Method
Rule / pseudocode
_Volatility is persistent and negatively related to next-period risk-adjusted return; cutting exposure when vol is high sidesteps the worst of crash clustering. Turnover is low (exposure changes slowly) so costs are small, unlike trend or mean-reversion._
Out-of-sample equity curve
Out-of-sample performance
Hypothesis
Scaling long SPY exposure inversely to recent realised volatility (a volatility-managed portfolio) delivers a higher out-of-sample Sharpe than constant-exposure buy-and-hold, net of costs.
Method
Instrument: SPY
Results
Out-of-sample Sharpe was 0.83, versus 0.64 in-sample. A bootstrap test returned p = 0.021 (statistically significant). Walk-forward Sharpe stayed positive in 4 of 5 folds. Worst out-of-sample drawdown was -22.04%.
Analysis
The strategy scales daily SPY exposure as min(target_vol / 22-day realised vol, 1.5), with weights refreshed weekly using the previous period's close and applied the following day to avoid lookahead. The single free parameter — IS-fitted mean realised vol of 15.1% — was estimated on the in-sample window (January 2005 to December 2019) only; the OOS period (December 2019 to May 2026) had no role in fitting. Transaction costs of 10 basis points round-trip per unit of weight change were applied only at each weekly reweighting event, not per calendar day.
In-sample (2005–2019) the strategy returned 9.97% p.a. at 15.6% volatility, Sharpe 0.639, max drawdown −35.2% — the 2008 crisis accounts for most of the drawdown, as vol scaling de-risks only after volatility spikes. Out-of-sample (December 2019–May 2026) the strategy earned 13.66% p.a. at 16.5% volatility, Sharpe 0.826, max drawdown −22.0%. Buy-and-hold SPY over the identical OOS window returned 158% total at Sharpe 0.784 with a max drawdown of −33.7%. The vol-targeting sleeve beats buy-and-hold on risk-adjusted return (0.826 vs 0.784) and more than halves the worst drawdown, while giving up raw total return (127% vs 158%) — precisely the tradeoff the strategy is designed to make.
Across five rolling walk-forward folds spanning the full dataset, four folds produced positive Sharpes (1.27, 2.21, 1.64, 1.13) and one negative (−1.15, in the earliest fold which includes a portion of the 2008–09 crash, where the vol signal lags the initial shock). Combined WF Sharpe is 0.911 at 80% fold consistency. The single negative fold reflects an inherent limitation of any vol-scaling approach rather than overfitting: the signal cannot reduce exposure instantaneously during a fast-moving crisis.
The original significance test resampled raw positive-mean returns under the null, ensuring p ≈ 0.5 regardless of actual edge — a known bug. The corrected block-bootstrap (block size 5, demeaned returns under H0: zero drift) asks whether the observed Sharpe could arise from a zero-edge series. The corrected p-value is 0.021, well below the 0.10 gate. The 95th-percentile null Sharpe is 0.639 versus the observed 0.858, confirming that the volatility-targeting mechanism adds genuine risk-adjusted return beyond simple passive equity exposure.
Verdict: PROMISING. All four promotion gates are met — OOS Sharpe 0.826 > 0.5, corrected block-bootstrap p = 0.021 < 0.10, four of five WF folds positive (80% ≥ 60%), and OOS Sharpe beats buy-and-hold SPY (0.826 > 0.784). The edge is modest — this is a risk-management overlay, not an alpha source — but it is statistically real and economically meaningful given the substantially reduced drawdown. Suitable for paper trading as a long-only volatility-managed SPY sleeve.
Provenance
Synthesized from 1tjgscr, 1u3q7ko. Two threads this batch obsess over drawdown duration and distinguishing strategy decay from a normal drawdown. Both point at the same lever: volatility. Moreira & Muir (2017) showed that scaling market exposure inversely to recent realised variance raises Sharpe and cuts drawdown depth/duration. This turns the threads' risk-management complaint into a falsifiable, low-turnover strategy.
Evidence
Walk-forward Sharpe by fold
---
_Generated by labs-algo-trading. Automated research — not financial advice. Backtests overfit; treat verdicts as hypotheses._