{"title":"检验期货交易策略假设","authors":"Mark C. Hutchinson, John R. O'Brien","doi":"10.3905/jai.2019.1.075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is a growing literature examining futures-based trading strategies and the performance of commodity trading advisors (CTAs). In this article, the authors test the validity of three key assumptions used in these studies. They test the validity of basing conclusions on analysis of synthetic rather than market price data; they review the evidence on the level of transaction costs, to test the cost model used in modeling futures-based trading strategy; and finally, they test the assumption that CTAs generally charge a management fee of 2% and incentive (performance) fee of 20%. In addition, they present the trend over time in the structure of fees. Their findings suggest that inferences based on synthetic futures replicate those based on exchange-traded data. Over the full period, the average fee levels were 1.82% (management) and 20.2% (incentive)—not significantly different from the levels used in the literature. TOPICS: Futures and forward contracts, real assets/alternative investments/private equity, commodities","PeriodicalId":45142,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Alternative Investments","volume":"22 1","pages":"47 - 63"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Testing Futures Trading Strategy Assumptions\",\"authors\":\"Mark C. Hutchinson, John R. O'Brien\",\"doi\":\"10.3905/jai.2019.1.075\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There is a growing literature examining futures-based trading strategies and the performance of commodity trading advisors (CTAs). In this article, the authors test the validity of three key assumptions used in these studies. They test the validity of basing conclusions on analysis of synthetic rather than market price data; they review the evidence on the level of transaction costs, to test the cost model used in modeling futures-based trading strategy; and finally, they test the assumption that CTAs generally charge a management fee of 2% and incentive (performance) fee of 20%. In addition, they present the trend over time in the structure of fees. Their findings suggest that inferences based on synthetic futures replicate those based on exchange-traded data. Over the full period, the average fee levels were 1.82% (management) and 20.2% (incentive)—not significantly different from the levels used in the literature. TOPICS: Futures and forward contracts, real assets/alternative investments/private equity, commodities\",\"PeriodicalId\":45142,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Alternative Investments\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"47 - 63\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Alternative Investments\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3905/jai.2019.1.075\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Alternative Investments","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3905/jai.2019.1.075","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
There is a growing literature examining futures-based trading strategies and the performance of commodity trading advisors (CTAs). In this article, the authors test the validity of three key assumptions used in these studies. They test the validity of basing conclusions on analysis of synthetic rather than market price data; they review the evidence on the level of transaction costs, to test the cost model used in modeling futures-based trading strategy; and finally, they test the assumption that CTAs generally charge a management fee of 2% and incentive (performance) fee of 20%. In addition, they present the trend over time in the structure of fees. Their findings suggest that inferences based on synthetic futures replicate those based on exchange-traded data. Over the full period, the average fee levels were 1.82% (management) and 20.2% (incentive)—not significantly different from the levels used in the literature. TOPICS: Futures and forward contracts, real assets/alternative investments/private equity, commodities
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Alternative Investments (JAI) provides you with cutting-edge research and expert analysis on managing investments in hedge funds, private equity, distressed debt, commodities and futures, energy, funds of funds, and other nontraditional assets. JAI is the official publication of the Chartered Alternative Investment Analyst Association (CAIA®). JAI provides you with challenging ideas and practical tools to: •Profit from the growth of hedge funds and alternatives •Determine the optimal mix of traditional and alternative investments •Measure and track portfolio performance •Manage your alternative investment portfolio with proven risk management practices