Avoid looping to calculate simple moving average crossing-derived signals - python

I would like to calculate buy and sell signals for stocks based on simple moving average (SMA) crossing. A buy signal should be given as soon as the SMA_short is higher than the SMA_long (i.e., SMA_difference > 0). In order to avoid that the position is sold too quickly, I would like to have a sell signal only once the SMA_short has moved beyond the cross considerably (i.e., SMA_difference < -1), and, importantly, even if this would be for longer than one day.
I managed, by this help to implement it (see below):
Buy and sell signals are indicated by in and out.
Column Position takes first the buy_limit into account.
In Position_extended an in is then set for all the cases where the SMA_short just crossed through the SMA_long (SMA_short < SMA_long) but SMA_short > -1. For this it is taking the Position extended of i-1 into account in case the crossing was more than one day ago but SMA_short remained: 0 > SMA_short > -1.
Python code
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
index = pd.date_range('20180101', periods=6)
df = pd.DataFrame(index=index)
df["SMA_short"] = [9,10,11,10,10,9]
df["SMA_long"] = 10
df["SMA_difference"] = df["SMA_short"] - df["SMA_long"]
buy_limit = 0
sell_limit = -1
df["Position"] = np.where((df["SMA_difference"] > buy_limit),"in","out")
df["Position_extended"] = df["Position"]
for i in range(1,len(df)):
df.loc[index[i],"Position_extended"] = \
np.where((df.loc[index[i], "SMA_difference"] > sell_limit) \
& (df.loc[index[i-1],"Position_extended"] == "in") \
,"in",df.loc[index[i],'Position'])
print df
The result is:
SMA_short SMA_long SMA_difference Position Position_extended
2018-01-01 9 10 -1 out out
2018-01-02 10 10 0 out out
2018-01-03 11 10 1 in in
2018-01-04 10 10 0 out in
2018-01-05 10 10 0 out in
2018-01-06 9 10 -1 out out
The code works, however, it makes use of a for loop, which slows down the script considerably and becomes inapplicable in the larger context of this analysis. As SMA crossing is such a highly used tool, I was wondering whether somebody could see a more elegant and faster solution for this.

Essentially you are trying to get rid of the ambivalent zero entries by propagating the last non-zero value. Similar to a zero-order hold. You can do so my first replacing the zero values by NaNs and then interpolating over the latter using ffill.
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
index = pd.date_range('20180101', periods=6)
df = pd.DataFrame(index=index)
df["SMA_short"] = [9,10,11,10,10,9]
df["SMA_long"] = 10
df["SMA_difference"] = df["SMA_short"] - df["SMA_long"]
buy_limit = 0
sell_limit = -1
df["ZOH"] = df["SMA_difference"].replace(0,np.nan).ffill()
df["Position"] = np.where((df["ZOH"] > buy_limit),"in","out")
print df
results in:
SMA_short SMA_long SMA_difference ZOH Position
2018-01-01 9 10 -1 -1.0 out
2018-01-02 10 10 0 -1.0 out
2018-01-03 11 10 1 1.0 in
2018-01-04 10 10 0 1.0 in
2018-01-05 10 10 0 1.0 in
2018-01-06 9 10 -1 -1.0 out

If row T requires as input a value calculated in row T-1, then you'll probably want to do an iterative calculation. Typically backtesting is done by iterating through price data in sequence. You can calculate some signals just based on the state of the market, but you won't know the portfolio value, the pnl, or the portfolio positions unless you start at the beginning and work your way forward in time. That's why if you look at a site like Quantopian, the backtests always run from from start date to end date.

