Newsletter: So You Want to Be a CTA…

Our weekly newsletter is out, and we’re tackling one of the questions we here more than you might think: how can I start my own CTA? From managed futures billionaire David Harding of Winton, to the legend of John Henry leveraging managed futures success into ownership of the Boston Red Sox, to the tale we recently told of Bill Eckhardt and the Turtle Traders – there are plenty of alluring stories to entice skilled traders to try their hand at becoming professional Commodity Trading Advisors (CTAs). Taking the leap from trading your own money to managing others’ is the first step toward building a legend of your own, but how realistic is it to turn that gleam in your eye into a successful enterprise and tens of millions in the bank?

You might think that your worries extend no further than: 1. Make money, 2. Be operationally sound, and 3. Be properly registered and compliant.  But even when you do everything you are supposed to do, the assets don’t always just come pouring in. What other challenges must an upstart CTA overcome? Well, for starters…

Managed Futures AUM Breakdown

Jumping into the managed futures space means entering a David versus Goliath situation, as just a handful of huge CTAs control the bulk of managed futures wealth (in terms of assets under management). Does this mean all hope is lost? Definitely not. It isn’t easy, but there are a few things you should know before getting started.

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.

Newsletter: Three Emerging Managers Worth Watching

Our weekly newsletter is out, and we’re examining some of the Emerging Managers on our CTA rankings. You see, picking a CTA from amongst the thousands of available managed futures programs can be a daunting task, and it’s why we created the Attain Capital Managed Futures Rankings. Our proprietary algorithm gives a single snapshot of hundreds of CTAs by ranking them on a scale of 1-5 flags. While it’s no substitute for due diligence and a careful evaluation of an investor’s goals and expectations, we believe it is an excellent starting point. Of course, no methodology comes without its quirks, and close watchers of our rankings list may have noticed that, on occasion, programs will suddenly “pop” onto the rankings. One day they aren’t on the list, and the next day they appear – sometimes with a 4 or 5-flag ranking.

It’s no mistake, and it isn’t that these CTAs are suddenly transforming into the best of the best at the stroke of midnight. It’s actually a consequence of the way that we filter the programs that are out there. You see, before we ever get into the nitty-gritty of comparing stats such as downside deviation and 3 year compound returns, we narrow the field with one simple rule – a CTA must have at least a 36 month track record before it is eligible for inclusion.

So when an up-and-coming manager hits their 3rd birthday, so to speak, we include them in our rankings universe and calculate a ranking for them. But just finding out about a program the day it hits its third anniversary wouldn’t do our clients any good, so we take a closer look at their record and trading style prior to hitting the rankings.

What we find when looking into these emerging managers is a classic risk/reward dilemma. On the one hand, their early success could be a fluke – they may not yet have proven themselves by performing well under a diverse array of market conditions. But on the other hand, these young programs could represent an opportunity to invest with the next great CTA before they make it big. Only time will tell how successful the programs which have recently jumped onto our rankings will be, but we wanted to share some quick profiles of three of the higher ranked ones: Stenger, Protec, and Global Sigma. Click on to read more.

JPMorgan, MFGlobal, and the Way Forward

For former MF Global customers, one of the last barriers to resolving the case has finally come down.  JP Morgan has relinquished its claim to a significant portion of the remaining money for distribution, in addition to agreeing to pay an addition sum to the trustee. Via the Wall St. Journal:

Under terms of the settlement, filed in court Tuesday, J.P. Morgan is set to pay $100 million to reimburse customers, while also releasing claims it had on $417 million in MF Global funds that it had previously returned to the trustee representing customers, James W. Giddens.

See Also: Futures Magazine and NYT Dealbook

JPM giving up on its claim to that $417 million means that the trustee avoids a lengthy court battle (that they hopefully would have won anyway), speeding up the remaining distribution. That $100 million is a nice addition, although it’s only going to add a few more percentage points to the final recovery totals – bringing US MF Global customers to around 95% of their original funds. It may have taken far longer than it should have, but we’re happy to see one of the last barriers brought down, to finally allow former customers to move on.

