Momentum is Price Breakout [Premium Articles]

Lately, there is a tendency to associate momentum, relative strength or cross-sectional, to quantitative analysis and label absolute momentum as technical analysis. Nothing can be further from the truth. Momentum is a trivial concept that is based on breakouts above a past price. At the same time, absolute momentum is much broader in scope than relative despite recent efforts to relate them.

For access to premium content, you must be a subscriber. Please login if you are already a subscriber or subscribe to continue reading...

This entry was posted in Trader education and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Momentum is Price Breakout [Premium Articles]

  1. Bo says:

    Michael,

    I really like this: "As one attempts to increase performance in longer timeframes, samples decrease, leading to lower significance." My solution to this problem is to apply the system to as many instruments as you can. While for one particular market, the results are not significant due to reduced sample size. If the same rules are applied to many different markets, then overall sample size will be greatly increased. In fact I found the correlation actaully helps to increase the robustness of the system. It also helps to dynamiclly size the trade. Another good thing is it helps to truly stress test your system. One example this year is: while the trend following system will not long EURCHF as the vol is too low before the peg was broken, it might very well give a long trade in say NZDCHF. By adding this cross pair into your system, you could get a much realistic picture of how system behaves when a black swan event happens.

    Great article again.

    Bo

    • Hello Bo. I also apply the test on "comparable securities". Here is an example:

      http://www.priceactionlab.com/Blog/2015/02/unexploited-trading-opportunities-exist-but-are-hard-to-identify/

      Michael

      P.S. Sorry for late reply but my spam filter was sending most messages to spam folder, I just found out.

  2. David Chamness says:

    The term breakout usually means that price has made a new high or low beyond all past closes in a window. A 50 day upside breakout means the price closed above ALL of the closing prices over the past 50 days.

    Using the word "breakout" to say that price is above one price from n days ago, and then saying that breakout is the same as momentum simply redefines breakout as momentum. The usual meaning of breakout is a more extreme occurrence than price crossing above or below one number from n days ago.

    • You are correct in the sense of classical TA. However, you can always consider a hypothetical resistance level at price Cn and call a breakout a move of price C above it. In quant analysis the resistance levels is the zero line and the breakouts occur above and below it. Thus, in this sense I see no problem in using the term "breakout" despite what it usually means in classical technical analysis, which btw is followed by a diminishing group of old timers and noise traders.

      Best regards.

  3. david varadi says:

    hi Michael, i definitely agree with the last point– it is annoying that academics (or authors in general) that write papers get the credit for inventing things simply because they wrote a paper on it. Practitioner research definitely leads publishing (Thorpe had the same option pricing formula as Black Scholes nearly 10 years in advance)–unfortunately from a credibility perspective to the investor (and even advisor audience) academic papers that validate a concept provide the necessary stamp of approval. For some reason running tons of regressions (already a quantitatively flawed procedure) and having a PhD with no trading experience (or quantitative testing/development experience) is the only way to rubber stamp a concept. Sadly most academic research involves re-branding or re-labelling existing ideas and being the first to publish a paper on it (or more dangerously the studies that combine two or more separate anomalies written about separately)–suddenly you are a brilliant quantitative innovator and considered respectable among academic circles and other asset managers.
    Like most human endeavours most people want to invest in what is commonly considered acceptable (validated by academic research), and do not wish to be the guinea pigs for a new idea. As a result the very best strategies and research are done for the benefit of either high frequency/prop trading, hedge funds and private traders where there is less pressure to conform. Even large hedge funds face pressure to demonstrate that they are exploiting commonly known anomalies. Perception is reality. Research must reflect that to some extent. For others, research is simply a marketing or publishing exercise to draw attention. Sometimes members in the latter category lack an understanding of the difference between research and marketing, while others know exactly what they are doing and unfortunately can fool the unwary.
    (the strawman argument is poorly understood but very important–you need a good sample size during a modern period with good data — of course if you publish a research paper without using the long-term data no one takes you seriously : ( )
    best.
    david varadi

    • Thanks for the post David. Sad story about Thorpe. There is a lot of stealing of ideas by the academic crowd and they never give credit except to their own circles. As far as paper on trading models, some of them sound like they discovered the whole thing. It is pathetic. For example, these guys from Columbia that took all the credit for momentum premium, which in my opinion is a data-mined anomaly mainly due to 1990s bull run, just analyzed what thousands have been doing for many years.

      Michael

Comments are closed.