Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

Rise-T

Position Sizing & Longs/Shorts

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

 

I used to consider myself something like a 'living position sizing encylopdia' ;) over the years, but enhancing my position sizing / real-time risk management spreadsheet to handle longs & shorts (used to be longs only), I've noticed that I am not 100% sure about the answer to the following rather simple question:

 

To make things easier, let's just talk about stocks, so there's a pretty high correlation between positions.

 

If I have a 100,000 USD portfolio and I have long positions worth 100,000 USD and short positions worth 100,000 USD.

 

Do I consider myself 0% invested then or 200%...?

 

I mean, 0% doesn't really make sense, but so doesn't 200%.

 

Any informed thoughts?

 

Thank you in advance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless the long and short positions are both on the same instrument, you would be 2:1 invested in your example. You have $100k in cash, and you're using full (I think that's full in equities retail) buying power to short the extra $100k. You've used 2x the capital you actually own, so 2:1.

 

For reference, if you were long and short the SAME instrument the same amount, you would have a net neutral position. This is because as the value of one position goes down, the value of the other would go up the same amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I can tell you from direct experience in talking to many, many people over 15-16 years that the answer to your question depends on who you are talking to....unfortunately.

They measure it differently, they talk about it differently.....i dont think there is a universal language.eg; is 100% leverage = 1:1 or 2:1...

HOWEVER.....when talking to someone the best thing to do is differentiate between exposure and leverage, and talk about GROSS verses NET exposure and or leverage.

eg; long 100, short 100 gives gross exposure of 200, net exposure =0.

 

Or something along those lines.

We encountered this problem when talking to clients especially when it came time to talk about options and delta exposures, leverage and risk....(but thats a whole other story)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is the risk that you are trying to manage then by going long and short you have hedged away the exposure and the risk to the extent that they are correlated. So if the scrips have a correlation of 95% by hedging your next exposure has reduced to 5%. Hedging is a strategy of portfolio managers - not speculators.

 

But if you are a speculator and leveraging one position taking directional bets across different time frames then these positions are in reality not correlated. Your exposure and risk is twofold as you could profit / lose on both legs.

 

Jose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...To make things easier, let's just talk about stocks, so there's a pretty high correlation between positions....

 

If you are talking about stocks where there is a high correlation between positions then why are you both long and short at the same time?

 

Unless there is very little correlation between the positions then in all likelihood they will both be moved to a great extent by the same forces that are effecting the broad market.

 

If there isn't much correlation and one could expect different movements then you would be invested in the gross amount, or $200K in your example. If they are correlated then one would infer that your strategy of going long and short would only make sense under some sort of hedging strategy in which case your strategy would dictate the risk. Of course if you have the same luck I do (or did) there would likely be some sort of market movement that would whipsaw things quickly and stop both out in opposite directions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's most important is that your technically have 0% risk, not counting the cost of trading.

 

As for your 0% invested or 200%, neither is correct. There is never more than 100% of anything. !00% is all there can be. Look at it as if you were invested in stocks, long 5000 shares and short 5000 shares. You are 100% invested with 0% risk, but, in my case, I must pay 5 cents a share commission ($500) plus slippage just to go nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming you have long and short positions in different instruments - one way to think about it is - assume all your positions (both long and short) could go against you at the same time (unlikely but not beyond the realms of possibility - if someone had told you 3 years ago that Lehman and AIG would go bankrupt within weeks of each other ...... ) - how would you determine things then.

 

I am more comfortable with the portfolio heat type approach. You need to have a system with an initial stop loss to do this (although you can substitute your average historical loss or use atr to calculate volatility stop losses). The difference between your entry and the stop loss along with the size of your position allows you to estimate what percent of your equity you would loose if stopped out for each position you have. The total percent at risk among all instruments is the portfolio heat. 20% is a figure you see banded around as a max heat although depending on the performance of the system it may need to be a lot lower.

