests it continuously until we find an optimal figure. Rather than show all of the results we’ll laser in on what came as an output from this recursive analysis.
- If the FSI is below X, the system is a buy and you own the S&P 500 index
- If the FSI is above X, the system is a sell and you own cash through SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill index
There is a significant improvement in the model after it has tested various options, including:
Test 5 | FSI = 0.5 | S&P 500 = 795% |
Test 17 | FSI = 8 | S&P 500 = 656% |
Test 25 | FSI = -0.45 | S&P 500 = 626% |
Test 131 | FSI = 1.3 | S&P 500 = 873% |
Test 204 | FSI = 1.5 | S&P 500 = 982% |
The optimal level for the FSI is actually 1.5 and this leads to a really remarkable outperformance:


David Huston
The system now has a more granular view of risk, which is calibrated to when the level of financial stress in the system is enough to warrant moving your money out of the market and into cash or cash equivalents.
Further testing ideas include weighting the underlying constituents and entering the market in earlier than the current model. For example during Covid once the VIX hit an astonishing close of 65 in March of 2020, when the volatility index subsided one could have taken an earlier long position.
The key though is not to make this model too complicated and to instead rely on something that has a fair and consistent backtest without over-fitting the data.
Limitations & Further Research
To cover off a potential rebuttal to this analysis. You may be thinking: “This only goes back to 2000 and there were two major financial crises during that period. You’re cherry picking the data.”
In a future article I will extend this analysis to cover a precursor to the FSI index, which was called the NFSI index. There are several indexes that date back to 1993 (NFSI) and the 1970s (ANFCI) and they also provide valuable data for timing the market based on financial conditions. However, given their differences, I have decided to treat them separately and in the next part of the series so that our readers can build on their knowledge and understand the more basic system first.
One reason we believe that a trading system based around the Financial Stress Index is not commonplace is that macroeconomic timing has fallen out of favour. Have you ever heard of Martin Zweig? He was an influential investment adviser known for his data-driven studies and macroeconomic timing models who once owned the most expensive penthouse on Fifth Avenue. During the boom years of the 1990s and 2000s his models underperformed the market. As with any approach to generating alpha the efficacy waxes and wanes.
Results
Using the Financial Stress Index as a guide for deciding when to be long the markets appears to be a reasonable trading strategy predicated on the fact that, with increased financial stress in the system, there is also increased probability of a sell-off. We have used this system last year as a proxy for risk, which allowed us to adjust our asset allocation accordingly.
For the vanilla model that sells risk assets when the Financial Stress Index (FSI) goes above zero, and buys when it is below 0, the model returns 671% between 2000 and 2023 YTD against a return of 396% for the S&P 500.
With recursive optimisation using Python we found that the model produced an impressive 982% against 396% for the index, which represents a nearly 2.5 fold return against the index.





Investment
Manitobans lose more than $700K from investment fraud, securities commission finds


|
More than 60 Manitobans were victims of investment fraud recently, as the number of fraudulent investment websites continues to grow, the Manitoba Securities Commission (MSC) said.
“Their lives are forever altered,” said Jason Roy, a senior investigator with the MSC.
An ongoing cryptocurrency investigation by the MSC, a division of the Manitoba Financial Services Agency (MFSA), found that the victims were scammed by 34 different fraudulent investment websites, all of which promote cryptocurrency or Forex (foreign exchange market) trading, according to an MFSA news release on Wednesday.
About 62 Manitobans lost a total of $710,000, with victims losing anywhere between $320 and $206,000, according to the statement.
“The individuals that are running these scams have become more sophisticated,” Roy said in a phone interview. They are “designed in order to trick you.”
Roy said the number of online fraudulent investment sites has been dramatically increasing over the last few years.
In 2022, investment fraud caused the highest levels of reported fraud victim losses, especially cryptocurrency fraud, according to the RCMP.
“There is certainly legitimate cryptocurrency … opportunities out there, but there are far more fraudulent cryptocurrency scamsters and websites popping up all the time,” Ainsley Cunningham, a spokesperson for MSC, said in a phone interview.
The scammers, who operate offshore but say they have offices in Canada, targeted their victims on social media, usually through fake news articles or fake celebrity endorsements.
They then got victims to invest a small amount of money – around $350, Cunningham said – and would show them fake profits, enticing them to invest more. Scammers also ask victims to convert their money to cryptocurrency, making the funds nearly impossible to recover.
“They really like to get people hooked in,” Cunningham said. “You’ll sort of think, ‘Wow, I’m making a lot of money here.'”
If victims try to withdraw their supposed profit, scammers will ignore or block them, or they might tell victims to invest more in order to make withdrawals.
“Once it’s gone, it’s gone,” Roy said.
Anger, embarrassment, frustration
Cunningham said it’s heartbreaking to tell people they are victims of fraud.
“It’s so hard to hear the stories. They’re very emotional conversations,” she said.
The victims ranged in age between early-20s to late-60s. Some lost money intended for their children or retirement savings, she said.
“There’s anger, there’s embarrassment, frustration. Some people, there’s a little bit of hope, thinking, ‘Well, maybe I still can get my money back.'”
Cunningham said she tells those who invested a small amount to look at it as an “expensive education.”
For others, the consequences are more serious and might even include having to return to work.
“It cost them a lot,” she said. “It’s painful to hear how it’s affecting their family life, their relationships.”
Cunningham said there’s thousands of fraudulent websites to watch out for.
“While we’re aware of these 34, we know that there’s many, many more websites out there,” she said.
Many sites will scam as many people as possible, shut down once they get caught, and then will pop up again under another site or company, Cunningham said.
The Manitoba Securities Commission is warning the public not to be fooled by scam artists who are working abroad in boiler rooms dedicated to frauding Manitobans. The commission says some victims have lost as much as $600,000.
There are a few ways to make sure an investment company is legitimate, Cunningham and Roy said.
People can visit aretheyregistered.ca, search the name of the company or individual in question, and find out whether the person or company is registered to do business in Manitoba or Canada.
Manitobans can also call MSC’s anti-fraud line to ask questions about a possible fraud or to report one.
“It’s important to recognize it, and it’s also important to report it,” Roy said.
“If we don’t know about it, you know, there’s nothing we can do. We can’t get the message out.”





