Moving everything is often a mistake. Overweighting/underweighting various risk assets is at least a bit less risky, and possibly gets higher CAGR over the long run. Plus, it makes it harder emotionally/behaviorally to change gears when the market tells you your hypothesis was wrong.
Fintwit is completely filled with people arguing about market breadth right now. Since Dec, RSP (a halfway decent proxy for breadth) isn't doing so great. The pretty graph people are calling for a drawdown and seem more certain than is probably warranted. The more math oriented people (and the ones who do math and pretty graphs) are saying that breadth sometimes matters, but not enough to warrant a bet against momentum.
I did a quick backtest using momentum (did SPY beat Treasury bills) and an over-simplified BS measure of breadth (did at least 3 sector ETFs beat Treasury bills) over the last 12 months. Literally, are we higher (incl. dividends) than we were 12 months ago compared to Treasury bill returns. Check and trade once every 30 calendar days:
Red line is equity curve for that simple (dumb) strategy. Blue is SPY tr. Yellow is SPY drawdown and grey is strategy drawdown. Growth left axis and drawdowns are right axis.
It isn't over-fit or optimized at all. That graph is the results of the first and only test I have done. I've no idea whether what it would look like for different time frames or using a SMA or using a less silly measure of breadth. 12 month lookback period does have a lot of support in the literature, so there is that.
Last edited by BrianTheMick2; 02-08-2024 at 12:46 AM.
Reason: Explaining the graph seemed like a good idea