Four important thoughts for a -500 point Dow day
September 15, 2008
Unless you are one of the lucky few who is cruising the Caribbean, without power, or otherwise disconnected from the world today – you have no doubt heard of the financial hurricane surrounding Lehman Bros, Merrill Lynch, and AIG today, and resulting market activity: Dow down -504 pts (-4.42%), Nasdaq down 81 points (-3.60%), S&P down 59 points (-4.71%) while 30 year bonds rallied over 4 basis points.
A few comments on today’s action:
1. The safety and liquidity of your funds in a futures account should be the last of your worries…..thanks to the segregated account structure of the futures industry.
The segregated account structure of futures trading accounts protects customers from incurring losses should the brokerage firm, clearing firm, or the clearing firm’s bank go bankrupt.
This segregated structure means that client funds on deposit are not subject to any offset, indebtedness, obligation, or liabilities of any entity besides the customers themselves. These regulations are in place so that the clearing firm can not dip into the customer funds to offset losses elsewhere. The futures industry is a model of transparency, as well, with clearing firms required to submit a daily segregation computation to the National Futures Association.
This is one of the major differences from a Broker/Dealer firm (i.e Bear, Lehman, Merrill, etc) Those firms can borrow money (and say, invest it in sub prime mortgages) based off the amount of customer assets they have, and they can lend money and securities based off the amount owned by their customers.
One of the main problems going on right now with several of these investment banks failing is that they not only borrowed money to spice up trading returns, but that they leveraged that borrowing by a large amount. This leverage caused just a small move lower in the price of the mortgage backed securities they owned to feel like a loss up to 20 times that bad.
With the banks usually many times the size of the individual clearing firms (usually tens to hundreds of times as large), clients have rarely, if ever (until now) been concerned about the possibility of the bank the clearing firm holds its money in going bankrupt. Usually a client is concerned about the brokerage firm they are using or the clearing firm that produces their daily statements, but thinks little of the bank the clearing firm uses (and rarely even knows what bank the clearing firm is using unless wiring funds to their account and listing the bank’s details).
But with today’s activity, and general feeling that the financial system is not what it should be in the US, a new concern has emerged. What if the bank that holds the segregated funds goes under?
We put this question to our attorneys and a senior officer of one of our clearing firms, to double check our knowledge on it, and they confirmed that our understanding is correct.
And that understanding is that the customer segregated account structure carries all the way through to the bank level. In fact, the bank must issue a letter to the clearing firm stating they are aware of the “segregated account” status of the deposit, and will treat it accordingly. And only certain banks are allowed to carry clearing firm’s segregated accounts.
Finally, even if a clearing firm’s bank failed and the funds were not provided the segregated protection for whatever reason, the full capital of the clearing firm is between you and the failed bank. That is, you deposited your money with the clearing firm, and they have the obligation to return that money to you if you desire it. In a way, the bank failing is more the clearing firm’s problem rather than your own.
There are regulations in place for how much capital an FCM must have on hand to meet such circumstances, and that capital amount must be reported and is transparent in much the same way the segregated customer funds numbers are.
It is important to note that Forex accounts do not have the same segregated account structure, and are at risk of being used as firm capital. That is, forex accounts are at risk of being used in the very manner the government has protected futures customers from via the segregated account structure. We saw this in the Refco bankruptcy – with no futures clients we know of losing any money, yet many Forex clients losing money.
Another important note, Treasury Bills held in your account are afforded the same segregated account protection, being viewed by the bank as customer property belonging to the customer segregated account.
In closing, we think it is more important to be worried about if you’ll ever be able to sell your house, your portfolio composition, putting your kids through college, or your future asset allocation percentages at this time rather than the safety and liquidity of your futures account.
2. At times like these, managed futures are the place to be…..
History shows us that managed futures are 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 see this, we looked at how the asset class managed futures reacts to different stress periods as compared with the stock market (as measured by the S&P 500 index).
To accomplish this, we compared the performance of the CSFB/Tremont managed futures index versus that of the S&P 500 during the following five market crisis periods. You’ll notice the last one is the current crisis we’re in, the credit crisis.
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. (Mgd fut = +11.95%, S&P 500 = +1.32%)
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. (Mgd fut = +20.64%, S&P 500 = +28.58%)
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. (Mgd fut = +8.16%, S&P 500 = -14.36%)
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. (Mgd fut = +3.65%, S&P 500 = -8.08%)
5. October 2007 to present - Credit Crunch, Liquidity Crisis – The current market crisis brought on by a dip in housing prices and collapse in the sub prime mortgage market, has seen hedge fund failures, bank collapses, unprecendented action by the US Fed, and a global stock sell off. (Mgd fut = +10.95%, S&P 500 = -13.69%)
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 five incidences, and averaging over 11% higher performance than the S&P 500 stock index across those periods. (and nearly 20% higher if removing the 1998 period)
Click here to view the chart/table below
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 managed futures program.