Related

Reduce inside of an apply

I'm not 100% if using apply + functools.reduce is the best approach for this problem, but I'm not sure exactly if multi-indices can be leveraged to accomplish this goal.
Background
The data is a list of activities performed by accounts.
user_id - the user's ID
activity - the string that represents the activity
performed_at - the timestamp when the activity was completed at
The Goal
To calculate the time spent between 2 statuses. An account can look like this:
user_id
activity
performed_at
1
activated
2020-01-01
1
deactivated
2020-01-02
1
activated
2020-01-03
In this example, the user was deactivated from January 1st to January 2nd, so the total "Time Deactivated" for this account would be 1 day.
Resulting Dataframe
Here's an example of the output I'm trying to achieve. The time_spent_deactivated column is just the addition of all deactivation periods on all accounts grouped by account.
user_id
time_spent_deactivated
1
24 hours
2
15 hours
3
72 hours
My Attempt
I'm trying to leverage .apply with the .groupby on the user_id, but I'm stuck at the point of calculating the total time spent in the deactivated state:
def calculate_deactivation_time(activities):
# reduce the given dataframe here
# this is totally ActiveRecord & JS inspired but it's the easiest way for me to describe how I expect to solve this
return activities.reduce(sum, current_row):
if current_row['activity'] == 'deactivated':
# find next "activated" activity and compute the delta
reactivated_row = activities.after(current_row).where(activity, '=', 'activated')
return sum + (reactivated_row['performed_at'] - current_row['performed_at'])
grouped = activities.groupby('user_id')
grouped.apply(calculate_deactivation_time)
Is there a better approach to doing this? I tried to use functools.reduce to compute the total time spent deactivated, but it doesn't support dataframes out of the box.
I have given it some more thought and I think this is what you are looking for.
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
def myfunc(x):
df = x
# Shift columns activity_start and performed_at_start
df['performed_at_end'] = df['performed_at_start'].shift(-1)
df['activity_end'] = df['activity_start'].shift(-1)
# Make combinations of activity start-end
df['activity_start_end'] = df['activity_start']+'-'+df['activity_end']
# Take only those that start with deactivated, end with activated
df = df[df['activity_start_end']=='deactivated-activated']
# Drop all that don't have performed_at_end date (does not exist)
df = df[~pd.isna(df['performed_at_end'])]
# Compute time difference in days, then return sum of all delta's
df['delta'] = (df['performed_at_end']-df['performed_at_start'])/np.timedelta64(1,'D')
return df['delta'].sum()
# Example dataframe
df = pd.DataFrame({'UserId': [1]*4+[2]*2+[3]*1,
'activity_start': ['activated', 'deactivated', 'activated', 'deactivated', 'deactivated', 'activated', 'activated'],
'performed_at_start': [pd.Timestamp(2020,1,1), pd.Timestamp(2020,1,2), pd.Timestamp(2020,1,6), pd.Timestamp(2020,1,8),
pd.Timestamp(2020,1,1), pd.Timestamp(2020,1,3), pd.Timestamp(2020,1,1)]})
# Show dataframe
print(df)
UserId activity_start performed_at_start
0 1 activated 2020-01-01
1 1 deactivated 2020-01-02
2 1 activated 2020-01-06
3 1 deactivated 2020-01-08
4 2 deactivated 2020-01-01
5 2 activated 2020-01-03
6 3 activated 2020-01-01
# Compute result
res = (
df.groupby(by='UserId')
.apply(lambda x: myfunc(x)).reset_index(drop=False)
)
res.columns = ['UserId', 'time_spent_deactivated']
# Show result
print(res)
UserId time_spent_deactivated
0 1 4.0
1 2 2.0
2 3 0.0

