Yoav Git and Alan Dunne sits down for a conversation that challenges familiar assumptions about curve trading, market structure, and the role of CTAs. They explore why dislocations across time horizons create pockets of alpha most models miss, and how breakout behavior in commodity spreads signals more than noise. Drawing on a recent Bank of England study, Yoav explains how different participants leave distinct footprints on the FX curve, and why CTAs, far from being passive allocators, can act as dynamic responders to changing regimes. This is systematic trading, without the shorthand.

-----

50 YEARS OF TREND FOLLOWING BOOK AND BEHIND-THE-SCENES VIDEO FOR ACCREDITED INVESTORS - CLICK HERE

-----

Follow Niels on Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube or via the TTU website.

IT’s TRUE ? – most CIO’s read 50+ books each year – get your FREE copy of the Ultimate Guide to the Best Investment Books ever written here.

And you can get a free copy of my latest book “Ten Reasons to Add Trend Following to Your Portfolio” here.

Learn more about the Trend Barometer here.

Send your questions to info@toptradersunplugged.com

And please share this episode with a like-minded friend and leave an honest Rating & Review on iTunes or Spotify so more people can discover the podcast.

Follow Alan on Twitter.

Follow Yoav on LinkedIn.

Episode TimeStamps:

01:32 - What has caught our attention recently?

07:10 - Industry performance update

09:20 - Dont just trend it, curve it

16:33 - The drivers of spread

23:26 - Breaking markets into factors

26:37 - Mastering speed in spread trades

31:39 - Is there too much money in trend?

36:47 - Key insights into FX trading

44:23 - How dealers and market makers approach risk differently

47:28 - The thought provoking fact about the top 5% dealers and market makers

50:23 - The real process of an allocator

56:39 - Using trend as part of a long term strategy

01:01:35 - You should just go play golf

01:04:21 - The tools of trade as an allocator

Copyright © 2025 – CMC AG – All Rights Reserved

----

PLUS: Whenever you're ready... here are 3 ways I can help you in your investment Journey:

1. eBooks that cover key topics that you need to know about

In my eBooks, I put together some key discoveries and things I have learnt during the more than 3 decades I have worked in the Trend Following industry, which I hope you will find useful. Click Here

2. Daily Trend Barometer and Market Score

One of the things I’m really proud of, is the fact that I have managed to published the Trend Barometer and Market Score each day for more than a decade...as these tools are really good at describing the environment for trend following managers as well as giving insights into the general positioning of a trend following strategy! Click Here

3. Other Resources that can help you

And if you are hungry for more useful resources from the trend following world...check out some precious resources that I have found over the years to be really valuable. Click Here

Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Intro: 00:00:00

You're about to join Niels Kaastrup-Larsen on a raw and honest journey into the world of systematic investing and learn about the most dependable and consistent, yet often overlooked investment strategy. Welcome to the Systematic Investor series.

Alan: 00:00:23

Welcome back to the latest edition of Top Traders Unplugged, where each week we take the pulse of the markets from the perspective of a rules based investor. It's Alan Dunne here this week sitting in for Niels, who's away and delighted to be joined by Yoav Gitt. Yoav, how are you today?

Yoav: 00:00:38

Absolutely fine. Just enjoying the sunshine here in Cambridge and the break that I took of August.

Alan: 00:00:44

Good stuff. You've had a good summer? You've been away a bit?

Yoav: 00:00:48

Yeah, I actually went a little bit north. I went to Budapest first, but then I went off to the fringe with my family. It was a marathon of shows and it was just absolutely.

Alan: 00:00:59

The city was beautiful, very nice, nice to get away for a bit. And it's back to school now, I guess, is it?

Yoav: 00:01:07

Yeah, the kids are back to university, the youngest one is back to school soon, so it's all back to business. And of course we're here for cta, so that's. We're back to business.

Alan: 00:01:20

Good stuff. Well, plenty going on in the markets and we've a lot to talk about.

You've brought some great topics, as we always say, but certainly a lot to get into, as you always do. We like to start off by saying and asking what's on your radar? So anything been standing out from your perspective over the last while?

Yoav: 00:01:41

Yeah, absolutely. To be honest, I've been dreading what's coming next. I. I've been working on comedy, so.

So obviously enjoying the fringe with plenty of very good comedians.

But I've got my own little set which is coming up on Sunday, so first time ever that I'm doing, I'm taking the plunge, probably the last one, I suspect.

And really, really interesting about the way the motivation I was talking to, to people about why you do this, about the way that you do things actually because they are uncomfortable. So sometimes you do things not because you kind of enjoy them, but actually it's a challenge, it's something that you need to do.

And so this one has been on my radar and if you want a joke, then I'll probably give you one.

Alan: 00:02:33

So, yeah, I mean, have you done one? Is this your absolute first time doing it in public or have you done it before?

Yoav: 00:02:38

Well, we speak to clients and they think that I'm quite funny.

Alan: 00:02:41

They think you're a Joke, isn't it?

Yoav: 00:02:44

No, but, but this is the first official time that I'm supposed to be funny. Okay. So let's hope I'm funny for the right reasons.

Alan: 00:02:52

Okay. Will this be recorded or available anywhere for our listeners to see?

Yoav: 00:02:58

So I think the people from work are going there and I think they're already pre selling a bootleg copy of that. So if you want to see me humiliated in public, then I'm sure it's going to be available and it's going to go on the Quant network in London.

Alan: 00:03:13

Great. Well we look forward to hearing about this and maybe we'll catch a clip of it somewhere along the way.

But fairplegia, that's a brave thing to do and I'm sure it'll go very well in more mundane matters. I mean obviously there's been a lot going on in markets. We've got Jackson Hole going on at the moment and Fed Chair Jerome Powell speaking today.

So that's a big market focus. I guess as quant you don't tend to think too much about what Jerome Powell might say yo.

Yoav: 00:03:44

Well of course we think about what he's going to say. It's a question of what, what we can do about what he says. Right. So I mean it, it has been a very difficult period for trend in fixed income.

So if you look at the U.S. it's been oscillating. You know, I want to be long, I want to be short.

started a long climb back in: 2022

So that's the, that's definitely one place where there is an impact. And you know, in markets like Taib you see exactly the opposite where yields have been coming down quite significantly over the last year.

