Day: April 28, 2009

To What Degree Were AIG?s Operating Insurance Subsidiaries Sound? (1)

To What Degree Were AIG?s Operating Insurance Subsidiaries Sound? (1)

Hey, friends.? My piece on AIG is done, and I will be posting over the next few days, and resume a more normal posting schedule.? Here it is:

Summary

Aside from the mortgage insurers, the P&C subsidiaries were basically sound, though with some issues such as capital stacking, affiliated assets, etc., as mentioned below.? The non-mortgage P&C subsidiaries didn’t have a great 2008, but they would have survived as standalone entities.

The life and mortgage subsidiaries are another matter.? Without the help of the US Government, many of them would have failed.? Even now, given the levels of affiliated assets, capital stacking, deferred tax assets, etc., they are not in great shape now should there be another surprise.? Profitability is likely to be lower in the future than in the banner years of the middle of the 2000s decade.

Introduction

When the economic history books get written about the crisis at the end of the 2000s decade, the difficult analyses will involve Fannie, Freddie, Lehman, AIG, and the large banks that failed.? The degree of leverage employed, both explicit and implicit, will be quite a tale, as will the abandonment of underwriting standards.

This piece is meant to deal with the company that I view as the most complex, and the most levered – AIG. There have been many attempts to explain the problems at AIG, with most of the attention paid to AIG Financial Products.? This analysis is meant to be complementary to those analyses, because I will focus on AIG’s regulated US Life and P&C subsidiaries.? I have gone through the Statutory books for these subsidiaries, and there is an interesting tale to be told.? (A better story than how I got the Statutory data, even.)

Flashing back

Several incidents shaped my perception of AIG over the years.? Working there in the domestic life companies from 1989-92, I heard the AIG mantras:

  • 15% return on average equity is the golden rule of AIG. Subsidiaries and divisions that cannot meet that will be eliminated.
  • We exit business lines that cannot meet our return goals.
  • Keeping the AAA rating is of utmost importance.
  • Our accounting should be conservative.
  • Keep expenses low.
  • Few people make it past five years at AIG, but if you can survive that long, you will be a lifer, and you will be rewarded.
  • We didn’t take over The Equitable because we couldn’t get to the 15% target. That said, the takeover team scared them away, and into the arms of AXA (another accounting nightmare I suspect).

I took the rules seriously.? I ended up closing two lines of business that could not meet return goals, and found two centimillion-dollar reserve errors.? There were several products that never made it to market because they could not meet the 15% return goal.

But there was the rest of the story:

  • “Dealing with auditors is bloodsport.”
  • “I drop my deficiency reserves in the Atlantic Ocean.” (via reinsurance)
  • “I like the pension and annuity businesses because they give some bulk to our balance sheet.” (Reputedly M.R. Greenberg said this to a colleague of mine. We scratched our heads over that one, because it was so anti-AIG philosophy.)
  • Heavy reliance on surplus relief reinsurance in order to front statutory earnings into the present, and reduce capital needs.
  • My boss found two centimillion-dollar reserve errors also.
  • “Dealing with reinsurers is bloodsport. Never give them an even break.”
  • Clever use of transfer pricing to get money out of blocked currencies.
  • Arrogant guys at AIG Financial Products that would hardly acknowledge you as part of the same team at conferences.
  • And, a $1 billion GAAP reserve understatement at Alico Japan in 1992.

There was AIG in theory, and in practice.? I was a young actuary at the time, and relatively idealistic, but it was easy to get cynical in a highly politicized office environment, where almost everything was a fight.? Thus my view of AIG was always colored by the hidden leverage, the large losses that never seemed to derail the company as a whole, and the bare-knuckled approach to business.

I could not live with my conscience while I worked there, so I sought greener pastures from year one there – it took two long years to get the right position.? Two very hard years.

Fourteen years later, I had dinner with a well-regarded sell side analyst while visiting P&C companies with him in Ohio.? The management teams we talked with thought we were twins separated at birth.? Our views were very similar, except on AIG.? He asked me why I didn’t like AIG – it was so cheap.? I told him the story that I have told you, and one more thing: when I worked for AIG, there was virtually no debt.? By 2006, the degree of financial leverage was four times higher than when I worked there.? The 15% ROE was intact, but the return on assets had dropped like a stone, and leverage from debt made up the difference.

I told him AIG was not the great company that it once was.? It was far more leveraged, and the ratings agencies were behind on their evaluations.

To the Statutory Statements

The statutory statements record the life of an insurance operating subsidiary.? The regulators require insurance companies to publicly disclose far more data than the banks do to their regulators.

Insurance holding companies own their subsidiaries, and survive by receiving dividends from the subsidiaries, or borrowing against them.? Operating subsidiaries receive cash from holding companies when opportunities are good, and dividend back when there aren’t as many opportunities.

The ability to dividend back is controlled by statutory accounting principles, risk-based capital rules, and also by the state regulators.? This places insurance holding companies in a tough spot; they need dividends from some operating subsidiaries to survive, particularly during times when credit is not available on favorable terms, if at all.

The key question I went off to answer is to what degree were AIG’s operating subsidiaries sound? We all know that AIG Financial Products was a basket case, but perhaps the rest of the operating companies were in good shape.? The answer to this question is mixed, and I will attempt to explain where there are weaknesses and strengths.? Sneak Preview: the weaknesses outweigh the strengths.

Given my prior experience with AIG, I expected to find question marks in the area of reinsurance.? I did find some, but it wasn’t the biggest area of problems.? I’ll try to take the problems in order of importance.

Book Review: Trend Following (4)

Book Review: Trend Following (4)

While reading the book Trend Following, I was reminded of something that I read in The Intelligent Investor (I have the Fourth Revised Edition.)? These are two very different books.? What could be the same?

Fortunately, you don’t have to have a copy of The Intelligent Investor to see this.? Appendix 1 of the book is, the edited transcript of Warren Buffett’s talk that he gave at Columbia University in 1984 for the 50th anniversary of publication of Security Analysis can be found here.? The PDF version can be found here — it has the tables, but will take a while to load.

Buffett chooses 9 investors in the mold of Ben Graham, all value investors, and shows how they have soundly trounced the market over their tenures.? He uses that correlation to demonstrate that since they all used the same basic theory of investing, it is unlikely that their wonderful performance is due to mere chance.

In appendix B of his book, Michael Covel chooses 14 (or so) investors who are trend followers, and shows how they have soundly trounced the market over their tenures.? He uses that correlation to demonstrate that since they all used the same basic theory of investing, it is unlikely that their wonderful performance is due to mere chance.

See the similarity?? Now, I think that both approaches work to some degree, though not all of the time.? I have known a number of managers that have married the two approaches, usually with some success.? (As Humble Student Cam Hui points out, marrying the two may be more difficult than it seems.? I’m going to have to dig up that copy of the Financial Analysts Journal.)

I would criticize one aspect of Buffett’s logic, and the same would apply to Covel.? I’ve known my share of bad value investors.? Usually they overemphasize cheapness, and forget “margin of safety” as the key intellectual concept of value investing.? It’s easy to come up with a group of great managers following a certain strategy in hindsight.? Where is the grand study of all investors of that class, be it value investing or trend following?? Almost any strategy could be made to look good if one can cherry-pick the investors with the advantage of hindsight.

So, what would qualify as a valid study?? You’d need a relatively complete census of the group following a given strategy, including those that failed and dropped out.? After that, audited returns would help, as Mr. Covel likes to point out.? An alternative would be to follow a smaller closed cohort of managers following a certain management style.? The problem with that is you yourself might have a really good eye for management talent apart from the investment style.

Another alternative would be an academic-style study where the researcher defines the buy and sell criteria and then sees if the method beats the market, whether adjusted for risk or not.? Now, regarding risk, that is one of many places where I agree with Mr. Covel.? Standard deviation does not measure it; beta doesn’t measure it; tracking error doesn’t measure it.? Maximum drawdown, or maybe some obscure statistic from extreme value theory would probably be the best measure.

Why drawdown?? It best measures the ability of a manager to continue his strategy without panicking.? Most of us would question our sanity after a certain level of loss, and give up.? For different investors, the number is different.? For those managing external money, it is more important, because normal investing processes get destroyed when investors pull their money.? Where is that maximum level where investors will stay on board?? It depends on how they were sold on investing their money with the manager.

What are the problems with doing an academic-style study?

  • Often does not include costs of commisions, market impact, etc.? Liquidity is implicitly free, while in the real world, it is costly, particularly for undervalued oddball securities.
  • Data-mining may allow anomalous result that are noise to be reported as signal.
  • Managers using the style being modeled argue that it does not truly represent what they do.
  • Some studies get skewed by using calendar-year-end dates, where trading is often unusual.

Does that mean doing? definitive studies of trading strategies is impossible?? No, but it is quite expensive to do, so those interested in questions like this often resort to shortcuts, such as academic studies, limited peer group studies, etc.

Now, fairly comprehensive studies for things like growth and value managers exist (tsst… value wins), and some studies for CTAs exist.? But I’m not aware of any comprehensive studies for trend followers.? The academic studies show that price momentum is an important factor in market returns, and many investors with good returns use momentum.

It begs the question, if price momentum, or trend following is a panacea, why is it not more broadly embraced by the money management community?? That is tomorrow’s essay.

Book Review: Trend Following (3)

Book Review: Trend Following (3)

What I find interesting about this subject, whether we call it “trend following” or “price momentum,” there has been a confluence of different parties agreeing that price momentum works.? I have reviewed many books recommending momentum strategies (an example), and have usually recommended them (sometimes with reservations).? I will even recommend Trend Following to those who don’t know that positive price momentum aids investment performance about 80% of the time.

What groups of people have come in to support price momentum?

  • Most quantitative stock screeners/graders use a mix of momentum and valuation factors.
  • The academics behind behavioral finance support price momentum and valuation factors, in addition to some others.
  • Many large (and smaller) hedge funds that trade stocks do so using momentum as a positive factor in stock selection, along with valuation, earnings quality, and a host of other factors.

I know, there are still Efficient Markets Hypothesis zealots in the academic community, but they are being outflanked by the behavioral economists who have hard data to support their theories.? The Adaptive Markets Hypothesis describes the way the markets really work.? Rather than using a physics-based analogy, better to use a biological analogy — I view investment strategies through an ecological frame.? Multiple strategies compete to obtain scarce excess investment returns.? The strategies that are least pursued relative to their validity usually have the greatest punch.

Is everyone a fundamentalist?? Momentum strategies win.? Are there a lot of traders chasing momentum?? Value strategies win.? Is there a dominant view to seek dividends?? Growth strategies win.? Is everyone chasing after growth?? Perhaps we should look for dividends.

I don’t know about everyone, but among quantitative investors the opinion is virtually universal that trend following is the right strategy.? Follow price and earnings momentum.? I even put out a small piece weekly on short-term performance of industry groups, which is largely based off of price momentum.

So, if Mr. Covel thinks that trend following is an underfollowed idea, I can simply say that there are a lot of us following it, to the point where the trade might be crowded.? Trend following is a significant part of the total market ecology, and when it becomes dominant, its short-term returns become curtailed, until enough money leaves the trade.

I’ll discuss this more tomorrow, when I discuss how we test the validity of investment strategies.

Theme: Overlay by Kaira