Archives for May 2025

31/05/2025 by Naomi

“When the fog thins, it’s not clarity—it’s just a shift in the shadows.”

This Week In Trend

Welcome to This Week in Trend, your lens into the evolving rhythms of global futures markets and the adaptive world of trend-following.

After a turbulent May filled with softs reversals and volatility spikes, the final week offered no clear reprieve—just subtler shifts. Energy and metals gave back gains, while equities clawed higher. But beneath the surface, signals remain muted, with few markets offering sustained conviction.

The landscape is still cold. But it's no longer chaotic. Just… indecisive.

“Signals Weaken—But the Shakeout Slows”

After last week’s turbulence, trend systems this week experienced less pain—but little progress.

Energy and metals faded sharply, snapping recent breakouts. Grains and softs continued their drift lower, while equities showed modest strength. Volatility collapsed, dragging the VIX down nearly 9% and capping the week’s most notable move.

Not a rally. Not a crash. Just a cooling—and while trend models remain constrained, they could breathe a little easier.

SG Trend Index Performance

MTD (as of May 29): -2.06%
YTD: -11.19%
(Last week MTD: -2.56% | YTD: -11.65%)

The SG Trend Index ticked slightly higher, easing its drawdown from last week’s deeper low. But it remains firmly in the red, weighed down by recent sector reversals. Systematic trend followers are still facing headwinds, though the violence of recent weeks has moderated.

TTU Trend Barometer: 43% – Neutral

Last week: 34%
10-day rate-of-change: Rising Moderately

The TTU Trend Barometer staged a late-week resurgence, finishing at 43%—a shift back into neutral territory. It’s not a trend breakout, but it’s no longer a freeze. Systems may be sensing the first stirrings of structure beneath the noise.

“Below 40% is cold. At 43%? The thaw has started.”

The Top Traders Unplugged (TTU) Trend Barometer is a proprietary tool that measures the percentage of markets with medium to strong trends. Similar to a thermometer, where 0 degrees Celsius equates to freezing, a TTU Trend Barometer reading below 40% indicates a “cold” environment for trend-following, while readings above 55% signal a “hotter,” more favourable trend environment.

Weekly Asset Class Snapshot

Source: Finwiz.com

Volatility collapsed. Equities climbed. Meats and bonds moved mildly higher. But most asset classes—energy, metals, softs, grains—faltered again. A low-energy week overall, with only equities offering a flicker of momentum.

Asset Class Breakdown – Cooling After the Storm

Energy: -2.98% (Prev: -0.62%)
Crude, gas, and heating oil slid—reversing last week’s breakouts.
Metals: -2.62% (Prev: +5.88%)
A sharp correction after last week’s surge. Gold, silver, and platinum all pulled back.
Equities: +1.56% (Prev: -2.39%)
Modest recovery across indices. Tech bounced, while broader names held.
Soft Commodities: -0.74% (Prev: -0.08%)
Continued fade in coffee, sugar, and cotton. Cocoa remains unstable.
Grains: -0.51% (Prev: +2.23%)
Corn and wheat resumed their decline. Trend signals weakening.
Meats: +0.72% (Prev: +0.40%)
Lean hogs and live cattle found traction. Quiet but consistent.
Bonds: +0.64% (Prev: -0.47%)
A small bounce in fixed income as yields eased.
Currencies: -0.42% (Prev: +1.42%)
USD strength returned. FX drifted back into indecision.
Volatility Index: -8.81% (Prev: +13.55%)
Volatility snapped back. Calm returned—but not confidence.

Performance Highlights – This Week’s Market Leaders & Laggards

Top Market Movers

Biggest Gainers

Oats: +6.62% – A surprise outlier in a quiet grain market—though still trading within range.
Orange Juice: +4.59% – Still climbing this week off a low base following a significant slump, resisting the broader softs downtrend.
Lean Hogs: +3.25% – Quiet breakout—early signs of a potential sustained move.
Rough Rice / Nikkei 225 / Nasdaq 100 – Tech and Asia led equity strength

Biggest Losers

Natural Gas: -8.81% – Heavy downside reversal
Coffee: -5.21% / Soybean Oil: -4.96% / Corn: -3.48% – Softs and grains weakened
Heating Oil, Platinum, Gold – Gave back recent momentum

Portfolio View – What the Moves Meant for Systems

Energy & Metals: Reversals dominated. Last week’s strength became this week’s losses.
Grains & Softs: Bearish continuation. Long signals remain underwater.
Equities: A modest bright spot. Some systems may have caught the bounce.
Meats: Quietly supportive. A rare zone of trend persistence.
Volatility: Major retreat. Risk metrics re-stabilized—but signals remain unclear.
Currencies & Bonds: Mixed. Limited follow-through in either direction.

Final Reflections – A Glimmer Beyond the Fog

This wasn’t a violent week. But it wasn’t a clear one either.

Trend followers are navigating a muted, two-faced environment: Volatility falls, yet conviction is absent. Equities rise, even as energy declines. Oats surge, while most commodities stall.

The SG Trend Index is less negative. And the TTU Trend Barometer has climbed back toward neutral. It’s not a breakout—but it might be the first hint of structure emerging from drift.

In this environment, it’s not about chasing fire—it’s about staying lit.
Because in these markets, trends don’t disappear. They just wait for silence to speak.

List of Resources used in the Week in Review

Important Disclaimers

This document is directly solely to Accredited Investors, Qualified Eligible Participants, Qualified Clients and Qualified Purchasers. No investment decision should be made until prospective investors have read the detailed information in the fund offering documents of any manager mentioned in this document. This document is furnished on a confidential basis only for the use of the recipient and only for discussion purposes and is subject to amendment This document is neither advice nor a recommendation to enter into any transaction. This document is not an offer to buy or sell, nor a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, any security or other financial instrument. This presentation is based on information obtained from sources that TopTradersUnplugged (“TTU”) (“considers to be reliable however, TTU makes no representation as to, and accepts no responsibility or liability for, the accuracy or completeness of the information. TTU has not independently verified third party manager or benchmark information, does not represent it as accurate, true or complete, makes no warranty, express or implied regarding it and shall not be liable for any losses, damages, costs or expenses relating to its adequacy, accuracy, truth, completeness or use.

All projections, valuations, and statistical analyses are provided to assist the recipient in the evaluation of the matters described herein. Such projections, valuations and analyses may be based on subjective assessments and assumptions and may use one among many alternative methodologies that produce different results accordingly, such projections, valuations and statistical analyses should not be viewed as facts and should not be relied upon as an accurate prediction of future events. There is no guarantee that any targeted performance will be achieved Commodity trading involves substantial risk of loss and may not be suitable for everyone

TTU is not and does not purport to be an advisor as to legal, taxation, accounting, financial or regulatory matters in any jurisdiction. The recipient should independently evaluate and judge the matters referred to herein. TTU does not provide advice or recommendations regarding an investor’s decision to allocate to funds or accounts managed by any manager (“or to maintain or sell investments in funds or accounts managed by any manager, and no fiduciary relationship under ERISA is created by the investor investing in funds or accounts managed by any manager, or through any communication between TTU and the investor

In reviewing this document, it should be understood that the past performance results of any asset class, or any investment or trading program set forth herein, are not necessarily indicative of any future results that may be achieved in connection with any transaction. Any persons subscribing for an investment must be able to bear the risks involved and must meet the suitability requirements relating to such investment. Some or all alternative investment programs discussed herein may not be suitable for certain investors This document is directed only to persons having professional experience in matters relating to investments. Any investment or investment activity to which this document relates is available only to such investment professionals. Persons who do not have professional experience in matters relating to investments should not rely upon this document.

This document and its contents are proprietary information of TTU and may not be reproduced or otherwise disseminated in whole or in part without TTU’s prior written consent.

This document contains simulated or hypothetical performance results that have certain inherent limitations AND SHOULD BE VIEWED FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES. Unlike the results shown in an actual performance record, these results do not represent actual trading. HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS HAVE MANY INHERENT LIMITATIONS, SOME OF WHICH ARE DESCRIBED BELOW. NO REPRESENTATION IS BEING MADE THAT ANY ACCOUNT WILL OR IS LIKELY TO ACHIEVE PROFITS OR LOSSES SIMILAR TO THOSE SHOWN IN FACT, THERE ARE FREQUENTLY SHARP DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS AND THE ACTUAL RESULTS SUBSEQUENTLY ACHIEVED BY ANY PARTICULAR INVESTMENT ACCOUNT.

ONE OF THE LIMITATIONS OF HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS IS THAT THEY ARE GENERALLY PREPARED WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT IN ADDITION, HYPOTHETICAL TRADING DOES NOT INVOLVE FINANCIAL RISK, AND NO HYPOTHETICAL TRADING RECORD CAN COMPLETELY ACCOUNT FOR THE IMPACT OF FINANCIAL RISK IN ACTUAL TRADING FOR EXAMPLE, THE ABILITY TO WITHSTAND LOSSES OR TO ADHERE TO A PARTICULAR TRADING PROGRAM OR OTHER ASSET.