So it's interesting that the US and the, and the rest of the world are doing their own thing and it will be interesting but actually for the economy and for the equity market in the US it will be very interesting to see what we get in Jackson Hole.

Alan: 00:04:48

Yeah, absolutely. A couple of things on my radar that I saw this week that were interesting.

One was NFT story about fiscal dominance and this is something people have been talking about for a long time. The idea that monetary policy will kind of have to adapt to the fiscal stance when debt levels get so great.

We're kind of approaching that level, but not quite there yet. But interesting that how it is becoming such a topic in markets.

And as you say, Japanese yields touching all time, touching record highs I guess probably all time highs reflecting that concern and the general drift higher in yields.

And then the second thing that I saw today was blackrock out with a report recommending that investors increase their allocations to hedge funds by 5%. So good news I guess for all in the hedge fund industry. I haven't read the full story, I just saw the FT talking about it.

But are you sensing that from investors you speak to as well, Leo, more appetite for hedge funds generally?

Yoav: 00:05:51

Well, possibly hedge funds, but CTAs I think we have the exact opposite right. We've had six months of poor performance in the beginning of the year and I think people were very comfortable with it.

But now you can see there was like a Wall Street Journal talking about trend. It's so actually in the city it doesn't matter how well or badly your your own CTA is doing. I think there is a general malaise in the city industry.

Investors are waiting to see what's happening which is, which is fair and it's a bit difficult to come to investors when you're down.

But I think that's why we talk about it because if you look at historical record and all time performance of CTA is the reasons why they should invest in CTA is that actually haven't gone away at all. So that's my experience.

Alan: 00:06:47

Yeah, interesting.

No, I mean certainly I think all the reasons that were highlighted for why investors might consider more allocations to hedge funds in terms of a more volatile macro environment and greater dislocations in macro variables and market volatility all apply for reasons why you might consider CTA as well obviously as part of the hedge fund allocation. So maybe we'll touch on performance first before we get into the main topic.

So just to update, as of yesterday, Sochain Trend Index up 1.67% on the month since SOC gen CTA index up About a half percent and year to date the trend index down 8.5% and the SoC Gen CTA index down just under 7%. So as you said, Japanese yields trending higher. There have been a few trends continuing particularly in the fixed income side.

I would say over the month. Japan, European yields, US yields are a bit more choppy.

Outside of that it hasn't been obviously been a positive period but looking across a lot of the markets they are still quite rangy. FX equities up and then a little bit of a correction the last few days.

You have any perspective on performance this month or the general environment we're seeing? Obviously it's been a tough year, but we've had July positive, August looking more positive.

Now, are you starting to see more persistent trends emerging?

Yoav: 00:08:14

I'm a pessimist by nature, so I'll count my chickens at the end of the year, I think. But I think it will be a mistake to look at one month performance, two months, even six month performance.

It's of course encouraging and I think what is interesting is clients are rooting. They really want us to do well and this has been very encouraging. But I think if you're going into trend, you know it is painful, right?

It's going down the stairs and up the elevator. And as you say, the dynamic nature of the trading is what you're buying.

You're buying that beautiful zero correlation to the rest of your portfolio while you have a dynamic adjustment to market conditions. And that hasn't gone away. And that's a very fundamental reason to invest in trend.

Alan: 00:09:20

Well, let's get into the main topics. You've brought along a couple of interesting papers and I wanted to talk to you about a couple of your own blogs as well. So. So plenty to delve into.

So the first paper is one that you highlighted from Moritz at Takahi Capital. Do you want to give a quick intro to it and get into it then?

Yoav: 00:09:39

Yeah, absolutely. I love the papers. I really, I really do like it. I mean, it's a, it's a paper called Don't Just Trend It, Curve it.

And they're talking a little bit about, about curve, curve trading.

So of course, if you're trading copper or if you're trading corn, the natural thing is you say, well, there's just one object called corn, but really there isn't because you can buy corn for delivery at different months and the different months may behave differently. Right.

Specifically, for example, corn delivery at the moment it's using this year's crop, but corn deliver in December will be already next year's crop. So there is a difference between them. There's also a difference in terms of supply because.

But also there is a difference in terms of demand and sometimes there's a difference to do with financial condition and regulation changing. And I think that that paper is taking, is taking one example of that which is looking at the copper, right?

Because we know that we've seen a taxation on copper changing over, over the last period to do with Trump deciding to include it or exclude it from the tariffs.

And what they're doing is they're saying, well, actually if you look at, if you look at the, if you look at copper prices, they have a certain behavior.

But if I look at the difference between two deliveries, two contracts, suddenly sometimes you get a dislocation and they behave differently precisely because, you know, one contract is before tariff, one contract is, you know, is after tariff. So, so the real, there's a, there's a, there's a very transient risk factor which you can get, take advantage of it. Okay.

And I really like the paper and I think there are a couple of really good points they make about, about this and I think it's actually interesting what they do because it's actually quite difficult, different to what traditional European CTA are doing. So full kudos for them.

So the first, the, the first point that I really like about that, that paper is the general observation that they make, which is that the front of the curve is generally the one which is more volatile in the commodity business world and it is the one which is more affected by macro news flow. Okay.

And we see that, we see that precisely like the long term, the long term price of copper is going to be affected by long term supply and demand and it's going to, and it's going to be less affected by local deals because, you know, the tariff coming on at, the tariff coming off is at the end of the day a very local, a very, sort of locally, temporally, it's a very local news story. Okay? So that affects the front of the curve. And therefore that's why you see this dislocation. And that's something that we see not just in copper.

We see that across the commodities in general, what we see is that when other players come onto the markets, they tend to congregate where the liquidity is and the front of the curve is where the liquidity is. So everybody congregates in the same place where everybody else is trading, which is good for them. And that allows a lot of volume to be traded.

And we see that in terms of increasing volumes in the front contract. Okay, the second, the second point that they make in the paper, which is that spreads exhibit strong breakouts and reversals.

And I like, I like the, what they say about breakouts because the, when spreads actually do break out, it's actually quite violent. And I think, I think it's an observation that I would like to add. It's about risk management and about allocation of risk. Right?

So normally in, if you were to look at traditional CTAs, then they allocate to each of the individual markets and that allocation is relatively static over time. So you will expect.

