Buy the crops that have risen most over the past year, sell those that have fallen most. It lost money consistently — which turned out to be a clue about the data rather than about crops.
Failed on the reward for the risk, the confidence range, profit concentration, consistency across the history, the comparison against buying and holding and standing out from the search. Indicative performance of (6.1%) a year is 12.0 points below the 6.0% returned by holding the same universe continuously, return for risk taken sits at (0.53) against the benchmark's 0.48, and the worst fall of 196.2% is 134.3 points above the benchmark's 61.9%.
Futures-convention cross-sectional momentum: long the top tercile, short the bottom tercile of trailing 12m returns, inverse-vol weighted within each side, dollar-neutral.
Cross-sectional momentum is among the best-documented premia in finance. Finding it significantly negative in agricultural futures is not a refutation of momentum; it is a symptom.
Momentum applied to spliced continuous series buys instruments that jumped at the roll, then holds the new contract through its decay. The measured return is a property of the data-assembly convention with the sign reversed. This is the same artifact that inflated the calendar-seasonality result, observed from the opposite direction.
| Measure | Value |
|---|---|
| Annualised return | (6.1%) |
| Annualised volatility | 11.5% |
| Return for risk taken | (0.53) |
| 95% range | (0.97) to (0.10) |
| t-statistic | (2.60) |
| Maximum drawdown | 196.2% |
| Hit rate | 41.8% |
| Annual turnover | 6.45× |
| Return skew | (0.04) |
| Return kurtosis | 4.35 |
| Diagnostic | Value | Reads as | Bad | Okay | Yay | Hmm |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Design half (pre-2015) | (0.47) | return for risk | ≤ 0 | 0 – 0.40 | ≥ 0.40 | |
| Holdout half (2015+) | (0.60) | return for risk | ≤ 0 | 0 – 0.40 | ≥ 0.40 | |
| Top-5-month share of profit | (29.8%) | how much rode on a few months — lower is better | ≥ 40% | 25 – 40% | < 25% | |
| Top-2-year share of profit | (20.1%) | concentration | — | — | — | |
| Distinct trading episodes | 1 | how many independent runs this really is | < 50 | 50 – 100 | ≥ 100 | |
| Chance the edge is real | 0.5% | non-normality corrected | — | — | — | |
| Chance it beats the whole search | 0.0% | chance of beating the whole search by luck | — | — | — |
| Check | What it asks | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Reward large enough for the risk | FAIL |
| 2 | Confidence range clear of zero | FAIL |
| 3 | Profit not concentrated in a few months | FAIL |
| 4 | Worked in both halves of the history | FAIL |
| 5 | Beat buying and holding | FAIL |
| 6 | Stood out from the whole search | FAIL |
| Year | Net return |
|---|---|
| 2002 | (3.5%) |
| 2003 | (13.5%) |
| 2004 | (20.5%) |
| 2005 | (9.0%) |
| 2006 | 5.1% |
| 2007 | 7.5% |
| 2008 | (6.1%) |
| 2009 | 1.1% |
| 2010 | (15.2%) |
| 2011 | (27.1%) |
| 2012 | (2.5%) |
| 2013 | 0.7% |
| 2014 | 7.6% |
| 2015 | (21.2%) |
| 2016 | 1.1% |
| 2017 | (23.1%) |
| 2018 | (10.2%) |
| 2019 | (20.3%) |
| 2020 | (14.6%) |
| 2021 | (12.1%) |
| 2022 | (6.7%) |
| 2023 | 12.1% |
| 2024 | 17.6% |
| 2025 | 3.0% |
| 2026 | 1.9% |
| Measure | Value |
|---|---|
| Best years | 2024:+18%, 2023:+12%, 2014:+8% |
| Worst year | 2011:-27% |
| Rev | Stage | Status | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Draft | — | Direction and criteria fixed before the experiment ran |
| 02 | Tested | Failed | Fell short on the reward for the risk, the confidence range, profit concentration, consistency across the history, the comparison against buying and holding, standing out from the search; control C3_RP_LONG |