ETF 모멘텀 전략의 비용 민감도와 손익분기 분석

# 14_cost_sensitivity.py


```py
# ---
# jupyter:
#   jupytext:
#     cell_metadata_filter: tags,-all
#     text_representation:
#       extension: .py
#       format_name: percent
#       format_version: '1.3'
#       jupytext_version: 1.19.3
#   kernelspec:
#     display_name: Python 3 (ipykernel)
#     language: python
#     name: python3
# ---

# %% [markdown]
# # How wrong can the cost assumption be before the strategy stops working?
#
# **Docker image**: `ml4t`
#
# ## Purpose
# A backtest's cost assumption is a guess. Commission schedules are knowable, but the spread paid
# on a real order, and the price move caused by the order itself, are not knowable in advance and
# vary with size and with the market. So the useful question is not "what does this strategy earn
# net of costs" but "how far off can the guess be before the answer changes".
#
# This notebook answers that for the ETF momentum baseline built in `01_backtest_first_principles`.
# The universe, the protocol and the simulator are unchanged; the only thing that varies is the fee
# charged per traded leg. Two numbers come out of it: the cost at which the strategy earns nothing,
# and the multiplier that converts any fee into an annual drag.
#
# ## Learning objectives
#
# - Re-simulate one strategy across a range of cost assumptions and read the resulting curve rather
#   than a single net figure.
# - Find the cost at which the strategy's growth rate reaches zero, and say what that number does
#   and does not bound.
# - Measure how much the strategy trades per year, and use it to estimate the annual cost of any
#   fee without re-running anything.
# - Reconcile the exact simulator result against that estimate, and account for the difference.
#
# ## Book reference
# Chapter 16, Section 16.6 (diagnosing economic value).
#
# ## Prerequisites
#
# - `01_backtest_first_principles`, which builds the strategy. The helper `_etf_baseline.py`
#   reproduces its weights and returns so this notebook does not restate them.

# %%
"""How far the cost assumption can be wrong before the ETF momentum baseline stops working."""

import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import plotly.graph_objects as go
import polars as pl
from _etf_baseline import (
    DEFAULT_FEES,
    INITIAL_CASH,
    annualized_turnover,
    break_even_cost_bp,
    load_panel,
    metrics,
    momentum_weights,
    simulate,
)
from ml4t.diagnostic.visualization.backtest.cost_attribution import plot_cost_sensitivity

from utils.style import (
    COLORS,
    FIGSIZE,
    add_message_title,
    show_plotly_with_alt,
    show_with_alt,
    zero_line,
)

# %% tags=["parameters"]
# Production defaults - Papermill injects overrides for CI
START_DATE = "2010-01-01"
END_DATE = "2024-01-01"
COST_GRID_BP = [0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 25, 40, 60, 100, 150, 200]

# %% [markdown]
# ### What each setting decides
#
# **Cost grid.** The per-leg fees the strategy is re-simulated at, in basis points of traded
# notional. It starts at zero, so the sweep contains the gross case, and runs far past anything a
# retail account would pay, so it also contains the point where the strategy earns nothing. The
# spacing is deliberately uneven: close together where the curve is steep near realistic fees,
# wide apart out in the tail where only the crossing matters.

# %% [markdown]
# ## 1. Build the strategy once, simulate it many times
#
# The weights do not depend on the fee. This strategy ranks funds on their own price history and
# rebalances on a fixed schedule, so it picks the same ETFs in the same months whether trading is
# free or ruinous. That is what makes the sweep clean: the weights are built once and handed to the
# simulator at each cost, so the only thing that changes between runs is the money paid to trade.
#
# It is also an assumption worth naming. A strategy that sized positions by expected net return, or
# that skipped trades below a cost threshold, would change its behaviour as fees rose, and its
# sensitivity curve would be flatter than this one for a reason that has nothing to do with the
# edge.

# %%
panel = load_panel(START_DATE, END_DATE)
weights = momentum_weights(panel)

result_gross = simulate(panel, weights, fees=0.0)
turnover_2way = annualized_turnover(result_gross)
gross = metrics(result_gross)
print(
    f"Gross (zero-cost): CAGR={gross['cagr'] * 100:.2f}%  "
    f"Sharpe={gross['sharpe']:.2f}  MaxDD={gross['max_drawdown'] * 100:.1f}%"
)
print(f"Annualized 2-way turnover: {turnover_2way * 100:.0f}% (sum |trades| / mean equity / years)")