Suppose if I were to allocate to outright copper trading, I will allocate maybe 2% of my portfolio to that market and I will expect copper to provide me with 2% of volatility day in, day out, a little bit less when there's less trend, a little bit more when there is more trend. But overall, sort of a 2% sort of over a long period of history, when we look at spreads, you can't do that. Okay. And for a couple of reasons.

The first one is that they do mention in the paper, which is, well, that specific spread is going to disappear when the front contract actually expires and there is a delivery.

This particular object, which is the spread between, you know, the, the August and September contract, that, that just doesn't exist anymore in the market. But more importantly, although it has existed maybe for the last three years, the volatility is itself is actually very volatile.

You will have a period where this spread is doing nothing.

And if you try to make this spread provide you with that risk, you will have to leverage your position to such an extent that when a dislocation does happen, you will be out of business. Okay? You cannot allocate to, to the spread on an ongoing, continuous basis, hoping, you know, hoping I'm going to make money.

Because when there is a dislocation like the Trump trade, this is going to be very violent for you. It's very left skewed. So what you have to do is to understand that you have to wait until actually a dislocation happens.

You can't get into the trade first.

You have to wait until the spread can actually provide you with the minimum level of liquidity, a little of minimum level of risk, because there's a certain volatility and then you can start trading it and it's sizing the position at that point is actually possible.

And I'm a big fan of this approach, I have to say, because it's dynamic, you don't know that this is going to happen, you know, and indeed, if the Trump hasn't made a comment about, about tariffs, then maybe it wouldn't have happened. Okay? But when it does happen, being able to have the framework to allocate that risk factor is really nice.

And a lot of, a lot of CTAs, a lot of streamlined CTAs, which don't trade spreads or just haven't attacked this problem properly and being able to allocate meaningful risk to risk factors that rise and they are transient by nature is something which I think is quite important and in terms of providing diversific diversification because when it does happen, it is actually trading something very concrete which is very uncorrelated to the rest of our portfolio. So that's one of the reasons why I really like this, one of the reasons I like this papers. Anything you want to add on this.

Alan: 00:16:31

One just to get, I mean, to set the stage. So we're talking here about spread trading more from a trend perspective, a breakout perspective, isn't that correct?

Yoav: 00:16:42

Yes, absolutely.

Alan: 00:16:43

So, yeah, I mean, because obviously a lot of managers trade spreads more from, I suppose for the spread to revert to more mean reversion, I guess. Wouldn't that be fair to say?

Yoav: 00:16:53

That is absolutely, that's absolutely correct. So there's, there's a relative value and, and if you like to think the carry system. Yeah. Is, is very much the traditional long term.

I think about, about the difference between two. If I think about the difference between two spreads, it embeds a certain amount of sort of cost of carry.

Alan: 00:17:16

Yes.

Yoav: 00:17:16

Okay. Some, some convenience yield and that thing over a long period of time they tend to merge. Right.

So if you ask me, what's the difference between five year delivery and five year and two months delivery? Right. There isn't really a good reason for that.

The only reason for that is essentially a cost of capital because there is going to be some interest rate differential, there's going to be some storage cost and so forth. Okay. So the play for the convergence of these two things is normally the carry trademark and it's a kind of a nice and slow process.

But then what you have is you have these dislocations which are to do with the two contracts behaving differently because they become not exactly substitutable. Okay. So normally in, if the, if the two objects are fungible, then you will expect them to converge.

But in a case where, for example, this year there's a good supply of corn, but there is a drought or there is a disease and suddenly we have a supply shock, that supply shock will hit you at sort of next year's crop, say, okay, so then what you have is you have a real reason for that divergence between those spreads and that will create a, a trend. It will be a short, short time trend. It's not going to be a very fast moving thing, but it's going to be.

But that, that kind of what's going to drive that dynamics of that particular spread in crack spreads.

So suppose you have a, a spread between the oil, sort of the raw oil and you have the distillate, the thing that you get distill and you like heating oil and jet fuel and all of these things and what you have sometimes you ever say a breakdown in the sort of the, the processing of that, of that oil. So if there is a Gulf of Mexico, most of the, most of the work is done in stealing oil. Oil is done in the Gulf of Mexico.

Suppose there is a storm there or there is unscheduled stoppage in those refineries, right? So suddenly, suddenly what you have is you have that spread will start trending. Okay. To, to, to, to much that.

And those risk factors are generally transient, but they are very exciting, right?

And they are diversifying because that's, you know that refinery closing down in the Gulf of Mexico is nothing to do with maybe the overall long term behavior of oil. So that's what they're doing. But yes, it's actually very tricky and it requires some care.

And it's interesting that they use breakout rather than using sort of a smooth trading because you actually are looking for a breakout as an indication of something fundamental happening there.

Alan: 00:20:02

It is interesting that they are uncorrelated with the underlying. I mean because as you mentioned there, the front of the curve is more volatile, more influenced by macro factors.

So you would have thought that those macro factors are driving the front month or the near month future, wherever you got your main trend position, you would have thought they would be more correlated possibly, if that tends to be the driver. But that doesn't. I mean I think they show that or they mentioned that in the paper, isn't that right?

Yoav: 00:20:28

So we have to be cognizant about what's going on. So the underlying two contracts will.

Most of the volatility in the underlying two contract will be very much correlated to general trends, macro trends or, or trends in copper. Okay. But what they're looking for is like the residual volatility, the, the difference in movement between the two. Okay.

And that's important in, in terms of sizing. So normally there will be a 90, 98% correlation, say and there will be very little volatility in debt spread. Okay.

Which means actually if you want to have meaningful allocation for it in your portfolio, you would have to take 50x position to get it to. Right. And that, and that's insane. It's, it's a little bit like ltcm. LTCM was betting on the, on the run and off the run yield curve.

So these are two US yield curves, right? Two different types of bonds to converge, right. Normally they behave completely the same. Okay? So the correlation is 98%.

So they, in order to get exposure to that difference, that tiny difference, that 2% of residual volatility, LTCM bumped up the risk profile by, you know, 50x100x.

And then of course, when those spreads refuse to converge or refuse to do what you kind of expect mathematically to do, then it becomes very expensive. What you need to do is you need to wait until there is a structural break, news, tariff, refineries, whatever, okay?

At that point that spread becomes more volatile. So instead of saying being 2% of the overall volatility, it becomes 10% of the volatility. And now it's interesting.

It's a, it's actually a valid risk factor that you can trade with, not too much leverage. Okay?

