An incisive and, in my experience, a unique method of finding poorly correlated securities that still retain valuable characteristics. I compliment you on the detail and illustrations used. It would have been valuable to show a historical example of the technique and how it might have worked in prior years over some reasonable period. My minor contribution to this discussion is to raise the issue or upside and downside returns. It is valuable to look at the relative returns for correlated vs. uncorrrelated assets but I think it might be useful to look at the return in uptrending markets compared to the returns in falling markets, an upside/downside comparison. Maybe it is not much different than the one you made but it might be. Also more emphasis should be placed on comparisons over several time frames, in different trending markets and with an examination of the variance exhibited in these results.
I absolutely support your precious suggestions, Mel and hope Mr. Reisman will have time and needed historical examples to reply.
Another good article with very valuable information. I do have a couple of ideas on how to expand the information and want to see if they make sense and are worth considering. Looking at correlation on its own would seem to give a good but not complete indicator. Given the statement “If two assets have a correlation value of 1, this means that they have perfect positive correlation—they move in the same direction (in the same proportion) 100% of the time” implies that a correlation could be impacted by either difference in volatility ( ie moving the same way but by different proportions), or by moving in the opposite direction. Charting 2 stocks can show which is the bigger factor, but that takes some time. One factor that could add to the understanding could be the Ratio data. I love the ratio chart, and had a spreadsheet doing this before starting Stockrover. That chart shows whether the investments go up or down together or trend consistently in one direction, eg Investment A is growing faster than B. My use of the ratio chart has been to help understand the overall trend (is A generally growing faster over time than B), and is it a good time to move from A to B. If Ratio A/B is high (above the trend), then you will acquire more of Stock B than you will if the ratio is low (below the average). 2 views would, I believe, help look at the information on a larger scale than the charting option – The first is a Ratio table, in exactly the format of the Correlation table, showing the ratio between each pair for a selected date. We would be able to look at the ratios on multiple dates. The second is a Trend table, again in the same format of the Correlation table, with the regression trend between 2 dates. For example, A = mB + n over the past 5 years, indicates that A has grown faster by a factor of m. I realize this is may be a personal way of thinking, but feel the extension of the Correlation table with these 2 views could be relatively easy and valuable in identifying where to look in more detail. Interested in any comments, even if it makes no sense!
Thank you for an Interesting set of ideas, Pairing trends and ratios with correlation certainly has merit. We will give some consideration to this in a future version of Stock Rover.
Quick question on correlation. I looked at 4 stocks to see how correlation showed up in price charts, expecting the higher correlation number be reflected by more similar patterns on the price charts. The stocks I used were – AAPL, MSFT, ORCL, JNJ. From the 5 year correlation – highest was AAPL/MSFT at 0.76 Next MSFT ORCL at 0.61 Next AAPL ORCL at 0.53 Next MSFT JNJ at 0.47 Next ORCL JNJ at 0.44 Lowest AAPL JNJ at 0.41 I expected this to be borne out on a 5 year chart comparing the 4, with the higher correlated pairs being closest on shape and trajectory – ie move in the same direction and in the same proportion. Yet if you look at the chart comparing the 4, there seems to be 2 tracks – AAPL and MSFT heading up to 250-300% on broadly similar paths, and ORCL and JNJ heading to 25-50% on more similar paths to each other. The second lowest correlation – ORCL and JNJ at 0.44 is one of the pairs that track most closely. Much lower than MSFT/ORCL at 0.61. Intuitively I would have considered ORCL and JNJ to be a good pair for diversification but it seems they would be more highly correlated from the chart. Am I missing something? Thanks, Jim
Hello Jim, Correlation looks at every day, comparing the relation of more than a thousand data points. It “correlates” movement meaning it is evaluating the tickers’ movement and how often are they moving in the same direction. It’s not a measure of how similar the returns are. Hope this helps.
Ken, thanks for the reply. I don’t want to be a pain (honestly!) but it would seem that if 2 stocks are highly correlated as defined in the article, they would tend to move the same direction and in the same proportion which “should” lead to being more similar looking in the chart and likely end up with similar price gains (returns excluding dividends?). Looked at another way, I would think lower correlation would imply the prices would diverge so be good for diversifying. “If two assets have a correlation value of 1, this means that they have perfect positive correlation—they move in the same direction (in the same proportion) 100% of the time. Perfect negative correlation has a value of -1, and it would mean that the assets move in opposite directions (in the same proportion) 100% of the time”
Looking at the data recently for a 1 year chart and a 1 year correlation, ORCL and JNJ have the lowest correlation at 0.20 and their one year chart looks to be on visual inspection not very correlated at all. On the other hand ORCL and MSFT has the highest correlation at 0.79 and this chart looks to be far more correlated as expected. If you run this, I expect you will see the same thing, providing you use the same time period for the correlation calculations and the chart. Correlations change over time and using different periods for the two would render the analysis invalid.