# %% [markdown]
# ## 2. Re-simulate at every cost
#
# Each row is a complete run of the same strategy at a different fee, scored on the same metrics.
# The row at the baseline's own fee reproduces `01_backtest_first_principles` to the cent, which is
# what `tests/test_etf_baseline_parity.py` asserts: the helper the diagnostics import is that
# notebook's simulator, ported rather than reimplemented.

# %%
rows = []
results_by_cost = {}
for bp in COST_GRID_BP:
    res = simulate(panel, weights, fees=bp / 10_000)
    results_by_cost[bp] = res
    m = metrics(res)
    rows.append(
        {
            "cost_bp_per_leg": bp,
            "cagr": m["cagr"],
            "vol": m["vol"],
            "sharpe": m["sharpe"],
            "max_dd": m["max_drawdown"],
            "total_return": m["total_return"],
        }
    )
sweep = pd.DataFrame(rows)
sweep

# %% [markdown]
# ## 3. The cost at which the strategy earns nothing
#
# Two ways to get there, and they disagree, which is the point of showing both.
#
# The first divides the gross growth rate by the annual turnover: if the strategy earns some
# percent a year and turns over its book some number of times, the fee that consumes the whole
# return is the ratio. It is one line and it ignores compounding.
#
# The second interpolates the simulator's own growth-rate curve between the last cost with a
# positive result and the first without. That keeps the answer tied to the runs plotted below, and
# it accounts for the fact that a fee paid early reduces the capital available to earn later.
#
# Neither is a target. Both are ceilings, and a ceiling computed on one sample.

# %%
assert sweep["cagr"].is_monotonic_decreasing, "the sweep must fall monotonically in cost"
assert (sweep["cagr"] <= 0).any(), "extend COST_GRID_BP until the growth rate turns negative"

positive = sweep.loc[sweep["cagr"] > 0].iloc[-1]
negative = sweep.loc[sweep["cagr"] <= 0].iloc[0]
break_even_bp = positive["cost_bp_per_leg"] + (0 - positive["cagr"]) * (
    negative["cost_bp_per_leg"] - positive["cost_bp_per_leg"]
) / (negative["cagr"] - positive["cagr"])
linear_break_even_bp = break_even_cost_bp(result_gross)

print(f"Baseline fee:                          {DEFAULT_FEES * 10_000:.0f} bp per leg")
print(f"Break-even, growth rate over turnover: {linear_break_even_bp:.0f} bp per leg")
print(f"Break-even, simulator interpolation:   {break_even_bp:.0f} bp per leg")
print(f"Headroom over the baseline fee:        {break_even_bp / (DEFAULT_FEES * 10_000):.0f}x")

# %% [markdown]
# The gap between the two estimates is compounding. The linear one assumes the fee is a flat
# deduction from the growth rate; the simulator knows that money paid in fees in the first year is
# money not compounding for the next thirteen, so it reaches zero sooner. On a long sample the
# difference is not small.
#
# A large headroom figure is reassuring only for the thing it measures. Three limits on it:
#
# The fee here is the whole cost. A real order also pays the spread and moves the price against
# itself, and neither is in this number. What the sweep bounds is total round-trip cost, so a
# reader comparing it against a commission schedule alone is comparing the wrong quantities.
#
# The average is doing a lot of work. A strategy that traded heavily in the years that produced its
# return, and lightly otherwise, is more fragile than its average turnover suggests, and this
# diagnostic cannot see the difference.
#
# And the crossing is a property of this sample. A period in which the strategy earned less would
# put it closer to the fee actually paid.

