Managed Futures as Bear Market Protection

February 6, 2006

 

Many readers may be asking why we would write about 'Bear Market Protection' right now, with US stocks fresh off their third straight year of gains, and foreign stock markets posting even stronger gains. 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 are at a 20 year low. 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 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: www.investmentu.com

Are we headed for another volatility spike? It's impossible to tell for sure, but with a new Fed chairman taking the reins last week, a continuing war in Iraq, and potential housing bubble burst - anything could happen. (Black Monday in October 1987 occurred about two months after a man named Alan Greenspan was appointed as Fed Chairman)

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 164 advisors controlling more than 6.5 Billion is assets (as of June 2002). 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 a bull market in energy 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 88% allocation to the S&P 500 index and a 12% allocation to the CSFB/Tremont Managed Futures Index.

The tests show that the portfolio containing the managed futures allocation improves the portfolio across every statistic. The portfolio containing a managed futures allocation has a higher average annual return, (5.0% vs 4.7%), a lower standard deviation (12.1 vs 14.0), 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 -3.63% in the portfolio of stocks alone to just -3.09% in the portfolio of stocks and managed futures.

On an annualized basis, this represents 6.48% 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 6% 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 down just 4%.

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 12% 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 were run using indices, which are difficult and expensive to replicate.

The numbers within the 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   |  

Chart of the Week : Zenith Resources Performance Summary

Feature   |   Week In Review   |   Chart of the Week   |  

Long Term trend followers have been waiting for the much anticipated commodity bull market to get kick started and that’s exactly what happened in January. Commodities across a variety of sectors rallied higher to the delight of several long term systems and CTAs. And while markets like Sugar, Gold, and Crude Oil seem to be peaking there is plenty of room left for markets like Soybeans, Cotton, Wheat, Live Cattle, and Hogs to rally to the upside.

For the second month in a row Sugar wins the fictitious "Commodity of the Month Award" after rallying 22.75% in January. This seemingly unbelievable move has been fueled by the realization that Sugar is one of the cheapest (not any longer) commodities for producing Ethanol. Several countries including Brazil have already enjoyed success in developing this alternative energy source.

Speaking of energy sources, prices took off again in January with Crude Oil gaining +9.96%, Unleaded Gas was up 2.17%, and Heating Oil up +2.61%. Surprisingly Natural Gas fell -17.99% in a huge market correction.

Other white hot commodities in January include the Metals Complex which saw High Grade Copper rally +9.13% higher, Gold climb +9.83%, Palladium up 13.56%, and Platinum up +10.86%.

In the Tropical markets Coffee followed Sugar and rallied +10.36% while Cotton lagged behind at +2.82%. Grains were slow and choppy but seem to be getting a sympathy bid as the Ethanol based rally in Sugar could overflow into grain markets like Corn. Last month CBOT Wheat climbed +1.18% and Corn was up +1.39%. The historically volatile Soybean market fell -3.13%.

In Currency trading speculators pushed the US Dollar lower as the EU gets ready to raise its own interest rates. The US Dollar Index fell -1.85% for the month while Eurocurrency rose +2.51%, the Swiss Franc was up +2.59%, and the Japanese Yen finished the month nearly unchanged from December

The US Stock and Bond markets were awful boring in comparison to the action in the commodity markets in January. Stocks did move higher, but it was tedious climb that featured 2 large market sell offs, and uncertainty seems to be on the horizon again as the $VIX (CBOE Volatility Index) climbed 7.30% for the month. For the month SP futures climbed +2.30%, NASDAQ futures were up +3.65%, Russell 2000 futures climbed +8.61%, and SP Midcap 400 futures rose +5.53%.

Finally, in bond trading US 30 year bond futures fell -1.18% and US 10 year note futures dropped -0.89%.

***Day Trading***

Equities started off the year red hot with Nasdaq futures up over 5 % and S&Ps gaining close to 3 % in the first week of January With the increased volatility in the first week, day trading systems seemed to be destined to start off the year with profits in January. Unfortunately, most systems gave back the gains from the first week of trading and then some…most of which can be attributed to slower, choppy conditions in the second-half of the month.

A few systems were able to come out on top for the month. RC Success eRL has been nearly flawless in 2006 and profited +$2,930 per contract for the month of January. Tanker, which day trades Crude Oil, traded four times in January for a gain of +$1,550. The system can be traded on full-size Crude Oil or e-mini Crude (1/2 the value). Bounce eMD MOC had just one trade in January but timely its entry perfectly for a gain of +$600.

