Currency Trading

Are simple moving averages (SMA) effective in generating signals for short-term currency trading? In the April 2014 draft of his paper entitled “ANANTA: A Systematic Quantitative FX Trading Strategy”, Nicolas Georges investigates the effectiveness of fast (2-day) and slow (15-day) SMAs as indicators of currency exchange rate evolutions when applied to ten G10 currency pairs and aggregated. His objective is to buy (sell) currencies expected to appreciate (depreciate) based on aggregation of binary signals (see the first chart below). He rebalances the portfolio twice daily when liquidity is high at the London and New York closes. He uses market orders and includes actual trading costs unique to each currency pair, based on bid-ask spreads ranging from 0.0036% to 0.035%. He does not use stop-losses. He compiles results in U.S. dollars. Using twice daily exchange rates for G10 currency pairs during January 2003 through December 2013, he finds that: Keep Reading

What is the best way to generate price trend signals for trading futures/forward contracts? In their December 2013 paper entitled “CTAs – Which Trend is Your Friend?”, Fabian Dori, Manuel Krieger, Urs Schubiger and Daniel Torgler compare risk-adjusted performances of three ways of translating trends into trading signals:

1. Binary signals (up or down) trigger 100% long or 100% short trades. When trends are strong (ambiguous), this approach generates little trading (whipsaws/over-commitment to weak trends). The price impact of trading via this approach may be substantial for large traders.
2. Continuously scaled signals trigger long or short trades with position size scaled according to the strength of up or down trend; the stronger the trend, the larger the position. Changes in trend strength generate incremental position adjustments.
3. Empirical distribution signals trigger long or short trades with position size scaled according to the historical relationship between trend strength and future return. The strongest trend may not indicate the strongest future return, and may actually indicate return (and therefore position) reversal. Changes in trend strength generate position adjustments.

They test these three approaches for comparable trends exhibited by 96 futures/forward contract series, including: 30 currency pairs, 19 equity indexes, 11 government bond indexes, 8 short-term interest rates (STIR) and 28 commodities. They consider two risk-adjusted return metrics: annualized return divided by annualized volatility, and annualized return divided by maximum drawdown. They ignore trading frictions. Using prices for these 96 series from 1993 to 2013, they find that: Keep Reading

Are currency traders the last ones to know? In the February 2014 draft of their paper entitled “Cross-Asset Return Predictability: Carry Trades, Stocks and Commodities”, Helen Lu and Ben Jacobsen investigate whether commodity and stock index returns predict currency carry trade performance. They consider equally weighted carry trade strategies that each month buy (sell) one-month forward contracts for the one, two or three currencies with the highest (lowest) beginning-of-month interest rates and hold to maturity. They account for bid-ask spreads and express profits in U.S. dollars. They evaluate the power of three commodity indexes (CRB Spot, CRB Raw Industrials Spot and CRB Metals Spot) and three total return equity indexes (MSCI All Country, MSCI World and S&P 500) to predict carry trade profitability. Using monthly levels of the commodity and stock indexes and monthly one-month forward rates and spot rates for the G-10 currencies during February 1988 through December 2011, they find that: Keep Reading

Do country economic fundamentals provide exploitable information about future changes in associated currency exchange rates? In the June 2013 version of their paper entitled “Currency Risk Premia and Macro Fundamentals”, Lukas Menkhoff, Lucio Sarno, Maik Schmeling and Andreas Schrimpf investigate the usefulness of economic fundamentals in currency trading by measuring the performance of multi-currency hedge portfolios formed by sorting on lagged economic variables across 35 countries. They take the perspective of a U.S. investor by measuring all exchange rates versus the U.S. dollar. The country economic variables they consider are: (1) interest rates; real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth; real money growth (from currency in circulation); and, real exchange rates. They calculate growth rates based on 20-quarter rolling averages. They form hedge portfolios from extreme fourths (quartiles) of ranked currencies, rebalanced annually at year end, and calculate returns in excess of short-term interest rates. Using quarterly currency exchange rate, short-term interest rate, real GDP, Consumer Price Index (CPI) and currency in circulation for 35 countries/currencies for out-of-sample testing from the first quarter of 1974 through the third quarter of 2010, they find that: Keep Reading

Has crude oil turned into paper from an investment perspective? In their May 2013 paper entitled “Oil Prices, Exchange Rates and Asset Prices”, Marcel Fratzscher, Daniel Schneider and Ine Van Robays examine relationships between crude oil price and behaviors of other asset classes. Specifically, they relate spot West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil price to: the U.S. dollar exchange rate versus a basket of developed market currencies; Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) return; U.S. short-term interest rate; the S&P 500 options-implied volatility index (VIX); and, open interest in the NYMEX crude oil futures (as an indication of financialization of the oil market). They also test the response of crude oil price to economic news. Using daily data for these financial series during January 2001 through mid-October 2012, and contemporaneous U.S. economic news and associated expectations, they find that: Keep Reading

Do currency exchange rates exhibit short-term momentum? In the April 2013 version of their paper entitled “Is There Momentum or Reversal in Weekly Currency Returns?”, Ahmad Raza, Ben Marshall and Nuttawat Visaltanachoti investigate whether exchange rate movements over the past one to four weeks persist over the next one to four weeks. They test these 16 alternative strategies (four look-back intervals times four holding intervals) by each week buying (selling) the fifth of available currencies that have appreciated (depreciated) the most against the U.S. dollar. Using weekly and monthly spot and forward prices for 63 emerging and developed market currencies versus the U.S. dollar as available during October 1997 through December 2011, they find that: Keep Reading