There are numerous other factors related to the markets in general or to the implementation of any specific trading program which cannot be fully accounted for in the preparation of hypothetical performance results and all of which can adversely affect actual trading results. No representation is being made that any investment will or is likely to achieve profits or losses similar to those being shown.

24/05/2025 by Naomi

Markets aren’t just about numbers anymore. They’ve become mirrors of our cultural confusion and generational disillusionment.
Demetri Kofinas explores how the collapse of shared stories is showing up first in markets, but signals a deeper societal breakdown.
When belief in institutions fades, we’re left with chaos, or the chance to write a new story that actually holds meaning.

In the spring of 2021, the well-known car rental company Hertz had just declared bankruptcy. Its financial statements were a disaster, and creditors were circling. Any rational investor would steer clear, yet, the stock soared. Individual traders piled in, posting rocket emojis on Reddit and sharing screenshots of their gains. The headlines wrote themselves: “Retail investors are back.” “Wall Street is dead.” “Markets are broken.”

To some observers, it was something else: a crack in the foundation, a sign that something deeper was unraveling. One name for this shift is financial nihilism, the idea that investors no longer care about fundamentals, or even pretend to. That moment didn’t fit any historical playbook. It marked uncharted psychological terrain.

But the argument is broader than investing. The breakdown we’re witnessing may reflect a collapse of collective meaning, a fading of the narratives we once used to make sense of the world. And markets are simply where it shows up first.

The Disconnect

For most of financial history, markets existed to allocate capital. Investors evaluated companies based on earnings, growth prospects, and the risk of loss. Prices, though never perfect, reflected some underlying reality.

Today, that connection feels frayed. Crypto tokens with no revenue or product trade at sky-high valuations. Meme stocks like GameStop or AMC spike and crash on waves of coordinated enthusiasm. Even traditional assets seem increasingly driven by sentiment and liquidity, rather than fundamentals. The shift represents more than speculation. It marks a psychological break. Many investors no longer view stocks as ownership in companies, but as gambling tokens. Markets, in this view, have started to resemble casinos, with equities functioning more like chips than slices of real businesses.

This financial nihilism reflects a worldview where assets are inherently meaningless, where prices are driven by belief alone. It’s not just that value and price are disconnected, it’s that people know they’re disconnected and don’t care. That kind of detachment doesn’t come from nowhere.

A Generation Disillusioned

Every generation inherits a system. Some challenge it, others embrace it. But Millennials and Gen Z might be something different: rejecting it entirely.

They grew up in the shadows of financial crisis and endless war, and they watched their parents lose homes while banks were bailed out. They graduated into recessions, loaded with debt, priced out of housing. They saw Congress bicker while the climate worsened and wealth consolidated. Many have never truly seen a functioning political system, only gridlock and cynicism. Trust in media, government, corporations, and finance has plummeted. Why believe in the old stories when none of them seemed to protect you? Is it any wonder they’re skeptical?

In that context, crypto was more of a protest than a get-rich-quick trade. So was the GameStop saga. A generation left behind by traditional systems used the tools of the market — Robinhood apps, Reddit threads, viral memes — to push back, pool their money, and make their own game. There’s something strangely optimistic about that because, if the system is seen as rigged, why not invent a new one? Why not believe in something else, even if it’s absurd?

But that optimism has a dark side. When you no longer believe in institutions, stories become weapons. When every story competes for attention, the loudest wins.

The Collapse of Common Stories

Humans are meaning-making machines. We rely on shared narratives to navigate the world: money, morality, and who we are. Those stories once lived in religion, in national identity, in political ideals. Over time, many of them faded or fractured, and globalization eroded local community ties. Institutions lost credibility and the internet flooded us with infinite narratives, none of which seemed more true than the others.

As media entrepreneur and founder of the Hidden Forces podcast Demetri Kofinas recently put it, “The myths we’ve told ourselves about ourselves have broken down.”

When shared stories collapse, disunity follows. That’s why the breakdown in markets mirrors the broader breakdown in society. There’s no consensus on what’s true, what’s valuable, or what future we’re building toward. Without shared narratives, collective action becomes nearly impossible. The systems that once helped us agree on reality, including institutions, media, community, no longer hold sway.

Markets are often called voting machines in the short run and weighing machines in the long run. But if nobody trusts the scales, if truth is negotiable, the whole mechanism starts to wobble.

A Crisis of Belief

The historian Neil Howe describes moments like these as Fourth Turnings: periods of crisis that shatter old orders and make way for something new. They come every 80 to 100 years, usually marked by war, economic upheaval, or cultural fracture.

Some thinkers see us in one now. Transformation, they argue, only occurs after a great trial. Crisis is the crucible of change. In the view of those who study societal cycles, the United States has been avoiding that reckoning for decades. Rather than face the hard questions about inequality, debt, and governance, we’ve deferred them. We've propped up the system with easy money and cheap stories, but eventually, reality asserts itself.

“The only way to address that nihilism is to develop new stories and new myths,” Kofinas says.

That’s not easy. It requires leadership, courage, and imagination. It also requires reckoning with uncomfortable truths.

Why It Matters

The breakdown of belief has practical consequences. If people treat markets like a joke, capital misallocates. If young investors expect bailouts and meme rallies, risk goes unpriced. If institutions lose legitimacy, volatility rises, not just in asset prices, but in society itself. And if nothing matters, anything goes. That’s the danger of nihilism. Not just that it’s wrong, but that it invites chaos and tempts people to burn things down.

But there’s another path. Even the collapse of belief creates space and a vacuum can be filled. New narratives can emerge out of crisis: more honest, resilient, and grounded in shared values. The question is whether we’ll rise to meet the moment or retreat further into fragmentation.

The Key Takeaway

Markets are more than just math, they’re stories. They reflect how we feel about the future, about each other, about ourselves. When belief falters, prices behave strangely, but the strangeness is a signal. It tells us something is broken, not just in finance, but in the foundations of trust.

Howard Marks once said, “You can't predict. You can prepare.” The same is true for this moment. We don’t know precisely what the next system will look like, but we can pay attention to the fractures and notice when prices no longer reflect purpose. We can ask: What stories still hold up? What do we want to believe in next?

This is based on an episode of Top Traders Unplugged, a bi-weekly podcast with the most interesting and experienced investors, economists, traders and thought leaders in the world. Sign up for our Newsletter or subscribe on your preferred podcast platform so that you don't miss out on future episodes.

24/05/2025 by Naomi

“Cocoa Cracks, Volatility Roars—Signals Scatter”

This Week In Trend

Welcome to This Week in Trend, your lens into the evolving rhythms of global futures markets and the adaptive world of trend-following.

After last week’s violent surges in softs and reversals in metals, this week brought a fresh rotation—less continuation, more contradiction. Volatility spiked, metals firmed, and equities took a hit. But the most shocking move? Cocoa collapsed, flipping from outlier to outlier-in-reverse.

“Cocoa Cracks, Volatility Roars”

The fourth week of May reversed many of last week’s themes.

Volatility exploded, driven by macro jitters and renewed equity weakness. Softs—last week’s darling—buckled, as cocoa plunged nearly 10%. Meanwhile, metals rebounded sharply, and currencies showed broad-based gains against the USD.

This wasn’t a gentle unwind. It was a shakeout that reshuffled winners and losers again, catching many systems on the wrong foot.

SG Trend Index Performance

MTD (as of May 22): -2.56%
YTD: -11.65%
(Last week MTD: -3.31% | YTD: -12.32%)

A slight recovery in the SG Trend Index from last week’s steeper drop, but the index remains deep in drawdown territory. Trend systems continue to struggle amid sharp reversals and short-lived bursts of momentum. Energy, bonds, and equity indices again offered limited traction.

TTU Trend Barometer: 34% – Moderately Weak

Last week: 27%
10-day rate-of-change: Rising Weakly

The TTU Trend Barometer ticked up to 34% but remains in a “cold” environment for trend-followers. The brief lift is welcome, but the terrain remains tough—choppy, erratic, and hostile to sustained trends.

“Below 40% is cold. At 34%? Still deep in the icebox.”

Weekly Asset Class Snapshot

Source: Finwiz.com

This week flipped last week’s script. Volatility soared while equities slipped. Metals outperformed, softs reversed, and grains rebounded slightly. Bonds and energy drifted lower, while currency strength reflected renewed macro positioning.

Asset Class Breakdown – Whipsaw Continues

Energy: -0.62% (Prev: -0.39%)
Minor weakness across crude contracts. Momentum absent.
Metals: +5.88% (Prev: -1.92%)
Big rebound. Platinum, copper, and gold all surged.
Equities: -2.39% (Prev: +3.25%)
Reversal week. Tech leaders faltered, dragging indices down.
Soft Commodities: -0.08% (Prev: +4.14%)
Cocoa collapsed, offsetting gains in orange juice and cotton.
Grains: +2.23% (Prev: -0.22%)
Recovery led by wheat and corn.
Meats: +0.40% (Prev: +0.33%)
Quiet but positive. Still largely range-bound.
Bonds: -0.47% (Prev: -0.69%)
Yields edged higher again. Fixed income remains choppy.
Currencies: +1.42% (Prev: -0.33%)
Broad-based USD weakness lifted other majors.
Volatility Index: +13.55% (Prev: -16.39%)
The VIX roared back. Uncertainty returns to the surface.

