Carry Analysis: Small versus Large Universe
In this discussion, Adam Butler, CIO of ReSolve Global*, a seasoned expert in multi‑asset carry strategies, walks through his latest research comparing two implementations of a carry strategy. He explains the fundamentals of carry in diverse asset classes and explores a wide range of topics including carry fundamentals, market liquidity, simulation analysis, historical cycles, and portfolio strategy, all while putting recent market performance into a broader cyclical context.
Topics Discussed
- Carry strategy fundamentals and the yield dynamics across various asset classes
- Comparison between a small, highly liquid 26‑market universe and an extended universe of up to 80 markets
- Detailed statistical analysis using historical simulations and probability cones
- Examination of recent performance divergences between liquid and broader market universes
- The influential role of soft commodities and other non‑liquid market segments on carry returns
- Historical patterns of divergence and subsequent reversion in carry strategy performance
- Implications for long‑term investment strategies and tactical portfolio management
Click here to download transcript in printable format.
You can also read the transcript below
Summary
The global financial landscape is undergoing significant transformations marked by increased market volatility and evolving risk premiums that influence investment strategies. In this environment, Adam’s discussion provides a timely analysis of how carry strategies behave across different market universes, emphasizing that yield dynamics remain a powerful force across bonds, equities, currencies, and commodities. He highlights that the liquid 26‑market universe – traditionally favored for its ease of trading – has recently experienced a substantial drawdown, a deviation that is statistically rare yet historically recurring. By comparing this with a broader universe that includes less liquid markets, the conversation reveals stark performance divergences, underscoring the importance of market selection. The analysis employs robust historical simulations, drawing 10,000 random paths from data dating back to 1990, to contextualize current underperformance within established probability bands. Adam illustrates a cyclical “rubber band” effect in market performance, where periods of underperformance are typically followed by strong reversals. He also examines the outsized impact of soft commodities and select equity markets on enhancing returns in the broader universe. These insights are set against a backdrop of historical episodes from the 1990s to recent years, which reinforce that such divergences are temporary and cyclical. The conversation ultimately frames these developments as a natural, albeit painful, part of the investment cycle, rather than a fundamental breakdown of the carry strategy. This comprehensive overview offers a strategic perspective for long‑term investors, emphasizing conviction, diversification, and patience in achieving robust returns.
Topic Summaries
1. Carry Strategy Fundamentals and Yield Dynamics
Adam begins by demystifying the concept of carry, describing it as the yield or return expected from an investment if prices remain unchanged. He explains that in bonds, carry is reflected in coupon payments, while in equities it appears through dividends, and in currencies through interest rate differentials. For commodities, carry is tied to the spread between spot and futures prices influenced by storage costs and demand dynamics. This explanation provides a fundamental understanding of how carry serves as a risk premium across different asset classes. He further illustrates that carry signals, when applied within a futures investment universe, help forecast market performance by guiding long or short positions. The discussion contrasts carry’s often non‑intuitive nature with more straightforward strategies like trend following. By detailing how yield dynamics operate, he lays the groundwork for appreciating subsequent performance analyses. This foundational overview ensures that listeners understand the mechanics behind generating return through fundamental yield differentials. Subtle examples, like capitalizing on interest rate disparities between different currencies, enhance the clarity of his explanation. Overall, the segment underscores that the carry strategy remains a compelling approach to capturing persistent risk premiums across markets.