And so that's the one thing which is good about it and the second thing which is good about it is that a lot of the time the reason why there is a breakout is because there is an underlying risk factor which is transient, but it is happening right now. Okay? And therefore there is going to be a trend. We see that in the FX market in currency basis.

So currency basis is the difference between funding in the local currency versus the US and sometimes there is just a transient pressure.

Maybe what we have is a company issues bonds in a US dollar and it wants to bring it into the local market and that brings a certain funding, a certain funding pressure, and you see the basis trade moving and then you can trend that as well. Right? But you have to be very careful because you have to appreciate that risk management is key here.

The ability to say, I'm going to wait until there is a sufficient risk to start trading and then I'm going to get out of this when there isn't enough volatility.

Alan: 00:23:27

A couple of thoughts I had.

One is obviously we have the kind of justification or the rationale for why trend following works on markets in general in terms of behavioral biases, et cetera. And then does that still apply to spreads?

And then the second question is, do you then get into the whole realm of synthetic markets and you know, trading all manner of different crosses to create these multiple spreads, which obviously some CTAs do as well, or where do you draw the line? Or what are your thoughts on all of that?

Yoav: 00:23:59

So, so that, that's, that's, that's very interesting. So generally trend is very prevalent in, in all areas, but I think you're right.

In terms of relative value, trades are called relative value because it's value rather than trend. So many making money out of spreads is more difficult. And I think that takes us to synthetic or just factor trending. Okay.

That, that takes us into that, into that universe. And let's, let's, let's look at, in the normal CTA universe and I, if you break the, the factors that you, that you look at.

So suppose I'm looking at all interest rate markets, all, all bond markets and I, and I do a PCA on it and I look at what, what's, what's the trend behavior that you see? And, and what we see is as follows. You see the, the front, the, the main dominant factor is it trends generally very well. Okay.

Because that's exactly what we, we kind of want. And in fact what we see is that maybe the first 25% of, of PCA factors trend very well sort of.

Then, then we have like a 50% of the remaining PCA factors and they do trend. Okay.

So although they might look to you like a spread between you know, Japanese and US rates, they, there will be a trend behavior because there is an underlying macro behavior. Okay. They are less, they may be less dominant, okay. But they, they, they have a sort of a low level trend.

But what is interesting about them is that the volatility available on them is it's a much smaller risk factor. Right? So the first PCA covers about 70% of your money of like the first, the top quartiles covers a lot of the risk.

So there's a lot of risk, but it's very diversifying and it still trends quite nicely. And then you get to the very, very bottom of your PCA factors which are very pure RV trades and they tend to actually move in the opposite direction.

So they will tend to be actually very strongly mean reverting.

So, so there, there are ways, there are ways you can actually incorporate that into your, in your trading strategy in a way that, that sort of allows you to essentially get rid of those of those small factors. Maybe. Okay.

Or maybe you want to up weight the middle factors because although they are, they are, they, they trend less but they're still, they trend, they still trend well and they still provide you with, with some volatility. So you just have to pick, we are just trying to create a system which harvest alpha in all sort of factors.

But you have to be, you just have to be aware about what's happening.

Alan: 00:26:38

And presumably in terms of speed, if these are Transient risk factors, as you say, the, the spread will diminish over time. You have to trade them faster presumably than you would on a pure and following basis.

Yoav: 00:26:50

So fast, but not as fast as you think you, you kind of to be. So that's, that's, that, that's interesting. And because otherwise cost. So we have to think, we have to think also about costs.

So when we look at the outright, if I'm trading the outright, there's going to be a certain cost in sharper basis terms. So maybe three, two or three basis points of sharp. Okay, so zero, two of sharp.

But I'm giving up in trading the underlying and as you say, I can trade it slowly because slow trend is actually very dominant and that will be even less expensive if I'm trading spreads. And I have, I have a couple of considerations. The first one is that I have to trade a lot of contracts in both directions, right.

In order to be able to get the risk that I want. So like the notional amount that I trade is higher and therefore my trading cost will be higher.

So like per turnover, the spread will be more expensive than trading the outright.

Okay, and then of course you're saying, well, and only fast trend, if only fast trend is making money at that point, it's actually becoming economically unviable right now.

There are ways you can still incorporate it into your main system in a way that I think, I suspect the two mortgages are doing is even if you think it's not, it's too expensive to trade, it can feed into the process of which contract you want to trade.

Okay, so for example, if there is a spread which says okay, right now, the back of the curve looks cheap while the front of the curve looks there, if momentum wants to buy something, then maybe you should buy the back, you shouldn't buy the front.

Okay, so although the relative, the contribution is not going to be as great as like trading, you know, going full gang ho and trading the spread, it can still have incremental benefits to your overall trading by allowing you to sort of choose where, which point on the curve.

And I think that's very interesting because when you think about what's happening that's related to the, to the comment in terms of the, the front of the curve is more shocky, it's more exposed to macro, sort of the macro trends which are actually more to do with what's happening with SMP and the, and the US treasury, whereas the back of the curve is more affected by supply and demand. So you like, so generally you would tend to move slightly further out of the curve.

And I think one of the things that they failed to mention, which I think is quite, which I think it's not failed, it's a very short piece. So I'm not going to begrudged in that. But it's to do with who is actually trading. Okay.

So as we said when you know, if you were to look five, ten years ago there were very few shops, even multi strategies that were looking at trading copper. But these days everybody's trading copper and as a result the copper has become sort of more speculative in nature. Right.

If I look at who's trading the front curve in copper, it's a lot of CTA is a lot of multi strats, a lot of speculators, not necessarily the people who are actually hedging and producing and buying copper for production. And we see that in terms of the ratio between, there are multiples way of saying it.

First one is to look at it in terms of the, the volume and the open interest. Right. The open interest when the, the open interest when the contract closes is the what remains.

Like who is actually wanting to, to get exposure to the, to the copper contract. Okay. So we can compare like the volume during the, the trading versus what who actually wanted to take that position.

Or we can look at the cot, report the commitment of traders reports by the US and see which ones are the speculators, which ones are the, the, the hedges and you see the front of the curve becoming more dominant by the speculators. So that in that universe if you were to move know a year out in copper, I'm not sure you can actually move a year out. It's quite a.

But suppose we can move a couple of contracts out then the people who are doing that are, the people who actually want to take, are, are actually more the, the, the, the hedges and producers and they tend to trade more slowly.

