|
Overview of Managed Futures
::
Modern
Portfolio Theory
In our opinion, almost every investment advisor will
agree is that diversification is key to a successful
portfolio. Historically investors have
“diversified” by investing in various stocks, bonds
and mutual funds. According to Modern Portfolio
Theory (MPT), however, portfolios consisting only of
stocks, bonds and mutual funds are not adequately
diversified. In his article Portfolio Selection,
Professor Harry Markowitz illustrated that holding
stocks, bonds and mutual funds does not adequately
lower an investor’s risk because each of those types
of investments move in concert with each other. He
concluded that diversification “reduces risk only
when assets are combined whose prices move
inversely, or at different times, in relation to
each other.”
In other words, investors can properly diversify
their portfolios only when investing in different
asset classes having no correlation with each other.
Since stocks, bonds and mutual funds are all of the
same asset class and generally move in concert with
each other, an alternative investment solution is
needed to properly diversify a portfolio.
::
Alternative
Investments
The term “alternative investment” generally refers
to any investment in which the successful
performance does not depend on continued upward
movement in the stock market. Alternative
investments are also described as “absolute return”
strategies, meaning investment strategies that
should perform well each year whether the stock
market goes up, down or sideways. This does not mean
that alternative investments always make money—it
merely means that a continued decline in the stock
market should not present a material risk for a true
alternative investment strategy. In uncertain times
like these, alternative investments can make a big
difference in the performance of overall portfolios.
Alternative investments include investments such as
real estate, venture capital, hedge funds, fund of
funds, and managed futures. These comments focus on
managed futures—what they are and why they are
becoming the preferred alternative investment
strategy.
::
Managed Futures
Defined
You do not need a professional money manager to
invest in futures. However, the futures markets are
so vast that it is difficult, if not impossible, for
an individual to master more than a small segment of
trading. The term “managed futures” describes a
managed approach to futures market participation
whereby professional money managers called commodity
trading advisors (“CTAs”), trade futures and forward
contracts pursuant to a limited power-of-attorney or
limited trading authorization. CTAs are
professional money managers specializing in trading
futures and forward contracts. The term “CTA”,
however, is a misnomer—while futures and forward
contracts may represent agricultural products,
energies, cattle, hogs, metals, and other
commodities, many CTAs also focus on trading
currencies, financial instruments, stock indexes and
single stock futures. CTAs work full time to trade
and manage investments and are registered with the
National Futures Association.
Investors may engage a CTA to trade individually
managed accounts or invest collectively with other
individuals in a pool or fund, thus sharing the
potential risk and rewards of many different markets
among investors in the pool or fund.
When investing in managed futures, the goal is to
profit from moves in the contract prices of
commodities, stocks, bonds and currencies, not an
appreciation in value of the underlying asset. Each
CTA employs his or her own strategy for profit
maximization. There are thousands of CTAs and hedge
fund managers; some of them are experts and some are
not. It can take years to understand their
strategies and distinguish the skilled from the
unskilled traders. This is where Altavra can help.
::
Suitability
Although managed futures can provide badly needed
portfolio diversification to portfolios, only
investors with risk capital who understand and
appreciate the risks and rewards involved in trading
futures should invest in managed futures. Investors
should not treat managed futures as a short term
trading opportunity. Because futures markets tend
to be cyclical, investors should plan to hold an
individually managed account, pool or fund
investment for at least two to three years.
IRAs and other self directed plans can invest in
managed accounts, pools and funds as long as the
plan permits such investments. If the plan’s
custodian does not accept alternative investments,
the investor will have to open an account with
another custodian that does.
::
Benefits of
Managed Futures
Growing numbers of corporate, institutional and
individual investors have been allocating a portion
of their portfolio’s assets to managed futures
accounts. According to the Chicago Board of Trade,
in 2002, an estimated $45 billion was under
management by trading advisors. Just two years
later in a study released by the Barclay Group,
money under management during the 4th quarter 2004
had grown to $131.9 billion. Today, in 2007, that
total is nearing $180 billion. Some of the reasons
for the increased interest in managed futures
include:
..::
Opportunity to
Reduce Risk and Enhance Returns
Over the long term managed futures have been
negatively correlated to traditional stock and bond
portfolios when they have experienced prolonged
losses, and positively correlated when they have
experienced prolonged gains. That means that
investors who add managed futures to their
portfolios may benefit by reducing overall
volatility and enhancing overall returns.
