With hundreds of new exchange-traded funds coming out every year, ETFs have to do everything they can to stand out from the crowd. The big question for one new commodity ETF, however, is whether investors will see having a Yale professor on board as a valuable asset or as a precursor to the Nobel laureate-led disaster of the 1990s, Long Term Capital Management.
This fund won't flunk out
The U.S. Commodity Index Fund should soon join the ranks of dozens of commodity ETFs. One of the ways that USCI aims to stand out from the crowd is by having Yale professor Geert Rouwenhorst on board as a director. Rouwenhorst is credited with having done research that helped establish commodities as a viable asset class that individuals could include as part of their asset allocation strategies.
The fund's strategy is also compelling. Rather than trying to mimic already well-established commodity indexes, USCI will have a proprietary computer model pick commodities that its managers believe are especially prone to see large price jumps due to relatively low spot inventories. That should help improve the chances of particularly strong returns, despite the fact that increased volatility may give some investors a bumpier ride than other commodity investments. The particular commodities chosen by the ETF will change each month.
But will the ETF's academic credentials prove to be its downfall? To answer that question, let's take a closer look at what happened with LTCM.
Too smart for their own good?
In simplest terms, the trouble that even the brightest investors face is that the behavior of the markets doesn't always conform to theoretical models, no matter how robust they may seem. For LTCM, the theory behind taking advantage of arbitrage opportunities in the international bond markets made perfect sense and worked well for years. But when its success led to an influx of capital, LTCM and its masterminds suddenly found themselves short of good investment ideas. In trying to branch out to take advantage of what seemed like similar opportunities in different markets, LTCM raised its risk level, taking on extraordinary amounts of leverage. What eventually brought LTCM down was a simple truth: Markets were irrational longer than LTCM could remain solvent.
It seems unlikely that USCI will share the same fate as LTCM. Granted, any commodity investment involves substantial risk, and the ETF's strategy of following price momentum in commodities with above-average volatility seems tailor-made for a potential implosion if markets turn against the ETF's positions. But with the ETF's commitment to spread its investments across 14 different commodities every month, diversification should give the fund at least some protection from an unexpected catastrophic downturn in any one market. In fact, the new ETF may be more diversified than other existing commodity ETFs, as it's unlikely to have as strong an emphasis on energy markets as funds that track the popular GSCI commodity index.
A better way to play
Commodity ETFs have gained in popularity in recent years. Some specialized funds in hot areas have drawn immense demand; SPDR Gold
For instance, the stock prices of natural gas giants Chesapeake Energy
Similarly, many see the price of copper as an important signal of economic activity. Freeport-McMoRan
What the future will bring
It's easy to try to draw comparisons between USCI and LTCM based on the academic qualifications of the individuals involved with the fund. In reality, though, the mistakes of LTCM are unlikely to be repeated with USCI's experience. Nevertheless, that doesn't make the new ETF a must-buy -- and in fact, you can get much of the benefit of commodities without ever leaving the stock market.
Better investing doesn't require huge bets. Matt Koppenheffer reveals his strategy to make big money with less risk.