Transcription

• Speaker #0

  Hello, welcome back to Papers with Backtest podcast. Today, we dive into another algo trading research paper. This time we're tackling a strategy that challenges the good old 60-40 portfolio, that classic mix of stocks and bonds that's been a staple for investors forever. But does it still hold up in today's world? This paper, Rethinking the 60-40 Portfolio, Dynamic Hedging with Commodities, digs into that very question.

• Speaker #1

  And what's really fascinating is this paper doesn't just critique the 60-40 approach. It proposes a new twist using dynamic hedging with commodities.

• Speaker #0

  Okay. I'm intrigued. Let's unpack this. How did the researchers arrive at the conclusion that the 60-40 portfolio might need a revamp?

• Speaker #1

  Well, they start by highlighting the historical context. The 60-40 portfolio's success was largely built on the idea of the efficient frontier, a concept from modern portfolio theory, essentially. It suggests that there's this sweet spot where you can maximize returns for a given level of risk. by combining assets with a negative correlation.

• Speaker #0

  So historically, stocks and bonds moved in opposite directions, providing a nice balance to the portfolio. But this paper is suggesting that this relationship might be changing.

• Speaker #1

  Exactly. And the culprit they point to is rising inflation. You see, when inflation heats up, central banks often raise interest rates to cool things down. But high interest rates hurt bond prices, causing them to potentially move in the same direction as stocks. disrupting that historical balance.

• Speaker #0

  So instead of bonds acting as a cushion when stocks fall, they might actually amplify the losses. That's definitely not what you want in a portfolio.

• Speaker #1

  Precisely. And this isn't just a theoretical concern. The paper highlights that in 2022, the 60-40 portfolio experienced a significant drawdown, a stark reminder that the old rules might not apply as reliably as they once did.

• Speaker #0

  OK, so bonds might not be the reliable hedge they used to be. What's the alternative? That's where the commodities come in, right?

• Speaker #1

  Yes. The researchers propose that allocating a portion of the portfolio to commodities might offer a better hedge against inflation. Commodities, things like oil, gold, and agricultural products tend to rise in price when inflation is high.

• Speaker #0

  That makes sense. So are they suggesting simply replacing a chunk of those bonds with commodities? Well,

• Speaker #1

  they tested that initially, shifting 10% from bonds to a broad commodity index called the GSCI. But as you might have guessed, It didn't magically solve the problem.

• Speaker #0

  Why not? If commodities are supposed to be an inflation hedge, shouldn't that have worked?

• Speaker #1

  There are a couple of reasons. First, commodities are inherently volatile. Their prices can swing wildly, adding a whole new layer of risk to the portfolio. And second, they're often subject to something called contango.

• Speaker #0

  Okay, pause right there. I've heard the term contango thrown around before, but I'm not entirely sure what it means. Can you break it down for us?

• Speaker #1

  Of course. Contango essentially describes a situation. where the future price of a commodity is higher than its current spot price. It's a bit technical, but basically it means you can lose money over time just from the way commodity futures contracts are priced. Ah,

• Speaker #0

  so simply holding commodities isn't a surefire way to beat inflation. It sounds like there's more to it than just swapping out assets.

• Speaker #1

  You got it. And that's where the researchers' dynamic hedging strategy comes into play. They realize that the key to success might lie in the timing of these allocation shifts. not just the assets themselves.

• Speaker #0

  Okay. I'm all ears. How does this dynamic hedging work?

• Speaker #1

  They focused on the six-month rolling correlation between stocks and bonds as a sort of trigger. If that correlation started to creep up, signaling a potential breakdown of that classic negative correlation, they'd start shifting a small percentage of the portfolio from bonds into commodities, specifically the GSCI index. Oh,

• Speaker #0

  they're basically trying to anticipate those periods when bonds might not be doing their job as a hedge. Yeah. And get ahead of the curve.

• Speaker #1

  Exactly. And the beauty of their approach is it wasn't a static allocation. They dynamically adjusted the commodity exposure based on how that stock bond correlation was behaving.

• Speaker #0

  I'm starting to see the appeal of this approach. But how much were they actually shifting at each trigger point? And what happened when the correlation cooled down?

• Speaker #1

  Those are excellent questions, and we'll delve into those details. When we come back for part two of this deep dive, we'll explore the specific rules they used, how they determined the allocation amounts, and most importantly, whether this dynamic approach actually delivered the results they were hoping for.