The following data illustrates the benefits of
managed futures over the S&P 500 and NASDAQ for 2000
to 2003:
|
Average
Rate of Return |
|
|
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
|
S&P 500 |
-10.1% |
-13.0% |
-23.4% |
26.4% |
|
Nasdaq |
-39.3% |
-21.0% |
-31.5% |
50.0% |
|
Managed Futures |
10.63% |
5.39% |
15.22% |
15.99% |
The data shows that the average rate of returns for
managed futures was negatively correlated with the
NASDAQ and the S&P 500 during the down years of
2000, 2001 and 2002 and positively correlated with
the NASDAQ and the S&P 500 during the recovery in
2003. This data supports the conclusion that there
is little or no correlation between managed futures
and traditional equity markets.
|
Worst Draw-Down |
|
|
VAMI Change |
Duration Months |
Peak Date |
Valley Date |
Recovery Months |
|
S&P 500 |
-46.28% |
25 |
Aug '00 |
Sep '02 |
N/A |
|
Nasdaq |
-75.04% |
31 |
Feb '00 |
Sep '02 |
N/A |
|
Managed Futures |
-11.97% |
6 |
Oct '01 |
April '02 |
3 |
Both the S&P 500 and NASDAQ experienced significant
losses from 2000 through 2002. Managed futures, on
the other hand, only experienced a relatively small
loss which was recouped in only 3 months.
..::
Ability to
Profit in Any Economic Environment
CTAs can take advantage of price trends. During
periods of inflation, they can buy futures contracts
in anticipation of a rising market. Conversely,
they can sell futures contracts if they anticipate a
falling market. As shown from the data above, the
potential for profit exists regardless of the
overall direction of traditional markets.
..::
Expanding
Markets and Global Diversification
During the last decade, the futures markets have
expanded to include single stock futures, stock
indexes, debt instruments, currencies and options,
in addition to conventional commodities. These new
categories created global markets, expanding the
scope of investment opportunities even more. In
fact, as of September 30, 2002, there were
approximately 900 futures and options contracts
authorized for trading by the CFTC .
..::
Hypothetical
Portfolios
Contrary to popular belief, research shows that
portfolios including managed futures generate higher
returns and have less volatility than portfolios
that do not include managed futures. The following
chart shows the returns, volatility and Quick Sharpe
Ratio for stocks, bonds, and managed futures from
January 1990 through December 2003. The data
clearly shows that managed futures generated a
higher return than stocks and bonds and had lower
volatility than stocks during that 14 year period.
|
Performance Data
|
|
|
S&P 500 |
Bonds |
Managed Futures |
|
Annual Return |
8.53% |
7.94% |
11.21% |
|
Standard Deviation |
15.00% |
3.91% |
12.99% |
|
Quick Sharpe Ratio |
0.57 |
2.03 |
0.86 |
Based on the data above, we can calculate returns in
hypothetical portfolios allocating various amounts
to stocks, bonds and managed futures, enabling us to
compare the performance of portfolios including
managed futures to those that do not. Consider the
following three hypothetical portfolio allocations:
|
Hypothetical Portfolio Allocations |
|
|
Stocks |
Bonds |
Managed Futures |
|
Allocation A |
100% |
100% |
0% |
|
Allocation B |
70% |
30% |
0% |
|
Allocation C |
45% |
30% |
25% |

|
Hypothetical Portfolios |
|
|
Annual Rate of Return |
Volatility |
Quick Sharpe |
|
Allocation A |
8.53% |
15.00% |
0.57 |
|
Allocation B |
8.71% |
10.64% |
0.82 |
|
Allocation C |
9.60% |
7.24% |
1.31 |
Based on the returns from January 1990 through
December 2003, it is clear that hypothetical
Portfolio C, the only portfolio including managed
futures, generated the highest reward and had the
lowest risk.
