From a reader who is a dear friend of mine:

There are obvious many disparate approaches to asset allocation.  Similar to the disparate approaches of any style of investing, each asset allocation approach has its own particular pitfalls.  Some of these you can plan for and perhaps hedge against or at least mitigate the potential negative impact from those pitfalls, while some booby traps spring up out of nowhere.  Risk Parity issues revolve around leverage, negative skew, and potential negative returns from certain levered asset classes.  Long-term strategic asset allocation may suffer from the quality of initial assumptions and typically relies on stable volatility profiles and correlations between asset classes.  And so on.  Every professional investor – let’s take an endowment for instance – diversified its portfolio among several asset classes and styles of management.  But what is interesting to me is that I’m not sure I’ve ever seen an institutional (or even HNW) investor diversify its portfolio among multiple asset allocation approaches.  Theoretically, splitting up a portfolio between 3-5 different AA approaches (strategic, risk-based, tactical with an opportunistic value lens, tactical with a momentum/trend-riding lens, etc.) mitigates the pitfalls of each one.  What are your thoughts here?  I have a few of my own, but I don’t want to muddy your own intellectual waters ahead of time. 

My personal approach to asset allocation is similar to Warren Buffett, or Value Line.  I invest mostly in stocks, and keep a bunch of safe assets for liquidity.  As the market rises, I add to my safe assets.  As the market falls, I buy stocks.  In October of 2002, things were so bad that I depleted my safe assets, an everything was in stocks.

In general, I think most complex asset allocation strategies are overly complex.  In general, there are safe and risky assets.  Asset allocation should first focus on the division between the two.  Typically the safe assets are high quality bonds and cash equivalents.  Sometimes there are more opportunities, sometimes fewer.  Safe asset levels should reflect that.

The second focus of asset allocation should be liquidity needs.  Even if there are a lot of promising opportunities to deploy cash, if the liability that funds the assets needs cash, have cash ready for it.  If you invest in limited partnerships or private companies where the assets are locked up for a period of time, have a sense of what your maximum level of illiquidity is (what will you with certainty never need to tap?), and ladder the investments so that like a laddered bond portfolio, you always have some illiquid investments maturing each year, providing fresh cash for deployment where current opportunities are most promising.  These top two ideas are very basic, but even experts neglect them at times.

The third focus of asset allocation is choice of risk assets, which is how I view your question.  There my view of asset allocation is like that of GMO.  Forecast future returns off of free cash flow yields; invest accordingly.

Don’t pay much attention to volatility, but aim for what is most likely, and bend a little in the direction of what can go wrong.  Most of the time, over longer periods of time, what is most likely happens on average; that’s why it is most likely.

Maybe “Too many cooks spoil the broth.”  I have enough trouble trying to work with momentum versus mean reversion.  I would lean toward having one AA strategy that fits with my broader asset management practices.  But on the other hand…

Suppose we did have five asset allocation models, and what their results were encouraging various investors to do.  If we thought that one of the models had been too hot of late, and was attracting too much money, and distorting ordinary market relationships, maybe that could give us a signal to make sure our asset allocation de-emphasized the results of that method.  Timing of course would be difficult, it always is, but seeing the results of the five methods could provide a fuller view of choices faced by our competitors.

I’m not sure that using the average of a number of asset allocation models will provide the best result, but I think that understanding what other players in the market are doing could lead to better decisions.

I’m open to your thoughts, and the thoughts of other readers here.  Anyone have a better idea?

I have great admiration for Warren Buffett, even though I am critical of him at a number of points.  When I read the piece in Fortune where he talks about asset allocation issues, I agree with him 75%.  Where should money be invested?  Stocks.  And as for me, 75% of my net worth is there.  Nonetheless, I see value in bonds, gold, and cash, even though I don’t own any gold, aside from my wedding ring.

Gold is valuable because of its scarcity, and that it is beloved by most cultures in the world.  Gold is beautiful.  Compare it with other metals, gold stands out because it has little economic usefulness.  But that is a feature, not a bug, because it makes gold immune to economic cycles.

Review the gold medal gold model.  The price of gold reacts to real interest rates.  When they are low, the price of gold flies because the cost of carrying gold is negative.  If I could say one thing to Buffett on the topic, I would say read this article, and you will learn why the price of gold is rational and correct in this environment.  Negative real interest rates means the government does not care about the value of its currency, and thus scarce things (think of truly scarce collectibles in the 70s) appreciate in value dramatically versus the depreciating dollar.