# %% [markdown]
# ## 4. The curve
#
# Both panels put per-leg cost on the horizontal axis. What to read off them is the *slope* at the
# baseline fee, not the level: it says how much of the result a small error in the cost estimate
# would move. A steep curve there means the backtest's conclusion depends on getting the fee right;
# a flat one means it does not.

# %%
fig, axes = plt.subplots(1, 2, figsize=FIGSIZE["dual_h"], constrained_layout=True)

for ax, series, label in (
    (axes[0], sweep["sharpe"], "Sharpe ratio"),
    (axes[1], sweep["cagr"] * 100, "Growth rate (% per year)"),
):
    ax.plot(sweep["cost_bp_per_leg"], series, color=COLORS["blue"], marker="o")
    ax.axvline(DEFAULT_FEES * 10_000, color=COLORS["neutral"], linestyle="--", label="Baseline fee")
    zero_line(ax)
    ax.set_xlabel("Cost per traded leg (basis points)")
    ax.set_ylabel(label)

axes[1].axvline(break_even_bp, color=COLORS["copper"], linestyle=":", label="Break-even")
axes[0].legend(frameon=False)
axes[1].legend(frameon=False)

add_message_title(
    axes[0],
    "Sharpe ratio and growth rate against cost per traded leg",
    subtitle="Same strategy and same weights at every cost; only the fee changes",
)
show_with_alt(
    fig,
    "Two panels of the cost sweep, drawn to isolate what the fee alone does to a strategy's "
    "headline numbers: the same signals and the same weights are replayed at every cost level, "
    "so nothing varies across the sweep but the charge per traded leg. That charge, in basis "
    "points, is the horizontal axis of both panels. The left panel is the Sharpe ratio and the "
    "right the compound growth rate in percent per year. Each carries a dashed vertical line at "
    "the baseline fee the rest of the chapter uses; the right panel also carries a dotted line "
    "at the break-even cost, the fee at which the growth rate reaches zero.",
)

# %% [markdown]
# ## 5. Turnover as the multiplier
#
# Once the turnover is known, the annual cost of any fee can be read without re-running anything:
#
# $$\text{annual drag} \approx \text{annual turnover} \times \text{fee per leg}.$$
#
# That is the number worth carrying in your head when someone quotes a commission schedule. The
# comparison below checks it against what the simulator actually charged, which is the only way to
# know whether the approximation is good enough to rely on.

# %%
fee_bp = DEFAULT_FEES * 10_000
estimated_drag_pct = turnover_2way * DEFAULT_FEES * 100
realized_drag_pct = (
    gross["cagr"] - sweep.loc[sweep["cost_bp_per_leg"] == fee_bp, "cagr"].iloc[0]
) * 100
print(f"Annual turnover:                     {turnover_2way:.2f}x")
print(f"Estimated drag at {fee_bp:.0f} bp per leg:      {estimated_drag_pct:.2f}% per year")
print(f"Drag the simulator actually charged: {realized_drag_pct:.2f}% per year")

# %% [markdown]
# The estimate is close and slightly low, for the same reason the linear break-even was high:
# multiplying turnover by the fee counts the money paid out and stops there, while the simulator
# also loses whatever that money would have earned had it stayed invested. Over a long sample the
# second part is not negligible, and it always runs in the same direction.

# %% [markdown]
# ## 6. Where the money went, and the same view from the library
#
# The waterfall below accounts for the whole gross-to-net gap in dollars rather than in percentage
# points, and it separates the two components section 5 just discussed: the fees themselves, and
# the return those fees would have earned. The assertion is the check that nothing is unaccounted
# for.
#
# After it, the same sensitivity curve from `ml4t-diagnostic`, which computes the drag from the
# gross return series rather than by re-simulating. It is one call instead of a loop, and it is an
# approximation - the comparison printed with it is how much of one.

# %% [markdown]
# The dollar figures below are measured from the starting capital rather than from each run's
# first closing equity. That first close already contains a session's return and, in the net run,
# the opening commission, so measuring from it would give the two runs different bases and drop
# the difference into the path effect, which is the reconciling residual and so cannot report it.

# %%
result_net = results_by_cost[fee_bp]
gross_pnl_dollars = float(result_gross.equity.iloc[-1]) - INITIAL_CASH
net_pnl_dollars = float(result_net.equity.iloc[-1]) - INITIAL_CASH
commission_dollars = float((result_net.trades_dollar * DEFAULT_FEES).sum())
path_effect_dollars = gross_pnl_dollars - commission_dollars - net_pnl_dollars
assert np.isclose(gross_pnl_dollars - commission_dollars - path_effect_dollars, net_pnl_dollars)

waterfall = go.Figure(
    go.Waterfall(
        measure=["absolute", "relative", "relative", "total"],
        x=["Gross PnL", "Commissions", "Compounding/path effect", "Net PnL"],
        y=[gross_pnl_dollars, -commission_dollars, -path_effect_dollars, net_pnl_dollars],
