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
Thanks Jason for your response.
Hi Ashok,
I might add that how to properly measure risk is one of my very favorite topics. In fact, I wrote my masters thesis on this very subject. It sounds as if it is a pet topic of yours, too?! If so, I would love to hear more about your work here.
In short, standard deviation and beta are not descriptors of risk, in my opinion. They are statistical measures that describe variation and slope in curvilinear geometry and linear geometry, nothing more.
With smiles,
Jason
Hi Jason - Yes, I am currently working on developing an asset allocation model under the MVO framework. But firstly I am trying to understand, rather qualitatively, the risk of asset classes and their behavior in pairs i.e covariance. I think risk, and its statistical measure such as standard deviation, has got its utility largely as inputs to MVO. And the theory behind it that risks are not additive.
I think there is low correlation even among extreme events. For example I took a vector of 15 worst returns between India Equity and MSCI EM ex Japan (arrange the daily returns of these two in a single continuous array and pick the worst - Rank function). Now, for every return, I pick the alternate asset class's return (same day return). I find the correlation between these two arrays is +0.36. I think that is low, given that I am testing the tail.
Are there any other tests (especially non-parametric) that you think is useful to test and understand risks between asset classes. What I like about non-parametric is they are intuitive and easy to explain.
Hello,
You said that you focus is also on alternating volatility and beta to reflect chances of underperformance. Can you point me to some links/work ...that expand on this. You can mail me on [email protected]
Thanks so much!
Regards
Hans
Hi Ashok,
I have never built an asset allocation model before and don't look at risk in this way so I am unable to help you out here. My work on risk has focused on:
* Defining risk - in every industry, except finance, risk is defined as 'the chance of loss'
* Altering standard deviation and beta so that the numbers only reflect underperformance
* Development of new Sharpe and Treynor ratios that incorporate actual risk measures
* An examination of different ways of measuring alpha
* Development of risk categories
* Development of qualitative measures of risk
Stay tuned to The Enterprising Investor and you may hear more about these subjects.
Be well!
Jason
Thanks Jason. Good to know similar concepts of risk being used in other industries as well. Have always been thinking about it the context of stock or asset class prices. May be its better used and understood in another industry than in finance!
Regards
Ashok
Hello Jason,
This is a fantastic article on my topic of interest. The human mind simply takes numbers at face value.The problem with probabilistic measures of risk is the tendency of ignoring the size of the underlying risk that 'hides' behind the probability of an event. The sigma level does not capture this aspect of risk that comes with the fat tails; it ironically creates a false sense of security than an alarm. I think you explained that beautifully in your article. Do you ever intend to shift your focus and explain non-linear measures? That would be very interesting because beta, standard deviation and regression models are already much debated.
Regards,
Jimmy
Hi Jimmy,
Thanks very much for your feedback - I am very pleased that you enjoyed the piece.
As for the non-linear measures of risk...maybe. At one point I considered myself to be very knowledgeable and cutting edge about such things. However, because the limitations of conventional risk measures are fairly obvious by now, I am guessing that research has to have been written that addresses some of these shortcomings.
So before commenting further I would want to fill in my 15 year knowledge gap. In other words, I would want to respectfully read the current cutting edge research on the subject before commenting. It may very well be the case that the material I would want to mention is someone else's entire research interest.
If you have resources you would like to point me to, I would love it.
With smiles!
Jason
Hi Jason,
I am not aware of such a resource but I will certainly let you know if I come across one.
Regards,
Jimmy
Great piece. Have you performed this study for Monthly returns as well? The results would be intriguing.