3 ms·
Can a HFT-knowledgeable commenter chime in on the viability of the Sharpe ratio here? From a physics perspective, it appears that the Sharpe ratio of 4.1 is ro
by ISL 12y ago
Can a HFT-knowledgeable commenter chime in on the viability of the Sharpe ratio here?
From a physics perspective, it appears that the Sharpe ratio of 4.1 is roughly equivalent to a 4.1-sigma claim that their algorithm is better than random trading. I can't check easily, but I'd guess that the movement of Bitcoin prices isn't normally-distributed (looking at the paper's time series suggests that there's more low-frequency power there). If so, I'd guess that a more robust measure of the claim's significance would show it to be less significant.
Put differently, I'd guess more than 1 in 15,000 random sets of 2872 trades (their number of trades) would yield comparable profit. Furthermore, a simple buy-and-hold would've yielded a 20+% return over the same period.
- lrm242 12y agoA sharpe of 4 is ok. Most "HFT" type strategies have sharpes so high they don't talk about sharpe anymore as it is meaningless. It is simply a different type of trading. See Virtu's pnl distribution in their S1. As a point of reference, Blair Hull is on record saying they are interested in nothing below a sharpe of 10 (r-finance talk, should be googleable).
- petercoolz 12y agoThanks for sharing. Link: http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/filing.ashx?filingid=9443224 http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/filing.ashx?filingid=9443...