Get the daily percentages of values that fall within certain ranges

I have a large dataset of test results where I have a columns to represent the date a test was completed and number of hours it took to complete the test i.e.
df = pd.DataFrame({'Completed':['21/03/2020','22/03/2020','21/03/2020','24/03/2020','24/03/2020',], 'Hours_taken':[23,32,8,73,41]})
I have a months worth of test data and the tests can take anywhere from a couple of hours to a couple of days. I want to try and work out, for each day, what percentage of tests fall within the ranges of 24hrs/48hrs/72hrs ect. to complete, up to the percentage of tests that took longer than a week.
I've been able to work it out generally without taking the dates into account like so:
Lab_tests['one-day'] = Lab_tests['hours'].between(0,24)
Lab_tests['two-day'] = Lab_tests['hours'].between(24,48)
Lab_tests['GreaterThanWeek'] = Lab_tests['hours'] >168
one = Lab_tests['1-day'].value_counts().loc[True]
two = Lab_tests['two-day'].value_counts().loc[True]
eight = Lab_tests['GreaterThanWeek'].value_counts().loc[True]
print(one/10407 * 100)
print(two/10407 * 100)
print(eight/10407 * 100)
Ideally I'd like to represent the percentages in another dataset where the rows represent the dates and the columns represent the data ranges. But I can't work out how to take what I've done and modify it to get these percentages for each date. Is this possible to do in pandas?
This question, Counting qualitative values based on the date range in Pandas is quite similar but the fact that I'm counting the occurrences in specified ranges is throwing me off and I haven't been able to get a solution out of it.
Bonus Question
I'm sure you've noticed my current code is not the most elegant thing in the world, is the a cleaner way to do what I've done above, as I'm doing that for every data range that I want?
Edit:
So the Output for the sample data given would look like so:
df = pd.DataFrame({'1-day':[100,0,0,0], '2-day':[0,100,0,50],'3-day':[0,0,0,0],'4-day':[0,0,0,50]},index=['21/03/2020','22/03/2020','23/03/2020','24/03/2020'])
You're almost there. You just need to do a few final steps:
First, cast your bools to ints, so that you can sum them.
Lab_tests['one-day'] = Lab_tests['hours'].between(0,24).astype(int)
Lab_tests['two-day'] = Lab_tests['hours'].between(24,48).astype(int)
Lab_tests['GreaterThanWeek'] = (Lab_tests['hours'] > 168).astype(int)
Completed hours one-day two-day GreaterThanWeek
0 21/03/2020 23 1 0 0
1 22/03/2020 32 0 1 0
2 21/03/2020 8 1 0 0
3 24/03/2020 73 0 0 0
4 24/03/2020 41 0 1 0
Then, drop the hours column and roll the rest up to the level of Completed:
Lab_tests['one-day'] = Lab_tests['hours'].between(0,24).astype(int)
Lab_tests['two-day'] = Lab_tests['hours'].between(24,48).astype(int)
Lab_tests['GreaterThanWeek'] = (Lab_tests['hours'] > 168).astype(int)
Lab_tests.drop('hours', axis=1).groupby('Completed').sum()
one-day two-day GreaterThanWeek
Completed
21/03/2020 2 0 0
22/03/2020 0 1 0
24/03/2020 0 1 0
EDIT: To get to percent, you just need to divide each column by the sum of all three. You can sum columns by defining the axis of the sum:
...
daily_totals = Lab_tests.drop('hours', axis=1).groupby('Completed').sum()
daily_totals.sum(axis=1)
Completed
21/03/2020 2
22/03/2020 1
24/03/2020 1
dtype: int64
Then divide the daily totals dataframe by the column-wise sum of the daily totals (again, we use axis to define whether each value of the series will be the divisor for a row or a column.):
daily_totals.div(daily_totals.sum(axis=1), axis=0)
one-day two-day GreaterThanWeek
Completed
21/03/2020 1.0 0.0 0.0
22/03/2020 0.0 1.0 0.0
24/03/2020 0.0 1.0 0.0