2. Comparison between Liquid 26‑Market Universe and Extended Universe
Adam contrasts two distinct implementations of his carry strategy, starting with the highly liquid universe of 26 well‑known markets. He points out that these markets include global equity indices, government bond indices, selected currencies, and key commodities, all known for their liquidity and widespread investor interest. In contrast, the extended universe encompasses between 65 and 80 markets, incorporating less liquid instruments that are typically traded in hedge fund products or SMA mandates. This comparison is central to understanding why performance divergences have emerged recently. He notes that while the liquid universe has experienced a steep drawdown, the broader universe has maintained – or even enhanced – its performance profile. The discussion emphasizes that identical carry mechanics applied to different market sets can lead to vastly different outcomes. Adam provides context by explaining the trade‑offs between ease of trading and potential return opportunities across diversified asset groups. By drawing on historical and live performance data, he illustrates that market liquidity plays a critical role in shaping the risk‑return profile of the strategy. This detailed comparison reinforces that selecting the right universe can markedly influence overall strategy performance. Ultimately, the discussion suggests that a broader market approach may capture additional yield that a tightly focused, liquid universe might miss.
3. Statistical Analysis and Simulation Cones
In this segment, Adam details the rigorous statistical analysis underpinning the research. He explains how historical data dating back to 1990 is used to generate 10,000 simulated paths for the carry strategy’s performance. These simulations are executed by drawing blocks of daily returns to preserve path dependency, autocorrelation, and non‑linear market dynamics. The resulting “cones” display varying probability bands that outline the range of expected returns under normal market conditions. Adam points out that the current performance of the liquid universe has dipped below the 99th percentile shaded region of this cone, signaling an unusual downturn. He clarifies that such a deviation, though statistically rare, is entirely possible and has occurred before in the historical record. By employing this detailed simulation method, the discussion lends statistical weight to the observed performance anomalies. The explanation reinforces the credibility of the research by highlighting that the approach respects the complexity inherent in real‑world trading strategies. This analysis allows investors to gauge the likelihood of current underperformance within a robust historical framework. Overall, the simulation work serves as a vital tool for understanding risk and anticipating market behavior under varying conditions.
4. Current Performance and Cyclical Divergence between Market Universes
Adam provides a comprehensive breakdown of the recent performance trends affecting his carry strategy. He highlights that, since early 2024, the liquid universe has suffered a painful drawdown of approximately 20%, leading to concerns about short‑term viability. In stark contrast, the extended universe has shown resilience, delivering modest positive returns over the same period. This divergence is a focal point of the discussion, suggesting that market behavior can vary greatly depending on the subset of assets traded. He emphasizes that these performance differences are not indicative of a flaw in the carry strategy itself, but are rather manifestations of cyclical market behavior. The analysis includes visual representations comparing the liquid universe against the broader set, underscoring the statistical rarity of the current drawdown in liquid markets. Adam explains that such divergences act like a “rubber band,” where extreme underperformance is typically followed by a corrective rebound. He notes that these cyclical patterns have been observed repeatedly in the past and are an inherent aspect of market dynamics. By placing the current performance into a historical perspective, the segment reassures that temporary setbacks are part of the cycle. Through this detailed discussion, investors are encouraged to understand that today’s pain may set the stage for tomorrow’s recovery.
5. Impact of Soft Commodities and Other Market Segments on Carry Returns
A key insight from Adam’s analysis is the significant contribution of soft commodities and select equity markets within the broader universe. He details how markets such as cocoa, coffee, grains, and palm oil have delivered strong positive returns during the recent period of divergence. These soft commodity markets, coupled with specific European and Asian equity segments, have helped offset the drawdowns observed in the liquid universe. Adam underscores that these asset classes, while less liquid, capture unique yield opportunities that are not accessible in more typical, heavily traded markets. He explains that the performance of these sectors is driven by factors like regional demand shifts, storage costs, and supply dynamics. This nuanced insight highlights the importance of diversification across various market segments to extract the full risk premium available. The discussion also touches on how the disparate performance of these segments contributes to the overall portfolio’s resilience. By contrasting the underperformance of certain equities and metals in liquid markets with the robust showing in soft commodities, he illustrates the benefits of a broader market approach. This detailed examination makes a strong case for including less traditional, non‑liquid markets in a diversified carry strategy. Ultimately, the segment advises that attention to these specialized sectors can enhance overall return profiles and balance risk.
