Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

TraderBG

Market Uncorrelated to ES?

Recommended Posts

I'm looking to learn to trade one more futures market that is as uncorrelated to the ES as possible, neither directly nor inversely. I know all markets are interrelated in some fashion but I'm looking for one that doesn't move in tandem like the YM does, nor inversely like the bonds do. The reason I ask is because there are certain types of days I don't like to trade the ES and if the ES is untradable the same usually goes for the markets mentioned above. It needs to be open during regular US hours and have nice volume. Any suggestions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are studies on this subject, but I am not sure where. My guess would be you need to look at :

 

1. Corn

 

2. Wheat

 

3. Pork bellies

 

4. Rough Rice

 

Basically, the Ags. The financials will have more correlation , so would metals and the energy complex. As I am writing this, I am thinking you could google market correlation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are lots of traders in US who trade Dax prior to the US open when the price moves are not related to the US markets, however depending on your location, you will have to be up early to do that:cool: it is an excellent market to trade via EUREX feed which I understand is now available on Zenfire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because a product trades different hours than the ES, doesn't mean there is less correlation. ES up on thursday, DAX up on friday morning. It seems to make more sense that a non-financial product would be better. Cattle is less likely to be correlated than another index futures product of another country. After all, the U.S. Sneezes and the rest of the world cacthes a cold......

 

One does have to be careful of liquidity issues. Flax seed oil may have little correlation, but how easily can you enter and exit a position in Flax seed oil?

 

edit: Yes, I know correlation does not prove cause and effect....

Edited by CandleWhisperer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cash, Treasury Bonds and Investment Grade Bonds Are The Only Assets Uncorrelated to ES over time.

 

ETF's would be:

 

AGG

BND

SHY

IEF

TLT

TIP

LQD

 

AGG is the largest bond ETF in world and its about ~55% treasuries/45% corporates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't consider Forex to be its own asset class. Guess you could argue it well your way.

 

Forex is a component of other asset class returns in my opinion. Ie, if you own int'l bonds, you figure in the Forex. If you own int'l stocks, you figure in the Forex. Effectively, when you buy forex, you are buying SOMETHING else --- ie, even if just yield on int'l cash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cash, Treasury Bonds and Investment Grade Bonds Are The Only Assets Uncorrelated to ES over time.

 

 

That's just not true.

 

As I stated earlier, Oil and Currency Futures do not move in tandom w/ the ES. Does it happen at times? Sure, EVERYTHING mimics the ES moves at some point in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The DAX is correlated with the ES during pre-market.

 

I know this because I've been studying the DAX for the last few months and looking at the ES occassionally.

 

You could very well be right, but don't you think you need a little more than looking at something occassionally before reaching conclusions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

brownsfan, we are talking about 2 different things I think.

 

I am talking about asset classes -- you are talking about components -- such as 'oil' -- a subsegment of commodities.

 

When I think correlation, I am only considering those asset classes that first offer a real long-term return. I don't think commodities do that. Commodity Trading Advisors might, but the raw commodities have much to prove over the coming decades, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brownsfan, we are talking about 2 different things I think.

 

I am talking about asset classes -- you are talking about components -- such as 'oil' -- a subsegment of commodities.

 

When I think correlation, I am only considering those asset classes that first offer a real long-term return. I don't think commodities do that. Commodity Trading Advisors might, but the raw commodities have much to prove over the coming decades, in my opinion.

 

Gotcha. I am a simple mind.

 

Pull up a intraday CL chart and compare to an intraday ES chart and they will not look identical = uncorrelated as far as I am concerned.

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the most part, indexes will look the same or very similar.

 

Oil and currencies are the best option IMO to find something that could care less what the ES is doing, ESPECIALLY OIL.

 

I have no more than a gut feel but these do seem to be correlated a lot of the time....it is an inverse correlation but it seems to be there....except when its not of course. :) I guess for a similar reason that bonds tend to be inversely correlated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no more than a gut feel but these do seem to be correlated a lot of the time....it is an inverse correlation but it seems to be there....except when its not of course. :) I guess for a similar reason that bonds tend to be inversely correlated.