        connector={"line": {"color": COLORS["neutral"]}},
        # Plotly's waterfall defaults are its own blue and red, not the house palette.
        decreasing={"marker": {"color": COLORS["copper"]}},
        increasing={"marker": {"color": COLORS["blue"]}},
        totals={"marker": {"color": COLORS["blue"]}},
    )
)
waterfall.update_layout(
    title=(
        "Gross to net profit and loss, in dollars"
        "<br><sup>Dollars over the whole sample, at the baseline fee</sup>"
    ),
    yaxis_title="Profit and loss (USD)",
    showlegend=False,
)
show_plotly_with_alt(
    waterfall,
    (
        "Waterfall chart in dollars over the whole sample, opening at gross profit and loss "
        "and closing at net. The intermediate bars are commissions and the combined "
        "compounding and path effect, each drawn as a decrease from the running total. The "
        "path effect is separated from commissions because it is not a charge: it is what "
        "paying the charge earlier does to everything compounded after it."
    ),
)

# %%
gross_returns_pl = pl.from_pandas(result_gross.returns.rename("returns").reset_index()).get_column(
    "returns"
)
sensitivity = plot_cost_sensitivity(
    returns=gross_returns_pl,
    base_costs_bps=DEFAULT_FEES * 10_000,
    # The parameter is named for a trade count, and what the drag calculation needs is turnover:
    # dollars traded per dollar of capital per year. That is what is passed.
    trades_per_year=float(turnover_2way),
    cost_multipliers=[bp / (DEFAULT_FEES * 10_000) for bp in COST_GRID_BP],
    title="Cost sensitivity from the gross return series",
)
show_plotly_with_alt(
    sensitivity,
    (
        "Two panels from the library's cost-sensitivity helper, Sharpe ratio on the left and "
        "growth rate on the right, both against transaction cost in basis points, with a "
        "marker at the cost the rest of the notebook uses and a dotted line at the "
        "break-even cost the helper computes. Drawn to be read against the notebook's own "
        "sweep above, which asks the same question with its own code."
    ),
)

# %% [markdown]
# The library figure has the same shape and does not have the same zero crossing, because it
# deducts a uniform daily drag from the gross return series instead of re-simulating. Which one to
# quote depends on what the number is for: the library call is the right thing to put in a
# production report bundle beside everything else `09_performance_reporting` assembles, and the
# sweep in section 2 is the right thing to quote a break-even from, because it is the one that
# actually ran the strategy at each fee.

# %% [markdown]
# ## Key takeaways
#
# 1. **A net Sharpe is one point on a curve, and the curve is the reportable thing.** A backtest
#    that quotes a single net figure has hidden the one property a reader needs: whether the
#    conclusion depends on the cost assumption being right.
# 2. **Turnover converts any fee into an annual drag, in one multiplication.** Measure it once and
#    the cost of any commission schedule can be read off without re-running anything. It is also
#    the number that says whether a break-even figure is comfortable: two strategies with the same
#    gross return and a tenfold difference in turnover have a tenfold difference in headroom.
# 3. **The back-of-envelope estimate is biased in a known direction.** Multiplying turnover by the
#    fee counts the money paid and stops. The simulator also loses what that money would have
#    earned, so the true drag is larger and the true break-even is lower. Use the shortcut to
#    reason quickly and the simulator to quote a number.
# 4. **A break-even cost bounds total round-trip cost, not commission.** Spread and market impact
#    come out of the same allowance. Comparing the headroom against a broker's commission schedule
#    alone reads it as far more comfortable than it is.
# 5. **This diagnostic cannot tell you a strategy works.** It says how sensitive an answer is to
#    one assumption. Read it with the benchmark comparison and the regime split in
#    `10_regime_backtest_analysis` before concluding anything about economic value.
#
# ### Known limitations
#
# - The weights are fixed across the sweep, so the strategy never reacts to a higher fee by
#   trading less. A real implementation would, which makes this curve steeper than a well-managed
#   one and shallower than a naive one.
# - Cost is a flat rate on notional. It does not grow with order size and does not depend on how
#   much volume the market had, so nothing here bounds what a large account would pay. Chapter 18
#   replaces the flat rate with a model that does.
# - Everything is measured on one sample of one strategy on ten funds, and the break-even is a
#   property of the returns that sample happened to produce.

```