Managed Futures as Bear Market Protection
February 5, 2007
Many readers may be asking why we would write about 'Bear Market Protection' right now, with US stocks fresh off day after day of "Record Closes" in the Dow, as CNBC can't wait to tell us each day. But prudence, and a look back to 2000, tell us market tops are exactly when we should be looking at the downside.
Another "indicator" which tells me we should be looking at protecting the downside is the fact that stock market volatility readings continue to fall into their lowest levels in over 20 years. The data is telling us people are "looking the other way" right now, and not worried the least bit that the stock market could crash tomorrow. As luck (bad or good , depending on your positions) would have it, such complacent sentiment is exactly when things do go awry.
You can see in the chart below that low volatility preceded the Black Monday crash of 1987, the first invasion of Kuwait in 1991, the Asian crises in 1997, the Long Term Capital Management blow up in 1998, and the 9/11 attacks in 2001. You can also see that we are at about 4 years and counting since the last major spike in the VIX, with the previous long spell without a spike coming in at 5 years between 1992 and 1997.

* Source: CBOE VIX Historical Data
Are we headed for another volatility spike? It's impossible to tell for sure, but with the US in seemingly ever growing debt, the US housing market on life support, and a divided government - anything could happen.
Be Prepared:
So the wise investor needs to be prepared no matter what happens, and therefore must have a plan for protecting her portfolio during a bear market or sudden crisis such as a 9/11 type terrorist attack on US soil.
History shows us that managed futures is the place to be during bear markets and crises situations. Futures based investments are often viewed as a way to generate oversized returns due to the leverage built into futures contracts and potential for large moves, but it is their low correlation with traditional markets which causes managed futures investments to be volatility reducers and portfolio diversifies during the bad times.
But what does low correlation really mean to an individual investor. Saying non correlated investments are better than highly correlated ones is fine, but how does it play out in real hard earned money. To tackle this question, we set out to show what low correlation looks like in your portfolio.
We first show how the asset class managed futures reacts to different stress periods, then show the average return of managed futures during both boom and bust times in the stock market, and finally show the size of the average losing month for a portfolio of stocks alone versus a portfolio containing managed futures.
To measure managed futures returns, we chose the Credit Suisse First Boston/Tremont Advisors Managed Futures Index, which is comprised of over 50 funds run by professional Commodity Trading Advisors controlling Billions of dollars in assets. The CSFB/Tremont index is a calculated index which is asset weighted, meaning larger CTAs have a larger impact on the index performance. Like any index, care must be given in relying on the data given because of inherent problems such as self reporting and survivorship bias.
Because the old saying, "the only thing which rises in a market crash is correlation", seems to bear fruit more often than not, it is helpful to examine any lowly correlated investment during periods of market stress. To accomplish this, we compared the performance of the CSFB/Tremont managed futures index versus that of the S&P 500 during the following four market crisis periods:
1. 1994 - the surprise Fed rate hike in February 1994 sent stocks reeling, and caused the S&L crisis, Orange County bankruptcy, and Mexican Peso devaluation
2. 1998 - This year saw post-Communist Russia default on its debt, causing widening credit spreads across the globe. The widening spreads caused severe losses for several hedge funds, including Long Term Capital Management, which was eventually bailed out by a consortium of banks fearing a LTCM default would result in a severe shock to financial markets.
3. 2000, 2001, 2002 - The much ballyhooed Internet bubble burst - tech crash, which began in March of 2000, and depending on who you speak to either ended in 2002 or remains unfinished.
4. September 2001 - The 9/11 tragedy saw US markets closed several days, with major liquidity and backup fears realized instantly, sending global markets to fresh lows once markets reopened.
The stress period analysis starts to show a clearer picture of what low correlation actually looks like. The lowly correlated managed futures index performed very well during periods of overall market stress, showing positive performance in all four incidences, and averaging over 9% higher performance than the S&P 500 stock index across those periods.
The reason for this is that the drivers of managed futures returns are not the same drivers as those for the stock markets. In fact, they are often opposite, as increases in commodity prices, for example, can have a negative impact on corporate growth and therefore stock prices while adding to the returns of a trend following managed futures program.
One worry present in a defensive investment is how it reacts during the good times. If the positives are offset by larger or more frequent negatives when the stock market is in rally mode, then the defensive investment serves little purpose. To test this, we looked at the average annual return of the CSFB/Tremont managed futures index and S&P 500 over the boom period of 1995 to 1999, and compared those results to the same indices returns over the bust period lasting from 2000 to 2002.
The table below shows that while an underperformer during the boom period, managed futures still exhibited a positive average annual return. The bust period, in contrast, shows just how powerful diversification into managed futures can be, with the managed futures index averaging positive 8.6% per year versus a negative average annual return of -14.36% for the stock market as measured by the S&P 500. This again shows that low correlation can mean positive performance while your main investments are underperforming.
