Skip to main content
Track Index proxy comparison
18 / 19
Library

2020issue C038-13

Constructing pre-listing paths for new fund sleeves

When a newly listed sleeve has too little history, an index-proxy and a linear-regression of daily percentage changes can stitch a synthetic price path. Walk-forward-analysis then runs one weeks-to-months procedure across the joined series.

  • A weeks-to-months study that needs only percentage changes can rebuild earlier prices from a closely tracking index-proxy when tracking error is small.
  • The synthetic price path is not usable for daytrading or for any procedure that depends on the vehicle's actual price level rather than its percentage change.
  • Linear-regression of daily percentage changes supplies measured beta and a slippage adjustment; leaving average drag out can overstate a later system test.
  • After listing, walk-forward-analysis compounds the product's own daily price ratios so one entry, exit, and abstention procedure runs across a single continuous series.
Entries in this reading3 entries

Too little live history

Newly listed funds and exchange-traded products often leave too little history for testing. A weeks-to-months study that needs only percentage changes can rebuild earlier prices from a closely tracking index when tracking error is small.

An index-proxy is a longer-lived benchmark or highly correlated vehicle used in place of a short-history fund so an intermediate-horizon sleeve can be studied in a broader market path.

Building the synthetic price path

When the product tracks its intended index with correlation near 1.0, each synthetic price is the prior price times one plus intended beta times the index's one-day return. Inverse products use a negative beta.

A synthetic price path is that constructed daily series. It applies a stated or measured beta, and often a slippage term, to a proxy's returns so a new vehicle can be examined over a longer window.

Beta, drag, and the slippage adjustment

Average drag versus the index can run to one or more percentage points per year. Expenses, trading costs, leverage costs, and dividend treatment are bundled as slippage. Leaving that drag out of the reconstruction can overstate a later system test.

A slippage adjustment is a daily additive term that absorbs average under- or outperformance versus the proxy from those same sources, plus tracking error.

Linear-regression is a least-squares fit of the listed product's daily percentage changes on the proxy's daily percentage changes. The slope is measured beta. The intercept is average daily slippage.

One 1.5-beta fund showed a daily intercept of -0.0021 percent, or -0.53 percent over 252 sessions, as an average rather than a daily constant.

When a surrogate fund stands in

If the target has no declared index, a longer-lived highly correlated surrogate can serve as the proxy. A surrogate fund is a different but highly correlated vehicle, often an older open-end fund used for a newer exchange-traded product.

Correlation above 0.9 is preferred. Correlation above 0.8 is treated as a floor.

A 2x health-care listing

For a 2x health-care product listed on 2/2/2007, a same-benchmark unleveraged index series produced beta 1.96 and yearly slippage of +1.7 percent. A health-care mutual fund that began on 9/1/1988 produced beta 2.03 and yearly slippage of -1.15 percent.

A fully corrected synthetic path tracked the live 2x series more closely than a naive 2x scale of the same index.

One procedure on the joined series

After listing, the path is continued by compounding the product's own successive daily price ratios, with distributions and splits treated consistently.

Walk-forward-analysis is a single continuous test of entry, exit, and abstention rules across that stitched series. It uses reconstructed returns before listing and the product's own daily changes after listing, so a weeks-to-months procedure can be walked across one continuous series.

Educational research material, not investment advice. Historical source context does not establish present-day performance.
18 of 19 in the Index proxy comparison track
202059-59 pp.Next on Index proxy comparisonA sleeve after cost-drag, judged by an index-proxy, sized in a stock-bond mixCost-drag from sales charges, turnover, taxes, management and marketing fees, and idle cash is described as compounding over time, so it is reviewed before return figures are compared.
All readings on this track · 19 readings
  1. 1992Country regime inside global allocation and index proxies
  2. 1992Intermarket confirmation for long-duration bond-fund timing
  3. 1993Paired bond and currency proxies with weekly crossover confirmation
  4. 1995Walk-forward evaluation of a municipal futures timed fund switch
  5. 1999Regime-gated allocation with bounded index leverage
  6. 1999Testing trend following with cash-price controls
  7. 2002A capital-preservation case for index-proxy allocation
  8. 2003A shared weekly-average grid for four Asian index proxies
  9. 2005Index-etf-core weights, a growth-index-clock, and an implementation-cost-ledger
  10. 2005European index proxies as one weekly-regime panel
  11. 2006Index-fund proxies as intermarket regime instruments
  12. 2006Constructing metal option exposure with mining proxies and implied volatility
  13. 2010Matched straddles on levered versus unlevered index proxies
  14. 2013Inheritance as an index-proxy and allocation case
  15. 2014Headline index levels mix a changing basket with a changing divisor
  16. 2017Screening ETFs by liquidity, index fit, and rank
  17. 2019Leveraged commodity proxies fail the futures test
  18. 2020Constructing pre-listing paths for new fund sleeves
  19. 2020A sleeve after cost-drag, judged by an index-proxy, sized in a stock-bond mix
All 28 readings tagged Index proxy comparison
Also on Index proxy comparison5 readings