So there's less volume, there is more open interest and that's the difference between taking between the stock, between position and volume, between stock and flow. So the back of the curve has got, so the curves do have different dynamics.

And when you're doing trend following these different physical characteristics of the contract actually will feed into your trading system.

Alan: 00:31:40

And just to your point, a bit like the front month being more speculative activity. I mean does that suggest that it's more zero sum than trading in that sphere?

Obviously, you know, if it's all specs, they're just propping from each other which, you know, some winners, some losers.

Yoav: 00:31:58

Well, the efficient Market hypothesis applies everywhere. Right. But it's more about what is the fundamental reason for things trading.

Alan: 00:32:07

But if there's a lot of hedgers in a market then they're risk averse then. But in theory there is a, there is a premium. There's something to it. Yeah. For specs to capitalize on.

Yoav: 00:32:16

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. So yes, so I would say that is the issue. I think actually I'm going to say something about the loading on trend at this point.

Actually a lot of, a lot of. We're having a lot of discussion with clients and some an argument which comes up quite often is to say oh, trend is at capacity.

The reason why the trend hasn't performed in the last year is because there's just too much money in trend.

And what is interesting is, okay, the, I think the, the most famous paper is there was a recent paper by man which Russell talks about oh, the size of the aum of the, of the aum of the industry is, has been constant at 300 billion. The industry has grown significantly, which is true. Okay, so that means we are a small part of the market. Okay.

The problem with this argument is that there is tons of trend being done at other places where you don't see it in qis you see there's tons of trend inside the multistrad. If you are going into, you know, Millennium qrt, any of the big shops, there will be pods inside that they will be trading trend.

I can guarantee you that is happening. So taking a global bird's eye view of what's happening is, is not actually necessarily informative.

But what is informative is that we can actually look at the speculators and the hedges in the court report and we can fit the behavior to different trading strategies. So what we see, we, you know, I'm not doing it. It's not a prediction, it's much more a descriptive, a descriptive view.

It says I'm looking at the behavior of the speculators over the last couple of weeks. Does that load on trend?

Like if the industry was overly trend reliant then what you would see is you would see a good correlation, a beta between the speculators positioning in the cult report to your signal. And we can fit that. And what we find, what we find is that we can actually detect a few things that are very interesting.

So if you look historically you can see that the industry, the speculators have become very sensitive to volatility. So the loading on changes in volatility. That is if volatility goes up the, it goes the speculators proportion goes down.

That has become, that is now it's quite a dominant, it's quite a dominant effect. So that's the first thing we see the reduction in loading on, on fast trend.

go back to sort of the early: 2000

If I look at the Soc Gen CTA index, if I look at the way that the CTAs have moved, they've migrated to trading slowly and loading less on, on, on fast trend.

What we don't see is we don't see like suddenly a huge rise or in fact any rise whatsoever in terms of the loading on, on slow trend or mid frequency trend in the data. So basically the industry is actually being very careful not to take too much risk in any particular contract.

And then that capacity argument just like the data just doesn't bury it right. We just don't see this, we just where we can see this data that argument just is not there.

So I don't like people, the clients are always asking me what is causing this issue. Why did, why didn't we see a trend performing in the last year? That we can have a long discussion about that.

But in terms of the loading on like are we just too big in the market? No, we're not. Just from the, that data just doesn't bury down to it.

Alan: 00:36:48

Well that's maybe a good segue into the second topic which is a paper which gives a lot of really interesting granular data on different market participants and their exposures in the FX markets. And that's a recent paper from the bank of England which is really monumental paper in terms of the data they have put together.

Do you want to give some context and an overview of this one?

Yoav: 00:37:15

Yes, absolutely. So if you look at FX data.

the BAS Triennial Survey from: 2022

Okay, so it's a huge market and there are lots of, there are lots of players in it.

Of course anything from the retail people buying, wanting to buy some Dollars, some dollars to go on holiday in the US to Tesco which is sort of the non financial corporations that they, they want to hedge, they have assets abroad, they have income from abroad.

Tesco less so but you know companies that export they might have, they might have an oversea operation and they will hedge their position into, into the local currency and then all the way to our hedge funds and our sort of, our, our investors. So there will be asset managers who are in this market. So you like Everybody's playing the FX game. Okay. And 7.5 trillion per day.

It's just an insanely big market and there are a few data sets for that.

In terms of understanding the positioning there's a. CLS is one of the biggest providers, they do settlement, FX settlements and they offer some data which is very anonymized. But now we're going, we've just hit the mother load. So this paper is just insanely amazing in terms of data.

Okay, so this is called, the paper is called Topography of FX Derivative market and it's a view from London and it's a collaboration of a few people from the bank of England, a guy called Daniel Ostry, a few people from Fed, there's a guy called Sinem, I can't say his surname so you'll have to excuse with me. And it's a collaboration of a few central banks and a few researchers and they have data which is non anonymized.

in the London FX market from: 2015

You can see everything absolutely at daily firm level positioning and that, that's, that's, and that's just amazing. Right? And that allows you to do things that you wouldn't be able to do otherwise.

And what I love about this paper first and foremost is that they don't try to predict cross sectional FX returns.

They don't try to many a times you will see academic papers in, you know, in our finance industry and the researcher rushes into, okay, here's an effect, here is some, here's some data that I have, let's see if I can use it to predict cross sectional equity returns. I mean it's just like hundreds and hundreds of papers, thousands of papers which are trying to do that. Okay.

And what I love about this paper is that it in some sense it says, okay, I'm not, I'm just going to let the data speak for itself.

I'm just going to look at the data, I'm going to do very little adjustment, a few things that we actually have to adjust to sort of to correct the way the data is reported or to understand what is happening. But I'm not going to try and make any prediction. I'm just going to describe the structure of the market and I find it extremely informative.

And I think a lot of quants again rush into, here's a trading strategy, sit back, just, just look at the data, let it tell you a story. And when the story is done, I mean you can probably guess.

You know, there's a paper, there's a famous paper just went out in March, the virtue of Complexity, which basically says, you know, I'm good to shove everything, I'm going to make it overcomplicated. You can probably tell which in which camp I lie.

I think before we start, before we start doing anything with the data, it behoves us as quants rather than just shoving it into a machine to really understand what's going on. And this paper really does it beautifully.