Inserting missing numbers in dataframe

I have a program that ideally measures the temperature every second. However, in reality this does not happen. Sometimes, it skips a second or it breaks down for 400 seconds and then decides to start recording again. This leaves gaps in my 2-by-n dataframe, where ideally n = 86400 (the amount of seconds in a day). I want to apply some sort of moving/rolling average to it to get a nicer plot, but if I do that to the "raw" datafiles, the amount of data points becomes less. This is shown here, watch the x-axis. I know the "nice data" doesn't look nice yet; I'm just playing with some values.
So, I want to implement a data cleaning method, which adds data to the dataframe. I thought about it, but don't know how to implement it. I thought of it as follows:
If the index is not equal to the time, then we need to add a number, at time = index. If this gap is only 1 value, then the average of the previous number and the next number will do for me. But if it is bigger, say 100 seconds are missing, then a linear function needs to be made, which will increase or decrease the value steadily.
So I guess a training set could be like this:
index time temp
0 0 20.10
1 1 20.20
2 2 20.20
3 4 20.10
4 100 22.30
Here, I would like to get a value for index 3, time 3 and the values missing between time = 4 and time = 100. I'm sorry about my formatting skills, I hope it is clear.
How would I go about programming this?
Use merge with complete time column and then interpolate:
# Create your table
time = np.array([e for e in np.arange(20) if np.random.uniform() > 0.6])
temp = np.random.uniform(20, 25, size=len(time))
temps = pd.DataFrame([time, temp]).T
temps.columns = ['time', 'temperature']
>>> temps
time temperature
0 4.0 21.662352
1 10.0 20.904659
2 15.0 20.345858
3 18.0 24.787389
4 19.0 20.719487
The above is a random table generated with missing time data.
# modify it
filled = pd.Series(np.arange(temps.iloc[0,0], temps.iloc[-1, 0]+1))
filled = filled.to_frame()
filled.columns = ['time'] # Create a fully filled time column
merged = pd.merge(filled, temps, on='time', how='left') # merge it with original, time without temperature will be null
merged.temperature = merged.temperature.interpolate() # fill nulls linearly.
# Alternatively, use reindex, this does the same thing.
final = temps.set_index('time').reindex(np.arange(temps.time.min(),temps.time.max()+1)).reset_index()
final.temperature = final.temperature.interpolate()
>>> merged # or final
time temperature
0 4.0 21.662352
1 5.0 21.536070
2 6.0 21.409788
3 7.0 21.283505
4 8.0 21.157223
5 9.0 21.030941
6 10.0 20.904659
7 11.0 20.792898
8 12.0 20.681138
9 13.0 20.569378
10 14.0 20.457618
11 15.0 20.345858
12 16.0 21.826368
13 17.0 23.306879
14 18.0 24.787389
15 19.0 20.719487
First you can set the second values to actual time values as such:
df.index = pd.to_datetime(df['time'], unit='s')
After which you can use pandas' built-in time series operations to resample and fill in the missing values:
df = df.resample('s').interpolate('time')
Optionally, if you still want to do some smoothing you can use the following operation for that:
df.rolling(5, center=True, win_type='hann').mean()
Which will smooth with a 5 element wide Hanning window. Note: any window-based smoothing will cost you value points at the edges.
Now your dataframe will have datetimes (including date) as index. This is required for the resample method. If you want to lose the date, you can simply use:
df.index = df.index.time