 

I would pull up charts and see for yourself BF. I watch these markets daily and do not see a regular correlation/inverse correlation that shows up w/ any regularity.

 

There was a time a year or more back where Oil and the ES were inversely correlated almost daily. Was a beautiful thing but of course that did not last too long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All several others have alluded to, day to day correlations (positive or negative) are bound to volatility. Using the coefficient of correlation figure for the whole population between data streams can be misleading. When indexes are above three std dev’s, just about everything hooks up / correlates(+ or -) with indexes - as fear of getting ‘caught out’ spreads through the collective – ie absolute correlation can go very high. And below 1 std dev, even those with higher relative ‘average’ or composite correlation, tend to drop off in correlation significantly and march to their own drums. Examples are Treasuries, CL, AGs, FX, etc. See The Handbook of Portfolio Mathematics by Ralph Vince circa pg 290

 

zdo

 

 

‘I believe we can continue the Great Society while we continue to print more money twenty four hours a day’ Weimar Bernanke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The press is claiming the weak $ caused the CL to spike. I haven't seen the relation until the recently. But it's also possible CL is causing the $ to strength. But I think it's the perspective of the US economy that drive the USD which may cause the CL to move as well. Certainly requires further analysis. Interesting to see how they all move violently lately, especial CL's biggest day move ever... impressive stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The press is claiming the weak $ caused the CL to spike. I haven't seen the relation until the recently. But it's also possible CL is causing the $ to strength.

 

Well, they are paid for writing 'something'..."Buying pressure was higher than selling pressure" most probably won't get any financial press sold and will hardly fill an article...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But to answer your question I found this article.

 

Here's some extract:

The dataset he used goes from 1970 only until 2004, so it might well miss out some of the more recent volatility in correlation. But even stopping at 2004, Coaker concludes that it's not enough to invest in uncorrelated assets; you have to invest in consistently uncorrelated assets. And if you want a consistently uncorrelated asset to offset your US equity exposure, the best thing he can find for you is natural resources.

 

Natural resources have had a correlation of less than .20 to all 17 other assets in this study, with the highest being just .19, for both small growth and small value. Natural resources have had the lowest average correlations—and the most consistently low correlations—to every asset in this study, including every category of stocks, bonds, and alternatives. Hence, natural resources have provided more diversification benefits than every other asset in this study. Of special note, natural resources have had a negative correlation 83 percent of the time to U.S. bonds, due to their inverse relationship to inflation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

articles with "economic conspiracy theory" reasons are more appealing, so they write that, as friend of mine said to me when oil hit the 100 level and break out

 

"when prices go up the problem (the excuse obviuosly) are speculators (for our country argentina), businesses that buy and hold consumer products to sell them higher, instead in bussiness as usual, now the inflationary process is on the first world, and whom to blame? speculators, but the economies are so big that buying products and hold them is not enough, so they buy and hold oil, gold and so on" lol

 

So the media feed the idea that speculators are the reason of all "evil"

 

but as my friend stated is ridiculous to think that in both levels, unless speculators are renting australia as warehouse its impossible lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But to answer your question I found this article.

 

Here's some extract:

The dataset he used goes from 1970 only until 2004, so it might well miss out some of the more recent volatility in correlation. But even stopping at 2004, Coaker concludes that it's not enough to invest in uncorrelated assets; you have to invest in consistently uncorrelated assets. And if you want a consistently uncorrelated asset to offset your US equity exposure, the best thing he can find for you is natural resources.

 

Natural resources have had a correlation of less than .20 to all 17 other assets in this study, with the highest being just .19, for both small growth and small value. Natural resources have had the lowest average correlations—and the most consistently low correlations—to every asset in this study, including every category of stocks, bonds, and alternatives. Hence, natural resources have provided more diversification benefits than every other asset in this study. Of special note, natural resources have had a negative correlation 83 percent of the time to U.S. bonds, due to their inverse relationship to inflation.

 

Thanks Flojomojo. From these stats and the responses from others as well, I'm thinking natural resources is the way I'm gonna go. Much appreciation to you all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.