So there are a few, there are a few observations actually let's start with the, with the appendix because that's the one that relates pretty much to our earlier discussion.

So if you go back to, if you go, if you go to the appendix, there is a, there's a beautiful description about where do each player, each type of player in the market, which derivative contract they trade. So the, the, the paper does is not looking at spot, it's looking at, at FX derivatives.

And FX derivatives can be anything from one day, like tomorrow next or spot next. So it can be either one day all the way to maybe two, three years. Okay, so we're moving from FX forwards to FX swaps further out of the curve.

And what you see is exactly the same phenomenon that we just described in terms of the, the habitat of different players habit like sitting in different parts of the curves. So the market makers, the ones that try to hold, they try to hold most of the risk in the very front.

So if you look at the, if you look at their chart distribution of their positioning, most of it is up to one week, one week expiry, right? And that's the most liquid part, that's the part that they use to hedge their risk.

And then you move to the hedge funds of the universe and asset managers and you move further out and you move to sort of the one to three month maturity. This is not huge surprise and this is how we would do that. And I think most CSI CTAs will be trading the next IMM expiry every three months.

Sort of the March, June, September and December 3rd Wednesday of the month expiry. And this is where the sort of the hedge funds congregate with their, with the liquidity and then what's happening to the back of the curve.

Who is holding the two or three FX swaps? These are real people, these are the non financial corporations.

The, you know the, the companies that have exposure, they have a genuine long term USD cash flows and they need to bring those backs into the local currency. This is all taken from the London market. So this is all. So the local currency is GBP or some or euro before the Brexit happened.

And what we see is that they inhabit that habitat the two and three years out. These are by the hedges the people who actually genuinely use it. And I think a lot of the risk is basically rolling that swap every activities.

They just want to make sure that they hedge their cash flows and they don't have the risk. Yeah, so it's, it's very interesting. So that's, that's one amazing, amazing part of this, of this paper. But there are plenty of other stuff.

Alan: 00:44:24

Yeah.

As you say, I mean it is, it must be the first of its kind in terms of this level of detail that we see a few things that were interesting as you say the kind of the time horizon that different segments hold their positions or primarily trade is interesting. And then they also do show the, the net exposure by the different segments over time which is interesting as well.

Which obviously as you'd expect the hedge funds specs, their net exposures to the dollar, euro and sterling fluctuate a lot. But one that was interesting was I think the market makers or the dealers obviously tended to hold the opposite risk to the hedgers.

Did you notice that?

Yoav: 00:45:15

That's a little bit, that's correct and a little bit misleading in a way. So what what you have is one side of the picture. So what what you. There. There are two types of people. There's the market makers and the dealers.

You will see that the market makers have relatively little risk overall. And these are the ones who really trading like durasal bunnies.

They are, they are buying and selling and they're really adjusting the, the, the prices to ensure that they don't have net risk. But what you have is you also have dealers that will be taking the risk, the dollar risk. So there is a structural short dollar for UK corporates.

Right. Because they hedge their dollars back to the uk.

They are long GBP short US dollar and the dealers on our data set will look like they will be the opposite. They will be long US dollar and short gbp.

But what we don't see is we don't see the positioning in, in the other side of the, of the Atlantic which is what the position of the dealers against US corporates.

So the US corporates will have exactly the opposite position which is you know, they will be all short all other currencies, GBP amongst them and they will be long USD and the dealers will be providing that. So the dealers are sort of a more a slower netting. They will provide a slower netting of this, of this universe.

And I think what you get overall is that the, and the reason why I'm saying they are able, they will hold less risk is because they can't hold a lot of risk. Right. So these days.

Alan: 00:46:47

But I thought this was the net, their net exposure.

Yoav: 00:46:50

I may be incorrect but I'll need to check.

Alan: 00:46:53

But I'll have to check.

Yoav: 00:46:54

Yeah, no, no, no. But the problem that we dealer banks in the US is that you can't actually, you can't hold on your book too much risk these days. Right.

So the, one of the outcomes of the GFC and the great financial crisis is that the amount of risk which is available on the market that you are able to hold is actually not that great. And we see that in bonds, we see that in credit, we see that everywhere.

So I suspect a lot of that risk is actually transferred through US corporates.

Alan: 00:47:29

The others are as you would kind of expect really. I mean obviously you know, non financial corps, obviously holding the kind of exposures that you would expect from a hedging perspective.

So you know, short, effectively short dollars I guess selling their dollars generally from their positions overseas outside of the positioning and anything else stand out that, yeah. So that, that might have an obvious takeaway for you.

Yoav: 00:47:58

So. So there is one which is very much related to trend and carry.

But, but before we get to that I actually there's a little bit about the, the market structure and that's, that's very, that's very interesting because. And that was a huge surprise for me. So with a market that big and you, you kind of expect to see a lot of players in the center.

So there are a lot of disparate players. But what is interesting is how concentrated it's like a star shaped domain. There is the center which is providing the liquidity.

But what is insane is that like the top five dealer and the top five market makers really dominate the everything. Okay. And it wasn't used to be like that.

I mean if when I was 20 years ago and we were looking at the EBS data, which is the interbank netting sort of FX trading application, a lot of banks were involved in the game and yeah, and I suspect there's still local currency and there is going to be a local effect. So you know, so there will be a Swedish bank dealing with Swedish krona.

But by and large these days the real trading is basically channeled through very few counterparties and that's an interesting and potentially a cause for concern. The interesting thing is that this is actually very different to the structure in the FX spot market.

So if you look at the, so this is all the derivatives and if you look at the FX spot market, the emergence of players like the, the nonbank market makers, so like the XTX and the Jane street of the, of the universe.

So there's, there's, it's actually very interesting, it's a very interesting different difference between the, the, the forward and the swaps and the spot market. So, but, but structurally that's very interesting to me and I'm not sure exactly what the implication is, but this was like really important.

Alan: 00:50:14

I think there's a lot of data in this one. It's definitely worth having a look at.

I mean, I think, I'm sure some more observations will come from further review, but I wanted to move on to something conscious of time. You published a blog recently which I wanted to touch on, which is around asset allocation.

So it's obviously topical given what we talked about a little bit earlier with BlackRock suggesting increasing hedge fund allocations and elsewhere. I saw Vanguard kind of going against the tide a little bit by suggesting, they're suggesting 70, 30 is going to come out for the next decades.

