The price of Herbalife ($HLF) has been relatively stable the last couple of weeks with the Icahn / Ackman tug-o-war in a tense tie. The historical volatility has been running around 26, but the IVs on the weekly options are relatively rich with the average running around 50. Currently a 35.5/37/39/40.5 iron condor is offering a .575 credit (midpoint) for the 12-April-13 options. The risk reward ratio is about 1.75 to 1 with a worst case loss of .95 and best case profit of around .55 (usually you have to go a little lower than the midpoint price to get the position) with less than 4 days to go. Even KPMG bailing as an auditor hasn’t seemed to shake this week’s standoff.
When the Term Structure Chart Lies to You…
Thursday, April 4th, 2013 | Vance HarwoodUpdate: VIXCentral has enhanced their historical term structure graphs to use days to expiration rather than months for the time axis of the charts. This change eliminates the distortions that I wrote about in the post. VIXCentral’s historical charts now look a lot like the Excel charts that I generated for this post.
Term structure graphs, like the VIX® future charts on VIXCentral.com are very useful.
At a glance you can see futures prices for multiple months and determine whether the market is in backwardation or contango. The slope of the curve gives a quick estimate of how much roll yield you can expect at various parts of the curve—assuming the market mood stays the same.
However some subtle errors sneak in if you aren’t careful.
A typical term structure graph has prices on the vertical axis and calendar months on the horizontal axis.
However futures typically don’t expire on month boundaries, so sometime in the current month futures expire, to be replaced by next month’s as the near term futures. Nothing on the chart indicates this. It’s kind of like the chain on your bike skipping a tooth—if you’re not paying attention you might not notice. In the chart below it appears that on March 20th, 2013 the term structure shifted up almost 1.5 points for most months.
But on the morning of the 20th the March futures expired, so all the futures shifted to the left by one on the chart; the “April” price point on the 19th, became the “March” price point on the 20th. The chart below gives more detail.
The next chart tells the real story of what happened to the term structure between the 19th and the 20th.
The short term portion of the term structure shifted down significantly, and the mid-term futures (July through Oct) barely moved. Whenever comparing curves be wary when you cross contract expiration boundaries.
I ran into this problem when evaluating the performance of VelocityShares’ ZIV from March 5th through April 3th, 2013. The contango on the mid-term futures that ZIV shorts had been steady at around 3% per month since March 5th, however after almost a month ZIV was only up 0.17%. At first I thought it might be volatility drag, because there was a fair amount of chop during that period, but looking at the non-inverse ETN VXZ—it was only down .55% for the period, so if there was volatility drag it wasn’t significant. A look at the calendar based term structure below showed a mid term curve that shifted up strongly over time, suggesting that ZIV should have lost much more than it did.
But this curve is comparing apples and oranges—the April data point has March futures combined with April expiration futures. Correcting for that we get the curve below:
Now we see why ZIV hasn’t moved. The July/Aug/Sep/Oct futures contracts it holds have barely moved from last month’s values. The contango in the term structure has been cancelled by a general rise in prices.
When comparing term structure curves between dates be careful. If you span expiration dates the comparison is probably lying.
Related Posts
- The Volatility Landscape—May 2013
- VIX Futures—Crystal Ball or Insurance Policy?
- Short Volatility on a Roll
- How Meaningful are VIX’s Big Percentage Moves?
- A 3D View of the S&P 500: Price, Time, and Markets
subscribe to Six Figure Investing
Short Volatility on a Roll
Thursday, March 28th, 2013 | Vance HarwoodInvestors betting on the next volatility spike have taken a beating.
The last time the CBOE’s VIX® index closed above 30 was December 8th, 2011. In the 16 months since the split adjusted price of Barclays’ VXX has dropped from 174.84 to 20.34—an 88% drop. None of the 14 other USA based volatility funds that are designed to rise with volatility increases did well, the best being Barclays’ VQT, which eked out a 5.5% gain—while the S&P 500 went up 26%.
The worst of the short volatility funds, Barclays’ XXV went up 21%, the best, VelocityShares’ XIV went up 326%. This sort of performance gathers attention and assets—XIV is now the second biggest volatility fund with $421 million in assets. ZIV, VelocityShares’ mid-term inverse fund quadrupled its assets from $10 million to over $42 million. The chart below shows the assets under management of the current 20 volatility funds—the green bars are 27-March-2013 numbers.
