I did have an idea that did not work. Take a continuous indicator of regime change a use it a
$vol or gmv modulator over time. Say, something that says “if the value is above one, run at full volatility. Below zero go to cash.” A large class is made by indicators of the form a*drawdown(t) b*t. This includes stop-loss, cusum, and approximate others. It took me two full days (and a lot of claude code) to determine that the only case that “works” is b=0. I.e., stop-loss. “Works” means that a solution exists and is nontrivial. So there is something special about stop-loss. My tentative recommendation is *not to use statistics used for tests of hypothesis outside of the intended application.* Obvious, maybe.
And another surprise. Stop-loss reduces sharpe, but only up to a theoretical max reduction of 50%. I feel that extensions to quadratic costs are within reach. I am writing this down and sending to my colleagues (esp. the sys PMs).
Notes: 1. The model is in continuous time. The math generated by claude seems correct but is a bit above me. 2. I thought of this problem last Sunday. This took two days of math and code-assisted simulations. I could ask questions between meetings, and at night. On my own, I don’t know if I could have gotten an answer ever. 3. There are still five days this week. Gotta hurry up. I wonder what we’ll find out.
There is no time like the present, people.