Gold is valuable, very valuable when governments and central banks are profligate.  But what of bonds?  Those are the opposite.  They are valuable when governments get more serious about their finances, or when people are scared about the future, and buy long bonds because they want certainty of cash flows in the future.

Also, be for real, Warren.  The dominant asset class inside BRK is bonds.  You hold a lot of them in your insurance companies.

Do I believe in stocks?  Yes, if they are my stocks — the value premium of buying beaten-down companies is dependable.  It doesn’t work every year, but it works most years.

My main point is this: stocks are great, but they are not a panacea.  Gold and things like it are needed for inflation.  Bonds are needed for deflation.  Cash offers flexibility.  These are all useful to investors at the right times.

And, Warren, you have done better than most.  Your stock portfolio has beaten others over the last 40 years.  Most stock portfolios have not beaten bond portfolios, though admittedly by a smidge.

So, is this the time to buy stocks?  I am more bullish than bearish, so yes, but edge in, and be ready to adjust.

I thought that I had a really good proposal for dealing with money market fund problems.  And it is good, far better than what the SEC is proposing.  My proposal is better because it treats money market funds like ETFs — they are pass-through vehicles, and as such, do not need capital buffers.

And, my proposal is better, because it recognizes that credit events should be rare but acceptable aspects of how money market funds work.  Think about it: particularly when short term interest rates are so low, there is no way for interest to cover even the slightest discrepancies versus NAV.

Under my way of doing things, let there be stable net asset values, freedom in investment guidelines, but the possibility of credit events.  The present set of restrictions in investing does no one any good, because the problem is not length of maturity or credit quality, but issuer concentration.

But let money market fundholders analyze the tradeoff between yield and risk.  Guess what?  Short-term bond fund holders have to do the same thing.

Though I would not do it for individuals, in the Stable Value world, there have been “in kind” distributions where when a fund winds up, it distributes assets pro-rata to clients.  With individuals, I would create a second fund that absorbs liquidity from the first fund as assets mature, where fundholders could withdraw assets, if desired.

But why are we going after money market funds?  When they fail, the cost is pennies on the dollar, and it rarely happens.  Why not go after banks?  They fail far more frequently, with much larger losses.  I say let money market funds fail, and do not increase regulations on them.  Rather, let them be like ETFs, and let them be constrained by the prudence of the free markets.  What? You can have investment without the possibility of loss?  Ridiculous.

Regulate the banks tightly, but let money market funds go free, but advertise that losses are more than possible.

One final note: in certain fixed income businesses, if there is an involuntary wind-up, two solutions for ending equitably are a pro-rata distribution of assets, or letting the portfolio mature, and sending cash with each maturity. With institutional money market funds the first option is possible: in a crisis, just divide the assets and let everyone work it out.  But with retail clients, the second option is also possible: send assets as the portfolio matures, with the complicating factor of what to do with a genuine default.  In such a case, collective action is usually preferable for winding up, so that might be the last few percent of liquidity that does not get distributed for some time.

Again, I will say, let money markets have the possibility of failure, rather than have extensive schemes to maintain them at par.  Unlike banks, money market failure are small and contained.  Tell the SEC and the banking regulators to focus on a real problem — bank insolvency.

Here are two articles to read on risk parity:

Pro: Pick Your Poison

Con: The Hidden Risks of Risk Parity Portfolios

I’m on the “con” side of this argument, because I am a risk manager, and have traded a large portfolio of complex bonds.  For additional support consider my article Risks, Not Risk.  Or read the second half of my article, “The Education of a Corporate Bond Manager, Part X.” There is no generic risk in the markets.  There are many risks.  Interest rate risk and credit risk are different topics.   There are bonds that have interest rate risk but not credit risk — long Treasuries.  There are bonds that have credit risk but not interest rate risk — corporate floating rate notes, my favorite example being floating rate bank trust preferred securities.

It is not raw price volatility that drives investment results as much as the underlying drivers of the volatility.  For fixed income, I described those in the two articles linked in the last paragraph.  During non-credit-stressed times, a bank’s 30-year floating rate trust preferred security is roughly as volatile as a five-year noncallable bond that it issues.  But during times of credit stress, the first security becomes volatile, whereas the second one doesn’t.  The first moves in line with 30-year swap yields, LIBOR, and long junior bank spreads.  The second moves in line with 5-year Treasury yields, and short senior bank spreads.  The underlying drivers have little in common, and when things are calm, their volatilities are similar, because the drivers aren’t moving.  But when the drivers move, which in this case is one correlated driver, credit stress (30-year swap & junior bank spreads go a lot higher), the volatilities are very different, the first one being high and the second one low.

