Commodity ETFs Upping Their Game?

We keep regular tabs on a handful of long-only commodity ETFs (UNG, USO, and CORN), specifically how much these funds underperform the futures contracts for the same underlying commodity. We believe that managed futures, which can go long or short depending on market conditions, is a better investment strategy. But if you’re going to go long commodities, ETFs are not a particularly efficient means of doing so – and the data continues to bear that out.

But now it looks like we may need to broaden our look at commodity ETFs, as some new challengers have appeared that, at least on paper, claim they will be able to avoid the lackluster performance that has plagued their peers. MSN Money reports:

Take the UBS E-TRACS DJ UBS Commodity Index 2-4-6 Blended Futures ETN (BLND), which only has around $10 million in assets. The exchange-traded note tries to navigate a problem called contango — which occurs when current future prices are lower than contracts reflecting what prices could be a year from now — by buying futures contracts out in various months and “blending” them to create the index.

ETFs based only on current prices lose money if a market is in contango because they have to buy the higher-priced, longer-dated contract and sell the cheaper spot month. So they are selling low and buying high. The United States Natural Gas Fund (UNG) has consistently been a loser for investors because of issues of contango.

Will this prove more efficient than the traditional approach? Tough to say… they’re still not entirely eliminating the problems with frequent rolls (which is why we advocate that long-only investors roll just one time per year), and they could have a marketing problem with the ETF not matching the performance of the index it tracks in the short term. Will investors be willing to not make what the index makes on any single day/month/quarter in order to more closely track what the index makes in a year? That requires some advanced investing logic and willingness to seek long term results over short term gratification – something the average investor isn’t exactly known for.

For our part, BLND contains a basket of commodities, which makes it more difficult to compare against the underlying futures contracts. Nevertheless, it’s nice to see someone else acknowledging the problems dragging down many of the commodity ETFs out there.

Unfortunately, the rest of the article goes off the rails, arguing that commodity investors should “keep it simple” by investing in ETFs that track the producers the commodities – mining companies, agriculture companies, oil companies… and we can only shake our heads.

Sorry, but buying Exxon is NOT the same thing as being long crude oil. And we’re far from the only ones to criticize the idea of using mining companies to gain exposure to the metal markets. With the proliferation of ETFs tracking various combinations of companies and resources, it sounds like the ETF universe is trying hard to produce a better offering. We’ll be waiting for the data to provide a verdict, but until then, we remain unconvinced.

Write a Comment

The performance data displayed herein is compiled from various sources, including BarclayHedge, RCM's own estimates of performance based on account managed by advisors on its books, and reports directly from the advisors. These performance figures should not be relied on independent of the individual advisor's disclosure document, which has important information regarding the method of calculation used, whether or not the performance includes proprietary results, and other important footnotes on the advisor's track record.

Benchmark index performance is for the constituents of that index only, and does not represent the entire universe of possible investments within that asset class. And further, that there can be limitations and biases to indices such as survivorship, self reporting, and instant history.

Managed futures accounts can subject to substantial charges for management and advisory fees. The numbers within this website include all such fees, but it may be necessary for those accounts that are subject to these charges to make substantial trading profits in the future to avoid depletion or exhaustion of their assets.

Investors interested in investing with a managed futures program (excepting those programs which are offered exclusively to qualified eligible persons as that term is defined by CFTC regulation 4.7) will be required to receive and sign off on a disclosure document in compliance with certain CFT rules The disclosure documents contains a complete description of the principal risk factors and each fee to be charged to your account by the CTA, as well as the composite performance of accounts under the CTA's management over at least the most recent five years. Investor interested in investing in any of the programs on this website are urged to carefully read these disclosure documents, including, but not limited to the performance information, before investing in any such programs.

Those investors who are qualified eligible persons as that term is defined by CFTC regulation 4.7 and interested in investing in a program exempt from having to provide a disclosure document and considered by the regulations to be sophisticated enough to understand the risks and be able to interpret the accuracy and completeness of any performance information on their own.

RCM receives a portion of the commodity brokerage commissions you pay in connection with your futures trading and/or a portion of the interest income (if any) earned on an account's assets. The listed manager may also pay RCM a portion of the fees they receive from accounts introduced to them by RCM.

See the full terms of use and risk disclaimer here.