• Speaker #0

  This is getting really interesting. I can't wait to find out if this dynamic hedging strategy lived up to the hype. Welcome back to Papers with Backtest. We left off discussing a potential alternative to the traditional 60-40 portfolio, a dynamic hedging strategy using commodities. You mentioned the researchers used the six-month rolling correlation between stocks and bonds as a trigger. Can you elaborate on how they actually implement this strategy? Yeah,

• Speaker #1

  absolutely. So. They started with a baseline 60-40 portfolio, 60% stocks and 40% bonds. Then, they monitored that six-month rolling correlation. If the correlation started rising above a certain threshold, indicating that stocks and bonds were moving more in sync, and that classic balance was breaking down, they would make a move.

• Speaker #0

  Okay, so what was the threshold they used? And how much of the portfolio did they actually shift when the trigger was hit?

• Speaker #1

  They chose a 2% threshold for their initial test, meaning if the stock-bond correlation rose above that 2% mark, they'd shift 2% of the portfolio from bonds to the GSCI Commodity Index. And this wasn't a one-time shift. They continued to monitor the correlation each month. If the correlation continued to climb, they would make additional 2% shifts, up to a maximum of 20% allocated to commodities.

• Speaker #0

  So they could potentially end up with 20% of the portfolio in commodities if that correlation really spiked. That seems like a pretty significant shift. What happened when the correlation cooled down and stocks and bonds started moving in opposite directions again?

• Speaker #1

  That's where the dynamic part of the strategy really comes in. As the correlation started to decline, they gradually shifted those assets back from commodities to bonds. They essentially reversed the process, moving 2% increments back to bonds each month until they were back to the original 60-40 allocation.

• Speaker #0

  So they weren't just buying and holding commodities. They were actively managing that allocation based on this correlation signal. It sounds pretty complex.

• Speaker #1

  It's definitely more involved than a simple buy and hold strategy. But the researchers argue that this dynamic approach is crucial for capturing the potential benefits of commodities as an inflation hedge. Without exposing the portfolio to unnecessary volatility.

• Speaker #0

  That makes sense. But did it actually work? Did this dynamic hedging strategy actually outperform the traditional 60-40 portfolio?

• Speaker #1

  That's the million-dollar question, isn't it? And the best way to answer that is to look at the backtest results. The researchers did a thorough analysis, simulating how this strategy would have performed over a long period of historical market data.

• Speaker #0

  Okay. I'm on the edge of my seat. Spill the beans. What did the backtests reveal? Wow.

• Speaker #1

  As we discussed earlier, the simple 10% allocation to commodities didn't really move the needle. But the dynamic strategy, the one with the correlation trigger and the gradual shifts, it actually delivered some pretty impressive results.

• Speaker #0

  Okay, I'm intrigued. Give me the numbers. How much better did this dynamic approach perform compared to the classic 60-40?

• Speaker #1

  Hold on tight. This is where it gets really interesting. According to their backtests, the dynamic strategy achieved an average annual return of 9.44%. while the traditional 60-40 portfolio clocked in at 8.92%.

• Speaker #0

  That's a difference of over half a percent per year over the long term. That kind of outperformance can really make a difference.

• Speaker #1

  Exactly. And remember, this wasn't achieved by taking on significantly more risk. The dynamic strategies volatility was very similar to that of the 60-40 portfolio. In fact, it even boasted a slightly higher Sharpe ratio.

• Speaker #0

  Wait, back up a sec. You keep throwing around this term Sharpe ratio. What exactly does that measure?

• Speaker #1

  Ah. Good point. The Sharpe ratio is a way to assess risk-adjusted returns, essentially. It tells you how much return you're getting for each unit of risk you're taking. A higher Sharpe ratio means you're getting more bang for your buck, so to speak.

• Speaker #0

  So this dynamic strategy wasn't just delivering higher returns, it was actually doing so more efficiently in terms of risk.

• Speaker #1

  That's what the back tests suggest. It seemed to be finding that sweet spot of higher returns without significantly increasing the risk profile of the... the portfolio.

• Speaker #0

  I'm starting to see why they call this a rethinking of the 60-40 portfolio. But backtesting isn't a perfect predictor of the future, right?

• Speaker #1

  You're absolutely right. Backtesting is a valuable tool, but it's important to understand its limitations. We can't assume that just because a strategy worked well in the past, it's guaranteed to do so in the future.