The last analysis we did was to test a hypothetical portfolio with a 12% allocation to the managed futures index and a 88% allocation to the S&P 500. We often read and hear how beneficial allocating a portion of your assets to a managed futures investment is because of its low correlation, but are rarely shown how this low correlation protects our portfolio.
The table below compares different statistics over the period 1994 through July of this year for two portfolios, one with a 100% allocation to the S&P 500, and a second with an 80% allocation to the S&P 500 index and a 20% allocation to the CSFB/Tremont Managed Futures Index.
The tests show that the portfolio containing the managed futures allocation improves the portfolio across nearly every statistic. The portfolio containing a managed futures allocation has a marginally lower average annual return, (10.5% vs 11.4%), a lower standard deviation (11.3 vs 14.2), and a lower Drawdown (53.0% vs 64.3%). The most telling statistic, and one which should lend credence to the view of managed futures as bear market/crisis protection is the reduction of the average losing month from -3.58% in the portfolio of stocks alone to just -2.60% in the portfolio of stocks and managed futures.
On an annualized basis, this represents 11.76% in bear market protection. This number finally gives us a feeling of what the real benefit of low correlation is. In this case, the benefit is about a 11% higher annual return during a bear market, or the difference between being down 10% for the year during a bad year for stocks or being about even...that sounds good to me. .

Of course, the benefit of managed futures on your portfolio will vary depending on what allocation you decide to give it. The table above shows a 20% allocation to managed futures, and actual allocations run between 0% and 50% of investor's overall assets. It is also important to note that the statistics and graphs above are mere examples using using broad based indices, which are difficult and expensive to replicate.
The numbers within the managed futures index do come from actual advisors trading actual customers money, however, making the benefits a reality. If looking to managed futures for some of the volatility reducing characteristics outlined above, it is important to find a managed futures investment which exhibits similar characteristics and low correlation to the overall stock market.
Many investors look to a managed futures investment to provide bear market protection without testing the strategy to see if it provides the needed benefit. As a general rule of thumb, the more markets a managed futures program trades, the more like the managed futures index it will be, and the more benefit gained. Those programs or managers specializing in one market or sector - such as an S&P day trading system or CTA specializing in currencies only - may have good looking performance but lack the low correlation and bear market protection characteristics of a more commodities based program which trades multiple markets.
So don't just focus on the possible oversized returns of managed futures and potential high risks that come with those; managed futures offer unique characteristics which can reduce the volatility in your portfolio and add real benefits in times of a market crisis or extended bear market.
How can you get involved in a managed futures program? Attain works with several professional Commodity Trading Advisors (CTAs) who run managed futures programs, and can match your capital and risk/reward preferences with the right advisor.
- Jeff Malec
IMPORTANT RISK DISCLOSURE
Futures based investments are often complex and can
carry the risk of substantial losses. They are intended for sophisticated investors and are not suitable for
everyone. The ability to withstand losses and to adhere to a particular trading program in spite of trading
losses are material points which can adversely affect investor returns.
Feature | Week In Review | Chart of the Week |
Feature | Week In Review | Chart of the Week |
***Overview***
The US Stock Market had another record setting month in January as the DJIA and e-mini Russell 2000 futures market both hit record high levels. Like the previous record setting months before it, the rally continues to be slow and steady with very few “big” trading days to pump up volatility in the marketplace. In fact, the CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) continues to hover near record low levels which can make for very tough day and swing trading conditions. For the month SP futures climbed +1.02%, NASDAQ futures were up +1.55%, Russell 2000 futures rallied +1.20% higher, while SP Midcap 400 futures led the pack at +3.16%.
Unlike stocks, there was plenty of volatility in the commodity markets. Energies continue to be very volatile with Crude Oil futures falling $11 during the month and briefly trading below $50 per barrel before rallying back to $58 at the end of the month, a decline of -6.20%. RBOB Gas futures also headed south falling -5.81% for the month. Natural Gas futures were an even bigger story however as prices rose +17.90% in January. Most of the price appreciation is a result of the very cold temperatures seen at the end of the month. However, Heating Oil by contrast, was only up +0.45% for the month.
The red hot metals markets continue to be exciting as well with Silver futures climbing +4.91%, Gold futures were up +2.11%, and Platinum futures moved +3.32% higher. The volatile copper market moved in the opposite direction however falling -9.63% for the month.
Grains and Softs were mixed with Corn futures +3.52% and Soybean futures +3.19% moving higher while Wheat futures -6.69%, Sugar futures -9.79%, Coffee futures -6.77%, and Cotton futures -3.90% all moved lower.
In the meats Lean Hogs climbed +4.48%. Finally the US Dollar hit new four year highs against the Japanese Yen in February with Dollar Index futures climbing +1.20% while Yen futures were down -1.75% for the month.