Performance Highlights – This Week’s Market Leaders & Laggards

Top Market Movers

Biggest Gainers

VIX: +13.55% – Volatility snapped back sharply.
Orange Juice: +10.69% – Softs diverged. Still climbing.
Platinum: +10.10% – Strong comeback.
Copper: +5.91% – Strong base metals rally.
Gold: +5.35% – Safe haven flows returned.

Biggest Losers

Cocoa: -9.49% – Massive reversal. Outlier snapped.
Russell 2000: -3.71% – Small caps under pressure.
S&P 500 / Nasdaq 100: -2.57%, -2.39% – Tech-led selloff.
USD: -1.93% – Broad-based weakness across G10.
Coffee: -1.60% – Faded further after last week’s drop.

Portfolio View – What the Moves Meant for Systems

Soft Commodities: A whipsaw zone. Cocoa’s crash likely hit long systems, while OJ and cotton offered mixed returns.
Metals: The week’s winners—finally some trend recovery.
Equities: Difficult week. Major indices dropped hard.
Currencies: Some flow potential returned, especially for long non-USD exposures.
Volatility: Finally sparked. But it likely disrupted risk models more than helped trend signals.
Bonds and Energy: Still offering little. Chop remains dominant.

Final Reflections – Whiplash Is Not a Trend

The market is moving, but it’s not trending—at least not in the way systems like.

This week saw another hard flip: from cocoa crashes to copper surges, and from complacency to volatility spikes. The SG Trend Index remains negative, and the Trend Barometer, while slightly higher, is still flashing warning signs.

For many trend-followers, these conditions aren't just tough—they're humbling.

It’s not about catching every outlier—it’s about enduring the storm until the signal clears.

“When clarity is absent, discipline is everything.”

List of Resources used in the Week in Review

Important Disclaimers

This document and its contents are proprietary information of TTU and may not be reproduced or otherwise disseminated in whole or in part without TTU’s prior written consent.

20/05/2025 by Niels

April 2025: Whipsawed and Worn Down

April delivered a punishing blow to trend-following CTAs — arguably the harshest month of 2025 so far — as correlation breakdowns, violent reversals, and fleeting momentum left many strategies exposed and bruised.

All major trend-following indexes sank deeper into the red, with the TTU Trend Following Index falling -6.20%, bringing its YTD loss to a steep -9.38%. The SG Trend Index didn’t fare much better, slipping -4.89% in April and dragging its YTD to -9.33%. Even the BTOP50 Index, which benefits from greater strategy diversification beyond trend, posted a decline of -3.31%, though it remains down only -3.11% YTD.

This wasn’t just a continuation of March’s fragmentation — it was an escalation. Where the prior month hinted at a breakdown in trend cohesion, April confirmed it. Momentum wasn’t just absent — it was treacherous. Early signals turned into traps, and directional conviction gave way to chaos. Managers found themselves repeatedly caught on the wrong side of moves that began with promise but reversed with force. Twelve-month trailing losses now exceed -18% for both the TTU and SG Trend Indexes — erasing a meaningful portion of multi-year gains and reminding investors how quickly trend integrity can erode.

Unlike prior market regimes where at least one sector — commodities, rates, or FX — offered sustained trend opportunities, April served up synchronized disorder. Metals rallied, then reversed. Energies surged on geopolitical flareups, only to collapse on macro headlines. Bonds and equities swung chaotically, offering little consistency. Even diversification — often trend’s last refuge — provided little protection as uncorrelated behaviour turned briefly correlated at the worst moments.

This month’s drawdowns have put significant pressure on even the most seasoned managers. The concept of “trend integrity” — the ability of directional moves to persist — has all but evaporated for now. Outliers failed to develop, and noise dominated across the board.
April didn’t just crack the cohesion — it broke it wide open.

As we look to May, the question becomes whether this was the capitulation phase of a turbulent Q1–Q2 regime, or if markets have entered a prolonged period of structural chop. Either way, trend followers will be watching closely for the re-emergence of sustained price moves — and positioning themselves to survive until it does.

April 2025 Trend Index Performance
April 2025 was decisively negative across the trend-following landscape, offering little reprieve for managers regardless of strategy breadth or pedigree. The divergence that had characterized Q1 deepened further, but this time, even the diversified CTAs weren't spared.

The Barclay BTOP 50 Index, which includes a growing number of multi-strategy managers beyond pure trend, dropped -3.31% for the month, tipping its YTD performance into negative territory at -3.11%. More trend-focused benchmarks endured even heavier losses. The SG Trend Index declined -4.89%, bringing its year-to-date return to -9.33%, while the TTU Trend Following Index suffered the steepest monthly drawdown of the three, plunging -6.20%, and ending April down -9.38% YTD.

This sharp deterioration highlights a harsh truth: in April, diversification alone was not enough. Mean-reverting strategies and volatility arbitrage—often helpful in buffering trend underperformance—also struggled amid regime confusion and rapid cross-asset reversals. For trend followers, persistent chop, correlation flips, and trend failures led to both whipsaw and drawdown in equal measure.

The performance gap between diversified CTAs and trend-pure strategies remains real—but in April, the entire cohort found itself facing the same relentless headwind.

SG Trend Index

The SG Trend Index is designed to track the 10 largest trend following CTA’s of the managed futures space.

Criteria for inclusion in the Index as determined by Society Generale is as follows:
• Must trade primarily futures (including FX forwards);
• Must be broadly diversified across asset classes;
• Must be an industry recognized trend follower;
• Must exhibit significant correlation to trend following peers;
• Must be open the new investment; and
• Must report returns on a daily basis (net of fees).

The index currently is:
• Equally weighted;
• Calculated in base currency;
• Has an inception date of 1st January 2000;
• Rebalanced annually on 1st January; and
• Reconstituted annually on 1st January based on eligibility criteria.

There was a slight modification to the Index from January 2013 to the present. Previously the Programs needed to be a constituent of the SG CTA Index and the 10 largest Managers was not a requirement.

For the 2025 year following the rebalance of the Index we say goodbye to the PIMCO LLC (Pimco Trends Managed Futures) Program and hello again to the Winton Capital Management (Winton Trend) Program. The listing of the 10 eligible programs in the Index for 2025 is as follows:

Table 1 – SG CTA Index 2025 Constituents

The performance of the SG Trend Index since 1st January 2000 to the end of last month is seen in Chart 2 below:

You will notice how the SG Trend Index is highly correlated with the BTOP50 Index and the TTU TF Index and uncorrelated with the S&P500TR Index.

Despite the high correlation between the various trend following Indexes, the long-term performance of these three Trend Following Indexes in terms of CAGR is different. The SG Trend Index plots between the BTOP50 Index and the TTU TF Index.

BTOP 50 Index

The BTOP50 Index seeks to replicate the overall composition of the managed futures industry with regards to trading style and overall market exposure. Unlike the SG Trend Index and the TTU TF Index, the BTOP50 is not strictly a trend following Index and is more broadly representative of the entire managed futures segment of which a dominant style is trend following. We like to think of the BTOP 50 as a ‘quasi trend following Index’ as opposed to a pure trend following Index.

Like the SG Trend Index, the BTOP50 Index is designed to track the performance of the largest Programs by AUM, however the Programs included may not be all Trend Following Programs. Criteria for inclusion in the Index as determined by Barclay Hedge is as follows:

Criteria for inclusion in the Index as determined by BarclayHedge is as follows:
• Must be a Program represented in the Barclay CTA Universe;
• In each Calendar year, the Programs selected must in aggregate be no less than 50% of the investable assets of the Barclay CTA Universe;
• The Programs must be open for investment;
• The Manager must be willing to provide Barclay Hedge with daily return performance;
• The Program must have at least two years of trading activity; and
• The Program’s advisor must have at least three years of operating history.

The index currently is:
• Equally weighted;
• Rebalanced annually on 1st January; and
• Reconstituted annually on 1st January based on eligibility criteria.

Despite the ’50’ tag in the BTOP 50 description, for 2025 there are 20 constituents in the Index.

The performance of the BTOP 50 Index since 1st January 2000 to to the end of last month is seen in Chart 4 below:

The BTOP 50 Index is highly correlated with the trend following Indexes of the SG Trend Index and the TTU TF Index, however its long-term performance is the lowest of the 3 Trend Following Indexes. While there is a significant representation of Trend Following Programs within the Index, the non-trend following Programs contribute to this diluted long-term performance.

TTU TF Index

The TTU TF Index has been developed by Top Traders Unplugged to provide a performance measure of the trend following programs with a long-term track record.

At TTU, we recognise the importance of a robust trading approach to these uncertain markets and feel that AUM is not a good robustness measure when it comes to assessing performance of the Trend Following industry. It is our strong opinion that the ultimate selection measure to apply in constituting a Trend Following Index is not AUM or a proxy risk metric such as the Sharpe, Sortino, MAR ratio, Ulcer Index or Serenity ratio. The superior metric to assess long-term performance is the long-term validated track record itself.