 

If you adopt this approach it does not matter whether a position is long or short - all you are concerned about is how much you could loose if it goes against you. Van Tharp is the best I have come across on the topic of position sizing (Trade your way to financial freedom book). I have no affiliation with his company - just a grateful reader.

 

Just to muddy the waters a bit further Curtis Faith in his book about the turtles says that one of the turtle "rules" addressed this - basically the rules meant that turtles were allowed to offset long and short positions against each other to a certain extent (and effectively have a higher portfolio heat than if all positions were in the same direction).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

Sorry for replying sort of late, but I have been pretty busy the last couple of days.

 

And many thanks to all for taking the time to post!

 

1.) I guess the concept of Net & Gross exposure is what I was looking for. I now realize I was somehow trying to get those two stats into one figure - which I guess is next to impossible :crap: So realizing this was of great help for me. Also, I am a great fan of clear & systematic wording (not sure where I got that from...) - so this perfectly fits the bill. Thank you.

 

2.) Regarding being long & short in highly correlated instruments:

Firstly, my intention was to create my risk management spreadsheet as versatile as possible.

Secondly, when there are single stocks I've been watching breaking out in a constructive manner and (I want to own them in a continued market uptrend) while the general market seems stills suspect to me, what I sometimes do is initiating corresponding shorts with weak action at low risk points (i.e. rallies) to somewhat hedge the longs. When the general market finally decides its way, I slowly fade out of the shorts (or the longs) in order to get net long or short. Sure, sometimes I get faked out on both sides, but other times it works.

 

3.) Portfolio Heat etc.

I guess I've spend the better part of 5 years or so studying Van's material (after a huge gain followed by a big loss :roll eyes: - gold stocks in 2002... In fact, that is what got me into trading vs investing in the first place - controlling risk) and I am familiar with pretty much every concept he's written about. I was also reading avidly (and sometimes participating in) his old MasterMind forums (which sadly don't exist anymore, I suspect partly because of his recent strange affinity to Service Marks...:roll eyes: ).

On a sidenote, if you haven't read it yet, I would recommend his Definitive Guide to Position Sizing since it summarizes almost all position sizing concepts pretty well. It is a bit on the expensive side since he published it himself, but I definitely would have bought it (I don't have any affliliation with Van's company as well - besides being a client - but I kindly got the book for free, though, since I've been helping him in a - really very tiny - way with the book).

 

The measuring of exposure is just one out of many stats I've integrated into my risk management - I've tried to integrate as many as possible (at least the ones that make sense to me & you don't have to have a PHD in rocket science to calculate - as my math skills are rather questionable & I don't think it's really necessary - e. g. the material of Ralph Vince). Some stats that I use to measure risk: Open Initial Risk, Open Risk, Exposure (all of them for individual positions, for correlated groups and on a porfolio level (e. g. Open Position Risk, Open Group Risk, Open Porfolio Risk (= Portfolio Heat - see my preference for systematic wording above... :) ). All of them just for longs and just for shorts. All net & gross long/short. Adjusting position size for volatility. R-Multiples. Market's Money concept. Keeping positions & groups & the portfolio within defined max risk limits by peeling off units when necessary.

 

Regarding Curtis, I've followed his writings early on when he was still participating at his former forum at tradingblox.com. I bought his first book when it came out - and I agree, it is an excellent one. I try to incorporate that mentioned Turtle rule by measuring the risk of longs vs shorts.

 

Again, thank you all for your kind comments!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 2p.

 

I think if the problem is framed as either 0% or 200% then it gets oversimplified. You trade your beliefs about position sizing and correlation. If you are very technical then you'd want to do some Monte-Carlo - a boot strap similar to van's approach (figure out your non-correlated R multiples and your correlated R multiples from backtest results), a permutation analysis (e.g. from Evidence Based Technical Analysis). You should also look at the sharpe ratio as well as Van's System Quality Number. The point is to be familiar to how much volatility is in your system and tuning the risk amount in relation to your capital to meet your objectives (e.g. 50% chance of making 50% per annum with a 10% chance of a 25% peak to trough drawdown).

 

Happy to provide further pointers.

 

DM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.