6. Historical Patterns of Divergence and Reversion in Carry Strategy Performance
Drawing lessons from past market behavior, Adam reviews historical episodes where similar patterns of divergence between market universes have emerged. He recounts periods such as 1994, 2001, 2013, and 2017 when the liquid and extended universes alternately outperformed each other. Each of these historical instances exhibited an initial divergence followed by a pronounced reversal. He explains that when the liquid universe underperforms, it often rebounds strongly once market sentiment shifts. The discussion likens this behavior to a stretching and snapping back of a rubber band, a metaphor that captures the cyclic nature of these trends. Adam details how these cycles are driven by shifts in investor behavior and underlying market flows, emphasizing that the reversal has been consistent over several decades. This historical context reinforces that current underperformance is not an anomaly but part of a recurring cycle. He reassures investors that similar corrections have occurred before, providing a basis for cautious optimism. The analysis not only documents past cyclical trends but also implies that strategic patience is warranted. In summary, the segment reinforces the notion that temporary divergence is a normal phase, and historical reversion tends to restore balance in performance.
7. Implications for Long‑Term Investment and Tactical Portfolio Management
In the final segment, Adam draws practical lessons for investors based on his research findings. He stresses that the current challenges in the liquid universe should not be seen as a fundamental breakdown of the carry strategy itself. Instead, he argues that these painful periods are a natural part of the market cycle and serve as precursors to eventual recovery. Adam advises investors to maintain a long‑term perspective and avoid making hasty decisions based solely on short‑term underperformance. He underscores the importance of diversification by leveraging both highly liquid markets and a broader universe that captures additional yield. The discussion points out that the inherent non‑correlation of carry returns with other strategies makes it a valuable component of a diversified portfolio. Emphasizing historical evidence, he suggests that dramatic reversals often occur once widespread capitulation sets in. This insight is particularly useful for portfolio managers looking to balance risk with the potential for outsized gains in subsequent cycles. Adam’s practical advice supports a measured, tactical approach that embraces the cyclical nature of market performance. Overall, the segment offers a compelling case for disciplined, long‑term investment strategies in the face of temporary setbacks.
This feels really relevant right now because we have seen these two approaches diverge pretty considerably over the last few months, and so I thought it would be helpful to put this in context. We published a research piece on this, and I am going to just basically walk through that because it provides some helpful visuals and stuff.
Feel free to download it. I will provide a link below this video for you to download it and read through it at your leisure. Before I get going, let me quickly explain what “Carry” means for those who maybe are not totally familiar. I bet, that is, even people who have read the white paper, thought about investing in Carry.
It is not nearly as intuitive sometimes as other strategies, for example, like Trend Following. I am going to keep it super simple. Carry is essentially just the return that you expect to get on an investment if prices do not change. It is sometimes called “yield” for this reason. In Bonds, it is the interest payments. In Equities, it is dividends, and currencies, it is the interest rate differential. For example, maybe you can borrow in U.S. dollars at an interest rate of two percent to invest in Brazilian Real at an interest rate of nine percent, and earn that seven percent carry. In Commodities, it is related to the difference between spot and futures prices, and it is often related to differences between short-term and long-term demand, and changes in storage costs, that sort of thing.
I will not really get into what drives commodity carry, but it is just as powerful a yield dynamic as you find in Equities and Bonds and Currencies. What makes our multi-asset Carry strategy different from just clipping dividends or clipping coupons on Bonds, is that we use these carry signals within a futures investment universe to predict which futures markets might perform better in the future. So we go long markets with high carry, expecting the futures prices to rise, and short markets with negative carry, expecting the prices to fall.
And this approach has historically delivered positive returns across different market environments, and like any strategy, it does have its ups and downs, but what is great is it seems to have ups and downs that are mostly non-correlated with the ups and downs of other diversifying strategies that investors often gravitate to, for example, like Managed Futures Trend Following. So we think it is a highly complementary strategy. It is just as compelling as any of the other alternative strategies that you might be considering, and we think it is an extremely useful quiver in any advisor toolset.
