I love Porter's quote; it summarizes so much of what I've found in working with traders. The really good ones deliberately choose to be different. They look at things others don't look at; they view the world through multiple lenses. This enables them to find unique opportunities.
There is a great post from Ivanhoff Capital that summarizes the trading strategies of a successful money manager. In that post, you can see how James Mai is playing on a multidimensional chess board, viewing markets short-term, long-term, and through the lenses of price change and volatility. He has a clear idea of where and how markets misprice risks, and he is willing to make many small, losing trades to find a limited number of large winners. I heartily recommend you read his ways of viewing markets, just as a way of appreciating how a successful trader deliberately chooses to be different.
And how do traders learn these different ways of thinking? By being exposed to other traders who perceive and exploit unique opportunity. When an early career trader is brought into a trading firm, the single best predictor of his or her success is the degree of mentoring that occurs at the trading desk. When new traders are left to their own devices to sink or swim, they frequently sink. When traders are brought on as trading assistants and learn their way from the ground up through a mentor, they absorb ways of thinking about markets. Smart training programs allow their new talent to rotate from one trading desk to another, so that they absorb a variety of ways of thinking about markets.
This is why I occasionally post on research I'm doing, creating such measures as "pure sentiment". I'm illustrating a way of thinking, whether you follow that particular measure or not.
After all, learning from example is why developmental efforts from plumbing to psychotherapy to medicine are structured as apprenticeships. We learn by absorbing the wisdom and experience of masters and then by integrating that learning into our own, unique style. We can deliberately choose to be different by exposing ourselves to different talent and ideas.
Further Reading: Creativity and Innovation
.
When we trade with confidence and conviction, we run the risk of becoming a stiff tree in Bruce Lee's terms. I find that successful traders are cognitively flexible, able to bend with changing winds. Traders often lament that markets are choppy. In many cases, the real problem is that winds are changing more quickly than traders can bend. We attempt holding periods of X, when markets are moving to a beat of only a fraction of X.
A nice example of this occurred in Friday's SPX trade. As longtime readers know, there are three things I find important to focus upon in the market. Those include an assessment of who is in the market and which way they are leaning. Two of the ways I measure this in the trading model I created is the total number of upticks and downticks among all listed stocks in the market (a measure of institutional participation) and a measure of "pure sentiment" that adjusts the put/call ratio for recent price movement and volume. Interestingly, both were elevated on Friday: we had increased institutional participation and this participation was significantly bearish. Since 2014, when this has occurred, the next five days in SPY have averaged a gain of +.62% versus an average loss of -.07% for the remainder of occasions, with 65% of occasions resulting in a winning five-day period.
Indeed, stocks did bounce later in the session and we'll see how they fare this coming week. The important point is that knowing what to look at told the trader that the odds in the market had shifted; that a downside edge that might have been there the day before was no longer a downside edge. The inflexible trader, not reading this shift, might end up frustrated, convinced that the market was being "manipulated" and not allowed to drop. The reality is that the odds in the market had shifted because new, large participants were bailing out. That bailing out tends to attract value participants who treat the lower prices as great buying opportunities.
Too many traders think of their edge in markets as a fixed thing. Rather, edge in markets is always waxing and waning, depending upon who is in markets, what they are doing, and the time frame of their activity. When we view edge dynamically, we are able to be flexible and bend with changing market winds. It's the inflexible bull or bear that is most likely to break.
Further Reading: Controlling Emotions is NOT the Goal of Trading Psychology
.
Greg Louganis' quote speaks a vital truth about peak performance. Many of us seek mindfulness through meditation when we are still, in a quiet environment. Peak performance demands something yet greater: the maintenance of the clear, mindful "zone" while we are in motion--that is, while we are performing.
A major challenge for traders is that we become so market-focused and caught up in chats and news flows that we lose the zone. We become frenzy in motion, not meditation in motion.
The recent article I wrote for Forbes addresses this dilemma and offers a unique solution: using a simple calendar app to sustain deliberate practice and the peak performance mindset.
Imagine being a trader and reviewing your performance and setting goals each week. Now imagine turning the wheel faster and creating rapid review and goal-setting processes each day. Quite simply, to use a gym analogy, you're getting more reps than the person who comes into the weight room only occasionally. Learning has the potential to become elite development when every day of performance also serves as targeted practice.
Why is this important? It's because there is a mutually reinforcing relationship between peak performance and peak emotional experience. It is when we push our boundaries and expand our competence across all areas of life that we are most likely to experience happiness, fulfillment, energy, and closeness with others. And it is when we are most energized by positive experience that we're most likely to channel that energy into meaningful development.
Many traders sense that it wouldn't take much to bring them to that next level of performance. I suspect they're right: they just need more and better reps in life's gym.
Further Reading: Turning Your Calendar Into A Peak Performance Tool
.
