Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) funds are commonly associated with managed futures investing; however, beyond commodities, they have the flexibility to venture into other assets, including interest rates, currencies, fixed income, and equity indices. Most of the CTA strategies are trend-following, taking long positions in markets experiencing upward trends and short positions in markets undergoing downward trends, with the expectation that these trends will persist. CTA funds demonstrate a negative correlation with traditional assets, especially evident during periods of pronounced downturns in equity markets, and this characteristic positions them as an appealing alternative investment option, serving as a protective measure against extreme events in financial markets. We aim to explore these trend-following strategies by creating a “CTA proxy” using ETFs across all asset classes. Using ETFs allows for maintaining the diversification of CTA funds and represents an alternative with easier data availability compared to futures contracts. Additionally, we are very interested in seeing the contribution of the short leg of CTA sub-strategies to performance, as we have a hypothesis that we can significantly improve the risk-return profile of the CTA strategies by removing a short leg portion of the strategy from some assets.

The primary motivation behind our study stems from an observation of the Global Tactical Asset Allocation (GTAA) strategies throughout the existing papers – the majority of them require relatively frequent rebalancing from the point of view of the ordinary investor. Portfolio rebalancing is usually done on a weekly or monthly basis, and while this period may seem overly boring and slow for the majority of traders (who like to trade on intraday or daily basis), fans of GTAA strategies are not traders; they are investors. Of course, some like to follow the ebbs and flows of the market. But a lot of investors just want to have a life. The financial market is not their hobby. However, on the other hand, they also do not want to hold just the passive buy & hold portfolio. Recognizing the demand for the semi-active strategy, we introduce our novel Pragmatic Asset Allocation.

Investing in emerging markets (EM) or developed markets (DM) outside of the United States tends to follow cyclical trends. At times, it becomes popular and crowded to focus solely on U.S. stocks, while in other periods, the trend shifts to favor everything except U.S. equities. This inclination often relies on historical and past performance data, although it doesn’t guarantee identical outcomes in the future. But what drives these periods of popularity? When do U.S. markets outperform Emerging Markets or other Developed Markets? When do large-cap stocks outperform small-cap stocks, and when do growth stocks outperform value stocks? Are those ebbs and flows in the performance of major thematic investments somehow interlinked, and can we uncover some insights into why this occurs? Those are the questions we will try to answer in the following analysis.

The part of the attention of our own research from the last few months was a little skewed on the side of countries’ indices and their corresponding ETFs representing them, and we finally conclude our “trilogy” of investigation on the efficiency of these markets. Firstly, we analyzed price-based valuation measures, and then, in November, we investigated the impact of military expenditures on the performance of international stock markets. We will wrap up this mini-series by analyzing a few additional alternative datasets containing variables we thought might be of interest in meaningfully describing each country’s societal standing – the climate change awareness index, the happiness score, the corruption perception index, and the income inequality score.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum”, is an old Roman proverb translated to English as “If you want peace, prepare for war”, and it is the main idea behind the military policy of a lot of modern national states. In the current globally interconnected world, waging a real “hot war” has very often really negative trade and business repercussions (as the Russian Federation realized in 2022). Still, even though wars among developed nations are luckily not as popular as they used to be, modern states heavily invest in their own defense. Nobody wants to be caught military unprepared in case of a local or global geopolitical crisis. A strong military should bring a safe environment to do business, and trade should flourish uninterrupted. But are all those national military expenditures financially rewarded? Do stock markets of countries with a strong military outperform their peers? That’s the question we have decided to answer in the following analysis.

What are our expectations from the ESG theme on the portfolio management level? The question is whether ESG investing also offers some kind of “alternative alpha”, or outperformance against the traditional benchmarks. There are managers and academics who are enthusiastic and hope for the outperformance of the good ESG stocks. However, the academic research community is really split. Some academic papers show positive alpha for “Saints” (good ESG stocks); others show significantly positive alpha for “Sinners” (bad ESG stocks). So, how it’s in reality? Is it “Good to be Bad”? Or the other way around?