Bibliographic record
Abstract
The typical small investor makes on average about 5% a year in investment gains, just half of what the market does. Moreover, most investment funds also underperform compared to the broader market. In two previous papers, we explored how a specific and simple approach to algorithmic trading can help both types of investors achieve strong results. For concreteness, we focused attention on investing in a single variable, in our case, a major US-based index such as SPX and IXIC, individually. For illustrative purposes, we also considered some highly traded tech stock examples. In this paper, we extend our work to study the US sector funds, and for the first time in our series, we also consider trading multiple variables at a time to see how that may differ from our single-variable investment strategy. To simplify matters, we consider an initial equal weighted portfolio of several sector funds, selected randomly without any analysis, and assume that each is traded independently. To simplify further, we do no rebalancing in our study, though that is an essential part of money management according to modern portfolio theory. We nevertheless obtain interesting and informative results. We can typically improve on the performance of most sector funds compared to buy-and-hold (hereafter referred to as BnH). Moreover, as an example of portfolio growth, a portfolio of five equal weighted sector funds in BnH achieves 6.5× growth over 20 years (ending in March 2023), whereas our approach achieves 12.4× growth—nearly 2× better, at roughly half the maximum drawdown. That is a strong win for both professional and home investors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".