The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Investing/Strategies / Mechanical Investing
|Subject: Re: Optimizing Blends with Sharpe/(GSD^x)||Date: 11/17/2007 11:09 PM|
|Author: Zeelotes||Number: 204015 of 264200|
This demonstrates how easy it is to lie, or be misled, by statistics. I don't think you meant to lie or mislead. But by presenting only the 20 lookback for the 4 stock screens in the prior message, I thought you were saying there was no difference between ranking by Sharpe and ranking by Sharpe/GSD. I don't think that was the intended conclusion.
The reason I set it to 20 was to avoid stacking the deck in favor of Sharpe/GSD, which is what would have resulted if I had set the lookback to the value that is optimal for Sharpe/GSD. Setting it to a value that produced an equal Sharpe, put the two on an equal footing.
The main point on Sharpe/GSD is that if you take the results of all the tests and sort by Sharpe, the first Sharpe-based result is at position #45 out of 285 tests. In other words, Sharpe is no where near as good as Sharpe/GSD, Treynor, UPR or Sortino, but the values get closer as you go down in that list.
What conclusions can we reach in your view based on the data presented to date?
|Copyright 1996-2016 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|