How many of the following apply to you? Please answer true or false to each item:
* I've clearly and visually mapped out my trading process, from the ways I collect information and generate ideas to the ways in which I express those ideas as trades (and as constituents of a portfolio), enter and size positions, manage and adjust positions while they are open, and exit trades. True False
* I've clearly and visually mapped out my personal process to maximize performance, from how I sleep, eat, exercise, socialize, and utilize my non-work time to sustain a peak state. True False
* I explicitly keep score in written fashion, not just with my profits and losses, but with each component of my trading and personal processes to see what I've done well and what I can improve in process terms. True False
* I use my trading and personal process scores to explicitly identify written goals for improvement and the concrete steps I will commit to in order to achieve these goals. True False
* I keep a written scorecard of my performance vis a vis each of my goals to track my progress and, if necessary, make adjustments in how I pursue the goals. True False
* I use my scorecard to make ongoing adjustments to my trading and personal processes, so as to turn initial improvements into ongoing habit patterns. True False
Every trader goes through losing trades and losing periods. When we're not in peak performance mode, losing money is a fail. In peak mode, losses become First Attempts In Learning. Peak performance mode is our way of committing ourselves to growth and improvement; it's our way of becoming accountable to ourselves. Merely writing in a journal does not ensure deliberate practice and ongoing improvement. We become better by keeping score in process terms and continually refining our personal and professional processes.
Further Reading: The One Trading Drill That Can Improve Performance
.
When my daughter Devon was quite young, we had a toy doctor's kit and one day decided to play "doctor" with one of her dolls. I gave Dev the stethoscope and other equipment and I said I would help her with the examination. She looked confused and gave the stethoscope back to me. She said, "You be the doctor, I'll be the nurse." When I asked her why I should be the doctor, she gave me a puzzled look--as if I should know better--and said, "Boys are the doctors!"
I was dumbfounded. Never had Margie or I explicitly said anything of the sort to Devon. When I reflected, however, I realized that all her doctors had been men and all her nurses had been women. She couldn't think of herself as a doctor because she had never seen a female physician! That was a perception I was eager to correct.
I fear much of the same thing happens in the field of finance. As I documented in a Forbes article last year, women are woefully underrepresented in the world of money management. During the time I've participated in recruitment of traders and portfolio managers, resumes from men have outnumbered those from women by 20:1. Even when women are hired by financial firms, they often lack upward career paths. For example, as my article outlines, six of the ten career fields in which the income gap between men and women is greatest are in the world of finance.
This is all the more ironic because research cited in the Forbes piece clearly shows that men tend to be more prone to cognitive biases and poorer trading/investment decisions than women, often as a result of overtrading and excessive risk-taking. Conversely, many of the factors that account for career success are "soft skills" associated with interpersonal skill and emotional intelligence. Managers account for 70% of the variance in employee engagement scores, with relationship and communication skills making the critical difference--qualities more often associated with feminine sex roles than masculine ones.
Fortunately, efforts are under way to cultivate trading and leadership talent among women. Most noteworthy is the trading competition being sponsored by Zolio. The contest has just begun, but it's not too late to sign up and participate. Contestants select a portfolio of stocks and/or ETFs that are tracked for performance. Participants also keep a journal and manage their portfolios. Prizes are awarded, not just for profitability, but also for process-oriented factors such as risk management and creativity. Winners are invited to a Boston meet and greet with industry leaders in finance. The idea is to open a door for women, who like my daughter, may never have thought of themselves as a successful person in a "male" occupation. Because the competition is free, it's a great way to explore the field and get a feel for what it's like to manage capital.
So often, our greatest limits are those that we cannot see, that are embedded in our assumptions about ourselves and the world. There are many opportunities possible for all of us if we can expand our vision of who we are and what we're capable of.
Further Reading: Social Intelligence and Trading Skill
.
You have a cross-country trip to take, and it's a must-do trip. You have to leave immediately and all that are available is a charter plane and your choice of two available pilots. The first pilot has flown this plane before but has a longstanding negative reputation as being someone who will overcharge you and most likely take you to unannounced stops before (possibly) arriving at your destination. The second pilot loudly announces how great the ride will be and how dishonest the other pilot is, but has never flown a plane before.
Must-do trip.
Two pilots.
Your choice.
Further Reading: Why Character Matters
.
One question active traders too often fail to ask is, "What would I be doing with my life if I weren't trading?"
We're familiar with the direct costs of trading, such as the expenses we incur for software, commissions, and the like. Less clear are the indirect costs--and especially the opportunity costs--associated with trading. When we're glued to screens, there are many activities we cannot participate in. Some of those activities may represent areas of strength, ones where we could excel and contribute.
I meet many traders who limp along in their profitability, afraid to ask the big questions, because they not sure what they would do with their lives if they weren't trading. They justify trading as a "passion", when in fact it's a black hole that has sucked them in so far that they cannot see an alternative future.
Is your trading giving you the financial and emotional returns you desire?
Are you a better person for your trading, or does trading interfere with relationships and other important parts of life, such as your physical fitness and emotional well-being?
Are there things you could--and maybe even should--be doing in your life that can't be accomplished because trading gets in the way?
Per Bob Marley's question above, are you truly satisfied with the life you're living?
Most traders ask how they can become better traders. Few ask whether they truly should be trading.