Yoav: 00:50:52

Let me tell you a little bit about my blog and a little bit about Vanguard and actually, so I don't, I don't know that much about, I didn't know much about and I still don't know much about the way that allocators are allocating. Okay. And we normally when we go to an allocator we say, oh, give us some money.

You know, we are trend following, we are uncorrelated to everybody else. You just give us some money, you put us aside and so forth.

And, and I talked to, to an allocator and I asked him, you know, how do you take into account the fact that the positioning might change and suddenly all of your allocations are long equity and suddenly you have a lot of risk in equity and, and Again, his, his reply was, well, we actually do try to figure out the, the beta, let's say the equity beta on each of the data sets and we fit the, the P and L of each of the people that we allocate to. And that gives us an idea about what the positioning is like.

And this is kind of how we do, it's quite messy, but this is how we do which we try to find out the beta of the equity that we have right now with this hedge fund positioning. And we exclude you guys, we exclude CTAs because you guys change, you change your mind too often.

And like we, we can't really tell you, we can't tell retrofit what your, what your positioning is, which I think actually shows you how uncorrelated we are to other asset classes. Because it's like you can't do the fit. We have zero correlation. It's very difficult to fit what our positioning is.

And that started me thinking about what the process of an allocator to allocate is. And I felt, hang on a second, right, what they do is they go through a process. The first things they do is say they make a capital market assumption.

They make an assumption or in the Vanguard paper that you mentioned, sort of vmaa, sort of time varying asset allocation model, what you do is you say, what do I think long term in the next 10 years, what's going to be happening to equities? What do I think, what is the annual growth I expect in bonds? What's the income that I'm expecting from commodities?

There's some, there's some correlation matrix assumptions and I'm going to make. And based on that I'm expecting some long term, based on long term growth.

I'm going to have, I'm going to have the allocation, I'm just going to create an allocation matrix.

And that's actually probably one of the most important decisions that you have to make about, you know, what's the proportion between equities and bonds.

And not surprisingly it's going to be related to how much long term, how much value you, you expect to extract from equities and bonds in over a 10 year horizon. And I thought to myself, hang on a second.

Within this process, when you do this optimization and you do this correlation matrix and you do this optimization, then there is a gradient, right? So the idea is if you think that equities are going to go a little bit further up, then actually you should allocate a little bit more.

So there's a delta to your assumption, right? So whatever allocation that you've decided on, you kind of think there is a delta to your, your assumptions both in bonds and equities and so forth.

And, and I thought the delta was positive. Right. So you, if you think you, you might want to say if you think that equities have gone up, you might think that they will go up much more.

So I wrote this piece and I wrote this piece about CPAs, but actually I think it is more about the role of systematic strategies. So systematic strategies, you know, risk parity, relative value, trend following.

There will be funds that do that, do that and you kind of know what they're going to do that. It will be a mechanical adjustment of the data.

And I thought I wrote it about CTA because of course we trade CTAs and of course the feedback I got was you got it completely wrong. What you got is you got it completely wrong. In actual fact, most of these models are mean reverting by nature.

I. E. If equities go up, they will actually underweight equity. They will say long term I will drop my expectations about what's going to happen to equity and as a result I will deallocate from equity.

Now interestingly enough, that's actually coming back to the positioning. This is exactly. Those long term investors are the ones that take the opposite side. We're talking about positioning.

These are the ones who take the opposite side to trend in the market. And in fact the paper, the Vanguard paper is exactly what you sent me. And I thought oh my God, yes, I'm going to have to own up to this one.

What they are saying is in June equities went up tons. Okay. So they went up 10, 11%. So in July they came up with a paper and said oh actually now we are adjusting half.

Like if you think about that 10% equities have done that 10% rise. We thought they were going to go up four and a half percent over 10 years. Now that 10% is gone. Right.

So I think we're left with three and a half percent. Actually they only cut 50% of it.

So we, we, they cut the expect long term expectation to, to equity by half a percent based on actually very short term change in equities. Okay. And as a result of that they will. You basically under allocate. You want to under allocate to equities.

And they came up with a very bold number to be honest. They, they go for 30%, 30% in equities and 70% in bonds. Okay. Notice no hedge Funds here.

Alan: 00:56:34

Yeah, I mean I think it's just between the two assets that.

Yoav: 00:56:37

Yeah, absolutely. This model. Yeah.

Alan: 00:56:40

But I mean I guess the benchmark is probably 60, 40 equity. So it's, it's. I mean I think as you say it reflects more the equity valuation more than the view and lending else. I think that's just.

Yoav: 00:56:51

No, absolutely. And it makes sense. And I've had a chat with my, my allocator and he said yeah, yeah but whoa. Onto those models, right.

We kind of don't like them because they, they have been negative equity for years. Okay.

Alan: 00:57:07

Yes. Right. Yeah.

Yoav: 00:57:08

So, so it's like, you know, it's, it's the naysayer that you know, one day they will, they will pay. Okay. They will make money. Right. Long term pe, Sheila ratio, all of this, all of these, all of these very long term 10 year horizon things.

All of these are maybe make sense if you're investing for 100 years. But like suppose you took the, like after the equity rise, you then decided to go and sell your equity. You wouldn't have done particularly well.

I mean at the end of June I think the S and p was at 6, 6 6.3 K and now it's no, it was 6.2 and now it's in 6.4. So equity has been, has been, has been rising quite happily regardless of what vanguard is saying say okay.

And I think that is, that comes into the role of trend not necessarily as a long term, but as a tactical. As a long term. Right, but as a tactical way of you phasing in that long term view. Right. We talked about the way spreads, which spreads.

I'm, I'm, I favor right now as a way of phasing of, of improving your trend. We can think about way trend improves the long term allocation model. Right.

So we took, we take the, from the perspective of the vanguards of the universe, trend is one of those very funny, very fast moving object. Okay.

But we can, we can use that signal if you're allocating to CTAs to say oh okay right now I want to deallocate from equities but you know, trend is really strong. Right. I don't really want to allocate right now. I'm going to wait maybe by the end of the year trend will reverse.

Now I've naturally deallocated from equity the way I kind of feel about it.