3. How did stock option sellers perform today….
The last time we saw a big sell off like this, in February 2007; the stock index option sellers took a pretty big hit. But that was due to not just to the movement in prices, but also the large spike in volatility – which rose over 80%.
This time around, the price move was just as substantial, but volatility only rose 24% (just a ¼ of the Feb spike), as volatility has remained higher since that Feb 2007 spike. This means the losses during today’s spike were not as severe for stock index option sellers, and the time to recovery could be much shorter.
Sep. 15th estimated losses (stock index option sellers)
ACE………………..………………………………-10.5%
Crescent Bay PSI………………………………-3.0%
Crescent Bay BVP………………………………-9.5%
Cervino 2x…………………………………………+3.9%
Zenith Index………………………………………-1.1%
Zephyr Aggr………………………………………-7.4%
>please note that Cervino 2x is not a typo above, and actually profited today, thanks in part to long bear put spreads.
4. if worried there is more of this ahead – maybe look to add a managed futures program not tied to stock market
While you can use a lot of fancy efficient frontier analysis, correlation coefficients, and Sharpe ratios to construct the “perfect” portfolio – we’ve found that good old common sense usually prevails in times like these.
The issue is that in market stress periods, investments tend to become more highly correlated than their past performance would suggest. There’s an old saying on Wall Street, “the only thing that rises in a falling market is correlation”
To combat this phenomenon, it pays to make sure your managed futures investment which is supposedly not correlated to the stock market – actually doesn’t trade any stock indices. This seems like a no brainer, but a lot of managed futures investments are actually performing their trading on stock index futures and options. There are some very good programs who do just fine on those stock index products, but if you are looking to reduce stock index exposure, the best way to do that is to trade something which doesn’t have any direct stock index exposure. Sounds simple enough, right.
Here’s a listing of our top rated managers who don’t have any direct stock index exposure, meaning they rarely, if ever trade stock index futures or options. Click on the link for performance details and more information.
Listed alphabetically:
Clarke Capital (Global Basic) – shorter term trend follower
DMH Futures – discretionary trader
Dighton Capital – discretionary trader
Financial Commodity Investments (FCI) – commodity market option seller
NDX Shadrach – spread trading meat markets
Rosetta – directional and spread trading agriculture markets
Feel free to call or email us with questions on any of the programs above.
And as for the rest of it - the best advice we can give is to not do what everyone else does and panic. This stress period will subside like all the rest, and those with cooler heads who are looking for ways to profit from this, rather than run from it, are likely the ones who will prevail.
- 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 | Top 5 CTAs | Top 5 Systems |
Feature | Week In Review | Chart of the Week | Top 5 CTAs | Top 5 Systems |
***Overview***
Volatility was again at the forefront in most commodity sectors last week, with the metals the most active. The tone in the metals turned soft as investor continue to flee the sector on ideas demand will remain soft due to the weak expectations of the global economy. The metals were led down by Silver which shed -12.52%, Platinum was down -11.61%, Palladium lost-11.13%, and Gold fell -4.88%. The one exception to the sector was Copper which added +2.99% as a report of lower inventories sparked support.
The Energy sector was again under assault on ideas demand could subside even further due to global economy weakness. The most surprising aspect of the week was the fact that the sector performed so weak in the face of possible issues in the Gulf of Mexico due to Hurricane Ike. The only market that found support from the hurricane was RBOB Gas which was up +3.12% due to the shutdown of refineries in Texas. For the week Crude Oil was down -4.86%, Heating Oil lost -1.57% and Natural gas fell -1.22%.
The Grain and Soft sectors were a mixed bag last week with most posting a weak tone, although the Corn +2.73% and Soybeans +1.85% posted gains on a positively construed monthly Supply/Demand report showing current production expectations lower due to weather issues during August. The weakness in the livestock sector continued as Lean Hogs -4.79% and Live Cattle -.89% found pressure from heavy production and a loss of foreign demand due to the recent rally in the U.S. Dollar. Soft Commodities also fell victim to the Dollar as Cocoa -2.99%, Coffee -2.52%, Cotton -2.11% and Sugar -1.54%. Orange Juice lost -15.16% as the weather premium built in from the anticipation of Hurricane Ike hitting Florida was shed in a hurry after it stayed away.