Note: This composite
performance record is hypothetical and these trading
advisors have not traded together in the manner
shown in the composite. Hypothetical performance
results have many inherent limitations, some of
which are described below. No representation is
being made that any multi-advisor managed account or
pool will or is likely to achieve a composite
performance record similar to that shown. In fact,
there are frequently sharp differences between a
hypothetical composite performance record and the
actual record subsequently achieved. One of the
limitations of hypothetical performance results is
that they are generally prepared with the benefit of
hindsight. In addition, hypothetical trading does
not involve financial risk, and no hypothetical
trading record can completely account for the impact
of financial risk in actual trading. For example,
the ability to withstand losses or to adhere to a
particular trading program in spite of trading
losses are material points which can also adversely
affect actual trading results. There are numerous
other factors related to the markets in general or
to the implementation of any specific trading
program which cannot be fully accounted for in the
preparation of hypothetical performance results and
all of which can adversely affect actual trading
results.
::
Managed Futures
vs. Other Alternative Investments
..::
Similarities
There are many similarities between managed futures,
hedge funds and fund of funds. All of these
investments provide:
1.
Diversification to a typical portfolio of stocks and
bonds
2.
Professional investment management
3.
Access to different investment strategies, styles,
and markets
4.
Returns that are highly dependent on the talent and
skill of specific managers instead of general market
appreciation.
..::
Differences
In addition to these shared characteristics, managed
futures offer greater accessibility, transparency,
liquidity and security than most alternative
investments.
1.
Managed futures trading is more accessible to
investors because managed futures accounts tend to
have lower commitment requirements than many other
alternative investments and managed futures accounts
may accept daily subscriptions and redemptions.
Most alternative investments require a larger
capital commitment and offer far less liquidity than
managed futures. In most cases, investors can open
individually managed accounts and add additional
capital to or redeem capital from that account
anytime the investor so desires. Most hedge funds
and fund of funds, on the other hand, accept
subscriptions from new investors and additional
capital contributions from existing investors’
capital typically on a monthly basis. Further, many
hedge funds and fund of funds are closed to new
investment and the open funds only accept new
capital contributions monthly or quarterly after
they begin trading. Typically, hedge funds and fund
of funds only allow for monthly or quarterly
redemption.
2.
Managed futures provide greater transparency than
other alternative investments.
Full transparency means that investors can see each
individual trade made by a manager. The brokerage
firm holding individually managed accounts will send
investors confirmations on each trade—ensuring
transparency. Depending on the brokerage firm the
investor selects, investors in individually managed
accounts will likely also have online access to
their accounts.
Hedge funds and funds of funds often trade exotic
over-the-counter (“OTC”) instruments that cannot be
easily priced because they are traded in
unregulated, non-public markets and many do not
report trading activity to investors on a daily or
monthly basis. Thus, investors in hedge funds and
fund of funds generally do not have transparency
into the fund’s underlying holdings.
3.
Managed futures may have greater liquidity than
hedge funds and funds of funds.
Futures contracts are highly liquid and can usually
be bought or sold in a matter of seconds. The only
exception to this rule is when prices are very
volatile and a contract trades through its daily
price limit or stock prices trigger a “circuit
breaker” between the equities markets and futures
markets. Since the interbank currency market is one
of the biggest markets in the world and is open
twenty four hours, seven days a week, it is also
highly liquid. Therefore, it is usually easy to
open, roll or offset a futures contract or currency
position. OTC derivative contracts, on the other
hand, may be complicated and costly to close out
early if a hedge fund manager needs to liquidate a
position before it is due to expire.
4.
Managed futures may provide investors greater
security than hedge funds and funds of funds.
Capital invested in managed futures accounts is held
in customer segregated funds accounts. CFTC
Regulations prohibit Futures Commission Merchants (“FCMs”)
from using segregated account funds in the conduct
of their business or commingling those funds with
the FCM’s own funds. Therefore, segregated accounts
may provide greater security for customer assets
than many bank or securities brokerage accounts used
by hedge funds and fund of funds. Further,
investors control assets in a managed account,
whereas the general partner controls assets in a
fund.
::
Structuring
Your Portfolio
..::
Notional
Funding
Notional funding is the term used for funding an
account below its nominal value. For example,
assume a CTA requires a minimum investment of
$1,000,000 (the “Nominal Value”) and the margin
requirement is $50,000. The investor can either
deposit $1,000,000 to “fully fund” that minimum
investment requirement or she can invest only a
portion of the $1,000,000, as long as she meets the
$50,000 margin requirement.
