Skip to main content

Stocks and commodities positively correlated?

There has been growing acceptance lately for including commodities in the average portfolio because of their inverse correlation to stocks. In simple terms, this means that one asset class (commodities, for example) tends to well in periods where the other does poorly.

This idea has become one of the more widely-held notions among investors and investment managers. But does it stand up to closer examination?

Steve Saville has written an article for Safehaven entitled, "Stocks, Commodities, and Inflation", that tackles this subject. Here is an exerpt from that piece:

Continuing with the "sometimes things are different" theme, during the current cycle there has clearly been a change in the relationship between stocks and commodities. Stocks and commodities have traditionally been either inversely correlated or uncorrelated asset classes, and as a result there has been a general tendency for professional money managers to use commodity-related investments to hedge their equity exposure.

However, the following chart shows that over the past seven years there has been a strong positive correlation between the S&P500 Index (SPX) and the Industrial Metals Index (GYX). The GYX has clearly been the superior investment in that it fell by a much smaller percentage during 2000-2002 and rose by a much greater percentage thereafter, but the SPX and the GYX have essentially become plays on the same underlying global growth trend. Therefore, the idea that commodities in general and the industrial metals in particular can be used to offset stock market exposure needs to be binned, or at least re-considered.

So in Steve's view, at least one group of commodities (the base or "industrial" metals) seems to be positively correlated with US stocks. His conclusion is that the commonly espoused view of negative correlation between stocks and commodities needs to reexamined.

Saville is not the first to voice this opinion. Last year, Societe Generale and Legal & General both came out with reports that warned of lower returns from commodities and an end to the low correlation environment between commodities and stocks.

From the June 2006 FT.com report:

Both Société Générale and Legal & General said that the traditional view that commodities were a viable alternative investment because of their low correlation to equities and bonds was no longer valid.

That was because commodity prices had moved in tandem with equity markets and therefore had a closer correlation to equities. That in turn would have a negative impact on asset allocation towards the sector.

What's interesting about this principle of gearing investment decisions around reports of low/high correlation, is that it seems inevitably voided by the bandwagon effect.

In other words, as more investment managers spot low or high correlation between assets and then act to take advantage of this relationship, the relationship changes. Instead of diverging, asset prices may actually begin to converge and move higher or lower together.

It seems an interesting example of the idea that observing an event/phenomenon is enough to change it. Or am I misusing that scientific principle by incorrectly applying it to this aspect of investment decision-making?

Update: For more on this theme, see FT Alphaville's recent entry, "Uncorrelated assets are now correlated".

Popular posts from this blog

New! Finance Trends now at FinanceTrendsLetter.com

Update for our readers: Finance Trends has a new URL!  Please bookmark our new web address at Financetrendsletter.com Readers sticking with RSS updates should point your feed readers to our new Finance Trends feedburner .   Thank you to all of our loyal readers who have been with us since the early days. Exciting stuff to come in the weeks ahead! As a quick reminder, you can subscribe to our free email list to receive the Finance Trends Newsletter . You'll receive email updates about once every 4-8 weeks (about 2-3 times per quarter).  Stay up to date with our real-time insights and updates on Twitter .

Moneyball: How the Red Sox Win Championships

Welcome, readers . T o get the first look at brand new posts (like the following piece) and to receive our exclusive email list updates, please subscribe to the Finance Trends Newsletter .   The Boston Red Sox won their fourth World Series title of t he 21st century this we ek. Having won their first Se ries in 86 years back in 200 4, the last decade-plus has marked a very strong return to form for one of baseball's oldest big league clubs. So how did they do it? Quick background: in late 2002, team own er and hedge fund manager, John W. Henry (with his partners ) bought the Boston Red Sox and its historic Fenway Park for a reported sum of $ 695 million. Henry and Co. quickly set out to find their ideal General Manager (GM) to help turn around their newly acquired, ailing ship. This brings us to one of my fav orite scenes from the 2011 film , Moneyball , in which John W. Henry (played by Ar liss Howard) attempts to woo Oakland A's GM Billy Beane (Brad Pi

William O'Neil Interview: How to Buy Winning Stocks

Investor's B usiness Daily founder and veteran stock trader, William O'Neil share d his trading methods and insights on buying winning stocks in an in-depth IBD radio interview. Here are some highlights from William O'Neil's interview with IBD: William O'Neil's interest in the stock market began when he started working as a young adult.  "I say many times that I didn't get that much out of college. I didn't have much interest in the stock market until I graduated from college. When I got married, I had to look out into the future and get more serious. The investment world had some appeal and that's when I started studying it. I became a stock broker after I got out of the Air Force."    He moved to Los Angeles and started work in a stock broker's office with twenty other guys. When their phone leads from ads didn't pan out, O'Neil would take the leads and drive down to visit the prospective customers in person.