We have therefore developed a different method for constructing our TTU TF Index. The criteria for inclusion into our Index is as follows:

The criteria for inclusion into the TTU TF Index is as follows:
• Monthly performance results need to be captured in the Nilsson Hedge CTA database;
• Must be geographically diversified across asset classes;
• Must be fully systematic in nature using quantitative rules for entry and exit;
• Must possess at least a 15-year unbroken track record to the current reporting month;
• Must adopt trend following as their dominant investment strategy;
• Are currently active programs; and
• Must report performance monthly (net of fees).

The Index:
• Is Equally weighted;
• Is Rebalanced monthly;
• Is Reconstituted monthly;
• Has an inception date of 1st January 2000

As of April 30, 2025, the TTU Trend Following Index draws from a universe of 49 active programs. The Index’s monthly return is calculated using the average performance of all programs that have submitted their reports for the month. As of the reporting date, 44 out of 49 programs had reported their April results. The table below highlights those programs still pending.

Table 5: Programs highlighted in yellow in the Table above have not currently reported for the month.

The performance of the TTU TF Index since 1st January 2000 to to to the end of last month is as follows:

For the month of April, the TTU TF Index produced a return of -6.20% bringing the YTD result to -9.38%.

Now you might be intrigued by the performance result of the TTU TF Index. While it is highly correlated with the BTOP 50 Index and the SG Trend Index, we can see that long term performance of the TTU TF Index clearly outstrips alternative Index measures.

The dominant contributor of this outperformance is the requirement for any participating Program in the Index to have a long-term track record. You see, using AUM as a criterion for inclusion is not necessarily a useful selection criterion. While AUM reflects ‘market appeal’, it does not imply that this ‘market appeal’ is strongly correlated with ‘long term performance’.

Our process of Index construction gives us an insight into how any diversified ensemble of trend following Programs with a long-term track record approaches an optimal portfolio as we increase the number of Programs in the Index. Simply by diversifying into a large ensemble of Trend Following Programs with a long-term track record, we magically improve the Index result. CAGR is increased and our drawdowns are reduced.

Of course, we already know this ‘diversification’ principle of Trend Following. As we increase our diversification efforts, we obtain improvement both in terms of the maximum drawdown and in the CAGR generated by the ensemble. This is why we seek to strive for maximum market and system diversification within our individual programs. The TTU TF Index just takes this diversification one step further and diversifies across many different TF Programs to deliver a superior risk-adjusted result.

TTU TF Index Performance

From January 1, 2000, to April 30, 2025, the TTU Trend Following Index achieved a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 7.15% and experienced a Maximum Drawdown of 18.81% (see Chart 6 above). In comparison, the S&P 500 Total Return Index, which includes dividends, posted a CAGR of 7.29% but faced a much higher and steeper Maximum Drawdown of 50.95% over the same period (refer to the chart below).

TTU Trend Barometer

The TTU Trend Barometer closed April 2025 at 48 signalling neutral conditions for trend followers. However, it’s important to recognize that the Barometer reflects conditions at month-end, which may not fully capture the dynamics of intra-month performance. Additionally, its readings can be influenced by short-term models, which may diverge from the medium- to long-term trend-following strategies favoured by the broader trend-following community.

The Trend Barometer is a proprietary tool we use at TTU to assess the trend strength of a diversified portfolio consisting of 44 markets across all sectors. We firstly subdivide the trend strength of each market of a hypothetical diverse portfolio into five ranges from strong up, medium up, neutral, medium down and strong down. We then aggregate these results into a single portfolio number which we use to describe the overall trend strength across a hypothetical Program portfolio.

We then arbitrarily divide this percentage range into 3 where a value of 0-30 is considered a very unfavorable market regime for trend following Programs, a range between 30 to 55 is a somewhat neutral environment for Trend Following Programs (but not an environment where you could expect consistent performance) and values more than 55 are considered to be a favorable regime towards Trend Following Programs, where they should see good performance.

Aside from the occasional dispersed readings when compared to overall trend following performance this method is surprisingly powerful in describing CTA monthly performance and can be used to connect market trading environments to resultant Manager performance.

The Macro Environment

For a blow-by-blow macro wrap for the month, we recommend you listen to our weekly systematic investor series by clicking on the links below. It is also worthwhile listening to our past catalogue as it provides you with an understanding of how these markets can shape the emotions of a Trader and why it is therefore essential that Trend Followers adopt systematic rules-based processes to keep these emotions in check.

You can find all of our weekly conversations by clicking this link.

Top 10 Lists

We have prepared the following Top 10 lists (excluding non-reporting Programs) for various performance categories based on monthly performance returns for a 15-year period commencing 1st January 2010 to the current month.

Top 10 Listing – by Compound Annual Growth Rate

Chart 10– Top 10 Program Performance by Compound Annual Growth Rate

Top 10 Listing – by Risk Adjusted Return (Serenity Ratio)

Table 11: Top 10 based on Serenity Ratio

Chart 12 – Top 10 Program Performance by Serenity Ratio

Top 10 Listing – by Last 12 months Performance

Table 13: Top 10 based on Last 12 Months Performance

Chart 14 – Top 10 Program Performance by Last 12 Months Performance

Performance Results for the TTU Top 5 by Serenity Ratio

In a recent research project, we undertook at TTU, we examined three different allocation methods that could be deployed by an investor seeking to optimally allocate investment funds towards 5 of the Top ranked Globally Diversified Systematic Trend Following Programs with a long-term track record.

These three methods adopted 3 different forms of performance metric, namely:

Top 5 Performers by Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) using a rolling lookback of 15 years.
Top 5 Performers by MAR ratio (CAGR/Max Draw%) using a rolling lookback of 15 years.
Top 5 Performers by Serenity Ratio using a rolling lookback of 15 years.

The findings of our project can be obtained by clicking on this link.

Our research determined that the optimal selection method was the Serenity Ratio method.

The performance of the Serenity Top 5 Selection Method for April 2025 registered a sharp decline of -11.46%, bringing the year-to-date result to -12.21% (refer to Chart 21).
As part of the reconstitution in early 2025, Mulvaney Capital’s Global Diversified Program was included in the Serenity Index due to its qualifying long-term track record and high Serenity Ratio. However, it’s important to note that this inclusion has introduced significantly higher volatility to the composite, given the program’s inherently more aggressive profile.
While the Serenity Ratio remains a robust and rigorous measure of risk-adjusted return—favouring consistency, low drawdowns, and longevity—it is not immune to the challenges of real-world volatility. No single risk metric captures the full spectrum of behaviour across varying market regimes.

Over the full reporting period, this selection method has delivered a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 4.66%, with a Maximum Drawdown of 24.63%, and an effectively zero correlation to the S&P 500 Total Return Index (-0.04).

Chart 15 – Performance Results of the Top 5 Allocation Method (Serenity Ratio)

The 2025 Serenity selection is as follows and will be maintained for the investment period between 1st February 2025 to 31st January 2026:

Man AHL: AHL Evolution;
Man AHL: AHL Alpha;
Mulvaney Capital Management: Global Diversified Program.
Man AHL: AHL Dimension; and
Quantica Capital AG: Managed Futures Program.

Individual Performance Results for these 5 Programs used for the Serenity allocation to the reporting month using the 2025 listing are as follows:

Chart 16 – Performance Results MAN AHL: AHL Evolution

Chart 17 – Performance Results MAN AHL: AHL Alpha

Chart 18 – Performance Results Mulvaney Capital Management: Global Diversified Program

Chart 19 – Performance Results Man AHL: AHL Dimension

Chart 20 – Performance Results Quantica Capital AG: Managed Futures Program

Performance Results for the Alternative 60/40 portfolio using the TTU Top 5 by Serenity Ratio

In our “How to Invest with the Best” blog post, we also highlighted the significant improved risk-adjusted performance results that could be achieved by replacing the 40% allocation to Bonds in the traditional 60/40 portfolio with an allocation of 40% towards the TTU Top 5 by Serenity ratio.

The evaluation compared the performance of a traditional 60% Equity/40% Bond portfolio against a 60% Equity/40% Serenity portfolio to highlight the uncorrelated historical nature of this Alternative 60/40 portfolio and demonstrate the benefits that a sizeable allocation towards the Serenity portfolio would bring to an investor if equity and bond markets go back to their historic relationship and become more positively correlated in the future. There is no guarantee that correlations remain static over time and it is possible that bond markets and equity markets may lose their uncorrelated relationship that has existed in the last 20 years or so. It is far less likely that the TF managers within the Serenity Grouping will ever be strongly positively correlated to the Equities market, over the long run, given the extensive global diversification and ability to go long and short, that is present within the constituents of the Serenity Grouping.

Chart 21 below showcases the comparative performance results for the period 1 January 2000 to the end of last month:

A 100% investment in the S&P500TR portfolio;
A 100% investment in the VBMFX which is a proxy for the bond market;
A 100% investment in the VBIAX which is a suitable proxy for the classic 60% Equity/40% Bond portfolio;
A 100% investment in a 60% S&P500TR 40% Serenity portfolio; and
A 100% investment in the Serenity Portfolio.