At the same time, this week also saw the release of a survey conducted by Horizon Cash Management on the impact of the two recent FCM bankruptcies on CTAs and CPOs, and it confirms much of what we’ve seen (and said) about the need to change the way the industry operates moving forward. The summary is quite short and definitely worth a read, but for us the most important part is the list of changes that industry participants are calling for:

  • Create an insurance fund.
  • Create a separate custodial entity to hold customer funds and ensure real-time verification of balances for customers by regulators.
  • Make accountability for violation of laws a reality by imposing severe punishment for those who commit fraud and theft.
  • Change the CEA bankruptcy laws to dovetail with other current bankruptcy laws so that laws do not conflict and that there are no loopholes.
  • Strengthen current regulation to prohibit FCMs from using customer segregated funds for any self-serving purposes with severe consequences for violations.
  • Create regulation and procedures to guarantee that all positions and margin are immediately transferred when a bankruptcy is declared.

If fighting JPMorgan for the return of customer funds seemed daunting, the task of making significant changes to the regulatory landscape may look downright overwhelming. But we think persistence will pay off, and continued outreach like Horizon’s survey is great to see. It shows that the people and businesses who make up the industry support these changes, and if anything is capable of overcome the sclerosis of our regulators, it is a persistent appeal from the community. To paraphrase a famous saying – there’s no stopping an idea whose time has come.

Rising Rates, Falling Returns?

One common criticism of managed futures seems to pop up over and over again – the idea that CTAs returns are nothing more than a tailwind from investing idle capital in T-bonds. We’ve addressed this particular argument before, but it’s a belief that just won’t go away. In reality, there are a number of reasons why managed futures love bonds that have nothing to do with that interest rate tailwind.

But recently we came across this great piece from Campbell & Company looking at the effect of rising/falling interest rate environments on managed futures, stocks, and bonds. And what did they find?

Specifically, we found no apparent relationship between the direction of treasury yields and the historical performance of the Barclay CTA Index. This may surprise those readers that attribute CTA profits mostly to holding static long positions in fixed income during the 30-year rally in Treasuries.

While this reinforces our argument that CTA returns are based on much more than just the going 10-year T-bond rate, it also seems to be at odds with what we’ve written in the past about the tantalizing possibility of a bond bear (rates higher, bond prices lower). We’ve always argued that a sustained increase in interest rates – or even a bond “crisis” of sufficient length – could provide an excellent opportunity for managers to profit from the trend. Do these results suggest that we’ve been wrong?

Not exactly – their results showed no linear relationship, but it did display a second order regression, what they term the “smile” line:

Although it’s admittedly based on a small sample and must be taken with a grain of salt, that “smile” indicates exactly what we’ve always argued – that when rates change rapidly (in this case, a move greater than +/- 2% within a year) managed futures will tend to prosper. (Disclaimer: past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.)

We’d love to see what that curve looks like on different time scales, but as is, it’s yet another bit of data that leaves us eager for the eventual arrival of a bond bear.

See Also:

What Bursting Bond Bubble Looks Like

Will Trend Followers Love the Bond Bear?

Review: Inside Managed Futures Webinar with Quantum Leap Capital

A big thanks to everyone who participated in our free webinar yesterday, Inside Managed Futures with Quantum Leap Capital. After a bit of a technical hiccup in the beginning, the conversation was certainly a productive one, and a great opportunity to learn more about Quantum Leap’s unique strategy and performance profile (click here for performance details). The key takeaways?

  • Timing really is everything. Quantum Leap attributes their short-term trend following approach for their distinctive performance profile. While longer term trend followers may be limited in trade opportunity by the timeframe they use, Quantum Leap is able to trade several smaller trends within a larger one, providing more opportunities for entry.