So I think, although the premise that I had in my mind that the delta of long term allocators is positive is completely false, nevertheless I think the Principle of what I'm suggesting is correct, which is that the systematic strategies or rule based strategies, you want them in your portfolio because they will, if you include them inside your allocation process, the optimization process that you're doing, you will be able to create an optimal allocation over a much wider set of parameters.

So you know in your mind what would be your allocation if Your assumption is three and a half for equity, you in the long term, or 4% in equity, or 3 in equity, you should pick a collection of systematic rules of trading which is actually available in the market to allow you to essentially automatically autocorrect how, depending on how your assumptions changes.

Alan: 00:59:59

So, so that, that, I mean is, it's kind of like the role, the allocation to CTA should be upgraded. Is that kind of what you're suggesting? I mean, I understand what your point is. Like TAS will modulate your overall equity exposure.

So if you have 50% equities and you have 20% CTA, you're going to pick up some more equity exposure in your CTA allocation. And that exposure will fluctuate over time depending on the strength of the trend in the equity market.

So in a strong bull market it'll go up and in a bear market it might go short. And that has a favorable portfolio impact.

But as you say, the way most people do asset allocation is they think about, okay, well here's, I mean everybody produces capital market assumptions and then to feed that into some kind of optimizer or some kind of framework where they're thinking about what's the expected return from these asset classes and what's the volatilities and correlations. So that would determine some level of exposure for CTAs depending on how, I mean you have to formulate a return expectation.

But are you suggesting that because of this additional role, CTA should be higher? Because it does point to, I mean this is something I've been thinking about.

This kind of framework was originally designed when you're combining different assets, bonds, equities, property. But now we're adding strategies such as CTA which are trading some of the assets that you're diversifying. So this is the point we're talking about.

Sometimes you're going to pick up more exposure. I mean you're allocating to them for a risk factor. So how do you reconcile all of that?

Yoav: 01:01:38

I think it is the time horizon that we're talking about in this time. Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. So, so yeah, actually the entire time horizon and habitat. Right.

So if you think about the, the, those, those Capital market assumptions. These are about the 10 year horizon.

Alan: 01:01:54

Exactly right.

Yoav: 01:01:55

And, and in that horizon, the natural fluctuation of equity.

In fact, what you should do is you should like what we advise a lot of retail people and a lot of actually, you know, stick with those numbers, have those locations, go and play golf. Right.

You know, allocate for equity long term, don't be for, for the long term allocation, which is what the CMA model is designed for, which is looking at long term growth. Right. The, the what's happening in the, the next three months is completely irrelevant from their perspective.

And you are just going to ride this out and you should go and play golf and just ignore Trump and you should ignore whatever Covid. We should just go and enjoy our positioning over time.

And what we are seeing, as you say, is that those active traders, not just CTAs but multistrades and other macro hedge funds and so forth, they are playing in a different time horizon than you. They are playing at the three month horizon that for you, you know, is almost invisible and it's very uncolated.

And that's the reason why over time they will be uncolated.

So you, you, you might be a situation that like right now you are long equity and the CTA is long equity or the hedge fund is, you know, this micro hedge fund is long equity. But that risk is going to change so much and you know, in a month's time they will be negative. So don't worry about it too much.

You should, the way you should think about, you know, in that, that part of the, the if you're thinking about in terms of, of alpha, that alpha is almost distinct to what you are doing from an allocation perspective. And that's why it is A uncorrelated to what you're doing and B is very additive to your portfolio.

And I think that's kind of the way that a big allocator should think about that. And the actual positioning right now you would use it in terms of modulating some small changes in your long term allocation.

So like the trading that you would do from your cma, you kind of want to modulate it by, by trend but, and, or systematic strategies. But, but in terms of alpha you just think of it as almost an independent play.

Alan: 01:04:09

Yeah, yeah, well it's true because that's effectively what the CTA allocation is doing for you. It is tactically adjusting your portfolio while as you say, you're gone playing golf.

It's increasing your exposure to equities if they're trending Higher and reducing it if it's trending lower?

Yoav: 01:04:24

Yes, absolutely. So, I mean, to be honest, it was an experimental thought process.

I don't think anybody, I don't expect the allocators or the consultants who are running those cma. I don't think Morgan Linkstar or Vanguard will all sort of shift to my methodology. I'll be very surprised. Right.

But, but I think it's important to understand, like, the tools of the trade that you have at your disposable disposal if you're an allocator.

And you know, we normally think of, of trend as, as, like it's outside that, that universe that you're living in, but you actually might want to consider embedding it into your process. Not just, actually, not just cta, but a lot of the systematic system. And, and you know, we do embed some systematic process.

So, for example, you will manage your FX exposure. Right?

A lot of the, if you are an Australian allocator and you, you have structural, structural FX exposure in the USD, then you would want to hedge a lot of that risk and you will manage it in a systematic fashion. Okay. So some systematic strategies like FX hedging are part of the way that you embed, are embedded into your process. Okay.

And there's a great paper by Otto Van Hemet about the best ways to hedge FX exposure. So there's a, there's a really nice paper I'll can send you later about doing this as an allocator. How do you embed a systematic strategy?

And you know, FX engine is like the simplest one, but already there is a lot of stuff that you can do in it with it. And CTA is just another tool of a trade that you might want to think about embedding into your process.

Alan: 01:06:18

Yeah, very good. And what's the name of your LinkedIn blog on that one?

Yoav: 01:06:22

It's what's Cooking this one.

Alan: 01:06:24

Very good. Good sofa. We've gone over a bit on time, but that's all good. So Niels will be back next week.

I'm not sure who's with them, but send in your questions for Niels. Great to have Yovon this week. Thanks very much, Yoav. And for all of us here, from all of us here on Top Traders Unplugged, thanks for tuning in.

And we'll be back next week with more content.

Ending: 01:06:50

Thanks for listening to the Systematic Investor podcast series.

If you enjoy this series, go go on over to itunes and leave an honest rating and review and be sure to listen to all the other episodes from Top Traders. Unplugged.

If you have questions about systematic investing, send us an email with the word question in the subject line to infooptoptradersunplugged.com and we'll try to get it on the show.

And remember, all the discussion that we have about investment performance is about the past, and past performance does not guarantee or even infer anything about future performance.

Also on Understand that there's a significant risk of financial loss with all investment strategies, and you need to request and understand the specific risks from the investment manager about their products before you make investment decisions. Thanks for spending some of your valuable time with us, and we'll see you on the next episode of the Systematic Investor.