Making the Case for New Managers

“Only invest with managers with 5 year track Record”

“Don’t invest in a program with less than $50 million under management”

“Make sure your investing with someone who’s ‘been there’ before”

A lot of investors out there (including us at times: here and here) have some hard and fast rules when it comes to selecting managers for their alternatives portfolio. Indeed, this is why the large keep getting larger (see Winton recently surpassing $30 Billion, Bridgewater over $100 Billion, and Nassim Taleb’s rant on the futility of trying to play at this game where winners take all). Last time we checked, the breakdown of large versus small managers looked something like this:

David vs. GoliathData Courtesy: Attain Post “So You Want To Be A CTA

At a certain point in an investors filtering and due diligence, only one or two names remain.  If you want a program with a 10+ year track record, performance profile of x, staff of at least y, in house compliance, legal, etc. etc. – your list starts to dwindle in a big hurry, leaving just the largest players who have been around for a long time. Turns out asset raising is as much of a winner take all game as ride share apps and search engines.

But are these investors missing the forest for the trees (albeit redwoods), so to speak?  Are they doing themselves a disservice by only going with the old hands? Is there a case to be made for the new guys on the block?  Turns out there most certainly is – from a pure performance standpoint.

We took a look at our culled database of 600+ managed futures programs going back into the 1980s to find out just how ‘new programs’ perform compared with older programs, plotting the average performance by year of track record across hundreds of programs. This shows the average performance of each program in its first 12 months, its next 12 months, the 12 after that, and so on and so forth until looking at the 10th year (12 month period) of track record for those programs which go out 10 years plus.

Avg Perf Track Record(Disclaimer: Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results)

You can see a definite downward sloping curve, showing that programs do very well in their first year, great but somewhat less well in year two, and worst and worse until year 8, when there is a bit of a move back to normal levels.

What is going on here?  First and foremost is a bit of backfill bias. What is that? Well, when managers submit their programs to the database in hopes of raising money, they rarely do it after posting three years of negative returns. The more usual pattern is for a manager to start out, have success, and then submit their program’s performance to the databases, “backfilling” the data to their first month of trading.  This creates very good looking first years of returns, as the poor first years were never submitted in the first place. They never became official ‘managers’ and never got into the database for us to analyze at a later date (what’s called survivorship bias).

But there’s more than just the bias issues happening here, because even if we ignore the first three years of track record – the same pattern exists:

Avg Performance Track Record 2(Disclaimer: Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results)

So there must be something more than just backfill bias – which, by the way, is not more than 18 months in our experience, on average. That something else could be what the MJ Blog, (unfortunately, it’s not Michael Jordan’s blog) calls Structural Alpha. That’s what we’ve referred to as smaller managers being able to access markets like Corn and Cocoa and the rest which the Billion Dollar plus managers can’t because of position limits and market impact (i.e. when they want to exit, their size moves the market so much as to hurt their position). Speaking of market impact, or slippage as it is known in the systematic trading world, here’s our old visual from this post on the extra large managers trying to exit a trade.

New Picture

Protecting vs. Performing. Which leads us to the final answer here, which is established managers making a natural transition to asset protectors versus asset performers. This is a bit of a cliché and there’s more than a few high profile big firms which still swing for the fences. But more often than not, the normal performance profile for managers is higher returns and higher volatility in the early parts of their track record. There’s a few reasons for this, including manager naivete at their outset, where they simply didn’t know as much as they do now in terms of risk control, the known unknowns of risk, and operational efficiencies. You know the old saying… if I’d known then what I know now.

There’s also the simple math of risk reward. When young and starting out, just like in many endeavors, it is well worth the risk to be a little more aggressive in order to make a name for yourself, in a sort of ‘better to have loved and lost then never have loved at all’ type game. But as you get more successful, as you become ‘married’ to a track record and large number of assets – the risk/reward shifts. Sure, at a base level you have to keep performing. Nobody’s going to stick with you forever if you’re not. But the risk shifts from a risk of not ‘making it’ to a risk of losing what you have.  As an example, if you lose -20% in a month, you might lose 50% of your assets. If you lose -20% over three years, you might lose 5% of your assets.

The big institutional investors may argue it isn’t worth the risk for them to take a chance on a new manager. Now, they are often talking career risk there, why take a flier on a new manager when you can get most of the return with an established manager and not risk operational issues, big reversions to the mean, and so forth which might cost them a job. And for 5% to 10% of their portfolio – they are probably right.

But for the smaller, more nimble investor who is after better risk adjusted performance – and doesn’t have a job to worry about losing, and is doing more than 5% in alternatives;  is avoiding the perceived risk of less sophisticated operations, a smaller staff, and more worth the trade off in performance? Can you actually get the better performance outlined above by trying out “new talent.”  We sure think there is a case to be made for the new manager. And an even stronger case for the new manager who makes it through a due diligence process where many of the operational issues that are a perceived risk can be removed as an issue. And an even stronger case for the new manager who isn’t really new – who instead is a disciple of an established manager, of a trading desk at a bank, and so on. We know a few names, if interested.

There are risks to new managers – but most of them are identifiable, and thus able to be addressed.  And the risk is mirrored by defined advantages to new managers. So if you’re in need of a little something extra. If in need of a diversifier to your diversifier, a satellite strategy to your core managed futures holdings, there are worse things you could do than looking at a new manager. Sign up here to be notified of new managers and funds which become available through our industry relationships.


  1. Like you mentioned there’s a risk/reward balance for managers in terms of number of years in their track record. I would be curious to see your graphs with ideally a MAR ratio but at least a Sharpe ratio instead of outright performance. I think they would relay the message better. Are you getting a better bang for your buck with a 10 year track record?

  2. […] The risks (and rewards) of investing in new managers. (managed-futures-blog.attaincapital) […]

Write a Comment

The performance data displayed herein is compiled from various sources, including BarclayHedge, RCM's own estimates of performance based on account managed by advisors on its books, and reports directly from the advisors. These performance figures should not be relied on independent of the individual advisor's disclosure document, which has important information regarding the method of calculation used, whether or not the performance includes proprietary results, and other important footnotes on the advisor's track record.

Benchmark index performance is for the constituents of that index only, and does not represent the entire universe of possible investments within that asset class. And further, that there can be limitations and biases to indices such as survivorship, self reporting, and instant history.

Managed futures accounts can subject to substantial charges for management and advisory fees. The numbers within this website include all such fees, but it may be necessary for those accounts that are subject to these charges to make substantial trading profits in the future to avoid depletion or exhaustion of their assets.

Investors interested in investing with a managed futures program (excepting those programs which are offered exclusively to qualified eligible persons as that term is defined by CFTC regulation 4.7) will be required to receive and sign off on a disclosure document in compliance with certain CFT rules The disclosure documents contains a complete description of the principal risk factors and each fee to be charged to your account by the CTA, as well as the composite performance of accounts under the CTA's management over at least the most recent five years. Investor interested in investing in any of the programs on this website are urged to carefully read these disclosure documents, including, but not limited to the performance information, before investing in any such programs.

Those investors who are qualified eligible persons as that term is defined by CFTC regulation 4.7 and interested in investing in a program exempt from having to provide a disclosure document and considered by the regulations to be sophisticated enough to understand the risks and be able to interpret the accuracy and completeness of any performance information on their own.

RCM receives a portion of the commodity brokerage commissions you pay in connection with your futures trading and/or a portion of the interest income (if any) earned on an account's assets. The listed manager may also pay RCM a portion of the fees they receive from accounts introduced to them by RCM.

See the full terms of use and risk disclaimer here.