So back to the issue at hand. Here is the situation since January. So keep in mind, reminding you, there are two different Carry strategies. One is on a tighter, extremely liquid universe. It still contains global equity indices, global government bond indices, commodities and currencies, but it is 26 of the most liquid, most widely held, most well known markets, and we run those in our liquid investment vehicles.
We will also explore a broader Carry strategy that also includes all these different sectors, but we are trading less liquid markets as well. So we trade somewhere between 65 and 80 markets. We are going to study about a 65 universe less liquid strategy in this case study, but that is it. The liquid market is what we use in our publicly listed products. The less liquid broader universe is what we use in more of our hedge fund products or maybe separately managed account mandates.
So what is interesting right now is that the liquid universe is going through a painful drawdown. So over the last few months, it has hit a real rough patch, down around 20 percent. That is definitely on the painful end of the spectrum, when we look at the sort of expected performance of this strategy and simulation going back to 1990. And I know when you see numbers like that, it is natural to wonder, is this strategy broken? Is carry still a valid risk premium when you are only trading the most liquid futures markets?
Those are fair questions, and that is exactly what we wanted to address in publishing this research piece, and why I felt compelled to record this today. Let us start by looking at what is actually happening. This is just the research report. I am just going to scroll down to this plot, which, by the way, is just a really good plot to spend a little bit of time on.
Anyway, the black line there is the live performance of the Carry strategy on the liquid universe. Since early 2024, you can see it has been unpleasant.
What is this cone, though? The cone is generated by randomly drawing 10,000 different daily returns from our simulated carry back-test on the same liquid universe, going all the way back to 1990.
We actually draw blocks of those returns because by drawing blocks, you preserve some of the path dependency, the autocorrelation, some other nonlinear dynamics that happen when you actually deploy live strategies.
And so what we get is sort of 10,000 random paths that are all valid random paths that we might expect the Carry strategy to experience. And you can see, the different shaded regions represent different probability bands. So the lightly shaded blue range, not the really light shading, but the medium shading represents about 95 percent of the time we would expect over this time horizon that the Carry strategy would have a return stream that is in that range, okay?
And you can see that the black line toward the right end of the chart has actually dipped below that shading area. We are now in the lightest shading area, where we would expect it to be 99 percent of the time. So in other words, we would only expect to see the Carry strategy exceed to the downside that lightest shaded cone about one period out of a hundred of the length of this scenario, that we just that we are plotting here, right? So it is highly unusual. But you know, once out of a hundred times, these things happen about once every 100 days or, once every 100 periods like this.
So it is not totally out of the realm of possibility. It is absolutely right in the realm of possibility, but it is definitely toward the lower end of what one might expect. Clearly, this has been a painful, statistically unlikely, but not unprecedented experience for this strategy, based on its historical character since 2024.
What is interesting is that this is the performance of the liquid universe. When we compare this performance, this is the dark blue line here of the liquid universe over the same time period, against the performance of the larger universe. So keep in mind, it is exactly the same mechanics we are using to measure carry, form portfolios, target, everything is exactly the same. It is just a different universe. The dark blue line is our liquid 26 market universe. The yellow line is our large universe. And then the black line here is, what if we took our large universe, extracted all the markets in our liquid universe, and then only traded the remaining markets?
With the Carry strategy, how would that have performed over the same time period? And you can see obviously that does even better. In fact, the performance of the large universe Carry strategy has been just fine, up about 4.4 percent over the same period, with a Sharpe ratio of around 0.5, not the best period for the large universe Carry strategy, but also not awful.
Even better, of course, if you traded only the markets that are large universe, that are not in the small universe, that is the large ex-small universe, then you would have been compounding at 15 percent with a Sharpe ratio of 1.46, obviously considerable. But this tells us something really important, I think, which is that carry as a concept is not broken. It is still working totally fine across a broader set of markets.