Chart 21 – Comparative Performance Results of Various Portfolio Allocations

The comparison of alternative portfolio allocations above highlights the strong historic risk adjusted returns that have been enjoyed by 60% S&P500TR / 40% Serenity Composite Portfolio.

A more detailed assessment of this powerful 60/40 investment option is reflected below.

Chart 22 – Performance Results for the 60% S&P500TR/ 40% Serenity Composite

Important Disclaimers

This document and its contents are proprietary information of TTU and may not be reproduced or otherwise disseminated in whole or in part without TTU’s prior written consent.

18/05/2025 by Naomi

Harvard Economist Kenneth Rogoff warns that U.S. dollar dominance is quietly eroding, threatening the financial advantages America has long enjoyed.
As global trust in U.S. institutions weakens, alternative currencies and digital options are slowly gaining ground despite their imperfections.
The consequences of this shift may be gradual but could reshape the global financial order.

When empires decline, it rarely happens all at once. It’s not a cliff, but a slow, grinding erosion, like a river cutting its way through a mountain until, eventually, what looked eternal turns to dust. That’s how Kenneth Rogoff sees the future of the U.S. dollar.

The Harvard economist and former IMF chief economist isn't calling for a sudden collapse of dollar dominance. But he is clear-eyed about the forces chipping away at it, and the consequences the United States will eventually face. The world has changed, he argues, and America's financial power is beginning to show cracks.

The Peak Behind Us

For decades, the dollar has been the bedrock of global finance. Around 60% of central bank reserves are still held in dollars. About 80% of commodity trades are priced in dollars. And roughly 90% of currency trades touch the dollar at some point. Even if you’re trading Australian dollars for New Zealand dollars, chances are the transaction routes through the greenback.

Yet Rogoff believes the high-water mark for dollar dominance came around 2015. Since then, the underlying pillars have weakened. America's openness to trade has faded. Its immigration system, long a magnet for talent and capital, has tightened. Faith in the rule of law has frayed.

Political dysfunction, tariff wars, cracking down on immigration, and the weaponization of finance have all accelerated the process. “Trump's been an accelerant. It's just incredible, the damage he's doing,” said Rogoff, who’s careful not to blame only one side, noting that Democrats also have contributed to a perceived erosion of legal norms, the broader message is unmistakable: The world is losing faith in the stability of the U.S. system.

Still, dominance doesn't disappear overnight. The dollar enjoys enormous network effects. As Rogoff points out, it's costly to switch from an embedded system, even if it's flawed, to an unproven alternative. But with enough pain and uncertainty, people adapt. They always do.

The Alternatives Aren't Perfect

If not the dollar, then what?

Europe’s euro is a distant second. Rogoff praises the creation of the euro as a political achievement, but remains skeptical about its resilience. Europe’s uneven economies, aging demographics, and limited military reach constrain its ability to project the same global power that underpins the dollar.

China’s renminbi is rising, but slowly and with serious limitations. Capital controls remain tight, and trust in Chinese governance is thin. Still, incremental moves — such as settling more trade in RMB, particularly among BRICS nations — signal a bigger trend. China’s development of digital currency is part of the same strategy: building alternatives to the U.S.-dominated financial networks.

Interestingly, Rogoff is more bullish on the idea of regulated stablecoins than on central bank digital currencies. He believes private, well-regulated digital dollars or euros could eventually play a larger role than clunky, government-issued digital money. But even that future, he emphasizes, will take decades to materialize.

For now, there is no clean substitute. Instead, the erosion of dollar dominance likely means greater fragmentation: a less efficient, more regionalized global financial system.

Perks at Risk

Why does any of this matter to the average American? Because the benefits of dollar dominance are tangible, even if invisible most of the time. Chief among them: lower borrowing costs.

When global investors rush into dollars during crises, U.S. interest rates fall. This “exorbitant privilege” has allowed the U.S. to run larger deficits at cheaper costs than almost any other nation. It has been a critical advantage during recessions, wars, and pandemics. If the dollar loses its special status, that privilege erodes. Rogoff estimates U.S. borrowing costs could rise by half a percentage point to a full percentage point. In a country already running unsustainable deficits, that would be a painful shift, “adding insult to injury,” as Rogoff puts it.

Even more critical is the option value of borrowing in a crisis. In 2008 and 2020, the world demanded dollars precisely when the U.S. needed to borrow trillions of dollars. In the future, if demand for dollars weakens, the government may find itself needing to pay up—or worse, facing real limits on its fiscal flexibility just when it needs it most.

Financial repression, essentially forcing domestic institutions to hold government debt, may become more common. Taxes may have to rise. Choices that are put off will eventually have to be made.

“Borrowing is great. Owing a lot of money is not great,” Rogoff says bluntly.

He’s not forecasting imminent doom, but he’s sounding a warning against complacency. The assumption that the dollar will remain supreme, regardless of how much debt the U.S. accumulates or how chaotic its politics become, is a dangerous one.

Rogoff's message isn't just for policymakers or markets. It’s aimed squarely at the economic profession too, urging it to shake off decades of complacency and confront hard truths about debt, resilience, and the fragile foundations of global finance.

The river is still carving its way through the mountain. The erosion is slow, but it's happening.

17/05/2025 by Naomi

“In markets, some melt while others surge—the heat just moves.”

This Week In Trend

Welcome to This Week in Trend, your lens into the evolving rhythms of global futures markets and the adaptive world of trend-following.

After April’s sharp swings and early May’s rebalancing, markets this week delivered a more chaotic cadence. There was no clear path—just flashes of strength and pockets of collapse. Systems adjusted on the fly, chasing clarity through the churn.

“Softs Surge While Metals Melt”

The third week of May delivered extremes in both directions.
Softs surged with explosive momentum, led by cocoa and orange juice. Equities climbed, riding tech’s tailwinds. But metals melted, bonds reversed, and volatility collapsed.
This wasn’t just a rotation—it was a rupture. Momentum shifted violently across asset classes. Systems caught some moves, missed others, and were whipsawed in between.

SG Trend Index Performance

MTD (as of May 15): -3.31%
YTD: -12.32%
(Last week MTD: -1.29% | YTD: -10.49%)

The SG Trend Index deepened its drawdown this week. Systems that showed resilience last week are now exposed, as energy, metals, and bonds lost their footing again. While softs delivered strong countertrend moves, their suddenness offered little entry for slower systems.

TTU Trend Barometer: 27% – Very Weak

Last week: 36%
10-day rate-of-change: Falling Rapidly

The TTU Trend Barometer plunged to 27%, marking one of the weakest environments in recent months. Only a handful of clean trends remain, and systems across the board are feeling the crunch.

“Below 40% is cold. At 27%? It's coming close to deep freeze.”

Weekly Asset Class Snapshot

Source: Finwiz.com

This week’s standout shift came from Soft Commodities, which staged a sharp rally. Equities also pushed higher, particularly tech. Meanwhile, Metals unwound recent gains, and Bonds reversed once more. Volatility crashed further.

Asset Class Breakdown – Wild Rotation

Energy: -0.39% (Prev: +3.04%)
Momentum faded. Crude and Nat Gas stalled, giving back last week’s breakout.
Metals: -1.92% (Prev: +2.22%)
Gold and silver dropped, reversing their prior bounce.
Equities: +3.25% (Prev: +0.45%)
Tech leadership returned, lifting major indices.
Soft Commodities: +4.14% (Prev: -0.98%)
Cocoa and OJ exploded higher—offering rare strength.
Grains: -0.22% (Prev: -1.32%)
Losses continued, but selling pressure moderated.
Meats: +0.33% (Prev: +0.38%)
Still subdued. Some livestock names remain range-bound.
Bonds: -0.69% (Prev: -0.33%)
A reversal. Yields rose again, putting pressure on long bond trades and short-term interest rates in particular.
Currencies: -0.33% (Prev: -0.35%)
Further drift. No clear directional trends.
Volatility Index: -16.39% (Prev: -2.37%)
Volatility collapsed. The calm is becoming extreme.

Performance Highlights – This Week’s Market Leaders & Laggards

Top Market Movers

Biggest Gainers

Cocoa: +18.94% – Massive breakout. Led the softs surge.
Orange Juice: +9.77% – Parabola resumes. Volatility remains high.
Nasdaq 100: +6.27% – Tech strength drove the index higher.
Lumber / S&P 500 / Heating Oil: +5.33%, +4.76%, +3.58% – Mixed sector strength in cyclical names.

Biggest Losers

VIX: -16.39% – Calm again. Complacency now dominant.
Natural Gas: -12.38% – Reversal from recent strength.
Gold: -4.15% – Precious metals unwound quickly.
Coffee / Cotton / Corn: -5.73%, -2.21%, -1.50% – Mixed moves across softs and grains, with sharp drawdowns in coffee and modest declines elsewhere.

Portfolio View – What the Moves Meant for Systems

Soft Commodities: Strongest performers, but their violent reversals may have caught systems flat-footed.
Metals: Hurt portfolios after a strong prior week.
Equities: A rare bright spot—especially for models long Nasdaq or tech indices.
Volatility: Collapsing vols stifle trend opportunities.
Currencies & Bonds: Continued noise and indecision make for choppy trades, with short-term interest rates proving the most difficult.

