Do Investors really have to choose between Rotten Eggs?

It seems like nary a day goes by without a new article popping up hating on diversification. Not because there’s anything really wrong with diversification, but because financial journalism seems to think there’s something wrong with diversification, especially with the S&P at all time highs just a couple weeks ago. Take the recent Market Watch article entitled, “Why Diversification isn’t working.”

Much like the majority of articles out there, the headline is a little deceiving. Author Howard Gold isn’t claiming that the idea of the theory of diversification is flawed, but the application of diversifying your portfolio to include other asset classes in this current climate is flawed, as in his words, “investors have to choose between many bad choices,” implying that there’s nothing out there that can really create a portfolio full of truly diversified asset classes. He even goes as far as calling some of the choices rotten eggs.

“But what if all the baskets were floating in the same direction and the only one that wasn’t was filled with rotten eggs?”

To show that all the basket are floating in the same direction, he shows two tables outlining nine asset classes and their correlation to the S&P 500, one between 2003-2007, and the other from 2008-2012.

Correlation 2003 2007Correlation 2008 2012Charts Courtesy: Market Watch
(Disclaimer: Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results)

As a refresher: the closer the correlation to 1.00, the higher the correlation, the closer to -1.00, the more negative correlation the two asset classes are, and in-between -0.30 and 0.30 is an example of a non-correlation. His argument, is that among the nine asset classes… the positive correlation to each other are growing – except for in the 20-Year US Treasury Bonds, which he argues are the rotten eggs (because we’re at the end of a 30 year bull market in bonds and prices are likely to fall).

“So, the choice appears to be throwing even more money into stocks, which are nearly five years into a bull market, or buying bonds, which we know will go down in price. Or keeping more in cash (with its negative real return) or stuffing money in the mattress. Or, God forbid, buying leveraged inverse ETFs as a “hedge.”

Now we in the managed futures space love talking non-correlation, and we really like that something like this is getting good attention… but the article is missing a rather big thing in our opinion… Managed Futures. So what does the shift in correlations look like when including managed futures. To do this we used the BarclayHedge BTOP 50 Index.

Managed Futures Correlation 2003 2007Managed Futures Correlation 2008 2012

(Disclaimer: Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results).

Turns out managed futures has become less correlated to stocks, unlike the other asset classes (or more appropriately – more negatively correlated).  Now, that’s rather obvious from looking at the performance, where managed futures was up while stocks were down in 2008, and has been flat to down since 09 while stocks have been going straight up. (Disclaimer: Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results).

But we don’t really agree that things are becoming more correlated as of late. Yes, they became very correlated in 2007, 2008, and 2009 – throwing off managed futures and their multi-sector diversification in the process – but since then things have been moving away from that risk on/risk off environment.  As a whole, we’ve been tracking how correlated the futures markets have been to one another, not just other asset classes (i.e. gold futures, corn futures, S&P futures, and so on) (see here, and here), and compared to the 2008-2009 numbers, the correlation has significantly decreased.

So managed futures has remained non correlated, but is that ‘basket’ full of rotten eggs just like bonds?  Not on your life. Indeed, managed futures has had nearly the inverse performance of bonds since 2009, and is at all time lows versus all time highs. The new attitude is to buy into managed futures not just because it will help your portfolio when the s^&% hits the fan, but because it isn’t likely to get much worse from here (although it could).









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.