![]() Data from IndexUniverse |
Buying XIV or ZIV isn’t the only way to short volatility. Not counting investing directly in VIX futures there are at least four different ways to go.
The most obvious strategy is to just short one of the long funds.
Direct Short (VXX, UVXY, TVIX, etc.)
- The primary advantage is that there is no compounding errors or path dependencies. It doesn’t matter what price path these securities follow, the end result of the position will be the same. However there are a host of disadvantages.
- Losses can be much greater than your initial investment. If a volatility spike comes along (and they tend to be fast), you can get in trouble in a hurry. No respecter of market hours, the volatility climate can change overnight.
- These shares are usually hard to borrow—other people have the same idea
- You can’t short shares in an IRA account
- The best you can do with your initial position is a 100% gain (security goes to zero). To get more than 100% gain from your initial position you need to short more shares.
- The leverage factor is not in your favor. After starting with a leverage of 1X when you place the short, the leverage goes below one if the security drops in price, and above one the security moves against you.
To address investors that can’t / won’t short, or don’t want to babysit their positions as closely Exchange Traded Products (ETPs) are attractive. There are two different implementations:
- Daily Resetting Inverse Funds (XIV, SVXY, ZIV)
- The primary disadvantage is compounding errors. If the security thrashes around a lot your position will drop if value even if the long side ends up right back where it started. However, there are a lot of advantages.
- You can’t lose more than your initial investment. The fund might terminate, but it won’t go below zero.
- The leverage is a consistent 1X and your profits are unlimited—the daily reset sees to that.
- They are easy to invest in. There’s no problem using these in most IRAs.
- In trending bull markets these funds can do better than their leverage factor.
- True Short Funds (XXV, IVOP)
- The primary advantages of these mostly forgotten Barclay funds is that they do not have compounding errors and you won’t lose more than your original investment. There are a lot of disadvantages.
- Your maximum profit is less than 100%, probably much less, because these funds can’t go higher than $40 per share. There’s a feature…
- Like a true short, these funds have variable leverage. When things are going bad for you the leverage gets higher. Because of this accelerating leverage these types of fund are prone to termination events (IVO), or get dangerously close (IVOP).
At first glance, options are the ideal approach for shorting volatility. They have no compounding error, limited downside, good leverage, and reduced capital costs. The bad news is that Wall Street knows this, so profits are tough to come by.
Option Strategies (VIX options, options on VXX, UVXY, SVXY, etc.)
- For an option based strategy you should figure out how much movement you need in the underlying before your position breaks even. Obviously things like time to expiration and implied volatility complicate this analysis, so I usually start with the easiest case—position value at expiration.
- For example, consider a long put on UVXY using data from 6-Mar-2013:
- UVXY is at 9.47 and the Jan 2014 puts (318 days), with a strike price of 9 are selling for 4.55.
- The prices on the puts look reasonable; the IV is around 150 which is a pretty good match to the 22 day historic volatility which is running in the mid-150s.
- For this trade the UVXY break even point is around 4.55—in January 2014.
- Obviously just breaking even isn’t enough. To get a good profit, say 80% of your investment you need UVXY to drop another 3.64 points, down to $0.81, a 91% decline. That’s certainly possible, even likely for UVXY—unless the market has bearish period during 2013. UVXY can really skyrocket during a sustained correction, so if something similar to the 2010 Flash Crash, or the 2011 Euro worries happens you would be lucky to break even.
- Bottom line, if you’re buying puts you’re probably not minting money. Of course if you predict a period of low volatility correctly then you’d do great, but just randomly buying puts will probably not work that well. If you think you are going to average down your basis during spikes by buying cheap puts then you might be surprised. The prices on the low strike puts will stay surprisingly high because their IV will spike too.
- No sane person would write naked calls on a long volatility product, but spreads could be used to harvest premium and limit potential losses. The big problem here is call skew—the IV of the calls rises rapidly with the higher strikes. Again, Wall Street is ahead of the game and to get interesting profits you’d have to go with wide spreads, increasing your risk considerably.
Eventually there will be another volatility spike that will slam short volatility positions, but predicting when that spike occurs will be tough—and it might be years off. The current set of long volatility products get killed by contango during the 75% of the time that things are quiet, until that changes I think investors are going to be much more successful going short volatility—bailing out when the market gets nervous.