Final Reflections – A Market Without Memory

We’re back in that strange place again—where last week’s leaders become this week’s laggards, and nothing seems to stick.

The SG Trend Index fell sharply. The TTU Trend Barometer plunged to 27%, signalling a hostile environment for trend-followers. The brief sparks of strength in softs and equities came too fast for many to capitalize on.

In markets like these, systems aren’t just challenged—they’re tested. And the lesson this week? Sometimes survival means staying in the game, even when the signals are faint.

“In times like these, it’s not prediction that wins—it’s persistence.”

List of Resources used in the Week in Review

Important Disclaimers

This document and its contents are proprietary information of TTU and may not be reproduced or otherwise disseminated in whole or in part without TTU’s prior written consent.

10/05/2025 by Naomi

Trend following tends to lag early in crises but is built to adapt as new patterns emerge.
Katy Kaminski describes it as a “second responder” strategy — slow to move early on, but powerful once new market regimes take shape.
In markets where old correlations break down, resilience comes from patience and process, not prediction.

The most dependable investment strategies aren’t always the fastest to reward you. Sometimes, the very thing that makes them dependable — discipline, patience, reactivity — is also what makes them slow to shine when the world turns upside down.

Trend following is one such strategy. It’s built to follow, not forecast, often to wait, not jump. And that makes it particularly vulnerable in the first wave of a crisis, when market signals break down, safe havens fail, and nearly everything behaves differently than it’s “supposed” to.

In early April, investors got a glimpse of that chaos when stocks sold off sharply. Bonds, traditionally the first port in a storm, failed to rally. The dollar weakened. Portfolios built on the assumption that diversification means mixing stocks and bonds took hits from both sides. There was nowhere to hide. That kind of synchronized breakdown isn’t just painful; it’s destabilizing. It challenges core assumptions about how assets relate to one another, how markets behave under stress, and where protection can be found.

In that environment, systematic strategies struggled. Tuned to the old regime, trend-following models found themselves on the wrong side of new movements. That’s not an error in the models. It’s the models working as intended, just not on the timeline most investors prefer.

That’s where trend following comes under scrutiny. When markets seize up, people naturally ask: where’s the hedge? Where’s the crisis alpha? But crisis alpha isn’t a magic shield, it’s a process. One that doesn’t defend you at the moment of panic but begins its work in the aftermath, once the dust starts to settle and new patterns form.

Trend Following As a Second Responder

Katy Kaminski, Chief Research Strategist at AlphaSimplex, has studied this behavior for years. She coined the term “crisis alpha” back in 2009. And one of her central insights is that trend is not a first responder in market turmoil. It’s a second responder that adapts, slowly at first, then powerfully, once it finds footing. She calls this dynamic “second responder” behavior, which is a helpful metaphor. First responders show up immediately. Second responders show up when it’s safe enough to do their work, when patterns start to form, and noise gives way to structure.

The data supports it. Kaminski’s research shows that trend strategies often falter in short, sharp selloffs. But in extended crises — ones that stretch for months, not days — those same strategies begin to find their footing. They realign with new directions, and they often outperform.

This makes trend both misunderstood and underappreciated. When sharp selloffs hit, trend systems can underperform not because they’re broken, but because they were calibrated to the world before the shock. By the time the regime has changed, these systems are still catching up. That’s the paradox: the same trait that makes trend reliable over time — its commitment to process over instinct — is what makes it look ineffective in the moment, especially when investors are desperate for immediate protection.

But the most dangerous decisions often come from trying to engineer instant safety, relying on correlations that no longer hold, and overreacting to short-term volatility. What also hurts: Piling into assets that used to be uncorrelated, and now move in lockstep.

The Hardest Strength: Patience Through Regime Shifts

That transition isn’t easy to sit through, especially when correlations behave erratically, safe havens misfire, and you realize that most risk models are built on assumptions that don’t hold in a crisis. Take the classic belief that stocks and bonds are negatively correlated. It held for decades and built countless portfolios, but in 2022, and again in early 2025, it broke. And when that relationship collapses, even the most diversified portfolios can turn fragile.

Kaminski warns that relying on those correlations without adjusting for regime shifts can be dangerous. “If you pile into both [stocks and bonds] and you have a risk model that has a long-term estimate for correlation, guess what? You may be taking a lot more risks than you say,” she said.

Kaminski’s warning is subtle but sharp: when assumptions about risk and diversification don’t reflect reality, portfolios become vulnerable, specifically when built on models that assume yesterday’s relationships will hold tomorrow.

That insight matters not just for trend managers, but for anyone who wants resilience when the market breaks. Because this is what resilience looks like: not instant protection, but the ability to adapt. Not outsmarting the shock, but surviving long enough to benefit from the new order it creates.

Trend following doesn’t promise to shield you from the initial storm, but it promises to adapt once the weather changes. And right now, the weather looks uncertain: inflation pressures, policy pivots, currency shifts, and a growing sense that we’re possibly in the early stages of something bigger than a correction.

Staying Ready for What Comes Next

Maybe this isn’t the crisis, and maybe it’s just a tremor. But if it is the start of something more enduring, trend strategies may not lead the charge, but they’ll be ready when the direction becomes clear.

It’s tempting to search for a strategy that does everything, such as protecting immediately, participating fully, and reacting instantly. But those don’t exist. What exists is a mix of approaches, each with strengths and flaws.

Trend following’s strength isn’t speed. It’s discipline. It sticks to its process, even when that process lags behind the headlines, and that makes it one of the few strategies that doesn’t just endure regime shifts; it often thrives in them, just not right away. The hardest part is staying patient long enough for that to happen. Sometimes, the most dependable strategies are the ones that follow.

That delayed resilience is one of the most valuable traits an investor can have today. But it also asks something hard in return: patience. Not the kind of patience that hopes the market comes back. The kind that waits for the trend to catch up.

For trend followers, the job is the same: keep showing up, keep watching, and stay ready. As Kaminski put it: “We’re going to sift through sort of the wreckage of this and figure out what trends are going to work. That’s where the rest of this year could be quite interesting.”

10/05/2025 by Naomi

“When the forest goes quiet, it's not peace—it's a warning.”

This Week In Trend

Welcome to This Week in Trend, your lens into the evolving rhythms of global futures markets and the adaptive world of trend-following.

After April’s sharp volatility and tentative recovery, the first week of May offered a quieter, more measured tone. Markets didn’t surge—but they didn’t stumble either. Instead, we saw a cautious continuation of rebalancing, with trend signals beginning to stabilize.

The environment remains ambiguous, but systems are adjusting—seeking clarity not in the noise, but in the underlying patterns.

“Divergence Returns—With Bite”

The second week of May brought more churn than clarity.

Energy markets lit up. Metals bounced. But softs cracked further, and grains followed them lower. Equities held modestly firm—but the leadership looked different.

This wasn’t a broad-based rally or a broad-based retreat. It was a patchwork—and trend systems are feeling every stitch.

SG Trend Index Performance

MTD (as of May 8): -1.29%
YTD: -10.49%
(Last week MTD: -0.40% | YTD: -9.69%)

The SG Trend Index slipped further into drawdown territory. What looked like stabilization last week has proven short-lived, with losses resuming across several sectors. Momentum has not vanished—but it’s offering little shelter from this trendless churn.

TTU Trend Barometer: 36% – Moderately Weak

Last week: 48%
10-day rate-of-change: Falling Moderately

The TTU Trend Barometer continued its slide, falling from 48% to 36%—below the neutral threshold. Trend strength has decayed again, confirming what systems already feel: a weakening trend environment that lacks sustained direction across most markets.

“Below 40% is cold. And this week? The thermometer dropped.”

Weekly Asset Class Snapshot

Source: Finwiz.com

Asset Class	This Week	Last Week	Δ
Volatility Index	-2.37%	-3.82%	↑ less decline
Grains	-1.32%	+0.88%	↓ reversal
Meats	+0.38%	+2.14%	↓ slowing
Bonds	-0.33%	+0.57%	↓ reversal
Energy	+3.04%	-1.01%	↑ sharp rebound
Metals	+2.22%	-1.45%	↑ reversal
Soft Commodities	-0.98%	-2.81%	↑ lesser pullback
Equity Index	+0.45%	+3.21%	↓ tapering
Currency	-0.35%	-0.15%	↓ slight weakening

This week’s standout shifts came from Energy and Metals, which flipped sharply from negative to positive momentum. Meanwhile, Grains, Meats, and Bonds reversed last week’s gains. Volatility continued to fall—but with diminishing payoff potential.

Asset Class Breakdown – Fractured Terrain

Energy: +3.04% (Prev: -1.01%): A sharp turnaround. Crude oil and natural gas delivered strong moves, finally providing clean breakouts after weeks of whipsawing.

Metals: +2.22% (Prev: -1.45%): Gold, platinum, and silver rallied, restoring life to long trades that looked under threat just one week ago.