Python Pandas Running Totals with Resets

I would like to perform the following task. Given a 2 columns (good and bad) I would like to replace any rows for the two columns with a running total. Here is an example of the current dataframe along with the desired data frame.
EDIT: I should have added what my intentions are. I am trying to create equally binned (in this case 20) variable using a continuous variable as the input. I know the pandas cut and qcut functions are available, however the returned results will have zeros for the good/bad rate (needed to compute the weight of evidence and information value). Zeros in either the numerator or denominator will not allow the mathematical calculations to work.
d={'AAA':range(0,20),
'good':[3,3,13,20,28,32,59,72,64,52,38,24,17,19,12,5,7,6,2,0],
'bad':[0,0,1,1,1,0,6,8,10,6,6,10,5,8,2,2,1,3,1,1]}
df=pd.DataFrame(data=d)
print(df)
Here is an explanation of what I need to do to the above dataframe.
Roughly speaking, anytime I encounter a zero for either column, I need to use a running total for the column which is not zero to the next row which has a non-zero value for the column that contained zeros.
Here is the desired output:
dd={'AAA':range(0,16),
'good':[19,20,60,59,72,64,52,38,24,17,19,12,5,7,6,2],
'bad':[1,1,1,6,8,10,6,6,10,5,8,2,2,1,3,2]}
desired_df=pd.DataFrame(data=dd)
print(desired_df)
The basic idea of my solution is to create a column from a cumsum over non-zero values in order to get the zero values with the next non zero value into one group. Then you can use groupby + sum to get your the desired values.
two_good = df.groupby((df['bad']!=0).cumsum().shift(1).fillna(0))['good'].sum()
two_bad = df.groupby((df['good']!=0).cumsum().shift(1).fillna(0))['bad'].sum()
two_good = two_good.loc[two_good!=0].reset_index(drop=True)
two_bad = two_bad.loc[two_bad!=0].reset_index(drop=True)
new_df = pd.concat([two_bad, two_good], axis=1).dropna()
print(new_df)
bad good
0 1 19.0
1 1 20.0
2 1 28.0
3 6 91.0
4 8 72.0
5 10 64.0
6 6 52.0
7 6 38.0
8 10 24.0
9 5 17.0
10 8 19.0
11 2 12.0
12 2 5.0
13 1 7.0
14 3 6.0
15 1 2.0
This code treats your etch case of trailing zeros different from your desired output, it simple cuts it off. You'd have to add some extra code to catch that one with a different logic.
P.Tillmann. I appreciate your assistance with this. For the more advanced readers I would assume you to find this code appalling, as I do. I would be more than happy to take any recommendation which makes this more streamlined.
d={'AAA':range(0,20),
'good':[3,3,13,20,28,32,59,72,64,52,38,24,17,19,12,5,7,6,2,0],
'bad':[0,0,1,1,1,0,6,8,10,6,6,10,5,8,2,2,1,3,1,1]}
df=pd.DataFrame(data=d)
print(df)
row_good=0
row_bad=0
row_bad_zero_count=0
row_good_zero_count=0
row_out='NO'
crappy_fix=pd.DataFrame()
for index,row in df.iterrows():
if row['good']==0 or row['bad']==0:
row_bad += row['bad']
row_good += row['good']
row_bad_zero_count += 1
row_good_zero_count += 1
output_ind='1'
row_out='NO'
elif index+1 < len(df) and (df.loc[index+1,'good']==0 or df.loc[index+1,'bad']==0):
row_bad=row['bad']
row_good=row['good']
output_ind='2'
row_out='NO'
elif (row_bad_zero_count > 1 or row_good_zero_count > 1) and row['good']!=0 and row['bad']!=0:
row_bad += row['bad']
row_good += row['good']
row_bad_zero_count=0
row_good_zero_count=0
row_out='YES'
output_ind='3'
else:
row_bad=row['bad']
row_good=row['good']
row_bad_zero_count=0
row_good_zero_count=0
row_out='YES'
output_ind='4'
if ((row['good']==0 or row['bad']==0)
and (index > 0 and (df.loc[index-1,'good']!=0 or df.loc[index-1,'bad']!=0))
and row_good != 0 and row_bad != 0):
row_out='YES'
if row_out=='YES':
temp_dict={'AAA':row['AAA'],
'good':row_good,
'bad':row_bad}
crappy_fix=crappy_fix.append([temp_dict],ignore_index=True)
print(str(row['AAA']),'-',
str(row['good']),'-',
str(row['bad']),'-',
str(row_good),'-',
str(row_bad),'-',
str(row_good_zero_count),'-',
str(row_bad_zero_count),'-',
row_out,'-',
output_ind)
print(crappy_fix)

Finding start of the maximum drawdown in Pandas [duplicate]