Further Reading: CTA Spotlight- Quantum Leap Capital Management

  • Bigger isn’t always better. Though Quantum Leap’s AUM is not exactly Winton-sized, and the number of markets they trade may seem small in comparison to the range surveyed by other managed futures behemoths, Quantum Leap told us that this was by design, and the program has delivered results that far outpace its size. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results, but it’s a point worth considering.

Further Reading: Second Guessing the Wintons of the World

  • Focus is a good thing. While the managers at Quantum Leap may have taken an unconventional route in entering the space, their perspective, in our opinion, is the right one. Rather than launching a series of different types of programs, Quantum Leap indicated that they focus on trying to be good at one thing. This focus has produced a program that has only been altered one time in its entire track record, and that kind of consistency, particularly from the perspective of those conducting on-going due diligence, has been good for them.

Further Reading: Anatomy of a Style Drift

  • Your options are more flexible than you think. While many investors associate managed futures with minimum investments in the millions, Quantum Leap Capital can be accessed at only $150k, and if using notional funding, can be funded with less.

Further Reading: Dollars and Sense in Managed Futures Investing

  • A portfolio approach is really best. In discussing the performance of Quantum Leap in a wide variety of investing climates, we came back to one very important truth: no program can keep going up forever. However, by getting managed futures exposure via a blended portfolio of CTAs, an investor can diversify their overall investment portfolio in a risk-adjusted manner. Of course, risk management techniques – both at the program and portfolio level- cannot guarantee favorable results, but it’s certainly a better approach than selecting allocations without consideration for balance.

Further Reading: Is your portfolio buckled in?

If you didn’t get the chance to participate, you missed out, but don’t worry – the webinar was recorded for your viewing pleasure, and can be found below. Keep an eye out for the invite to next month’s webinar in our ongoing Inside Managed Futures series. We’ve already started planning, and you won’t want to miss it!

 

Not All Liquidity is Created Equal

When defenders of High-Frequency Trading (HFT) argue that they’re providing liquidity to markets, it always makes us grimace. The main reason for this is that we often hear the same argument made to defend speculators in the futures trade (and often make the argument ourselves) and we’re not thrilled that one of the most hated groups of market participants is using our logic to defend themselves, too. After all, the hostility toward HFT has already prompted some countries to push ahead with plans for a financial transactions tax… that’s not something we want to be associated with.

So as we were reading over this piece from Naked Capitalism, one section really jumped out at us – it was a quote from former Goldman derivatives expert Wallace Turbeville, explaining the different ways that market participants can impact liquidity. He goes so far as to argue that some kinds of trading behavior add liquidity, while others can actually take it away:

The article starts by defining three types of traders: Value Investors (even momentum investors who operate on longer timeframes than HFT types can wind up being Value Investors), Market Makers and Information Traders (HFT and algos). As Turbeville explains:

“It is obvious that a market participant is a liquidity provider only if the prices he or she quotes can be relied upon by other market participants, specifically Value Investors and those Information Traders who at the time are acting as liquidity takers. A price quote that appears on a screen is useless as a source of liquidity if it is not available when it comes time to transact. An Information Trader provides meaningful liquidity when his or her quoted prices represent levels that are reliable and meaningful to the participants who are liquidity takers. Sometimes an Information Trader provides such quotes and sometime it does not. When it is active, but not providing such quotes, it is a liquidity taker..”

When it comes to the kind of speculators we’re working with – CTAs – most have long enough time frames for their trades that they would probably fall into the “Value Investor” category. But even those who are making buy and sell decisions on shorter time frames (the true Information Traders) can add liquidity, as long as their quotes are real and reliable. In Turbeville’s view, rapid-fire order cancellations that flood the market with “fake” liquidity actually detract from the smooth functioning of the market.

The whole Naked Capitalism article is a great piece that draws on quite a few people’s thoughts on HFT, and is definitely worth a read. But the most important takeaway in our minds is that not all liquidity is created equal, and not all traders are necessarily “adding liquidity” with their participation.

Powered By Mow - Wordpress Popup Plugin