What All Volatility Calculations Are Missing

Volatility is one of the main ways we describe risk in the managed futures world, and it’s reflected in the calculation of several other measures of a CTA risk/return profile (like Sharpe Ratio). But last November, Newedge released a paper arguing that the typical method of calculating volatility is flawed because it leaves out an important factor: autocorrelation. Recently, Futures and Options World summarized Newedge’s findings in a more layman-friendly write-up, so we thought it would be worth revisiting the topic for those who wanted the plain English version. (Or you can read the original Newedge research here).

Typically, volatility is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of a CTA’s returns by the square root of the time series. In other words, if you’re looking at a monthly time series, you would multiply the standard deviation by the square root of 12 (the number of months in a year) whereas if you had a weekly time series you would multiply it by 52 (weeks in a year) and for a daily time series you would use 252 (roughly the number of trading days in a year). This gives you the volatility in percentage terms.

Newedge’s research argues that the drawdowns CTAs experience don’t always match what we would expect based on their volatility, and they point to autocorrelation as the missing piece of data. You see, the typical volatility formula assumes that one period’s returns are independent of any others – that whether a CTA made or lost money in one month will have no bearing on whether or not it makes or loses money in the next month. But when a CTA exhibits autocorrelation that assumption no longer holds true. Positive autocorrelation means that whatever happened last is more likely to happen again (winners win and losers lose) while negative autocorrelation means that whatever happened last is less likely to happen again (reversion to the mean).

And according to Newedge’s work, trend following CTAs tend to exhibit negative autocorrelation. (Just more reason to listen to our advice about the benefits of allocation during a drawdown, although of course past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results). So for most trend following CTAs, Newedge’s work would suggest that we are consistently overestimating their effective volatility (and underestimating it for managers who exhibit positive autocorrelation).

We won’t be switching over all of our volatility calculations to incorporate autocorrelation just yet, but it’s definitely something to keep an eye on.

Managed Futures and the “Smirk” Curve

When AQR’s “100 Years of Trend Following” study came out, one of our favorite parts of the piece was the great use of data visualizations, including their look at the “smile curve” that takes shape when plotting managed futures returns vs stock returns. The idea is pretty simple – managed futures returns are higher when stocks are either doing very poorly, or very well. Charting that relationship creates a smile shape, with managed futures returns at their lowest when stock market returns are around zero – in other words, during choppy, sideways markets.

Now, a new paper from 1741 Asset Management has created a similar set of charts using monthly data, and they’ve added in bonds and commodities for good measure. Using the shorter time frame flattens the curves somewhat, leading to more of a “smirk” curve, but it also helps show more nuance to the data than AQR’s charts could display:

Managed Futures = Barclay BTop50, Bonds = Citigroup WGBI All Maturities USD,
Commodities = MSCI TR Gross World, Stocks = S&P GSCI Official Close Index TR.
Disclaimer: past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.

There are a few things that jump out at us looking at this. First of all, the tilt of the curve between bonds and equities is nearly a mirror image. Managed futures has historically prospered far more during boom months for bonds, while sporting relatively lower average returns when bonds are falling. For equities, the relationship is reversed, with managed futures loving down months in stocks significantly more than positive months.

This effect is explained by the skew in the magnitude of returns for bonds vs equities. The equity returns on the upside are far more clustered between 0% and 10% than on the downside, which has months well past the -15% mark. The reverse holds true for bonds, where the scattering of outlier moves is on the upside.

The commodity chart is the most intriguing. There is the huge outlier move of -30% returns in commodities (when managed futures stepped up), but there is a flattening of the curve on the far right of the chart for the outlier up moves. And indeed the whole CTA vs commodities curve is rather flat when compared to the other two. Are we perhaps seeing the effect of their use of the BTOP50 index, which tracks the largest CTAs in the industry (currently the 20 largest)? As we’ve seen in the past, those big CTAs have tended to move away from commodity markets – perhaps explaining why big commodity moves to the upside really don’t move the needle that much. We wouldn’t be surprised to find that smaller CTAs would participate in a large commodity market down move in the other asset classes as there would be flight to safety, and it is less likely that a commodity outlier is caused by global economic factors (and more likely caused by drought, oil embargo, etc.).

At the end of the day – the biggest takeaway is the placement of these curves above their 0% line (on average they are positive no matter the environments), and their ability to point up at the corners (so called fat tail performance).