The U.S. Dollar moved to a 13+ month high during the last week, although a late week sell-off dampened the fanfare. The complex as a whole had a mixed tone as more nervousness about the credit sector and so-so results on the recent round of economic reports help to cap the enthusiasm in the behind the greenback. The mixed bag for the week stood with the Pound +1.01% and the Dollar index +.72%. The Swiss Franc ended -1.02% followed by the Euro -.89%
Stock Index futures posted decent gains during the past week as the market overcame the credit jitters despite news that a couple of investment banks were on shaky ground. Support stemmed from foreign interest moving money into U.S. dollar denominated investments after it’s recent surge. The Dow futures led the way adding +1.98%, S&P +1.33%, and the Mid-Cap gained +1.49%. (these gains, and then some were all given back today, however)
***CTAs***
Multi-Market CTA’s continue to post strong numbers in September, and just like last month - Clarke Capital is at the head of the pack once again with returns of +10.90% (est) in the Global Basic program. The Global Magnum program has also done well this month with estimated returns of +5.44%. Clarke continues to find most of their success in short foreign currency positions while also adding a long treasury trade recently.
Other profitable multi market managers include Attain Portfolio Advisors Modified Program which is up +3.70% (est) and the APA Strategic Diversification Program which is up +2.70% (est). Robinson – Langley has bounced back with estimated returns of +3.04% this month. Dighton USA is next in line with returns of +1.55% (est), followed by Hoffman Asset which is up +1.32% (est). Unprofitable multi-market programs include Long Term Trading Navigator at -0.27% (est) and Optimus Capital at -2.82% (est).
In the agriculture sector NDX is leading the way with gains in both programs. For the month NDX Abedengo is up an estimated +5.04% and the NDX Shadrach program is up an estimated +4.89%. Elsewhere Rosetta is down -0.65% (est), Chicago Capital is down -0.63% (est) and Livestock CTA is losing -3.42% (est) for the month.
Finally, among option selling CTAs, profits have been hard to come by with a sharp move lower today. As noted above stock index option sellers are feeling some angst with the recent increase in stock market volatility. But its not just stock index option sellers that are feeling the pain – the sharp moves in the US Dollar and metals prices have affected commodity option seller FCI. FCI is doing it’s best to wade through the choppy waters, but so far this month the program is down an estimated -5.33%. The only other option seller of note that was not mentioned above is LJM which was down -2.54% (est) heading into today.
***Trading Systems***
There were plenty of trading opportunities last week with stocks moving sharply higher to start the week, then heading lower before rebounding on Friday. In addition to all of the news surrounding the fall of Lehman Brothers, there was also rollover in stock index futures and the delisting of the Emini Russell contract on the CME giving sole trading rights to the ICE moving forward. For customers trading programs in the Emini Russell market, it is a seamless change to the ICE Mini Russell contract which has the same point value, minimum move, etc… and has been trading alongside the CME contract for quite some time and is now expected to see a significant increase in trading volume.
Beginning with the day trading systems, Compass SP went back to its winning ways +$4,702.78 for the week on two trades. On Tuesday, the system went short and reached its target of just over twenty points and then followed it up with a small losing trade on Wednesday. Waugh eRL had a successful week with three out of four trades turning out positive for +$1,676 for the week. AK47 ES bought into the rallies on Wednesday and Thursday for +$1,492.50. Rayo Plus Dax went short on Thursday and lost -$2,290.08 for the week.
Moving on the swing systems, the bond programs generally held their positions on the long side while most stock index programs changed positions. Tzar ES and NQ were stopped out of long positions while the eRL held short from the week prior. Tzar NQ also went short later in the week after being stopped out of the long position. Signum TY held its long position (two units) and is still looking to reach its first target while the EBL continues to hold long on its second unit. Mesa Notes continues to hold long as well. Ultramini eMD lost -$1480 while Ultramini ES made $512.50 and held no positions heading into the weekend. SeasonalST closed out a short trade early in the week for a gain of +$2,070 and entered long late in the week.
In long-term trading, the Dollar Index finally reversed lower after rebounding for several weeks. Most programs have been holding long US Dollar/short foreign currency for several weeks so this should only be a minor setback to those positions.
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 | Top 5 CTAs | Top 5 Systems |
Past Performance is Not Necessarily Indicative of Future Results.
| Rank | Program Name | 12 month Return | 12 month Drawdown | Min Investment (k) |
| 1 | Pere Trading Group, LLC Pere Trading Program | 279.09% | 29.98% | $100 |
| 2 | James H. Jones Diversified Portfolio | 108.54% | 11.73% | $250 |
| 3 | Clarke Capital Management, Inc. Global Basic | 129.49% | 12.34% | $50 |
| 4 | Parrot Trading Partners, LLC | 93.98% | 11.48% | $100 |
| 5 | Dighton Capital USA Swiss Futures Trading | 88.21% | 11.42% | $100 |
Figures listed are as of 9/15/2008.