Sometimes the answer is not trading versus not trading, but figuring out how to make trading fit into your life, rather than fitting your life to markets. When I developed a medium term trading model, I discovered that opportunity is asymmetrically distributed during any given year. There are stretches of time with little opportunity, other periods with more opportunity, and a few periods with unusually good opportunity. It's possible to participate during occasions with high opportunity, profit from markets and market involvement, and still have a life for a fulfilling career, family, and personal pursuits.
The goal is not to be a profitable trader. The goal is to profit from the life you live.
Further Reading: Trading as an Addiction
.
Traders are often concerned that their ideas might fail simply because they have become "too consensus". That is, if many other participants are positioned in the same idea, the risk/reward may become negatively skewed. There aren't many traders left to move the position further in the desired direction and, should prices start to move the other way, there can be a stampede for the exits quickly putting positions under water.
Sentiment in the stock market is one way of gauging market psychology and whether there may be a bullish or bearish consensus. Unfortunately, the standard measure for assessing sentiment, the put/call ratio, has several weaknesses. First, it often mixes together put and call trading for stock index options and for the options on individual equities. My work shows those are different distributions, with different impacts on markets. The equity-only put/call measure, where options across all exchanges and all listed issues are included, has been the best measure for sentiment. A second problem with the standard put/call ratio is that it is itself impacted by past price movement and volatility. When markets rise, the ratio tends to decline and vice versa.
The pure sentiment measure I created is akin to the pure volatility measure, which adjusts implied volatility for the amount of realized volatility and past price movement. Pure volatility thus tells us how much movement is being priced into options for a given amount of recent movement and realized volatility. In other words, it shows us how VIX may be under-reacting or overreacting to recent price behavior. Similarly, pure sentiment adjusts the put/call ratio for recent price movement and volatility. The pure sentiment measure (shown above) tells us when we are "too" bullish or "too" bearish, given recent price behavior.
Interestingly, going back to 2014, pure sentiment has been a decent near term predictor of stock index prices--so much so that I added it to the ensemble model recently described. By a simple median split, when pure sentiment has been high (too bearish for the amount of market movement we've seen), the next ten days in SPX have averaged a gain of +.71%. When pure sentiment has been too low (too bullish for the amount of recent market movement), the next ten days in SPX have averaged a loss of -.17%. The numbers stand out even more at the extremes.
Notice how, in the recent market, we've had quite a few high readings in pure sentiment. (Friday closed bullish on the pure sentiment measure; the overall ensemble model closed at a flat 0). We've seen weakening breadth in stocks and many participants have been anticipating a market top, but prices have tended to bounce higher after we've seen selling. The bearish sentiment/positioning may have something to do with that. It's a facet of the market I'll be tracking closely in coming days.
Many, many market indicators can be improved by looking at whether and how they anticipate forward price movement once correlated market factors are removed. It doesn't help to look at 12 different market indicators if they all are significantly correlated. When we remove the correlations, we come closer to measuring the true factors that move stock prices.
Further Reading: Pure Volatility
.
I recently posted on the importance of identifying who is in the market as a way of gauging how the market is likely to move, tracking the behavior of large institutional participants. A different way of assessing market participation is by looking at speculative sentiment in the market. This can be accomplished by looking at total options volume, not just the ratio of put volume to call volume.
When total equity options volume (volume of options trading for stocks listed across all options exchanges) is in its lowest quartile going back to 2014, the next 10 days in SPY have averaged a loss of -.51%. When total options volume has been in its highest quartile, the next 10 days have averaged a gain of +.91%. If we strip out the role of total trading volume from total options volume in a regression model, we find that when pure options volume is in its lowest quartile (as was the case after Monday's close), the next 10 days in SPY have averaged a loss of -.41% versus an average gain of +.49% for the remainder of the sample.
In other words, when speculative sentiment has died out, the market has been most vulnerable to correction. Bear moves tend to end in a frenzy of activity, as value and momentum participants become involved at multiple time frames. Bull moves tend to end in complacency and lack of interest, as the market becomes too dull for momentum participants and too rich for value players. It is the interplay of high and low participation, tracking the activity of different participants, that creates the dynamics of market cycles.
Further Reading: Volatility and the Dynamics of Market Cycles
.
TraderFeed will be taking a sabbatical during the month of October, with occasional postings on the market and on trading psychology. During the sabbatical, I'll be finishing a co-edited book on brief therapy and completing a personal project. That personal project will be a major subject during November's posts.
Over the October sabbatical, I'll also provide occasional updates of scores from my multivariate model, which I've revised to include a new measure of sentiment. That new measure views put volume and call volume as independent variables, rather than simply taking the ratio of the two. So we look for occasions when put volume is unusually high or low and the same for call volume.
Model scores range from +6 (very bullish) to zero (neutral) to -6 (very bearish). The chart above shows average 10-day returns as a function of model score from 2014 to the present. Hit rates on trades taken mechanically have been as one would expect from the above chart, with 64% of trades finishing up when scores have been 1 or 2; and 63% of trades finishing down when scores have been between -2 and -3 and very high hit rates at the bullish and bearish extremes.
We closed Friday with a score of +2, moderately bullish.
Further Reading: What We Can Learn From Quant Models
.