Managed Futures Ends April Up 1.52%

With April marking the best month since July of 2012 and 5th consecutive winning month (albeit two of those very small) for managed futures, some might be saying – it’s about time.

It was a good month for long-term trend followers, with some of the best sustained trends we’ve been watching throughout 2013 taking some big leaps in the right direction – particularly the big drops in gold and the Yen.  There was a little give-back toward the end of the month, but as of today the Newedge CTA Index is reporting a gain 1.52% for April (Disclaimer: past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results).

Coming off of similar months in January and March (and despite a flat February), that brings the Index up to 4.43% year to date. Quite a bit can change in the next 8 months, but we’re glad to see the index sporting a solid gain for the first 1/3 of the year – especially considering that at this point last year the index was down -0.32%. And after 2 down years in a row, we could all use a good 2013.

Chasing Performance, Fleeing Weakness

Managed futures has been around at least since the 1980s, but interest and assets in the space didn’t truly take off until investors saw the outsized gains managers produced during the 2008 financial crisis – double digit gains while the stock market is in freefall is definitely attention-grabbing (Disclaimer: past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results). Unfortunately, that surge in interest came after the crisis gains had been achieved. And now that we’ve experienced a few middling years while stocks have bounced back to new highs, there are signs that interest is waning.

The Hedge Fund Spotlight from Preqin Group has a new report that includes some illuminating facts on the state of managed futures after the less-than-stellar 2009-2013 period. Despite our perpetual complaint that CTAs are grouped in with hedge funds, there are still some very interesting bits of information about managed futures in the report. A few takeaways:

  1. The performance of CTAs and managed futures managers was marginally positive in the first quarter. An array of commodities’ prices, notably in the metals sector, declined during the first three months of 2013 and major currencies weakened against the US dollar. A gain of 1.40%, the highest for six months, in January was all but given away the following month and CTAs ended Q1 up 0.21%.
  2. CTA launches in 2012 were at their lowest since 2006, and from the slow start in 2013 it appears it could be another year where CTA launches are overshadowed by hedge funds pursuing other strategies.
  3. Following the poor performance of CTAs in 2011 and 2012, and a slow start to 2013 in terms of returns generated, investor appetite for CTAs is showing signs of decreasing. Investor searches initiated for the strategy fell again to 17% of all searches gathered by Preqin analysts in Q1 2013, down from 18% in Q4 2012 and 25% in Q2 2012.

Just as predictably as investors rushing in after the crisis, we’re now seeing a bit of a drop-off in interest as investors start asking themselves why they’re diversified when stocks look so great (a question we broke down in a recent newsletter). It’s the flip side of chasing performance: fleeing weakness. And the unfortunate pattern would be completed if we entered another crisis phase, with stocks tumbling and managed futures shining after investors have turned elsewhere.

Mirror, Mirror – Who’s the Finest CTA of Them All?

One of the most common bits of advice we dole out is to invest in quality managers when they experience a drawdown. It’s not a hard and fast rule, but there’s a tendency for managed futures performance to follow a cyclical pattern. It’s why performance chasing often leads to disappointment, and why we prefer allocations during rough patches.

But timing can be about more than cycles – it can also make a difference where in that program’s life you allocate. We’ve noticed a common pattern of programs offering diminished risk/return profiles as they age, meaning it was better to be an early investor than a late one. But in practice, this can be difficult to visualize, as the compound rates of return and other metrics are calculated on the whole track record (including those usually higher returns).

Consider the following pair of VAMI (Value-Added Monthly Index) calculations:

Disclaimer: past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. This comparison is hypothetical in nature and is only for educational purposes.

The first program appears to post consistent returns throughout its lifetime, while the second program offers a whole lot of nothing for the two-thirds of its existence, before rocketing up in the last third of its record. But both of them end up in the exact same place. So, which of these programs would you rather have invested in? Which do you believe has the higher volatility? The higher max drawdown?

Perhaps a look at their stats would help you decide?

CTA 1

CTA 2

Compound ROR

40.4%

40.4%

Annualized Volatility

46.5%

46.5%

Maximum Drawdown

-37.7%

-37.7%

What? They have the exact same Compound ROR, Volatility, and Maximum Drawdown?  Why yes, they do. That’s because these two “programs” are actually the exact same program with one minor change – we’ve put the second (red) set of returns in reverse chronological order. A sort of mirror image. No, we’re not getting bored and finding random things for interns to do. We just like to look at things from a different angle every now and then (180 degrees different in this case).  And here, the reverse view puts the difference between the early years and the recent returns into sharp relief, and shows how a program can turn into something very different as it ages. The fact that these two curves are so different – and yet the stats are exactly the same – also shows how you need to do more than just look at the basic stats of a program to get a feel for how it has traded.