IMPORTANT RISK DISCLOSURE
The rankings above are the top ranked CTAs offered at Attain over the past 12 months using a risk adjusted ratio which equals the period return divided by the period DD.
Investments in CTAs can be subject to substantial charges for management and advisory fees. The % returns in the CTA table above include all such fees, but it may be necessary for those accounts that are subject to these charges to make substantial trading profits in the future to avoid depletion or exhaustion of their assets.
The regulations of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) require that prospective clients of a CTA receive a disclosure document when they are solicited to enter into an agreement whereby the CTA will direct or guide the client's commodity interest trading and that certain risk factors be highlighted. The disclosure document contains a complete description of the principal risk factors and each fee to be charged to your account by the Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA). This document is readily accessible at this site using the Disclosure Document link at the Attain website.
Feature | Week In Review | Chart of the Week | Top 5 CTAs | Top 5 Systems |
Hypothetical Model Accounts using Computer Generated and Actual Client Fills.
| Rank | System Name | 90 Day Return | Return in Dollars | 90 Day Drawdown | DD in Dollars | Min Investment (k) |
| 1 | Break MFX | 69.92% | $13,984.12 | 9.92% | $1,984.56 | $20 |
| 2 | Elite 40X FCH | 35.12% | $7,024.59 | 7.44% | $1,487.27 | $20 |
| 3 | ATB TrendyBalance DAX v2 | 99.02% | $12,377.31 | 33.32% | $4,164.96 | $13 |
| 4 | Buho DAX | 41.52% | $8,303.99 | 19.16% | $3,831.26 | $20 |
| 5 | AG Mechwarrior ES | 28.43% | $4,264.00 | 17.14% | $2,571.50 | $15 |
Figures listed are as of 9/15/2008.
IMPORTANT RISK DISCLOSURE
The rankings above are the top ranked Trading Systems offered at Attain over the past 90 days using a risk adjusted ratio which equals the period return divided by the period DD.
The % returns in the trading system table above are hypothetical in that they represent returns in a model account. The model account rises or falls by the exact single contract profit and loss achieved by clients trading actual money pursuant to the listed system's trading signals on the appropriate dates, or if no actual client profit or loss available - by the hypothetical single contract profit and loss of trades generated by the system's trading signals over the test period. The hypothetical model account begins with the initial capital level listed, and is reset to that amount each month. The % returns reflect inclusion of commissions, fees, and the cost of the system. Commission and fee cost = # of monthly trades * $50.00 ($30 for eminis). The monthly cost of the system is subtracted from the net profit/loss prior to calculating the % return. For systems with one time purchase costs, the monthly cost is calculated by dividing the purchase cost by the number of months in the reporting period.
HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS HAVE MANY INHERENT LIMITATIONS, SOME OF WHICH ARE DESCRIBED BELOW. NO REPRESENTATION IS BEING MADE THAT ANY ACCOUNT WILL OR IS LIKELY TO ACHIEVE PROFITS OR LOSSES SIMILAR TO THOSE SHOWN; IN FACT, THERE ARE FREQUENTLY SHARP DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS AND THE ACTUAL RESULTS SUBSEQUENTLY ACHIEVED BY ANY PARTICULAR TRADING PROGRAM. ONE OF THE LIMITATIONS OF HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS IS THAT THEY ARE GENERALLY PREPARED WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT. IN ADDITION, HYPOTHETICAL TRADING DOES NOT INVOLVE FINANCIAL RISK, AND NO HYPOTHETICAL TRADING RECORD CAN COMPLETELY ACCOUNT FOR THE IMPACT OF FINANCIAL RISK OF ACTUAL TRADING. FOR EXAMPLE, THE ABILITY TO WITHSTAND LOSSES OR TO ADHERE TO A PARTICULAR TRADING PROGRAM IN SPITE OF TRADING LOSSES ARE MATERIAL POINTS WHICH CAN ALSO ADVERSELY AFFECT ACTUAL TRADING RESULTS. THERE ARE NUMEROUS OTHER FACTORS RELATED TO THE MARKETS IN GENERAL OR TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY SPECIFIC TRADING PROGRAM WHICH CANNOT BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE PREPARATION OF HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS AND ALL WHICH CAN ADVERSELY AFFECT TRADING RESULTS.
THESE PERFORMANCE TABLES AND RESULTS ARE HYPOTHETICAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT REPRESENT TRADING IN ACTUAL ACCOUNTS.