Thus equating volatilities across a bunch of asset subclasses, investing less in the volatile, and levering up the non-volatile, is hard to do.  History embeds all the curiosities of the study period, and calls them normal, and that past is prologue.

From the Pick Your Poison article above, what I think is the (lose) money quote:

Gundlach insists most money managers misunderstand junk bonds, comparing them to 5-year Treasurys to determine how rich their yields are, when the correct comparison should be to 30-year Treasurys.

How can Gundlach compare junk bonds, which do better when the economy heats up, with long-term Treasurys, which get killed when the economy revs up and the Fed raises interest rates?

That’s irrelevant, he responds. The thing to look at is volatility, because that tells you the odds you will have to sell at a loss when you need to raise cash in an emergency. On that basis, junk bonds that were trading at a seemingly reasonable spread of 5 percentage points, or 500 basis points, to 5-year Treasurys in mid-2011 were actually trading at an intolerably low 250-basis-point spread to the proper bond. (By then DoubleLine had cut its junk bond allocation from 10% to 1%.) Sure enough, junk fell 12% as the year went on, and the spread to 30-year Treasurys has doubled since mid-2011.

“It’s called risk parity,” Gundlach says. “There’s only two investors who seem to understand it—me and Ray Dalio,” the highly successful manager of $122 billion (assets) Bridgewater Associates.

Personally, I don’t think Gundlach makes his money that way for his funds, but in case he does, how should a good bond manager view junk bonds?

First, ignore Treasuries — they aren’t relevant to the price performance of junk bonds.  I’ve run the regression of Treasuries vs junk bond index yields many times.  It’s barely significant for BBs, and insignificant thereafter.  Second, look at stock market indexes of industries that lever up and issue junk debt.  Junk corporate debt is a milder version of junk stocks, i.e., the stocks that issue junk debt.

Third, a corollary of my first reason, realize that risks with junk aren’t driven by spreads, but yields.  With highly levered, or very junior debt, it does not trade on a spread basis, but on a price basis.  Anyone looking at spreads will see too much volatility versus yields and prices.

But mere volatility won’t tell you the riskiness.  Indeed, when economic times are good, junk will do well, and long Treasuries do poorly.  Now, maybe that makes for a very noisy hedge, but I wouldn’t rely on it.

And, volatility is a symmetric measure, which as bond yields get closer to zero, the symmetry disappears.  Most asset classes display negative skew and fat tails, which also makes volatility problematic as a risk measure.

Going back to my first piece on the topic, if I were applying risk parity to a bond portfolio, it would mean that I would have to buy considerably more of shorter and higher quality instruments, and lever them up to my target volatility level, somehow with spreads large enough that they overcome my financing costs.  Now, maybe I could do that with mispriced mortgage securities, but with the problem that those aren’t the most liquid beasties, particularly not in a crisis if real estate is weak.

I guess my main misgiving is that levered portfolios are path-dependent, as pointed out in the GMO piece above.  You can’t be certain that you will be able to ride through the storm.  The ability to finance short-term disappears at the time it is most needed.

Now, if you can get leverage after the bust, and invest in beaten-up asset classes, you can be a hero.  But that’s a time when only the most solvent can get leverage, so plan ahead, if that’s the strategy.  If an investor could consistently time the liquidity/credit cycle, he could make a lot of money.

As the GMO piece concludes, the only benchmark that everyone could hold would be a proportionate slice of all of the assets in the world, which implicitly, would strip out all of the leverage, because one would own both the shares of the company, and the debt it owes, and in the right proportion.

So I don’t see risk parity as a silver bullet for asset allocation.  I think it will become more problematic, as all strategies do, as more people show up and use it, which is happening now.   First in the hands of the master, last in the hands of a sorcerer’s apprentice.  Be careful.

PS — I have respect for the skills of Gundlach and Dalio.  I’m just skeptical about what happens to risk parity when too many use it, and use it without understanding its limitations.  And, here is a nice little piece about Bridgewater and its strategies.

Trying a new format here, I think readers will like it better.  Most things are better after additional effort.  Think of this as a news links by subject post.