Related Posts
- The Volatility Landscape—May 2013
- VIX Futures—Crystal Ball or Insurance Policy?
- When the Term Structure Chart Lies to You…
- How Meaningful are VIX’s Big Percentage Moves?
- A 3D View of the S&P 500: Price, Time, and Markets
subscribe to Six Figure Investing
How Meaningful are VIX’s Big Percentage Moves?
Friday, March 22nd, 2013 | Vance HarwoodThe last few weeks there have been some eye popping percentage moves in the CBOE’s VIX® index—these moves generated lots of headlines . As an antidote to the hype a few savvy VIX followers noted:
“Remember that $VIX is already a percentage.” Jared Woodward from Condor Options
“The $VIX was up 2.08% today, NOT 18.5%” Mark Sebastian from Option Pit .
I have to admit that my brain spun a bit on Jared’s percent of a percent observation.
Yes, the VIX value is already a percentage—formally it’s an estimate of what volatility will be over the next 30 days that’s scaled up to be a full year’s forecast. So if the VIX is at 11.38 then the forecast is that the S&P 500 will fluctuate within +/-11.38% over the next year. Just like a weather forecast there’s also an estimate of how likely this forecast will be correct—in the case of the VIX it is always the same number—67%.
The VIX jumped 2.06 points from a close of 11.38 on 15-March-2013 to 13.36 on the 16th—that’s an impressive 18.5% move. But the annualized forecast only changed to +/- 13.36%—not something to hyperventilate about.
Percentages are useful for evaluating changes. If I say that XYZ stock is up 5 points it doesn’t mean much to the listener unless they know the starting point or basis. Is it a $10 stock, or a $505 stock? If I report XYZ’s increase as a percentage (e.g., 100% or 1%) I present a clearer picture.
The VIX index is not like a normal stock—it won’t go to zero, and it tends to drift or revert towards a middling value (median of 19.05). The chart below shows the 5847 VIX closing values between 2-Jan-1990 and 20-Mar-2013 summed in 0.1 wide bins between 5 and 85.
What an ugly distribution! Don’t try to use your typical statistical tools (e.g., mean, standard deviation) on this beast! In the last 13 years the VIX has dropped as low as 9.3 only once, but it has closed between 11.1 and 11.2 thirty-nine times. During that time span it has only closed over 50 fifty-six times (0.96%).
Are the recent big percentage moves an indication of high market fear or is it more likely due to the VIX recently revisiting 5 year lows? With low values of the VIX a big percentage jump only requires a relatively small point move (e.g., A 3 point increase on a 10 point basis is +30%).
Pursuing that question I plotted the maximum positive and negative percentage daily swings in the VIX against the VIX value itself.
Not surprisingly the min/ max percentage moves do increase as the VIX level decreases. The next chart shows the min / max point moves (not percentage) in the VIX.
VIX values between 10 and 40 tend to have maximum moves in the +3 / -2.5 range, it doesn’t seem to matter much what the starting value of the VIX is.
Bottom line, history suggests that unless the VIX moves more than +/- 3 points nothing particularly noteworthy is happening.
On the other hand, if you are trading in VIX futures or volatility exchange traded products like VXX, UVXY, CVOL, TVIX, or XIV (full list) you do care about VIX percentages. Big VIX percentage moves usually aren’t matched by these products, but the leveraged products (UVXY, CVOL TVIX) often do a respectable job of tracking the big short term VIX moves.
Related Posts
- The Volatility Landscape—May 2013
- VIX Futures—Crystal Ball or Insurance Policy?
- When the Term Structure Chart Lies to You…
- Short Volatility on a Roll
- A 3D View of the S&P 500: Price, Time, and Markets
subscribe to Six Figure Investing
When You Think Your Exchange Traded Fund is Broken…
Friday, March 15th, 2013 | Vance Harwood
Frequently I see people complaining that their Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) or Exchange Traded Note (ETN) is broken. Occasionally they’re right, but most of the time they’re not. Before complaining, here are some things to look at:
- Are you looking at the right index?
- All Exchange Traded Products (ETPs) track an index, which is identified in their prospectus, and in the fund’s fact sheet. Don’t assume what the index is. For example, the index that VXX tracks is not the CBOE’s VIX® , and UVXY the 2X volatility fund is not designed to track 2X the VIX.