Investment
4 Indian investors explain how their investment strategy has changed since 2021


|
India has long harbored a strong entrepreneurial spirit, and it’s not uncommon to see people leaving jobs to set up their own businesses. A hallmark of that spirit is quite visible these days in the country’s flourishing startup ecosystem, which has expanded rapidly in the past few years, to say the least.
However, the global slowdown has impacted startups’ growth in the country, just like everywhere else in the world. After a blockbuster year for venture capital funding in 2021, the flow of capital to Indian startups seemed like it would buck global trends in early 2022, but dried up in the second half of 2022.
Nevertheless, investors are optimistic about their prospects in the country and feel that the global slowdown is helping founders focus more on building and strengthening their core business.
“While this is a tough environment for companies, we see it as an opportunity to pause, take stock and consolidate,” said GV Ravishankar, managing director of Sequoia India.
“Founders are becoming a lot more focused on building and strengthening their core business and are getting sharper about capital allocation and driving improvements in the economic shape of their businesses,” he said.
“Working with uncertainty is very much the nature of the beast.” Roopan Aulakh, managing director, Pi Ventures
All the investors we spoke to agreed that in order to make the best of the situation, startups should conserve runway and prioritize growth if they can afford to do so.
For Ashutosh Sharma, head of India investments at Prosus Ventures, it is paramount for startups to ensure their existence at this time. “This allows startups to take a step back and focus on internal processes, business model evolution and organizational issues [ … ] These factors, once fixed, will lead to more organic product-market fit, which will lead to growth alongside economics.”
India’s startup landscape has changed immensely over the past couple of years, so to better understand how Indian investors are approaching investments, the regulations they are looking out for, which sectors currently have their attention and how they prefer to be approached, we spoke with a few active investors:
GV Ravishankar, managing director, Sequoia India
After a year of hot investments, India saw a significant drop in VC funding in 2022, and this year is likely to be similar. How has your investment strategy changed?
After more than a 12-year bull run for tech in the global markets supported by low interest rates, since the beginning of 2022, we have witnessed a significant slowdown in capital flows. This has resulted in a difficult environment from a capital availability perspective in India and other emerging markets.
While this is a tough environment for companies, we see it as an opportunity to pause, take stock and consolidate. Founders are becoming a lot more focused on building and strengthening their core business and are getting sharper about capital allocation and driving improvements in the economic shape of their businesses.
So it is actually a healthy period and it will result in high-quality businesses coming out of this market in the next couple of years.
What advice would you give your portfolio startups to continue growing at this time?
Focus on growth with good economics and don’t “buy” growth, as that will come with poor economics and hence is not sustainable. Focus on the core business and deprioritize experimental investments.
Double down on the core product if capital is available, as there is a chance to pull ahead from competitors in a market like this through the right investments. The current environment can also provide good opportunities to acquire capabilities through M&A at attractive prices if capital is available.
Compared to 2019, what were the most notable investment trends in India in 2022? Do you expect these trends to continue into 2023? Which sectors do you think will emerge as the next big thing by 2025?
There has been continuous innovation over the last several years thanks to more digital adoption and lower data pricing. After COVID, we saw significant uptick in e-commerce, edtech and technology-enabled service delivery across sectors. We also saw fintech pick up as a big theme and supply chains got digitized, including in manufacturing and agriculture.
Our core sectors are software, consumer, consumer internet, fintech and financial services. These remain continued areas of focus for us and constitute 80% of our efforts. Other upcoming sectors are EVs, climate tech, space tech and opportunities from supply chain shifts to India. Today, these are small and emerging sectors, but tomorrow, they could be massive opportunities.
So we are meeting early-stage founders who are building in this space and partnering with startups that are trying to create innovative solutions for some of the challenges faced in these industries.
The 20% of what we do keeps changing every few years because of market trends and tech innovations, but, by and large, the 80% has remained the same for nearly 17 years. Fundamentally, we are looking to partner with founders who are going after large problems in large markets to make a dent in the world. That will always remain the same.
What sets the sectors you are currently investing in apart from others? How do you evaluate the potential of a startup in these sectors before making an investment?
We evaluate a startup by the market they are going after (whether it is large, growing and has profit pools), the team (founder-market fit; why this team) and business model/moats (do they have a better mouse trap and why will they sustain their advantage?).
What qualities do you find most important in a founder when evaluating their potential for success? Conversely, what is a major red flag that would cause you to back off?
One of the most important qualities we look for in founders is their perseverance and grit to go after the problems they’ve set out to solve. From a founder-market fit perspective, we also ask what makes a founder or a founding team best positioned to win in the market, and what are their unique insights into the problem they are solving.
Red flags are linked to failed background checks or if the business metrics represented don’t check out in diligence.
Ashutosh Sharma, head of India investments, Prosus Ventures
After a year of hot investments, India saw a significant drop in VC funding in 2022, and this year is likely to be similar. How has your investment strategy changed?
Given the environment of rate hikes and geopolitical uncertainty, last year, we adopted a more conservative approach, setting the bar much higher for investments. Following that, we shifted our investment focus to smaller ticket sizes, earlier stages and toward companies in the SaaS and B2B domains.