So put your impressive CTA equity curve in front of the mirror, and see what its reverse cousin looks like. A rather flat line to start out, and you’re likely invested in yesterday’s success. Two closely aligned curves, and you’re likely seeing more consistent performance over time.

Managed Futures Reads

When we started writing about managed futures, there weren’t many others doing the same. But over the last few years, quite a few others have joined in. Here are some of the recent managed futures reads floating around the internet that have caught our eye.

  • Here’s How The ‘Hack-Crash’ Looked To A Trend Follower (Alpha Capture)
  • Trend Following Wizards, March Performance (Au.Tra.Sy Blog)
  • Welcome to Alternative Insights (wealthmanagement.com)
  • Does the Stock Market perform Positively when Managed Futures performs Negatively? (Opalesque)

Options Sellers, Meet Volatility

Three weeks ago we wrote this newsletter detailing the recent comeback seen by options sellers and short volatility strategies.  The crux of the story was that while these strategies had made an impressive comeback after two years of disappointing performance, that investors should still be wary of the potential for losses during the next volatility spike. Well the volatility spike that we were all waiting for started gaining steam last week before hitting the max capitulation point yesterday in precious metals. The results, as you might expect, are not pretty.

Option CTA Performance April 2013

Program

MTD %*

Max DD*

Strategy Type

Newport Private Capital – Optimum Income

0.15%

-1.42%

Options

Global Sigma LLC -Global Sigma Plus (QEP Only)

-1.27%

-3.31%

Options

Bluenose Capital Management LLC – BNC EI

-4.06%

-6.32%

Options

White River Group Stock Index Option Writing

-5.13%

-18.73%

Options

Bluenose Capital Management LLC – BNC BI

-8.35%

-8.35%

Options

White River Group Diversified Option Writing

-31.09%

-31.09%

Options

*Attain estimate. Disclaimer: past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.

Kudos to Newport for weathering the storm so far. As for the rest it is disappointing to see that the mistakes made by so many option programs in years past have been repeated again. New max drawdowns were set by Bluenose BI and White River Group. We’ll be in touch with the managers to discuss risk management, what went wrong, and reach out to clients with our thoughts moving forward.

On the positive side of things – the managers we expect to thrive during a volatility spike have done their job as evidenced by the top performing programs month to date:

Program

MTD %*

Max DD*

Strategy Type

Quest Partners – AlphaQuest Original (QEP Only)

4.96%

-24.60%

Multi Strategy

Rosetta Capital Mgt. LLC – Macro (QEP Only)

3.29%

-17.36%

Specialty

Dominion Capital Management Sapphire (QEP Only)

3.21%

-17.32%

Short Term

Protec Energy Partners LLC – ET1

3.19%

-14.43%

Specialty

T2 & Associates Original (QEP Only)

2.25%

-16.51%

Stock Index

Global AG. LLC (QEP Only)

2.15%

-17.57%

Agriculture

Integrated Managed Futures Corp. Global Conc. (QEP Only)

2.11%

-19.34%

Multi Strategy

Covenant Capital Management Aggressive

1.52%

-20.41%

Trend Following

Soaring Pelican – Automated Futures Trading (QEP Only)

1.18%

-9.24%

Stock Index

2100 Xenon Managed Futures (2x) Program (QEP Only)

0.37%

-19.11%

Multi Strategy

Futures Truth MS4 (QEP Only)

0.24%

-9.67%

Multi Strategy

Newport Private Capital – Optimum Income

0.15%

-1.42%

Options

Auctos Capital Management Global Div.  (QEP Only)

0.03%

-12.22%

Multi Strategy

Stenger Capital Management Diversified Trading

0.00%

-0.55%

Specialty

*Attain estimate. Disclaimer: past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.

Today’s whiplash rally reversing some of yesterday’s broad selloff was not what the longer-term trend followers were hoping to see, but we’ll have to wait to find out whether we’ve seen the end of the trend, or just the beginning.

Powered By Mow - Wordpress Popup Plugin