Fri, Feb 27, 2015
A A A
Welcome Guest
Free Trial RSS
Get FREE trial access to our award winning publications
Opalesque Futures Intelligence

Futures Lab:Certain strategies work well in stressed market environments, as demonstrated by the difference between convergent vs. divergent investment philosophies.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

FUTURES LAB

Convergent vs. Divergent Strategies

The discussion below develops the key points made by Mark Rosenberg and Paul Lucek in the previous pages. It draws on a paper by Sam Chung, Mark Rosenberg and James Tomeo, published in The Journal of Alternative Investments, Summer 2004, as well as other materials. The conclusion is that “Investors should always have divergent strategies like managed futures as well as convergent stock and bond strategies in their portfolio,” to quote Mr. Rosenberg.

Most hedge fund strategies may be grouped into two categories that represent different investment philosophies. Convergent strategies such as equity market neutral and event driven search for over- or under-valued securities. A convergent strategist believes that the intrinsic value of a security can be estimated and the price will converge to this value.

By contrast, a divergent strategy is based on the premise that past patterns in security prices can reliably predict future patterns. A divergent strategist believes that these patterns reflect the changing attitudes of investors to a variety of economic, political and psychological factors. Managed futures and global macro are divergent strategies.

In efficient markets, the market eventually prices in the information generated by fundamental analysis and convergent strategies work. But market inefficiencies exist due to imperfect or asymmetric information and emotions such as greed or fear. These inefficiencies cause speculative bubbles, price over-shooting and correlation across many markets.

Divergent strategies perform better during periods of rising uncertainty and volatility, times when people ignore fundamental information and make decisions based on emotions such as fear. Behavioral finance argues that human psychology leads investors to make the same mistakes repeatedly, creating the possibility of recurrent and predictable patterns in security prices.

Managed futures programs use models to detect the patterns and take advantage of them. This is a key advantage in times of market stress. For instance, prices often over-shoot on the downside due to panic, diverging further from intrinsic values. A trading program that incorporates this factor profits from the divergence.

The table below shows returns from a managed futures program during the stock market's ten worst months in the past 25 years. During these months of significant equity market loss, the managed futures program correlated negatively with the market.

Taking all the months that the S&P 500 declined more than 5% since 1984, the index lost a total of 217.9%. In sharp contrast, the managed futures program gained a total of 93.4% during those months.

Divergent Strategy in Periods of Stock Market Stress Since 1984

PeriodS&P 500 IndexCTA Program
Oct. 1987- 21.5% - 2%
Oct. 2008- 16.8%19.7%
Aug.1998- 14.4%12.4%
Sep. 2002- 10.9% 4%
Feb. 2001- 9.1%- 2.5%
Aug. 1990- 9%- 1.8%
Sep. 2008- 8.9%2.33%
Jun. 2008- 8.4%3.8%
Sep. 1986- 8.3%- 14.4%
Nov. 1987- 8.2%4%
Sep. 2001- 8%5.1%
Nov. 2000- 7.9%3.8%
Jul. 2002- 7.8%5.6%
Nov. 2008- 7.2%4.8%
Jun. 2002-7%6.5%

* The CTA program is SSARIS Diversified Trading Program. The returns are net of fees.

The same conclusion emerges from a study of times when there were heavy losses in the bond market, as measured by the Merrill Lynch 5-7 Year US Constant Maturity Index. The index lost a total of 62.7% during the months that it declined by more than 3% since 1990. In those same months, the managed futures program gained a total of 29.9%. Again, the correlation was negative.

Because of these characteristics, adding divergent strategies enhances a portfolio's return in economic environments where opportunities are limited for convergent strategies. Combining the two types of strategy in a portfolio reduces the negative outliers and shifts the skew to the positive side. Compared to either category of strategy on its own, the combination has higher risk-adjusted performance.



 
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. Opalesque Exclusive: Very small CTA averages 6.90% per month since April’14 inception[more]

    Benedicte Gravrand, Opalesque Geneva for New Managers: There aren’t many one-man shops around in the hedge fund world but we talked to one. Andrew S. Peskin, who is ba

  2. Opalesque Exclusive: Skënderbeg launches four single-manager funds with Your Wealth AG[more]

    Benedicte Gravrand, Opalesque Geneva for New Managers: Skënderbeg Funds AGmvK, an investment fund for qualified investors under Liechtenstein law (umbrella fund),

  3. Opalesque Roundtable: Many Swiss investors are questioning the value proposition of hedge funds[more]

    Benedicte Gravrand, Opalesque Geneva: There is a well-known transition among investors in hedge funds between high-net-worth individuals and institutional investors, Ian Hamilton, head of the IDS Group, said during the recent

  4. UCITS HFS Index starts year on positive note with 1.09% gains in January[more]

    Komfie Manalo, Opalesque Asia: The UCITS HFS Index started the year on a positive note gains of 1.09% in January after finishing 2014 with a modest performance of 1.62%. Index provider 2n20 said th

  5. Legal - Case builds against former New York hedge fund ‘Buddy’ Fletcher[more]

    From NYPost.com: Disgraced former hedge fund operator Alphonse “Buddy” Fletcher’s trail of broken promises and red ink just got a little longer. A Manhattan judge has ruled that the 49-year old investor owes his former law firm $2.7 million in unpaid legal bills. Add that to the more than $100