Maximum Drawdown is a common risk metric used in quantitative finance to assess the largest negative return that has been experienced.
Recently, I became impatient with the time to calculate max drawdown using my looped approach.
def max_dd_loop(returns):
"""returns is assumed to be a pandas series"""
max_so_far = None
start, end = None, None
r = returns.add(1).cumprod()
for r_start in r.index:
for r_end in r.index:
if r_start < r_end:
current = r.ix[r_end] / r.ix[r_start] - 1
if (max_so_far is None) or (current < max_so_far):
max_so_far = current
start, end = r_start, r_end
return max_so_far, start, end
I'm familiar with the common perception that a vectorized solution would be better.
The questions are:
can I vectorize this problem?
What does this solution look like?
How beneficial is it?
Edit
I modified Alexander's answer into the following function:
def max_dd(returns):
"""Assumes returns is a pandas Series"""
r = returns.add(1).cumprod()
dd = r.div(r.cummax()).sub(1)
mdd = dd.min()
end = dd.argmin()
start = r.loc[:end].argmax()
return mdd, start, end
df_returns is assumed to be a dataframe of returns, where each column is a seperate strategy/manager/security, and each row is a new date (e.g. monthly or daily).
cum_returns = (1 + df_returns).cumprod()
drawdown = 1 - cum_returns.div(cum_returns.cummax())
I had first suggested using .expanding() window but that's obviously not necessary with the .cumprod() and .cummax() built ins to calculate max drawdown up to any given point:
df = pd.DataFrame(data={'returns': np.random.normal(0.001, 0.05, 1000)}, index=pd.date_range(start=date(2016,1,1), periods=1000, freq='D'))
df = pd.DataFrame(data={'returns': np.random.normal(0.001, 0.05, 1000)},
index=pd.date_range(start=date(2016, 1, 1), periods=1000, freq='D'))
df['cumulative_return'] = df.returns.add(1).cumprod().subtract(1)
df['max_drawdown'] = df.cumulative_return.add(1).div(df.cumulative_return.cummax().add(1)).subtract(1)
returns cumulative_return max_drawdown
2016-01-01 -0.014522 -0.014522 0.000000
2016-01-02 -0.022769 -0.036960 -0.022769
2016-01-03 0.026735 -0.011214 0.000000
2016-01-04 0.054129 0.042308 0.000000
2016-01-05 -0.017562 0.024004 -0.017562
2016-01-06 0.055254 0.080584 0.000000
2016-01-07 0.023135 0.105583 0.000000
2016-01-08 -0.072624 0.025291 -0.072624
2016-01-09 -0.055799 -0.031919 -0.124371
2016-01-10 0.129059 0.093020 -0.011363
2016-01-11 0.056123 0.154364 0.000000
2016-01-12 0.028213 0.186932 0.000000
2016-01-13 0.026914 0.218878 0.000000
2016-01-14 -0.009160 0.207713 -0.009160
2016-01-15 -0.017245 0.186886 -0.026247
2016-01-16 0.003357 0.190869 -0.022979
2016-01-17 -0.009284 0.179813 -0.032050
2016-01-18 -0.027361 0.147533 -0.058533
2016-01-19 -0.058118 0.080841 -0.113250
2016-01-20 -0.049893 0.026914 -0.157492
2016-01-21 -0.013382 0.013173 -0.168766
2016-01-22 -0.020350 -0.007445 -0.185681
2016-01-23 -0.085842 -0.092648 -0.255584
2016-01-24 0.022406 -0.072318 -0.238905
2016-01-25 0.044079 -0.031426 -0.205356
2016-01-26 0.045782 0.012917 -0.168976
2016-01-27 -0.018443 -0.005764 -0.184302
2016-01-28 0.021461 0.015573 -0.166797
2016-01-29 -0.062436 -0.047836 -0.218819
2016-01-30 -0.013274 -0.060475 -0.229189
... ... ... ...
2018-08-28 0.002124 0.559122 -0.478738
2018-08-29 -0.080303 0.433921 -0.520597
2018-08-30 -0.009798 0.419871 -0.525294
2018-08-31 -0.050365 0.348359 -0.549203
2018-09-01 0.080299 0.456631 -0.513004
2018-09-02 0.013601 0.476443 -0.506381
2018-09-03 -0.009678 0.462153 -0.511158
2018-09-04 -0.026805 0.422960 -0.524262
2018-09-05 0.040832 0.481062 -0.504836
2018-09-06 -0.035492 0.428496 -0.522411
2018-09-07 -0.011206 0.412489 -0.527762
2018-09-08 0.069765 0.511031 -0.494817
2018-09-09 0.049546 0.585896 -0.469787
2018-09-10 -0.060201 0.490423 -0.501707
2018-09-11 -0.018913 0.462235 -0.511131
2018-09-12 -0.094803 0.323611 -0.557477
2018-09-13 0.025736 0.357675 -0.546088
2018-09-14 -0.049468 0.290514 -0.568542
2018-09-15 0.018146 0.313932 -0.560713
2018-09-16 -0.034118 0.269104 -0.575700
2018-09-17 0.012191 0.284576 -0.570527
2018-09-18 -0.014888 0.265451 -0.576921
2018-09-19 0.041180 0.317562 -0.559499
2018-09-20 0.001988 0.320182 -0.558623
2018-09-21 -0.092268 0.198372 -0.599348
2018-09-22 -0.015386 0.179933 -0.605513
2018-09-23 -0.021231 0.154883 -0.613888