Does adding a proxy for the currency carry trade among developed economies (long futures on three currencies with the highest interest rates and short futures on three currencies with the lowest interest rates) to a diversified portfolio improve its performance? To check, we add PowerShares DB G10 Currency Harvest (DBV) to the following mix of asset class proxies (the same used in “Simple Asset Class ETF Momentum Strategy”):

PowerShares DB Commodity Index Tracking (DBC)
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index (EEM)
iShares MSCI EAFE Index (EFA)
SPDR Gold Shares (GLD)
iShares Russell 1000 Index (IWB)
iShares Russell 2000 Index (IWM)
SPDR Dow Jones REIT (RWR)
iShares Barclays 20+ Year Treasury Bond (TLT)
3-month Treasury bills (Cash)

First, per the findings of “Asset Class Diversification Effectiveness Factors”, we measure the average monthly return for DBV and the average pairwise correlation of DBV monthly returns with the monthly returns of the above assets. Then, we compare cumulative returns and basic monthly return statistics for equally weighted (EW), monthly rebalanced portfolios with and without DBV. We ignore rebalancing frictions, which would be about the same for the alternative portfolios. Using adjusted monthly returns for DBV and the above nine asset class proxies from September 2006 (first return available for DBV) through April 2013 (79 monthly returns), we find that: Keep Reading

What works better for currency trading, technical or fundamental analysis? In their April 2013 working paper entitled “Exchange Rate Expectations of Chartists and Fundamentalists”, Christian Dick and Lukas Menkhoff compare the behavior and performance of technical analysts (chartists) and fundamental analysts (fundamentalists) based on monthly surveys of several hundred German professional dollar-euro exchange rate forecasters, in combination with respondent self-assessments regarding emphasis on technical and fundamental analysis. Forecasts are directional only (whether the dollar will depreciate, stay the same or appreciate versus the euro) at a six-month horizon. The authors examine three self-assessments (from 2004, 2007 and 2011) to classify forecasters as chartists (at least 40% weight to technical analysis), fundamentalists (at least 80% weight to fundamental analysis) or intermediates. Using responses from 396 survey respondents encompassing 33,861 monthly time-stamped forecasts and contemporaneous dollar-euro exchange rate data during January 1999 through September 2011 (153 months), they find that: Keep Reading

Is downside risk the critical driver of investor asset valuation? In the January 2013 version of their paper entitled “Conditional Risk Premia in Currency Markets and Other Asset Classes”, Martin Lettau, Matteo Maggiori and Michael Weber explore the ability of a simple downside risk capital asset pricing model (DR-CAPM) to explain and predict asset returns. Their approach captures the idea that downside risk aversion makes investors view assets with high beta during bad market conditions as particularly risky. For all asset classes (but focusing on currencies), they define bad market conditions as months when the excess return on the broad value-weighted U.S. stock market is less than 1.0 standard deviation below its sample period average. To test DR-CAPM on currencies, they rank a sample of 53 currencies by interest rates into six portfolios, excluding for some analyses those currencies in highest interest rate portfolio with annual inflation at least 10% higher than contemporaneous U.S. inflation. They calculate the monthly return for each currency as the sum of its excess interest rate relative to the dollar and its change in value relative to the dollar. They then calculate overall and downside betas relative to the U.S. stock market based on the full sample. They extend tests of DR-CAPM to six portfolios of U.S. stocks sorted by size and book-to-market ratio, five portfolios of commodities sorted by futures premium and six portfolios of government bonds sorted by probability of default, and to multi-asset class combinations. They also compare DR-CAPM to optimal models based on principal component analysis within and across asset classes. Using monthly prices and characteristics for currencies and U.S. stocks during January 1974 through March 2010, for commodities during January 1974 through December 2008 and for government bonds during January 1995 through March 2010, they find that: Keep Reading

Do time series carry (intrinsic value) and time series momentum (intrinsic momentum) strategies work across asset classes? What drives their returns, and how do they interact? In the January 2013 very preliminary version of their paper entitled “The Returns to Carry and Momentum Strategies: Business Cycles, Hedge Fund Capital and Limits to Arbitrage”, Jan Danilo Ahmerkamp and James Grant examine intrinsic value strategy and intrinsic momentum strategy returns for 55 worldwide futures contract series spanning equities, bonds, currencies, commodities and metals, including the effects of business cycle/economic conditions and institutional ownership. They study futures (rather than spot/cash) markets to minimize trading frictions and avoid shorting constraints. They calculate futures contract returns relative to the nearest-to-maturity futures contract (not spot/cash market) price. The momentum signal is lagged 12-month cumulative raw return. The carry (value) signal is the lagged 12-month average normalized price difference between second nearest-to-maturity and nearest contracts. They test strategies that are each month long (short) contracts with positive (negative) value or momentum signals. They also test a combination strategy that is long (short) contracts with both value and momentum signals positive (negative). For comparability of assets, they weight contract series within multi-asset portfolios by inverse volatility, estimated as the average absolute value of daily returns over the past three months. Their benchmark is a long-only portfolio of all contracts weighted by inverse volatility. Using daily settlement prices for the nearest and second nearest futures contracts of the 55 series (10 equities, 12 bonds, 17 commodities, nine currencies and seven metals) as available during 1980 through 2012, they find that: Keep Reading