Equities: +0.45% (Prev: +3.21%): Gains slowed. The tech-led bounce moderated, and leadership rotated into broader, more cyclical names.

Soft Commodities: -0.98% (Prev: -2.81%): Still retreating, though the selloff softened. Cocoa, coffee, and sugar are giving up their trend-leading status.

Grains: -1.32% (Prev: +0.88%): A clean reversal. Corn and wheat broke lower, dragging down systems leaning long.

Meats: +0.38% (Prev: +2.14%): Slower progress. Livestock trades that worked for weeks are showing signs of fading momentum.

Bonds: -0.33% (Prev: +0.57%): Another week, another direction. Bond markets remain erratic—tough terrain for trend systems.

Currencies: -0.35% (Prev: -0.15%): FX drifted further into stasis. There’s little conviction in the majors right now.

Volatility Index: -2.37% (Prev: -3.82%): Volatility keeps fading—but the edge is gone. Short-vol profits are behind us, and trend followers are now watching for the next catalyst.

Performance Highlights – This Week’s Market Leaders & Laggards

Top Market Gains

Crude Oil (WTI): +4.75% – Breakout move after prior chop. Energy bulls finally got paid.
Gasoline RBOB / Nat Gas / Brent Crude: +4.52%, +4.33%, +4.23% – Broad-based surge across the energy complex.
Heating Oil: +3.93% – Momentum returned to refined fuels.
Cocoa / Sugar / Platinum: +3.64%, +3.6%, +3.52% – Soft commodities made a brief comeback—but may still be in transition.
Gold / Silver: +2.65%, +1.93% – Precious metals bounced. Systems positioned long saw moderate gains.

Biggest Market Declines

Orange Juice: -10.17% – The outlier breaks. After a parabolic run, OJ finally got squeezed.
Corn / Wheat / Ethanol: -4.1%, -4.05%, -3.5% – Grains cratered. Long trades unwound aggressively.
VIX: -2.37% – Continued calm. Short-vol trades are out of juice.
Softs & FX–Cotton (-2.47%), NZD (-0.59%), AUD (-0.51%) – Rotation into metals and energy came at the expense of prior leaders.

Portfolio View – What the Moves Meant for Systems

Energy & Metals: The stars of the week. Trend followers positioned long enjoyed clear signals and solid gains.
Grains & Softs: Under pressure. A reversal from prior strength puts these sectors back into uncertainty.
Equities: Still up but losing steam. The sharp April rally has cooled into slower movement.
Volatility: Eased again. Calm is no longer your friend—it’s your constraint.
Currencies & Bonds: Dead weight. Few trends, and fewer payoffs.

Final Reflections – A Fog with Flashes

We’re not in a quiet market—but we’re not in a coherent one either.

This week revealed what happens in the in-between: where some trends reignite while others die quickly. Where energy booms, and grains bust. Where volatility is low, but direction isn’t obvious.

The SG Trend Index weakened again. The TTU Trend Barometer fell to 36%, dipping below neutral. Trend followers aren’t out of the game—but the plays are fewer, the edges thinner.

Systems must now walk with care. It’s not about pouncing—it’s about positioning. Because while this week lit a few fires, most of the terrain remains shrouded in fog.

And in fog, clarity doesn’t shout.

It whispers.

List of Resources used in the Week in Review

Important Disclaimers

This document and its contents are proprietary information of TTU and may not be reproduced or otherwise disseminated in whole or in part without TTU’s prior written consent.

04/05/2025 by Betsy McDowell

Behavioral economics offers practical “cheat codes” for handling life's biggest decisions.
Successful negotiation hinges on understanding power dynamics and information asymmetry.
Innovative solutions to the housing crisis involve zoning reform and land value taxes.

When we talk about economics, most of us tend to think about dry academic theories, complex financial models, and the daunting world of high finance. We might consider the stock market or interest rates, but we rarely connect these concepts to our daily lives. This perception often obscures the true power of economics: its ability to illuminate our everyday choices. As Daryl Fairweather, Chief Economist at Redfin, explains, “It was showing how this discipline, economics could be used to understand why people make the decisions that they do and why sometimes you get unexpected outcomes from well-intentioned interventions.”

Daryl’s path to becoming a leading economist wasn’t straightforward. She was initially pursuing a career in engineering, but a summer reading assignment from her father—“Freakonomics“—ignited a passion that would reshape her trajectory. Now, she analyzes the US housing market and serves on the Advisory Council of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. In “Hate the Game: Economic Cheat Codes for Life, Love, and Work“, she demystifies the world of economics, offering practical “cheat codes” for handling life's biggest decisions.

From career choices and salary negotiations to understanding the housing market, Daryl shares tips on applying economic principles while decision-making. “If you empower yourself with economics,” she advises, “these big decisions will hopefully feel less scary and more doable.” This article distills some of her most insightful guidance, providing a roadmap for unlocking your economic potential.

Approaching your career with a winning strategy

Daryl recommends approaching career decisions with the strategic mindset of a seasoned chess player. This involves detaching from emotions and objectively assessing the probabilities of success in different fields, much like calculating the odds of a successful gambit. Daryl uses her career as a compelling example. Despite the underrepresentation of women and Black individuals in economics, especially within the hallowed halls of academia, she boldly pursued this field.

While acknowledging the inherent difficulties, she highlights the power of intrinsic motivation. “If you're okay with failing at it because there are other intrinsic motivators,” Daryl explains, “that means that failure really isn't all that bad.” This perspective reframes “failure” not as a definitive endpoint but as a valuable learning experience within a larger career journey.

Beyond assessing the odds, Daryl introduces the crucial concept of “optionality” in career planning. This forward-thinking approach goes beyond the immediate allure of a job title or salary, prompting individuals to consider each opportunity's potential future pathways. She explains, “Students ask me, ‘Should I take job A or job B? And I always say, ‘Well, think about what options a particular path closes down and what options it opens up.’”

Evaluating optionality isn't about avoiding risk; it's about strategically managing it. It allows for a more dynamic and adaptable approach to career progression, where each decision is viewed not in isolation but as part of a larger, evolving game plan. A job that might seem like a step down in the short term could unlock significant opportunities further down the line. Conversely, a seemingly prestigious role might limit future options, trapping you in a specific, potentially less fulfilling trajectory.

By prioritizing optionality, individuals empower themselves to make more informed choices that align with their long-term aspirations, even if they evolve. It's about playing the long game, strategically positioning yourself for a winning career, regardless of the immediate hand you're dealt.

Mastering the art of negotiation

A key element of Daryl's approach to negotiations centers around “anchoring” — a behavioral economics principle that highlights the significant influence of the first piece of information on subsequent judgments and decisions.

Daryl recounts her experience negotiating her salary at Redfin. Rather than answering the typical “What do you currently make?” question, which often anchors the negotiation at a lower point, she flipped the script. She boldly stated her desired minimum salary upfront, effectively setting a high anchor and shifting the power dynamic. “I said, ‘I’m gonna tell you what I want to make. What is the minimum for me to even take this interview? Like, if you're not gonna give me this number, then don't bother,'” she recalls. While potentially risky, this tactic can pay off significantly as it frames the negotiation around your desired outcome.

Daryl also emphasizes the importance of recognizing and leveraging “information asymmetry”—the knowledge imbalance between parties in a negotiation. She illustrates this concept with a captivating anecdote about Beyoncé and Destiny's Child. Feeling undervalued, two original members of the group issued an ultimatum: either Beyoncé’s father (and manager) steps down, or they leave. They miscalculated. They didn't realize that Beyoncé's father prioritized her solo success above all else. “Beyonce's dad really only cared about making Beyonce successful,” Daryl explains. The other members were replaceable; Beyoncé was not. The ultimatum backfired, highlighting a crucial lesson in negotiation: Understanding the other party’s motivations and priorities is essential for achieving a favorable outcome.

Daryl stresses the importance of observing how other employees are treated within an organization to gauge your value and replaceability. If others in similar roles are consistently treated better, it might indicate they are perceived as less replaceable. Conversely, being treated poorly could signal that you’re viewed as easily replaceable—crucial information when entering any negotiation. By understanding these subtle power dynamics, individuals can approach negotiations with valuable insights, increasing their chances of success. This awareness also empowers individuals to recognize when a situation is truly disadvantageous and to explore alternative options.

Cracking the housing code

Daryl’s expertise as Chief Economist at Redfin provides a sharp lens through which to examine the housing market. In “Hate the Game”, she doesn't hesitate to propose bold, even radical, solutions to the affordability crisis. Central to her argument is eliminating single-family zoning, a policy that artificially constricts housing supply, especially in desirable urban centers. Allowing diverse housing options like duplexes and multi-family units on land currently reserved for single-family homes would significantly increase housing density and, consequently, affordability. Daryl underscores the pressing need for more housing, citing Freddie Mac's stark assessment: “We have a housing deficit of about 4 million homes… So we need all the homes built that we can get.”

Daryl champions a fundamental shift in property taxation. She advocates for replacing traditional property taxes, which penalize development, with land value taxes. This innovative approach assesses taxes based solely on the value of the land, independent of any structures built on it. Such a system, she argues, encourages denser, more efficient land use and generates increased tax revenue without the market distortions of current property tax structures.

