A seemingly endless battle is waged between believers in the efficient market hypothesis, such as Eugene Fama, and believers in behavioral finance, such as Daniel Kahneman. Regardless of your perspective, an analysis of the S&P 500’s history of sigma events provides an interesting field for the battle to be waged.
For example, from 3 January 1950 through 31 July 2012, the average daily return of the S&P 500 was 0.03%, and the standard deviation was 0.98% (source: Yahoo Finance, CFA Institute). These results are remarkably similar to the mean and standard deviation of the normal distribution of 0 and 1, respectively. This suggests that daily returns for the S&P 500 closely approximate the normal distribution, and that returns follow a random walk.
What if you feel that mean and standard deviation are not the only way to describe a probability distribution? Then these data do not tell the entire story. Many researchers have noted anomalies in return data such as extreme positive and negative daily returns — the proverbial “fat” tails that characterize stock market returns.
Here is a look at the distribution of the S&P 500’s daily returns categorized by how extremely those returns deviated from the average daily return of 0.03%.
Number of S&P 500 Sigma Events (3 January 1950 – 31 July 2012)
Source: CFA Institute.
As you can see, the overwhelming majority of daily returns fall within one standard deviation, or sigma, from the mean return of 0.03% per day. This is actually a characteristic not discussed as frequently as the stock market’s “fat tails.” Namely, that daily returns are leptokurtic until you reach the tails. Yet, the normal distribution holds that ~68% of returns should occur within one standard deviation of the mean, yet the actual number is a gigantic 95.6%.
Here is the numerical breakdown of the graph above:
Source: CFA Institute.
Market observers have noted that financial markets have become more volatile over time. A look at the number of sigma events by decade makes that clear.
Source: CFA Institute.
For example, the number of normal trading days — as measured by the percentage of trading days that are a 1 sigma event — is sharply lower since the 2000s, with the decade of the 2000s having 1 sigma trading days only 89.54% of time, as compared to the average of 95.56% and the peak of 98.61% in the 1950s. That said, the most "normal" decade, as measured by the decade with the smallest deviations from the average, was a recent decade, the 1990s.
There has also been a doubling of two sigma events, a tripling of three sigma events, and so forth. However, careful scrutiny reveals something extraordinarily interesting: Just two years of daily market activity, 1987 and 2008, account for 56% of all five sigma and above events! In 1987 there were six events that were five sigma and above, and in 2008 there were 18 such occurrences. Wow! These numbers compare to the average number of five sigma and above events per year of 0.68. So, in addition to there being daily return sigma events to be cautious of, there are clearly high sigma years to be wary of as an investor, too.
What about the expected daily occurrence of sigma events? Here is the historical record:
Source: CFA Institute.
What the above chart shows is that there are, on average, 129.2 trading days per 251.62 trading days in a year in which your return is between 0.03% and 1.02%. Similarly, there are, on average, 3.85 days per year where your loss is between −0.98% and −1.99%, or between a one sigma and two sigma loss.
After the two sigma events, it becomes harder to tell what the expected frequency of a sigma event is, so here are the data rescaled by years, instead of days:
Source: CFA Institute.
Here you can see that a seven sigma up day can be expected once every 31.29 years, and a 10 sigma or greater down day can be expected once every 62.58 years.
One famous piece of oft repeated wisdom doled out by the buy-and-hold community is that missing just the top 10 up days results in a significantly lower total return. Consequently you should always stay invested, lest you miss these days. Indeed, when framed this way there is truth to the statement. One dollar invested on 3 January 1950 would have turned into $81.79 on 31 July 2012. Yet, if you had missed those top 10 performing days, you would only have $38.95 instead of $81.79.
But this is only half the story. For what if you were in fact a brilliant market timer, and you were able to miss just the 10 worst-performing days in market history? Your $81.79 would actually be a whopping $214.41. This result is clearly an example of brilliant market timing as investors would have experienced each of the top 10 performing days, yet missed all of the 10 worst trading days.
So what is the result of missing the top 10 and bottom 10 trading days? Investors’ $1 would have grown to $102.94. Because this result is much higher than the $81.79 earned with the buy-and-hold strategy, it does not make sense to justify a buy-and-hold strategy just on the premise that you make more money from employing it instead of market timing.
And just for giggles, what if you had perfect market timing and were only invested on up days? Your $1 investment would have grown to be:
$335,288,501,296,558,000,000,000.