***CTAs***With January just wrapping up the number of CTA’s reporting official numbers for the month is limited to a small handful at this point. Thus far Attain’s own Phoenix Energy program is atop the list January returns as the strategy gained +5.2%. Phoenix profits came from short Crude trades early in the month as it fell below $50.00 per barrel and later capitalized on a long Heating Oil positions as energies bounced off their mid-month lows.
Other CTA’s reporting gains thus far included 3 different options sellers. Ace Investment Strategists dusted off the cobwebs and returned an astounding +5.0% after returning only 11.7% in all of 2006. Zephyr Asset continued its winnings ways by returning +2.6% in their Aggressive strategy and +1.9% in their Moderate trading strategy – Zephyr has been extremely consistent over the past year and for those of you not involved you should add them to your watch list.
Finally, Zenith Resources had yet another winning month earning +1.1% in the Diversified and +0.6% in the Index Options strategy – This month represents 40 winning months in a row for the Index Options strategy and 25 winning months in a row for the Diversified strategy (100% winning months). For a full review on any of the above CTA’s please see our 2006 annual review from last week: http://www.attaincapital.com/alternatives/alt_jan2907.htm#Topic
***Day & Swing Trading***
January was a tough month for program traders in general due to choppy trading conditions across all the different market sectors. Day trading systems have been patiently awaiting an increase in volatility that has not surfaced as prices have slowly grinded higher with no major corrections to the downside. While volatility remains at low levels domestically, the foreign stock indices have been picking up the slack where U.S. markets have lacked. Swing systems have been quiet so far this year and several will remain that way until we see a clear move in one direction or the other.
The Dax programs fared the best for the month due to the aforementioned increase in volatility overseas. Rayo Plus Dax took top honors for the month amongst the day traders with profits of +$2,167.83. BetaCon 4/1 Dax was close behind with profits of +$1,727.87. BetaCon 4/1 ESX had more modest returns of +$222.74 but on a relative scale performed well with the smaller point value of the Eurostoxx.
The majority of the domestic day trading programs finished in the red for the month. BounceMOC eRL and eMD finished with losses of -$497.40 and -$721.10 respectively with more activity in the eRL than the eMD. BWT Zones Classic SP traded 17 times in Jan for a loss of -$775, while Compass SP finished the month with a loss of -$2,354.07.
Elsewhere, a few of the swing programs put together a great start to the new year - while others simply stayed out of the market waiting for a new trend to develop. Tzar eRL has been one of the top performing swing systems for the past three years and had a spectacular start to the year with profits of +$4,482 in January. Tzar came into the new year short, reversed long for a profit, and a week later reversed short for a profit. Targets eRL had an impressive month with profits of +$1,950. Systems that were particularly quiet in January include SeasonalST ES / eRL and Spartan. SeasonalST had two losing trades early on in the month and has been holding long for the past three weeks. Spartan ES exited a short trade on the first trading day of the year and has been out of the market ever since.
***Long Term***
The first month of the New Year was fairly quiet for long term trading systems other than some new short entries in the interest rate sector. Market pundit opinions on the welfare of world economies led to weakness in interest rates along with adding some pressure in the Japanese Yen and Swiss Franc from the prior month. Other sectors like the livestock and soft commodities remain fixed in choppy sideways trading ranges which, although the grains and oil seed sector got a little late month boost from possible weather worries in South America.
The grain markets did see some more upside gains of around 3%-4% after a favorable USDA crop production report that especially benefited the soy sector. Andromeda continues to hold a long corn position with open trade equity of +$4237.50. Aberration is long Bean oil with a gain of +472.00 (open trade) and short KW with a loss of -$987.50 per contract (open trade).
The interest rate sector continued to find pressure from December’s reversal at 10+ month highs on continued ideas that the U.S. economy is still fairly stable which has reduced the chances of any Fed cuts this year. Systems with short Bond positions include Andromeda making +$356.25 per contract (open trade), and Pegasus making +$325.00 per contract (open trade). Systems with short Ten-year positions include Andromeda making +$387.50 per contract (open trade), Pegasus making +$387.50 per contract (open trade) and Aberration with an open trade -$425.00.
Currencies were the last sector that had any action led by the Japanese Yen which fell to levels not seen since 2003 on ideas that the economic struggle will continue in that country. Systems with short JY positions include Aberration making +$2300.00 per contract (open trade), Andromeda making +$2025.00 per contract (open trade), and Pegasus making +$2700.00 per contract (open trade). Pegasus is also short SF with an open trade loss -$450.00 per contract.
There were only a few closed out positions for the month as Aberration exited long C for a gain of +$2450.00, exited long SF for a loss of -$3093.75, exited long CD for a loss of -$2830.00 and exited short DX for a loss of -$1580.00
Please Login to: http://www.attainaccess.com for the latest updated statistics.
IMPORTANT RISK DISCLOSURE
Futures based investments are often complex and can
carry the risk of substantial losses. They are intended for sophisticated investors and are not suitable for
everyone. The ability to withstand losses and to adhere to a particular trading program in spite of trading
losses are material points which can adversely affect investor returns.