Daryl highlights California as a cautionary tale. The state’s current property tax system, which limits increases in assessed land value, creates a perverse incentive for homeowners to remain in their homes, even when downsizing or moving would be more practical. This contributes to stagnant housing supply and inflated prices. “California's taxes are especially bad because they limit how much the land value can be taxed,” she explains, linking this directly to the state's housing woes.

By addressing both supply-side constraints (through zoning reform) and demand-side distortions (through land value taxes), Daryl offers a comprehensive approach to tackling the housing crisis. Her insights challenge conventional wisdom and provide a fresh perspective on how to create a more equitable and accessible housing market. While potentially disruptive, her proposals offer a compelling vision for a future where housing is not a luxury but a fundamental right.

Level up your decision-making

By applying the principles of behavioral economics, you can approach career choices, negotiations, and even the housing market with greater clarity and confidence. From understanding the power of optionality to mastering the art of anchoring, these powerful concepts empower you to make smarter choices and unlock your full potential.

It's time to stop playing by the old rules and start rewriting the game in your favor.

03/05/2025 by Naomi

“The fog hasn’t lifted—but we’re learning to move through it.”

This Week In Trend

Welcome to This Week in Trend, your lens into the evolving rhythms of global futures markets and the adaptive world of trend-following.

The environment remains ambiguous, but systems are adjusting—seeking clarity not in the noise, but in the underlying patterns.

“The Fog Persists—But Footing Improves”

Markets entered May with less urgency and more balance. There was no breakout, no breakdown—just a steady, cautious recalibration as April’s turbulence faded further into the background.

Volatility continued to unwind. Equities climbed again. Commodities rotated with less conviction. But momentum, while present, lacked power.

What emerged this week was not clarity—but composure. The rally cooled, but it didn’t collapse. The leaders didn’t charge—but they didn’t retreat either.

Systems are still adapting, still probing the terrain for signals that endure—not just flickers in the fog.

SG Trend Index Performance

MTD (as of May 1): -0.40%
YTD: -9.69%

The SG Trend Index edged into more stable territory this week. While still negative month-to-date, the improvement from last week’s -5.72% MTD reading reflects a halt in the April drawdown.

Losses haven’t reversed—but they’ve decelerated. Systems are catching their breath, particularly those with equity and diversified commodity exposure. It’s a reprieve—not a reversal.

TTU Trend Barometer: 48% – Weakening Neutral

Last week: 50%
This week: 48%

10-day rate-of-change: Falling weakly

The Trend Barometer edged down to 48%, technically entering a weaker neutral zone. The 10-day rate of change has turned slightly negative, confirming this slight decline. There’s more trend strength than two weeks ago, but the signals are not accelerating—they're stabilizing. This is not a “hot” regime. It’s a transitional one—where conviction is hard-earned, and resilience still matters more than reach.

Weekly Asset Class Snapshot

Source: Finwiz.com

The rotation continues, but at a softer pace. Equities remained firm, while most other asset classes cooled. Volatility declined again. Commodities lost traction. Trend signals? Selective and subdued.

This week was less about leadership and more about levelling off.

Equity Indexes: +3.21%
Meats: +0.24%
Soft Commodities: -2.81%
Grains: -1.71%
Bonds: -0.32%
Metals: -1.45%
Currencies: -0.15%
Energy: -1.01%
Volatility Index (VIX): -3.82%

Asset Class Breakdown – Softer Tones, Smaller Signals

Volatility Index: -3.82% (Prev: -12.08%)
Volatility continued its descent, though at a slower rate. Short-vol positions unwound further—but the extreme payoff seen earlier has faded. The waters are calmer, but still opaque.

Grains: -1.71% (Prev: +0.88%)
A reversal week. Grain markets lost ground as recent upward momentum fizzled. Trend-followers long wheat or corn likely faced retracements.

Meats: +0.24% (Prev: +2.14%)
Momentum nearly stalled. The livestock trade that supported systems in recent weeks now looks indecisive, with only slight gains.

Bonds: -0.32% (Prev: +0.57%)
The bounce reversed. Bonds remain trendless, oscillating without direction. They continue to offer little value to directional systems.

Energy: -1.01% (Prev: -0.71%)
Crude and natural gas lost steam. The recent whipsaws in energy markets deepened, likely triggering reductions or stops in trend-following allocations.

Metals: -1.45% (Prev: +0.36%)
Gold and silver softened further. Last week’s stability gave way to modest weakness, interrupting what had been a strong April performance.

Soft Commodities: -2.81% (Prev: +1.98%)
Cocoa and coffee finally cooled. The outliers of Q2 are still elevated, but momentum cracked this week—hinting that the best of the trend may be behind us.

Equity Indexes: +3.21% (Prev: +4.66%)
Equities remained the standout, though gains moderated. Tech and global indices still provided directional opportunity, especially for systems early to rotate long.

Currencies: -0.15% (Prev: -0.26%)
FX remained quiet. The USD drifted sideways, while other majors failed to generate fresh signals. A waiting game for most FX strategies.

Performance Highlights – This Week’s Market Leaders & Laggards

This week marked a dramatic reversal in contract-level leadership. Natural gas exploded higher, while many recent outperformers faltered. Equity strength remained, but the spotlight shifted from soft commodities to industrials and energy whiplash.

The chart above captures the sharp dispersion across asset classes—an environment that rewarded select exposure and punished overcommitment.

Top Market Gains:

Natural Gas: +17.76% – A violent surge. Natural gas ripped higher after weeks of pain, offering sharp relief to systems still holding exposure. Volatility remains extreme.
DAX / Nasdaq 100 / Nikkei 225 / Russell 2000: +3.80%, +3.43%, +3.27%, +3.26% – Global equity strength broadened. Europe joined the party, while US and Japanese indices continued climbing.
DJIA / S&P 500 / Euro Stoxx 50: +2.94%, +2.90%, +2.86% – Large caps and Europe added stability to equity exposure. These were steady gains, not speculative bursts.
Palladium: +2.27% – A rare bright spot in metals. Palladium rebounded, diverging from the broader pullback in precious and base metals.
Live & Feeder Cattle: +1.52%, +0.88% – Modest, consistent support from livestock. Meat contracts continue to grind upward, though the momentum is slowing.

Biggest Market Declines:

Crude Oil (WTI & Brent): -7.36%, -6.75% – A deep slide. After two weeks of strength, energy markets reversed sharply. Systems with long exposure likely hit stops or pared risk.
Oats / Heating Oil / Cocoa: -5.65%, -5.51%, -5.09% – Soft and energy commodities cracked. Cocoa’s Q2 rally broke sharply—marking a potential regime shift.
Coffee / Sugar / Corn: -4.31%, -5.01%, -3.45% – The commodity unwind extended to the broader softs and grains complex. Coffee gave up recent gains. Corn resumed its retreat.
Silver / Copper / Gasoline RBOB: -3.44%, -3.92%, -3.97% – Industrial commodities joined the pullback. Metal and energy trades faltered together, weakening trend structure.
VIX: -3.82% – A continued unwind in volatility. Calm persisted, closing out short-vol profits and reducing potential for near-term directional trades.

Portfolio Observations

Equities: Still strong, but more balanced. Gains broadened beyond tech into global indices and large caps. Equity exposure remained the bright spot for trend-followers.
Natural Gas: The standout contract. Whiplash-prone but delivered big gains for those who endured the chop.
Soft Commodities: Leadership broke. Cocoa, coffee, and sugar all reversed. Systems heavily weighted in these trades may now face a recalibration.
Energy & Metals: A double fade. Crude oil and metals sank in tandem, sapping momentum from two formerly trending sectors.
Currencies: Mostly muted. The USD firmed slightly, but no major moves materialized. FX systems stayed flat or trimmed.
Volatility: Still falling, though at a slower pace. Short-vol trades are likely done, and new opportunities remain elusive in this calm.

Final Reflections – The Fog Holds, but the Ground Firms

The first week of May didn’t break the quiet, it deepened it. Momentum softened. Signals scattered. And yet, something subtle is taking shape beneath the stillness.

Equities continued to lead, but gains moderated. Softs cracked. Energy reversed. Natural gas roared back to life just as metals lost theirs.

The SG Trend Index nudged higher, trimming April’s damage. But the TTU Trend Barometer slipped to 48%, revealing a cooling of trend conditions—not a broad acceleration.

This wasn’t a breakout week. It was a balancing act. Volatility eased again, offering breathing room while simultaneously choking off fresh opportunity.

We’re not entering a new trend regime. We’re wandering the transition zone where systems recalibrate and signals flicker, half-formed.

The edge isn’t prediction. It’s poise. What matters now isn’t how much you gain but how little you lose while waiting.

Because the fog hasn’t lifted. But for those still standing, still steady—clarity always comes.
And when it does, the prepared will already be in motion.

List of Resources used in the Week in Review

Important Disclaimers

This document and its contents are proprietary information of TTU and may not be reproduced or otherwise disseminated in whole or in part without TTU’s prior written consent.