For those of you not up on your large numbers, that is $335 sextillion (or a trillion trillion).
Last, the largest positive sigma event of all time occurred on 13 October 2008, when the S&P 500 surged upward registering as an 11.82 sigma event. Meanwhile, the largest negative sigma event was the famous 19 October 1987 crash, which was a whopping 20.98 sigma event!
If you liked this post, don’t forget to subscribe to the Enterprising Investor.
All posts are the opinion of the author. As such, they should not be construed as investment advice, nor do the opinions expressed necessarily reflect the views of CFA Institute or the author’s employer.
Image credit: ©Getty Images/Bloomberg Creative Photos
35 Comments
Could the author tell us how often 7, 8, 9 and 10 sigma events should occur if equity prices really were normally distributed?
Hi M,
Here are the probability percentages of these events occurring if stock returns were normally distributed:
SIGMA/PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE
1 68.270%
2 95.450%
3 99.730%
4 99.994%
5 99.999%
6-10 increasingly asymptotic to 100%
Hope that helps.
With smiles,
Jason A. Voss, CFA
You have included 1 and 2 sigma events, both in the 1st deviation. That's why you got this big number...
Hello Alexander,
To which number are you referring?
With smiles,
Jason
Assuming a normal distribution, one would expect a 7-sigma occurrence once every 3,105,395,365 years.
Using Excel and MATLAB, a paper from UCD Business Schools calculated the probability of up to 25-sigma. Needless to say, the calculations are tongue-in-cheek given they quickly become meaninglessly large.
http://www.smurfitschool.ie/academicsampresearch/workingpapers/wp_08_13…
Hi Jason,
Thank you for sharing the data about the 25-sigma event. I actually have the formula built into Excel which is what I used to calculate the 10-sigma event. But you are correct that the number become meaningless. In fact, they are essentially meaningless at the 10-sigma level, yet then there is reality intruding on the perfect world of the determinists.
I hope that you enjoyed the data reported above. I loved putting the numbers together.
With smiles!
Jason
Really simple and powerful way to analyse asset class returns. However, does the usage of standard deviation result in a self-fulfilling statistic of normal distribution pattern. I worked out 1 sigma plus and minus, and found that on an average 77% of returns lie within this range. Is this somehow a result of using standard deviation in the first place?
Looking forward to your response.
Hello Ashok,
The standard deviation reported is for daily returns, because your 1 sigma range is different than the 1 sigma range I got I am not sure what numbers you used. Separately, in the piece I stated that the mean and standard deviation approach 0 and 1 (0.03% and 0.98%) - which suggests returns are normally distributed. However, I then point out that the actual distribution of returns is strongly leptokurtic (i.e. peaked) and that the tails are indeed "fat." That would argue that the distribution of returns for the S&P 500 is not normally distributed.
Separately, I am not sure I understand your point about the self-fulfilling nature of using standard deviation. Please feel free to clarify.
With smiles,
Jason
Jason, thanks for your response. I used the equity benchmark index for Indian equity markets. Yes, I did use daily mean and standard deviation. The numbers I got are different from S&P500, obviously, but they are not too different I guess. My question is largely to do with the basic construct of normal deviation. I calculated the number of times, the returns fell into the range of +1 and -1 standard deviation. I was interested in seeing this on a yearly basis. Yes, most of the times the distribution was leptokurtic. The +1 and -1 SD occurences range between 75 - 85% ( I am rounding of quite a bit here for simplicity). What I am happy about is that almost all the times the distributions can pass for a normal distribution. Did the chances of getting normal distribution improve because I used 'standard deviation' ? After all isn't standard deviation computed from mean - sum of squared.... If I used anything else to measure risk, other than standard deviation, would I still get such near perfect central tendencies?
Hello again Ashok,
Ahh, thank you for clarifying that you were looking at the returns of Indian equity markets.
If you look at the formula for the standard normal curve you will see that you cannot escape standard deviation in shaping the height and width of the curve. So the concept of standard deviation is inextricably linked with the idea of describing nature using curves and calculus to calcuate the area under the curve/probability.
The idea of what is the proper measure for 'risk' is an entirely different discussion. Here I would agree with you that your distribution would look different if a more realistic/asymmetric defintion of risk (i.e. the chance of loss) were used. Instead of a symmetric distribution you would have an asymmetric one. But this is a subject well outside the bounds of the discussion.
Thanks for your points of view and your questions!
Jason