It’s been no secret that Alternative investments haven’t provided on their promise of diversification during the recent sell off in equity markets (even if that promise is based on providing non-correlation, not negative correlation at each down turn). The excuses are mostly valid – in that the sell off was a reversal of an up move. But there are trends now happening to the down side, like this rather classic looking down trend in Crude Oil:
So where are the returns from this oil move? Where is the diversification inside of systematic models? Have managers caught this move while being whipsawed elsewhere? The answer is more complicated than it may first appear, and is basically an answer of yes and no. Some have caught the down trend, while others have not. There’s more than a few ways to identify when an up trend ends and a down trend begins, and whether your particular brand of trend following is concocted using more short term models or longer term ones is the main determinant for whether you’ve been able to capture this Oil downtrend.
What’s that actually look like in real life – on this Crude Oil move. Well, we went back to the basics and created 9 different trend following models based on some rather universal logic for doing so to see just that. We used a Donchian breakout system which looks to enter a short trade at a new period low (ie. 20 day low), moving average cross over models which go short when the short term moving average crosses below the longer term average (i.e. 20 and 50 days), and a Bollinger Band breakout model which brackets prices two standard deviations above and below the mean, entering short on prices closing below the lower band.
We then ran all of the models on three different time frames: short (10 to 50 day look-back periods), medium (20 to 200 day periods), and long term (50 to 800 days) to see just what type of models were getting in and out at which prices and dates. What we found when plotting all of the different long exits and short entry points is that there are many ways to skin this cat, with the shorter term models understandably having identified the end of the long trend and beginning of the down trend sooner – entering short trades as early as October 18th (about $13 ago):
The medium terms models, interestingly, exited longs at roughly the same time as the short term ones. But took longer to get short, with most short by the beginning of November, entering around $63.
And finally, for those who have stretched the reaction time in their models to better weed out false breakouts and whipsaw moves, the longer term models took as much time to exit (on the whole) as the short and medium term models did to enter. And only one of the four long term models has gone short (Bollinger bands), despite Crude Oil’s 25% drop since the beginning of October.
Past performance is not indicative of future results. All data was gathered from bloomberg.com
The lesson – a 25% drop sure looks like a down trend to most of us, but depending on your particular brand of trend following – it may not have even registered as such yet. One man or women’s down trend is another’s up trend pullback, meaning it will take another leg down in this current Oil market to trigger full involvement on the downside form the systematic managed futures and macro folks.
January 9, 2019
[…] in November we talked about crude being in a down trend, but it looks like that could be in jeapordy on shorter time frames. […]
Comments are closed.
The performance data displayed herein is compiled from various sources, including BarclayHedge, 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.