As previously mentioned several systems started off in the right direction but struggled to finish the month with profits. Compass SP started out January with a huge $4,400 winning trade, but lost nearly all of that throughout the rest of the month, making just $14 after factoring in commissions. Impetus eRL also started January with a nice winning trade, but lost money the rest of the way to end the month down -$101.10 per contract on 5 trades. The system is really needing a return to its winning ways of 2004 after a long stretch of drawdown. Clipper eRL, meanwhile, had seven trades that resulted in losses of -$230 per contract.

Rounding out the day trading activity in January were systems with losses to open the year. RC Success ES traded 8 times for a loss of -$590 per contract. SPMD, which is not currently listed on the website traded 15 times for a loss of -$4,150. Finally, R-Mesa 5 traded 16 times for a loss of -$7,445.08, and sits just $4,500 away from its stop trade point.

***Swing Trading***

January marked anew month in a new year, however the same rules still apply to swing trading – the trend is our friend and a requirement for success. Along with the ups and downs of the market and lack of consistency came mixed results from a majority of swing systems.

The trade of the month goes to Crude Oil swing traders Axiom CL 90 and Axiom CL 135, which have been holding long in Crude since January 3rd. As of January 31st they had added +$4,870 and +$4,070 in open trade equity and are still holding long today.

Outside of the CL market the most significant index movers included solid gains from Delphi eRL, Seasonal ST eRL, Seasonal ST ES, Tzar ES, and Bounce eMD. Delphi eRL was successful in hitting 2 separate profit targets to end the month +$1,773.40. Seasonal ST ended the month positive after posting solid gains during the first week of the year – The eRL gained +$1,680 on the month while the ES gained +$660. The long only Bounce eMD also had a well timed trade in the first week of trading as it earned +$1,470. Finally, Tzar ES was able to post gains of +$1,210 on the month.

The rest of the stock index swing trading results were unfortunately on the losing side. Axiom eMD continued its two plus month drawdown with losses of -$1,280.20, while Axiom also suffered losses in its other three markets, losing -$200, -$580,and -$1,539.68 in the eRL, ES, and NQ. For those looking at the Axiom systems, this drawdown period represents a great chance to get involved at a "discount".

Elsewhere, Tzar saw losses of -$470, -$750, and -$2,508 in the NQ, eRL, and eMD; while Delphi eMD struggled to a loss of -$713.60 and Eclipse eRL came within a few hundred dollars of its stop trade point with losses of -$2,472.50.

Bond swing traders didn't fare much better, with Mesa Notes losing -$968.75, Jaws Narrowneck Bonds down -$1,187.50, and Mesa Bonds losing -$1,343.75 as it stubbornly held onto the long side.

***Long Term***

As you might expect Long Term Trend following systems had a pretty good start to ’06 as rallies in markets like Sugar, Copper, Gold, and Crude Oil allowed some systems to snap out of the funk that dominated 2005.

Sugar - with gains of +22.75% - was King in January and most systems have thrived in the rally. Two systems that have stood head and shoulders above the rest were SEMA4 Symmetry which is making +$9727.60 per contract on a long position held since August. Axiom LT is another system that benefited from the huge Sugar move with the only difference being that Axiom trades the London Sugar contract instead of the NY contract. Either way it was still a great trade as the system hit its profit target for gains of +$9260.00 per contract!

Metals were also on a tear in January and Aberration Plus led the charge with gains of +$12050.00 per contract in the LME Aluminum as this system hit a profit target as well. Aberration Plus is also long in Palladium for gains of +$5445.00 per contract. Meanwhile, Trend Simplicity is long in High Grade Copper for gains of +$645.00 per contract.

Finally, most systems reversed short in the bond markets as interest rates continue to rise. A sampling of systems with short positions includes Brix which is short in the 30 year bonds for gains of $470.00 per contract and in the 10 year notes for gains of $204.38 per contract, while Andromeda is short in the 5 year notes for gains of $16.88 per contract and Eurobund for losses of $410.00 per contract.

What didn’t work well in February? Well Andromeda was stopped out of Soybeans of a loss of +$1725.00 per contract. Aberration struggled in the Canadian Dollar losing -$1940.00 per contract and in the Aussie 10 year for losses of -$1531.25 per contract. Brix was also victimized in the beans for a loss of -$1775.00 per contract and in the Yen for losses of -$2462.50 per contract. Finally, Trend Simplicity lost -$1090.00 per contract in the Dollar Index and -$2325.00 per contract in Coffee.

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.

Feature   |   Week In Review   |   Chart of the Week   |