Now assume that the investor decides to fund the
$1,000,000 account with $100,000 (the “Funding
Level”). This means that the investor is using
leverage of 10X—ten times $100,000 equals the
$1,000,000 minimum investment. The difference
between the Nominal Value ($1,000,000) and the
Funding Level ($100,000) is $900,000. The $900,000
is referred to as “Notional Funding”.
Investors are interested in using notional funding
because notional funding capitalizes on the free
cost of leverage. The leverage is free because the
notionally funded amount (in this case, the
$900,000) is not borrowed or deposited—the Funding
Level ($100,000) is a good faith deposit for the
full value of the account. In other words, the
$100,000 trades as if it were $1,000,000, even
though the investor only deposited $100,000 and is
not paying interest or has not otherwise borrowed
the remaining $900,000. If the account is doing
well, the investor earns money on the full
$1,000,000—even though she only funded the account
with $100,000. If the account is not doing well,
however, the investor is responsible for the amount
lost, regardless as to the original Funding Level,
up to the Nominal Value.
For example, assume that the account has a
profitable year and the CTA reports profits of 20%
($200,000) for the fully funded account. The
account that was only funded with $100,000 also had
$200,000 in gains—but the investor’s profit
percentage was 200%, because the investor earned
$200,000 on a $100,000 investment. Investors must
be aware, however, that this is a double edged
sword. If the account has a draw-down, the investor
will suffer a significantly larger percentage
decline than the fully funded account. If the
example above suffered a 20% drawdown for the fully
funded account, the notionally funded account would
have a 200% drawdown. In such a situation, the
investor would not only have lost her initial
$100,000 investment, but also an additional
$100,000. Furthermore, to keep the account open,
the investor would have to deposit at least enough
cash to cover the margin requirement.
In this regard, notional funding significantly
increases the volatility of an account. Investors
must ensure that they understand how much leverage
the CTA is using—and the consequences such leverage
might entail.
..::
Multi-Manager
Portfolio vs.
Single-Manager Portfolio
Since alternative strategies are, by definition, not
buy-and-hold strategies, the fact that there may be
numerous stocks or other instruments in an account
at any given time does not constitute
diversification. Because the manager will trade in
and out of those positions frequently, the return
depends on the manager’s trading skill rather than
the longer-term performance of the underlying
instruments. Therefore, even if a single manager
directs the assets into many different positions
(stocks, bonds, futures, etc.) in an individually
managed account, the account is not truly
diversified because all of the positions are
controlled by the same manager. Investors should
thus consider allocating a portion of their
investments among several managers. They may also
want to consider whether a fund structure might be
more beneficial than individually managed accounts.
..::
Individually
Managed Accounts vs. Commodity Pools vs. Fund of
Funds
Individually managed accounts (“Managed Accounts”)
are an arrangement by which the holder of an account
gives written power of attorney to a CTA to buy and
sell futures contracts and options without prior
approval of the holder.
Commodity pools (“Pools”) are an investment trust,
syndicate, or similar form of enterprise whereby
multiple participants invest collectively (or “pool”
their funds) in trading commodity futures or options
and share ratably in profits and losses. The Pool
may be managed by a single CTA or several CTAs.
Fund of funds (“FoFs”) are collective investment
vehicles typically organized as limited partnerships
or limited liability companies in which a fund
invests in other funds or commodity pools rather
than directly in futures and options contracts.
Investors in a FoF enjoy instant diversification
among numerous funds and CTAs, typically across
numerous industries and via numerous strategies.
Some FoFs are extremely diversified and allocate
their assets to 100 or more managers while others
concentrate their investments among only a few
managers. As with other investments, generally
speaking a more diversified FoF will provide
smoother (less volatile) performance than one that
is concentrated. Certain FoFs focus on a particular
sector within the alternative investments industry
(i.e. futures or fixed income) while others allocate
across the broad industry.
The risk of loss in trading futures, options and
off-exchange forex can be substantial.
Past results are not necessarily indicative of
future results.
Disclosure Statement
|