Investment
Some investment firms not adhering to new conflict of interest rules, regulatory review concludes


|
Some Canadian wealth management firms are not adhering to new conflict-of-interest rules, particularly when selling their own proprietary products, according to a new compliance report by an industry watchdog.
In a report released this week, the New Self-Regulatory Organization of Canada revealed that while a number of investment dealers have implemented strong controls to “identify, disclose and address” conflicts in the best interest of their clients, there are still a “few common weaknesses” involving various aspects of the conflict-of-interest rules that began in 2021.
One such weakness is that solely providing disclosure to a client does not satisfy the rules and investment dealers must implement controls to address the conflict in the client’s best interest.
While the rule applies to any type of conflict – such as third-party compensation, product recommendation, sales incentives – the New SRO review identified specific gaps by investment dealers in controls to address conflicts associated with the sale of proprietary products.
The New SRO is the amalgamation of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) and the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada (MFDA).
The new rules, known as client focused reforms or CFRs, came into effect in June, 2021, and were intended to address conflict-of-interest concerns in certain situations – for instance, if an adviser’s compensation is linked to selling an institution’s proprietary products.
But the rule reforms also brought unintended consequences when several of Canada’s largest banks halted sales of third-party investment products from their financial planning arms in 2021. Certain banks shifted to only offering their own proprietary mutual funds, and clients working with financial planners are no longer able to purchase independent funds in their investment portfolios.
Shortly after, both IIROC and the MFDA, along with the Canadian Securities Administrators, launched an industry-wide compliance sweep to determine how the new rules were being implemented by investment firms – including the Big Six banks.
This involves examining conflicts associated with proprietary products and restrictions related to a firm’s product shelf.
In addition to deficiencies with proprietary products, the New SRO also found firms did not always disclose all three components of the conflict of interest to clients: the nature and extent of the conflict; the potential impact and risk that a conflict could pose to the client; and how the conflict of interest has been, or will be, addressed by the investment dealer.
And some investment firms did not adequately document their assessment of conflicts to provide evidence to regulators that they are addressing the conflict in the best interest of the client.
IIROC declined to comment on whether the review included examining the product shelves of bank-owned discount brokerages that have come under scrutiny by the industry for blocking do-it-yourself investors from purchasing low-risk cash exchange-traded funds.
The New SRO said the separate joint report – which will be released at future date – will more provide more details of the “deficiencies” identified across all investment dealers and platforms as well as some best practices observed during the sweep.
The sweep is independent of another review conducted last year by the Ontario Securities Commission on the product offerings of Canada’s largest banks. Ontario Finance Minister Peter Bethlenfalvy launched that review after he had concerns about financial institutions halting sales or “unduly” restricting sales of third-party investment funds.
The OSC submitted recommendations to him on Feb. 28, 2022. The report has not yet been released to the public. Last month, a spokesperson for the Finance Minister told The Globe and Mail that Mr. Bethlenfalvy is still reviewing the OSC’s recommendations, more than a year later.





-
Art23 hours ago
Daniel Sundahl creates memorial portraits for fallen EPS officers
-
Economy23 hours ago
Highlights of Quebec 2023-24 budget
-
Media13 hours ago
Why one county is suing social media companies
-
Tech24 hours ago
Developer release candidates for tvOS 16.4 & watchOS 9.4 are out
-
Economy10 hours ago
NOVA Chemicals sets bold ESG aspirations to lead the plastics circular economy
-
News20 hours ago
The Losani Family Foundation celebrates 10 years of giving back
-
Economy18 hours ago
US interest-rate decision the world is watching
-
Health12 hours ago
‘Worsening spread’ of deadly fungal infection raising alarm in U.S.