Fri, Apr 20, 2018
A A A
Welcome Guest
Free Trial RSS
Get FREE trial access to our award winning publications
Opalesque Futures Intelligence

Futures Lab: Study from MF Global debunks common myths.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Managed Futures Myths, Debunked

The following discussion is based on research from MF Global Alternative Investment Strategies. Adam Rochlin, senior vice president and head of MF Global Alternative Investment Strategies, provided commentary. The charts are from a report by his team. Chidem Kurdas edited the material.

There are common misconceptions that get in the way of an open-minded assessment of investment options. We tackle three beliefs that cause investors to regard managed futures as an inferior asset class compared to stocks and bonds.

Myth Number One: Downside Volatility

Managed futures are volatile because prices change frequently. There is nothing wrong with volatility in general-it's just a measure of how far something goes up and down. But when people worry about this, they think of downside volatility and how deep the troughs are, not upside price change.

Let's compare asset classes for the past 25 years. When you look at the number of negative periods, managed futures do have slightly more drawdowns. However, managed futures lost less than other investments. In particular, there is a dramatic difference in the magnitude of the worst drawdowns. Compared to US and international stocks, managed futures has much shallower troughs (chart 1).

CHART 1

It is worth noting that the same pattern is seen for managed futures versus long-only commodity investments, represented by the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index (gold vs. green boxes in chart 1). Managed futures has more drawdowns but long-only commodities have substantially deeper troughs. The comparison favors managed futures for average drawdowns but is especially pronounced for the worst drawdowns.

Similar conclusions arise when you look at the magnitude of negative performance for shorter periods within the full 25-year span. Compared to other asset classes, the troughs are less deep for managed futures for the last 10 years, five years and three years (chart 2). Only government bonds had comparable shallow losses.

What it means is that managed futures is better at preserving capital, which allows commodity trading advisors to make more money over time. What is more, this differentiation in performance adds long term diversity to a portfolio.

CHART 2

Myth Number Two: Only for Hard Times

There is a perception that investing in commodities is very good insurance against extreme events like the debt crisis and global shakedown. During those times real assets tend to perform better than financial assets. If CTAs are insurance, investors reason, allocate to them when you need the insurance.

But that is only half the story. Yes, managed futures does provide protection in equity bear markets. Chart 3 shows two bearish periods, 2000-2002 and 2007-2009, when having CTAs in a portfolio provided gains against the losses in US and international stocks and in the latter period in long-only commodities as well. And yes, in a striking bull market like 1995-1999, stocks leave managed futures behind.

CHART 3

But managed futures still had positive returns in the bullish late 1980s and 1990s (chart 4). It is a misperception that managed futures perform well only when traditional asset classes underperform. You need to be in the strategy during bull markets as well as bear markets to get capital appreciation.

CHART 4

It is not a good idea to invest only for bear market insurance because then you miss out on the market cycle. Trying to time entry and exit will hurt you more than help you, because very few can consistently time when to enter and exit a certain asset class. Warren Buffett may do it, but not many people can. To get the full benefit it is best to buy and hold, not time.

Comparing managed futures and the MSCI World Index shows that these two asset classes are complementary. Nobody wants to miss the gains of international growth, but global stocks tend to go through sharp downturns‚€managed futures does well during those times, so there is a compelling case that putting them together is beneficial.

Myth Number Three: Not for the Long Haul

There is an impression that managed futures have not performed well over the long term and are exclusively a short-term strategy. But for the 25 years from January 1985 through December 2009, average returns from managed futures are comparable to the other benchmarks (chart 5). Over multiple durations of time, with the exception of 2009, managed futures‚„ average monthly returns have outperformed most other benchmarks.

While managed futures does not perform better than stocks during up markets, this asset class has competitive monthly returns overall. The peaks are not as high for various periods, but the troughs are not as deep, so managed futures has the advantage of preserving capital over time. Note that even in 2009, a bad year for managed futures, performance was nowhere as bad as it was for equities in 2008.

CHART 5

Regarding commodities, more than a few sophisticated investors look to this asset class for diversification and return, but increasingly they do not want long-only commodities. Long/short commodities is getting more attention. That should help CTAs attract assets.



 
This article was published in Opalesque Futures Intelligence.
Opalesque Futures Intelligence
Opalesque Futures Intelligence
Opalesque Futures Intelligence
Today's Exclusives Today's Other Voices More Exclusives
Previous Opalesque Exclusives                                  
More Other Voices
Previous Other Voices                                               
Access Alternative Market Briefing


  • Top Forwarded
  • Top Tracked
  • Top Searched
  1. Investing - Sequoia takes Facebook stake as shares slide in data controversy, $1.4b hedge fund sees intact fundamentals for Facebook, Jim Cramer reveals some 'suggested hedge fund trades' amid the Trump tariffs[more]

    Sequoia takes Facebook stake as shares slide in data controversy From Bloomberg.com: The $4.2 billion Sequoia Fund bought a small position in Facebook Inc. as the stock slid late in the first quarter, investment manager Ruane, Cunniff & Goldfarb told clients. "The recent controversy enab

  2. Activist Investors - Blue Sky-owned Wild Breads faces uncertain future[more]

    From AFR.com: A Blue Sky private equity investment in artisan-style baker Wild Breads enjoyed multiple valuation upgrades despite losing millions and breaching its lending covenants, accounts lodged with the regulator last week show. Wild Breads lost $2.4 million in 2017, but Blue Sky ascribed a hig

  3. Opalesque Exclusive: Barnegat to close hedge fund to outside investors on weak opportunities[more]

    Komfie Manalo, Opalesque Asia: Bob Treue's Barnegat Fund Management said it is closing its $666m fixed income relative value hedge fund to outside investors. "The negative side to gains in Fixed Income Arbitrage is that unless we find new opportunit

  4. Investing - Hedge fund makes a big bet on malls, British hedge fund manager Odey short UK government bonds on QE bet[more]

    Hedge fund makes a big bet on malls From Barrons.com: The dominant narrative on American shopping malls is that they're dead. Crushed by Amazon.com, many brick-and-mortar retail stores are destined for bankruptcy. And where is the most retail, clustered all together? Malls. From a

  5. Performance - Hedge funds suffer first back-to-back loss in two years, Netflix performance burns hedge fund short sellers, Macro hedge fund up 14.5% in first quarter sees dollar falling, Renaissance Technologies rebounds across hedge funds in March[more]

    Hedge funds suffer first back-to-back loss in two years From Bloomberg.com: Hedge Fund returns sank for a second straight month in March, the first back-to-back loss since the first two months of 2016, as trade wars, tech-sector woes and a Fed rate hike dragged down the S&P 500 from its