2018-09-24 -0.023536 0.127701 -0.622976
2018-09-25 0.030160 0.161712 -0.611605
2018-09-26 0.025528 0.191368 -0.601690
Given a time series of returns, we need to evaluate the aggregate return for every combination of starting point to ending point.
The first trick is to convert a time series of returns into a series of return indices. Given a series of return indices, I can calculate the return over any sub-period with the return index at the beginning ri_0 and at the end ri_1. The calculation is: ri_1 / ri_0 - 1.
The second trick is to produce a second series of inverses of return indices. If r is my series of return indices then 1 / r is my series of inverses.
The third trick is to take the matrix product of r * (1 / r).Transpose.
r is an n x 1 matrix. (1 / r).Transpose is a 1 x n matrix. The resulting product contains every combination of ri_j / ri_k. Just subtract 1 and I've actually got returns.
The fourth trick is to ensure that I'm constraining my denominator to represent periods prior to those being represented by the numerator.
Below is my vectorized function.
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
def max_dd(returns):
# make into a DataFrame so that it is a 2-dimensional
# matrix such that I can perform an nx1 by 1xn matrix
# multiplication and end up with an nxn matrix
r = pd.DataFrame(returns).add(1).cumprod()
# I copy r.T to ensure r's index is not the same
# object as 1 / r.T's columns object
x = r.dot(1 / r.T.copy()) - 1
x.columns.name, x.index.name = 'start', 'end'
# let's make sure we only calculate a return when start
# is less than end.
y = x.stack().reset_index()
y = y[y.start < y.end]
# my choice is to return the periods and the actual max
# draw down
z = y.set_index(['start', 'end']).iloc[:, 0]
return z.min(), z.argmin()[0], z.argmin()[1]
How does this perform?
for the vectorized solution I ran 10 iterations over the time series of lengths [10, 50, 100, 150, 200]. The time it took is below:
10: 0.032 seconds
50: 0.044 seconds
100: 0.055 seconds
150: 0.082 seconds
200: 0.047 seconds
The same test for the looped solution is below:
10: 0.153 seconds
50: 3.169 seconds
100: 12.355 seconds
150: 27.756 seconds
200: 49.726 seconds
Edit
Alexander's answer provides superior results. Same test using modified code
10: 0.000 seconds
50: 0.000 seconds
100: 0.004 seconds
150: 0.007 seconds
200: 0.008 seconds
I modified his code into the following function:
def max_dd(returns):
r = returns.add(1).cumprod()
dd = r.div(r.cummax()).sub(1)
mdd = drawdown.min()
end = drawdown.argmin()
start = r.loc[:end].argmax()
return mdd, start, end
I recently had a similar issue, but instead of a global MDD, I was required to find the MDD for the interval after each peak. Also, in my case, I was supposed to take the MDD of each strategy alone and thus wasn't required to apply the cumprod. My vectorized implementation is also based on Investopedia.
def calc_MDD(networth):
df = pd.Series(networth, name="nw").to_frame()
max_peaks_idx = df.nw.expanding(min_periods=1).apply(lambda x: x.argmax()).fillna(0).astype(int)
df['max_peaks_idx'] = pd.Series(max_peaks_idx).to_frame()
nw_peaks = pd.Series(df.nw.iloc[max_peaks_idx.values].values, index=df.nw.index)
df['dd'] = ((df.nw-nw_peaks)/nw_peaks)
df['mdd'] = df.groupby('max_peaks_idx').dd.apply(lambda x: x.expanding(min_periods=1).apply(lambda y: y.min())).fillna(0)
return df
Here is an sample after running this code:
nw max_peaks_idx dd mdd
0 10000.000 0 0.000000 0.000000
1 9696.948 0 -0.030305 -0.030305
2 9538.576 0 -0.046142 -0.046142
3 9303.953 0 -0.069605 -0.069605
4 9247.259 0 -0.075274 -0.075274
5 9421.519 0 -0.057848 -0.075274
6 9315.938 0 -0.068406 -0.075274
7 9235.775 0 -0.076423 -0.076423
8 9091.121 0 -0.090888 -0.090888
9 9033.532 0 -0.096647 -0.096647
10 8947.504 0 -0.105250 -0.105250
11 8841.551 0 -0.115845 -0.115845
And here is an image of the complete applied to the complete dataset.
Although vectorized, this code is probably slower than the other, because for each time-series, there should be many peaks, and each one of these requires calculation, and so O(n_peaks*n_intervals).
PS: I could have eliminated the zero values in the dd and mdd columns, but I find it useful that these values help indicate when a new peak was observed in the time-series.

Categories