- None of the volatility funds track the VIX, they all use other indexes, because the VIX itself is not investable. Some funds (e.g., UVXY, CVOL) do a semi-decent job of tracking the VIX in the short term, but nobody does a good job in the medium to long run. In fact it’s a killing field.
- Investigate the index once you’ve determined what it is. It’s often not easy; sometimes even getting quotes on indexes is hard. But similar to the hunter’s credo of eating what they kill, investors should understand what they trade.
- Is the fund leveraged/geared (e.g., 2X, 3X), or an inverse fund?
- Leveraged or inverse funds typically do a good job of delivering their target performance on a daily basis, but usually fall far short with longer time frames. The reason is compounding error, or path dependency. It erodes the value of these funds in choppy markets.
- For example if a non-leveraged fund (e.g., SPY) goes up 10% one day and down 9.09% the next it ends up even. However the 2X fund (SSO) and the inverse fund (SH) both end up down 1.8%
- 2X Fund: (10*(2*10%)=12, 12*(2*-9.09%) = 9.82
- -1X Fund: (10* (-10%) =9, 9 *(+9.09%) = 9.82
- In strongly trending markets compounding errors can boost the return of a leveraged / inverse fund beyond its multiplier. See Hat Trick For Leveraged / Inverse Funds.
- What are the timestamps of the quotes you are looking at?
- Unless your fund is very active the quote you’re using might be older than you think. For example the fund’s closing value might reflect a trade that happened hours before market close. If you look at an intra-day chart of your fund including volume you should be able to see when the trades occurred and the quotes updated. Typically the intraday indicative value (“IV”) quote is a more accurate way of getting the actual fund value. It’s updated every 15 seconds during market hours.
- The IV quote tickers are not standardized. Yahoo finance uses a “^” prefix and a “_IV” suffix to get the IV value (e.g., ^VXX_IV). For more on IV quote symbols see Trading ETFs Without Getting Fleeced.
- Are the markets you’re comparing closing at the same time?
- VIX futures markets at the CBOE Futures exchange trade for 15 minutes after the equities markets close. The volatility ETPs are based on volatility indexes that are based on futures settlement values. Eli from VIX Central points out that these settlement values can come out well after 4:15. The final IV update for the day appears to reflect these late settlements—giving us the real closing value for the volatility funds.
- Is the trading value of the funds diverging significantly from its index or IV value?
- If this is the case, your fund might be broken, but before we pursue that there are a couple thing to check:
- Are the markets for the underlying assets closed (e.g., Asian or European stocks)? If so those indexes can’t update so some divergence during USA trading hours should be expected.
- Are the securities for the underlying assets illiquid or rarely traded (e.g., high yield corporate bonds)? If so the trading value might reflect the market’s estimation of what those assets are worth, rather than the last trade, or published bid/ask quotations.
- If this is the case, your fund might be broken, but before we pursue that there are a couple thing to check:
If you’ve checked through all the items above and things still look wrong your fund may indeed be broken. Historically the only pathology for ETF/ETNs is to have their share creation process halted or somehow limited. Some of the stated reasons for doing this are:
- Market closures (e.g., the Egyptian stock market closed for 2 months in 2011: EGPT, )
- Regulatory hurdles, where permission to issue new shares is delayed UNG, UNL, DNO
- Issuer “internal limits on the size of ETNs”, TVIX
- Commodity position limits, where the exchanges won’t allow the funds to accumulate more contracts UNG
- Self-imposed market cap limits AMJ
In all these cases the share redemption process has been left intact. In practice if share creation is stopped and redemption is working the ETP’s price can rise higher than the index, but not drop significantly lower than the index. Both UNG and TVIX were expensive object lessons for the people that didn’t understand this.
NYSE EURONEXT has a good webpage that lists all the funds that currently have suspended or put limits on share creation.
Credit Suisse’s TVIX has restarted limited share creation processes, but its requirements are so expensive the market makers still allow the fund to climb as much as 15% higher than its IV value—I consider that broken.
Related Posts
- How Does VXX Work?
- TVIX Gets a New Lease on Life
- TVIX’s Fate—Fade to Black?
- Barclays’ VXX—Not as Short Term as You Think
- How to Vaporize $277 Million in Market Capitalization
subscribe to Six Figure Investing



