So the question is why are we seeing this divergence, and is this something that we have seen before? So when we dig into where the returns are coming from, it gets even more interesting. So here is the performance of the Carry strategy, and this is the large ex-small universe. So this is the universe taking all the large universe markets and excluding the liquid universe markets. You can see that the softs have been especially productive over this time period, driven by commodities like cocoa, coffee, also grains, palm oil, along with some European and Asian equity markets.
Meanwhile, scrolling down to the small universe, it has really struggled in Equities and Metals. Especially though, it is doing relatively okay in Currencies. It is almost like two different weather systems. One area is getting rain while another is getting a drought.
So the key question is, have we seen weather patterns that lead to these kinds of outcomes before, and do they tend to normalize over time? And here is the kicker. In almost every case, what we see is that, yeah, of course, this has happened before. It happened in 1994, it happened in 2001, in 2013, 2017, 2016. But in almost every case, what happened next was a reversal.
So if I go back and just look at some of these historical periods, in the 1994 case, the blue line is the liquid universe. The yellow line is the expanded ex-small universe. Obviously ex-small did much better than the liquid universe during this time period.
And in the period after the liquid universe went on to outperform in 2001, the liquid universe went on to outperform by a very large extent in 2013. The same thing in 2017, again, a really large outperformance by the liquid universe.
And then the next question is, are there periods where the ex-liquid universe really struggles while the liquid universe is outperforming. And so of course there are. So 2016 is one of those periods. In this case, you see the blue line, the liquid universe dramatically outperforming the yellow line. And in that case, the yellow line goes on to outperform. It is the same in 2018 going into 2019, the ex-liquid universe dramatically outperforms after a period of underperformance.
The same in 2022 coming into 2023. So you can see that pattern. It is almost like a rubber band stretching between the outperformance of the liquid universe versus the large universe ex-the liquid universe. When one outperforms for a while over the following period, typically the other universe goes on to outperform.
So you get this really nice snap back. So what are the implications? For me, it suggests that what we are seeing now is not some fundamental breakdown of Carry in liquid markets. Rather, it looks more like a temporary phase that we have seen several times before.
And I am not saying it does not hurt. It really hurts. Trust me. I live through this as a manager. My livelihood is tied substantially to how the Carry strategy performs in both liquid markets and in the less liquid markets, and the liquid markets is what probably more people are looking at. So I find this painful too.
I am also an investor in these strategies in a variety of different ways. It hurts, but the historical evidence gives us strong reason to believe that this is cyclical. It is normal, painful but normal, and it is not structural, and it is likely to revert and go on to deliver pretty strong outperformance.
When is it going to revert? In my experience, when most people capitulate. When most people give up on it, that is exactly when it reverts. There may be something mechanical in markets about that. Just, in terms of flows or something, I do not know. But I have seen this happen so often. Typically once investors have decided it is too painful, that is when the strategy goes on to dramatically outperform.
I have just seen it too often to not think that there is something there. So to wrap this up, yes, the liquid markets implementation of Carry has had a tough time lately. But Carry itself is still working well across a broader set of markets, and history suggests these divergencies tend to correct themselves over time.
If you are in this for the long haul, which is really the only way any of us should be in these strategies in the first place, then I think there is really good reason to maintain conviction. Markets and strategies go through cycles, and what we are seeing now appears to be a fairly normal, if admittedly painful, part of that cycle for carry. I hope this helps put things in perspective.
Thank you so much for tuning in, and of course, let me know if you have any questions by hitting me up in the comments down below. Okay. Ciao.
*ReSolve Global refers to ReSolve Asset Management SEZC (Cayman) which is registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as a commodity trading advisor and commodity pool operator. This registration is administered through the National Futures Association (“NFA”). Further, ReSolve Global is a registered person with the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority.