Rates were the first asset class I covered in January and proved to be one of the most critical, appearing in four reports through the end of September. Driven by shifting FOMC rate cut expectations, growth concerns from tariffs, and persistent affordability issues, the rates market presented a year of both opportunity and risk.

In the January 7 issue, I started by looking at options on 10-Year Treasury futures. At the time, yields were breaking out and futures were breaking down, driven by concerns over increased Treasury issuance and the confirmation hearings for Scott Bessent, who would lead the Treasury. To play the continuation of this move in Q1, I proposed a March 107.5-105.5-104 split strike put butterfly.; Although the trade proved to be a losing idea (limited to the premium spent), the market’s timing was inverse to the strategy; futures bottomed out right as the newsletter was released and did not look back for the rest of the year.

I returned to the interest rates market in April for the mid-month issue that focused on the SOFR market. This was after Liberation Day, and tariffs were all the rage. The soft data coming in was beginning to suggest traders should anticipate stagflation. Commentary from various Fed officials also hinted at a fear of stagflation and St. Louis Fed’s Musalem went so far as to say that in stagflation, the right policy is to remain restrictive. This coincided with higher inflation expectations from the University of Michigan survey. However, the interest rates market was still pricing in greater than 60% odds of rate cuts at the next three meetings. The trade was to use the strength in SOFR futures and find an option idea that fades the move. I chose to sell a May 96.125-96.3125 call spread and buy a 96 put for zero cost. The idea worked according to plan and by expiration, futures were 95.65. Chalk this one up to a good fixed-risk way to take a contrarian directional bet.

Just after the Fourth of July holiday, I returned to the interest rates market to look at opportunities in 2-Year futures. By this time, the 2-year to 10-year yield curve had been steepening quite a bit. The Conference Board’s “current situation vs. expectations” index indicated a stronger-than-anticipated economy, suggesting that the market was potentially too dovish in its outlook for rate cuts. The strategy involved implementing a call calendar spread timed at the end of the July FOMC meeting, leveraging the daily expirations of 2-Year futures to allow for flexible intra-week calendar structures. I bought the VT1N5-HT2N5 104.125 call calendar for a small premium. Ultimately, the futures contract remained below both strike prices for the entire trade duration. While this meant no active risk management was required, the position resulted in a loss that was capped at the initial premium spent.

The last interest rates trade of the year came at the end of September. Again, back to the 2-Year futures and now focused on the October meeting. The catalyst is the market being overly dovish relative to the FOMC dot plot that just came out at the September meeting. Recent Fed headlines also showed Fed members were more hawkish, trying to talk the market into pricing rate cuts out. Despite this, the market still had a 90% chance of a rate cut in October. Recent economic data was better than expected. The view was that the market would have to adjust its positioning following the October meeting, leading to the selection of a put diagonal as the right trade. Short November 104.125 puts and long December 104 puts. The November options would expire before the October 29 meeting leaving us long December 104 puts for the potential sell-off in futures markets. Futures stayed above strike for the November expiration and then traded lower after the FOMC meeting, stopping just above the 104 level. By structuring the trade as a put diagonal, I acquired the long the 104 put at a heavily discounted price, enabling traders to close the position for a substantial profit. The trade, therefore, worked exactly as planned, resulting in a winner!

In the end, it was a successful year in interest rates trading. I was two out of four, with the two losses limited to the small premium spent. The two winners made us multiples of what was spent on the premium. There was a bias to fade the market’s dovishness all year, using FOMC meetings as the catalyst, and this worked well for us.

The foreign exchange (FX) market was the second most frequently covered asset class in this newsletter. Having started my career in the FX space, I always enjoy looking for new trade ideas here. In 2025, the market saw a trend of a weak U.S. dollar, fueled by  tariffs and trade wars, which persisted through July. A subsequent reversal toward the mean in the latter half of the year created ample opportunities to trade both sides of the market.

I started the FX year in January by covering British pounds. Although the pound had already started to rally, a review of interest rate differentials and the relative performance of the FTSE vs. the SPX Index suggested that the pound’s strength might fade as capital sought better returns elsewhere. Given the prevailing long positions and weakening technical charts, the strategy was to “fade the strength” by selling a defined-risk February month-end 1.22-1.24 call spread, using the premium received to buy a 1.2050 put. The trade was a clear loser: futures rallied from the time the newsletter was published until expiration, settling at 1.26, which Resulted in the maximum possible loss. The silver lining was that, by fading the market with a defined-risk structure, the loss was capped at the difference between the strikes on our call spread, a much smaller loss than if outright futures had been sold.

Post-Liberation Day, the focus shifted to Canadian Dollar options in the April 29 newsletter. With Canadian Dollar (CAD) futures moving higher, the central question was whether this reflected a desire to exit U.S. assets or if CAD futures were merely catching up to the stronger commodity markets. This was critical because FX futures had disconnected from interest rate differentials, offering no clear directional view. However, a clear pattern emerged: implied volatility moved in lockstep  with futures, rising when futures rose and falling when futures fell - a dynamic that was not correctly priced into the volatility skew. This idea led to a strategy of buying calls and selling puts, fully hedged, to establish a vega/gamma position on an upside move and  a short vega/gamma position on a downside move. In the month that followed, futures fell from 0.7265 to 0.7165, while implied volatility fell by over 1 vol point (from the high 6s to the low 5s). This volatility position allowed for a profitable exit, resulting in a clear winning trade.

Mid-summer, I turned my focus back to the FX market with a trade on the EUR/USD pair. The U.S. dollar had been consistently weakening up to this point, futures were disconnected from interest rate differentials and Europe’s “economic surprise” index was declining relative to the U.S. index. Furthermore, European stocks had forfeited their early-year outperformance. The trade was a contrarian move to fade the EUR’s recent strength using an options strategy: I sold a WE5N5 1.18 call and used the proceeds to buy two 1.16 puts of the same expiration. This was suggested as either a hedged or unhedged trade. By the end of July, futures had indeed faded to 1.1430, and volatility increased. Consequently, whether executed as a directional trade or a volatility idea, it resulted in a winner.

The last FX trade of the year came at the end of October. In the October 28 newsletter, I looked at Australian Dollar options. Global PMI data and commodity prices were pointing higher for AUD. The charts were set up for a breakout. Implied volatility had increased but it appeared the buying was concentrated in puts, not calls, based on the skew ratio. The catalyst for the trade idea was the upcoming RBA meeting, which CME Group’s Event Volatility Calculator indicated had no event volatility priced into the market. I chose to lean into the put skew, selling a MA1X5 0.6400 put and using that premium to buy two 0.6625 calls of the same date for zero cost. Ahead of the RBA meeting (and expiration), futures traded at a high of 0.6621, not quite to strike. After the meeting, futures fell back but stayed above 0.6400. If you traded out of the position on the rally, there was good money to make. Even if you held it until expiration, it broke even. Overall, I would call this strategy a winner, as I had the opportunity to trade out for a good profit.

The FX market treated me well this year, with three out of  four trading ideas proving to be winners. Even on the losing idea, I lost less by using options than I would have if I traded futures, so options allowed me to risk-manage my losses better.

The energy market was a focus for the newsletter four times in 2025, with natural gas book-ending the year, and crude oil covered in May and August. This coverage highlighted a clear contrast: one market exhibited a steady trend throughout the year, while the other had significantly higher volatility driven by shifting demand outlooks and typical seasonality.

My first time writing about energy in my newsletter was on February 5, narrowing in  Natural Gas Weekly options. Colder weather led to more demand, which then led to higher futures prices. NOAA forecasts were mixed going forward at this point. Traders were long in the Commitment of Traders, and the elevated skew ratio suggested the options market was long directionally. The idea was a warmer weather pattern could see position unwinds, so I could use Weekly options to sell a LN2G5 3.55-3.65 call spread and buy a 3.05-2.95 put. Sounds good in theory, but futures rallied from 3.29 to 4.20 over the life of the trade, meaning I hit the maximum loss of the difference between the strikes of the call spread. I did better than if I had faded the strength in futures by going short futures, but it was a losing trade the entire time.

In May, I switched to crude oil. All signs were pointing to lower futures. OPEC+ was increasing supply. The current supply/demand was in balance so the increase in supply should hurt futures. Traders were long, implied volatility was high and skew ratio was favoring puts. The technicals looked weak as well. It was time to go with the trend but using options because of a risk that the trade was getting crowded. I used an ML3K5 58.5-57-56 split strike put butterfly. Ideally, futures would drift down to 57. Even if futures collapsed, the split strike butterfly would still pay off. The problem is by the end of May, futures consolidated and then drifted higher, so I lost the small premium spent on the trade, but again, lost less than if I had sold futures instead.

In early August, it was back to the crude oil market. Supply and demand moved back into balance after the increase in supply. The technical charts were still shaky. The major catalysts were both the OPEC+ meeting in August and the September deadline the U.S. gave Russia for a ceasefire with Ukraine. The idea was an XL2Q5 69 call vs. LOV5 70 call diagonal trade. The goal was no movement in the near term but a potential large move higher if the ceasefire deadline was not met. I would be long volatility for the event, and it was currently at low levels, so long calendars and diagonals made sense. The net cost was zero, which meant no premium was risked. However, over the life of the trade, futures traded lower and both options ended up out of the money. Neither a win nor a loss.

On October 21, I was back to nat gas after a couple swings and misses in crude. There is positive seasonality in nat gas during that time of year and trade deal headlines should support the underlying market. Traders might be cautious as the seasonality turns in December and potential supply issues might creep in for 2026. Technical analysis points to upside in October futures with resistance above at 3.70. Looking at both the implied volatility level and the skew ratio, there was a desire to be short gamma and vega. I chose a JN4V5 3.40-3.60-3.70 call butterfly. Futures stayed around 3.45 by expiration and didn’t spike to 4.00 until after. While it did not achieve max profitability, it was a positive outcome for traders.

I must admit, I was not in sync with the energy market this year. In nat gas, I hit my maximum loss on the first trade but made a little bit on the second trade. One for two wasn’t bad but the loss was greater than the gain, so it was a losing year. Crude was no better, as I was zero for one with a tie, losing a small amount of premium on the first trade and breaking even on the second. On net, I lost money in energy this year even if the losses were small.

This year was the year to be a metals trader. The magnitude of the moves, the new entrants to the market and the narrative that continued throughout the year made for great trend following. The only risk would be if you tried to fade any moves.

I started the year with a newsletter on February 18, where I looked at gold, silver and copper. Three charts, all bullish. However, the volatility markets had differing views so I set up three very different trades. I looked at Weekly options in each of the metals with all options expiring the same week the newsletter came out. For copper, I went long copper calls as implied volatility was low and the chart was the most bullish. I went long 4.70 calls looking for a big move higher. Futures decided to drift lower so I lost the premium spent. In gold, I looked at a one by two call spread, suggesting a trader could do it outright or as an overlay to a long futures position. Futures did nothing, not even going to the lower of the two strikes, but the trade was constructed to take a premium, so even though it didn’t get to the maximum payout, I made money. Finally, in silver, I looked for churn in the markets using a jade lizard trade, selling a 33 put and a 34-35 call spread. Futures were 33 when the newsletter came out and closed 33.50 that week, so I took in the maximum gain. Not a bad start, making money on two of the three ideas and making money overall.

By the end of May, it was time to go back to the gold market. The market was still very strong but started to look overbought. The biggest story in the market was the spread between realized and implied volatility. While much lower than realized volatility, implied volatility was high relative to its own history. In addition, skew would normally favor calls given futures strength but was more indifferent. Were option traders fading the move in futures? I decided to buy a G3TM5 3,275 straddle, which had three weeks to expire when the trade came out. The breakevens were 3,125 and 3,425. Futures moved to a high of 3,440 before expiring back to strike at 3,265. Given there was a chance to trade out of the straddle at a big profit before expiration, I am calling this trade a winner.

On August 21, I was back with gold while also looking at copper. The ratio of copper to gold was at the lowest level in 35 years. This ratio, which is correlated with economic activity, is more downbeat than the data markets are getting from ISM and GDP. In addition, the spread is almost three standard deviations above the five-year mean. Instead of trading as a relative value trade, I look at this setup for two separate trades. In copper, I bought an HR4Q5 4.6-4.8-4.9 split strike call butterfly. Volatility is low but skew is high. Futures stayed flat for the entire trade, which meant I lost the small premium spent. Ironically, futures rallied sharply in the days just after expiration, so it ended up being the right idea with the wrong timing. Still a losing trade. In gold, the idea was that the market would consolidate and nothing would happen. I positioned myself with an August month end 328-3380-3480 iron butterfly. Options expired at 3,487 given a sharp move higher right on expiration. However, futures did sit for two weeks before this right at the middle strike, which would give traders plenty of opportunity to trade out for a profit. If you were greedy and held until the end, it was a small losing trade. If you traded out as most would, it was a winner.

On November 18, I ended the yearly look at metals in the copper market. Weekly charts were in a strong uptrend. Prices were disconnected from the economic data and the daily chart pointed to a move lower. The option market had pulled away from the futures suggesting either traders were fading the move or those that were long were looking to hedge. I did the same, using the futures strength to sell an H3TX5 5.10-5.20 call spread and spending that premium on a 4.95 put for a zero-cost idea. Futures were 5.11 when the newsletter came out and traded to a low of 4.91 before expiration. Definitely a chance to trade out of this for a winner.

I had four notes for  metals in 2025, but gave you seven trade ideas. As I said before, 2025 was the year of metals. I did pretty well looking at this market, making money on five out of the seven trades, assuming on a couple of them you traded out of the structure before expiration as many traders would. I had some big winners and even on the two losing trades, I only lost a small amount. 2025 was definitely kind to me in the metals market.

Stocks were all over the place in 2025. In the first quarter and early second quarter, many were busy trying to cut exposure at all costs given tariff uncertainty. However, the market was flat by June and had a double-digit rally by October. Then came November, and another growth scare. This much volatility should’ve meant good trading, right?

The first equity newsletter did not come out until March 4. By this time, futures were already moving a little lower but were still in an uptrend longer term. Earnings had just come out and were quite good, but valuation concerns were very real. Volatility was not too high but the put skew was very high, so the idea was to take advantage of the relative pricing. I chose to use a QN3H5 21,000-20,000-19,5000 put butterfly. Maximum gains at 20,000 but even if futures fell apart, I would have some gains because of split strikes. Futures closed at 19,700, below the maximum gains at 20,000, but still a solid winner for our first trade of the year.

As we hit the mid-year, markets were back to flat, meaning it was time to revisit stocks. The economic data was starting to weaken, suggesting some downside. From a sentiment perspective, crypto was not responding to good news. Was there too much good news baked into prices? Technically there is a divergence between price and RSI. Option skew is flatter than normal, so I decided to buy puts and sell calls to fade the market strength. I used a Monday option because volatility is lower on these days, buying an E3AM5 5,800 put and selling a 5,950 call. By the end of the month, I was wrong. Futures rallied all the way to 6,200, meaning I lost big time on this trade.

I got past Labor Day, and it was time to set up year-end trades. This meant it was time to look at Russell 2000 futures. NFIB Optimism was moving higher but the relative performance of RTY to ES was lagging badly, even though this data is usually correlated. Traders were very short Russell futures and volatility was low. Earnings were a potential catalyst as better earnings would mean traders needed to cover their short into the end of the year. I decided to do a risk reversal again, but this time selling puts to buy calls. I did an RE3U5 2,300-2,500 risk reversal, selling the downside strike. By September 23, futures had traded above 2,500 and even though they closed just below strike by expiration, I would have a chance to trade out for a very nice profit. Another winner.

For the last trade of the year, in any assets, I decided on a more nuanced idea in the November 26 newsletter. I bought a November month end 24,750 put and funded it by selling a December 24,000 put. The idea was there could be risk from the growth scare into the end of November, but as focus turned to the FOMC, with dovish expectations, markets would bounce. Worst case, if markets traded straight down, I was long a 24,740-24,000 put spread. It played out just as I thought, with futures hitting a low of 23,900 ahead of November month end and then finding their footing and heading higher. A chance to trade out at a nice profit.

Equity markets had a strong year, and I had a strong year trading them. I looked at S&P, Nasdaq and Russell, and made money on three of the four trade ideas. The downside was on the one losing trade, I lost a fair bit, but overall had a high hit rate and big winners to offset the big loser. A successful year all in all.

While there is a very divided opinion on whether crypto markets are good long-term investments or not, there is no doubt that many find the market interesting and fun to trade. If 2025 proved anything, it is that trading the markets could be more fortuitous than holding them.

The first newsletter on crypto didn’t come out until March 31. I asked the question of whether bitcoin was like gold or like Nasdaq. Is it a store of value or a risky asset? Lately, it has acted more like a risky asset. Technicals were breaking down, but despite that, implied volatility was below realized volatility. This was a chance to buy a straddle on bitcoin, opting for an April 4, 86,000 straddle with breakevens of 80,400 and 91,600. At expiration, it closed at 84,350, below where futures were at time of trade, but still a losing idea. Even more frustrating is that on the very next day, futures traded below the lower breakeven. The choice of expiration cost me here.

At the end of June, the topic was stablecoin legislation and the surge in ether. There was a positive catalyst, and ether lagged bitcoin all year. The chart was starting to break out, so I looked for the low point in implied volatility, which was October, to get long options. I sold a 2,500-2,100 put spread to fund 3,300 calls. Over the life of the trade, futures moved from 2,500 to a high of 4,800. This was a massive winning trade.

It seemed like it was a quarterly event, but it was now mid-September, so I was back to the crypto markets. This time I looked at a relative value idea of ether vs. bitcoin. Ether started to recover in relative space, but did it go too far too quickly? Bitcoin was showing signs of bottoming, but the ether charts were showing negative divergences. The idea was to play for a reversion in the ratio by going long P1EV5 125,000 calls funded by selling Y1EV5 5,000 calls. The options expired in early October and by that time, both coins had rallied, with bitcoin getting to 125,000 while ether only got to 4,500. There were plenty of opportunities to trade out of this idea for a profit, so it was a winning trade.

While crypto was a tough market to buy and hold this year, it was a good market to trade. I had three newsletters that included a Bitcoin idea, an Ether idea and a relative value idea between them. I lost on the bitcoin straddle, missing the big move by a day, but made up for it with a massive win in ether and then a profitable relative value trade. Two out of three ain’t bad.

I only wrote one newsletter for the ags market this year, as you need to look at our specific Excell with Ag Options newsletters instead. However, in March, I looked at corn and soybeans. Trade frictions were the catalyst as ag markets suffer when the U.S. and China have a spat. I chose to buy put butterflies on both corn and soybeans, using the ZC4H5 465-450-440 put butterfly in corn and ZS4H5 1,030-1,000-980 put butterfly in soybeans. As usual, I prefer split strike butterflies in case my direction is “too right.” By March 30, corn closed at 4.50, which was our maximum gain, while soybeans closed at 1,020, which was not our maximum gain, but still a profitable trade. While there was only one newsletter covering ags this year, I was two for two, which was pretty good.

The opinions and statements contained in the commentary on this page do not constitute an offer or a solicitation, or a recommendation to implement or liquidate an investment or to carry out any other transaction. It should not be used as a basis for any investment decision or other decision. Any investment decision should be based on appropriate professional advice specific to your needs. This content has been produced by [Data Resource Technology]. CME Group has not had any input into the content and neither CME Group nor its affiliates shall be responsible or liable for the same.

CME GROUP DOES NOT REPRESENT THAT ANY MATERIAL OR INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS APPROPRIATE FOR USE OR PERMITTED IN ANY JURISDICTION OR COUNTRY WHERE SUCH USE OR DISTRIBUTION WOULD BE CONTRARY TO ANY APPLICABLE LAW OR REGULATION.