There's a very common tendency for some traders to fade everything. A wild strain of contrarian virus runs in the blood. I'm not saying that describes yourself per se, but it's an observation on my part that there are predilections that can get a trader in trouble - or at the very least, shut the door on opportunity.
Spread differentials between very highly correlated products (usually intra market but some inter market to a lesser extent) tend to model and behave much differently than outright flat price in the same name. The trading ranges are narrower and the price action markedly less choppy. Frequently, but not always, the delta directionality of the spread will differ from the flat price outright contract (spread construction is very important in this regard). I tend to prefer, and I teach my clients to favor, spread combination constructions that have most of the delta directionality engineered out of the combination. For intra market spreads we tend to favor spreads with a bit more complexity ( butterflies and condors ) and a bit further out in the curve. For many of the uninformed, to them futures spreads are prompt month versus second month calendar spreads - and there is SO much more available than that old tune.
If a trader is just waiting to time a particular spread combination for a mean reversion opportunity, IMO that trader is missing well over 50 percent of the trade entry possibilities with that spread. For example, quite literally, you could take 25 full tics out of a Eurodollar Futures Condor on a divergence bet over a period of three or four months let's say - before that spread even hints at slowing down and reverting back to some previously demonstrated long-held trading range.
IMO the reason that in the past so many traders would look for mean reversion opportunities in spreads was because of the abundance of spread combinations with ample liquidity - thousands in the CME product suite alone, and the simplicity of a one or two sigma fade strategy. But spreads in general tend to trend more than they used to - it's not a simple stat arb exercise any more. Those micro stat-arb dislocations (like OTR 5 year cash notes versus ZF or a basket of stocks versus an ETF Index) get pounded mercilessly by automation to the point that execution slippage outweighs booked profits. I have seen it so many times. And I have seen so many big spread traders from the floor get smoked on the screen. The forward curve is all about supply and it is overwhelmingly Commercial order flow. Just because I model a one or two sigma vol range over two years is meaningless to Louis Dreyfus or Cargill or PIMCO. If a trader takes a contrarian view in a strongly trending market dominated by Commercial players based upon modeled historical norms alone - that's the path of pain. I could not and would not allow my clients to trade that way. Enduring weeks of draw downs for the sake of worship before the altar of one or two sigma isn't worth it. And what's more I'm of the opinion of that to be outdated thinking that is unnecessary quite frankly.
I hope that gives you something to think about.
Thank you Bone, lots to think about - certainly with regard to fading
With regard to back-testing spreads, what is considered best practice? Is there any literature you can point to that would be helpful?