• Speaker #0

  So what are the main things we need to keep in mind when interpreting these backtest results? What could potentially throw this strategy off track?

• Speaker #1

  That's a great question. And a perfect segue into the final part of our deep dive. When we come back, we'll explore the potential pitfalls of this dynamic hedging approach, discuss the caveats of backtesting, and ultimately try to determine whether this strategy is something worth considering for investors today.

• Speaker #0

  Welcome back to the final part of our deep dive into this fascinating research paper that's challenging the conventional wisdom of the 60-40 portfolio. We've uncovered some intriguing backtest results. Suggesting that this dynamic hedging strategy using commodities might actually hold some promise. But before we jump to any conclusions, let's dig a little deeper into those backtesting results and talk about some of the limitations we need to consider.

• Speaker #1

  Absolutely. Backtesting is a crucial tool for evaluating any trading strategy. But it's important to approach it with a healthy dose of skepticism. We can't just blindly trust historical performance as a guarantee of future success.

• Speaker #0

  So. What are some of the red flags we should be looking out for when evaluating backtest results? What could potentially skew those results and make them less reliable?

• Speaker #1

  One of the biggest concerns is the potential for overfitting, essentially. It's like training an algorithm to be too good at predicting the past. If we tweak our parameters and rules too precisely to fit the historical data, our strategy might perform poorly when faced with new, unseen market conditions.

• Speaker #0

  So it's kind of like teaching a student to memorize the answers to a specific test, but then they completely blank when they see a different set of questions.

• Speaker #1

  That's a great analogy. And it's a real risk in algo trading. If we're not careful, we can create a strategy that looks brilliant in back tests, but fails miserably in live trading.

• Speaker #0

  That's a sobering thought. How can we avoid this overfitting trap? What steps did the researchers take to ensure their back tests were robust and reliable?

• Speaker #1

  The researchers in this paper employed several techniques to mitigate overfitting. One common approach is called out-of-sample testing, essentially. You split your historical data into two sets. A training set used to develop and optimize your strategy, and a testing set. which is held back and used to evaluate the strategy's performance on unseen data.

• Speaker #0

  So, it's like giving your student a practice test before the real deal, to make sure they can actually apply what they've learned.

• Speaker #1

  Precisely. And the researchers also perform sensitivity analysis, testing their strategy under different market conditions or assumptions. This helps to assess how robust the strategy is to variations and changes in the market environment.

• Speaker #0

  That sounds thorough. But even with these safeguards in place, there's always a chance that Unexpected events could throw a wrench in the works, right?

• Speaker #1

  Absolutely. The financial markets are complex and constantly evolving. We can't account for every possible scenario in our back tests.

• Speaker #0

  So what's the bottom line here? How confident can we be in the results presented in this paper? Should investors rush out and start implementing this dynamic hedging strategy?

• Speaker #1

  Well, I wouldn't advise rushing into anything. As with any investment strategy, it's crucial to do your own research, understand the underlying principles, and carefully consider the potential risks and rewards.

• Speaker #0

  That sounds like sage advice. But based on what you've seen in this paper, do you think this dynamic hedging approach has merit? Is it something worth exploring further?

• Speaker #1

  I think this paper presents a compelling argument that the classic 60-40 portfolio might need some adjustments in today's world. Dynamic hedging with commodities, particularly when driven by a data-driven approach like this correlation trigger, offers an intriguing way to adapt to changing market conditions. And potentially enhance risk-adjusted returns.

• Speaker #0

  But it's not a magic bullet. It's not a simple set-it-and-forget-it solution.

• Speaker #1

  Absolutely not. It requires a thoughtful approach, careful monitoring, and a willingness to adapt as the market evolves.

• Speaker #0

  I think that's a great takeaway for our listeners. The 60-40 portfolio has served investors well for decades. But as with anything in the financial world, it's important to stay flexible and be open to new approaches as the market landscape changes.

• Speaker #1

  I couldn't agree more. The key is to stay informed. Stay curious and never stop learning.

• Speaker #0

  Well said. Thank you for joining us on this deep dive into the world of dynamic hedging and the evolving landscape of portfolio management.

• Speaker #1

  It's been a pleasure.

• Speaker #2

  Thank you for tuning in to Papers with Backtest podcast. We hope today's episode gave you useful insights. Join us next time as we break down more research. And for more papers and backtests, find us at https.paperswithbacktest.com. Happy trading.