Economics

• If you look in the back, it seems that there were 58 respondents. From page 13: Methodology & Panel Selection Invi… http://t.co/p8sVZl9g Feb 06, 2012
• Will the great interest rate gamble pay off? http://t.co/hgj5XSKc People want to believe that you can get something for nothing; ain’t true. Feb 05, 2012
• Central Planning at the Federal Reserve http://t.co/X8qmqU6C Fed: we can create prosperity by holding interest rates down, right? $$ #wishes Feb 05, 2012
• Labor Force Participation Rate: 28-year Low http://t.co/kLgQ61iK Everyone still happy about the lower unemployment rate? $$ Feb 05, 2012
• Bill Gross: Free Money Ain’t Really Free http://t.co/LXWxpxp5 It will lead to stagflation, IMO, depending on what fiscal policy does $$ Feb 05, 2012
• Life & Death Proposition http://t.co/XuZS5Snn Where does credit go when it dies? Back where it came. It delevers, slows & inhibits ec growth Feb 02, 2012
• US unemployment “progress” http://t.co/WoIVZPGp If you add back the discoraged workers, all of the improvement in U-3 goes away $$ Feb 02, 2012
• The Perniciousness of ZIRP http://t.co/dYlFMbLe Gonzalo Lira on how ZIRP loses effectiveness b/c people think it’ll b there a long time $$ Feb 01, 2012
• Why Neoclassical Economics Doesn’t Work In The Age Of Deleveraging http://t.co/D3IAhTyv Steve Keen explains y Krugman & others r wrong $$ Feb 01, 2012
• Warning: Goat Rodeo http://t.co/JQ2FV9LS Hussman makes his case that equities are overvalued and could pull back 25% $$ Feb 01, 2012
• Who Owns World’s Financial Assets? & Why R US Households So Fascinated W/Stocks? http://t.co/5rp52OM4 American Exceptionalism in investing Feb 01, 2012
• As an aside, that is one reason why the US net foreign debt hasn’t spiraled up. We own equities abroad & they own our debt. $$ declines + Feb 01, 2012
• $$ declines reduce the value of our debts, but not the value of r foreign holdings. I think the US will come out of this crisis rel well $$ Feb 01, 2012

Housing

• Home Prices Tumble http://t.co/N1gdNslr No surprise here with all of the dark supply; houses come onto mkt when ppl can bear loss $$ Feb 01, 2012
• Too lazy to be knowns http://t.co/flXRR6fM I know many who understood what would happen if home RE prices fell, but none who got the size $$ Feb 01, 2012
• Freddie Mac’s “inverse floater” allowed more loan origination http://t.co/5devKZ17 Other side to the Propublica story http://t.co/KjXJHU1x Feb 01, 2012
• I’m no fan of the GSEs; I think they should be abolished, but the GSEs have always made a variety of bets on prepayment over time. $$ Feb 01, 2012

International

• On China, Henry Kissinger and Fareed Zakaria see Domestic Tension and Risk of Geopolitical Conflict http://t.co/1bhvrI3U Ferguson is wrong. Feb 05, 2012
• Tightening lending standards vary materially across the Eurozone http://t.co/ciWUK9cm Conditions tight in Italy & France, but not Germany $$ Feb 02, 2012
• Japan Auto Sales Notch Record Jump http://t.co/0VzF4WST Another small bright spot. Of course, bouncing back from a low level $$ Feb 02, 2012
• Socialist Hollande, Who Wants Full European Treaty Renegotiation, Increases Lead Over Sarkozy http://t.co/J3qCpZZ3 Eurozone Wild Card $$ Feb 01, 2012
• Hong Kong Homes Face 25% Drop as Loans Fall in Year of Dragon http://t.co/ifg1146H And this is with wealthy mainlanders fleeing China. $$ Feb 01, 2012

Markets

• RBC Takes On High Frequency Predators http://t.co/MfA5qdxm Where there is offense, there will b defense; nothing goes unanswered in the mkts Feb 05, 2012
• Global Strategists Abandoning Bearish Views http://t.co/dOXCUMA7 Makes me think we r getting close to a turning point. Feb 02, 2012
• Dividend stocks: Buyer beware http://t.co/SvMCHtCj Makes the valid & missed point: high qual div paying stocks r stocks & can lose $$ #yeah Feb 01, 2012

Credit

• 6 High-Yield Canaries-in-the-Coalmine http://t.co/4pz6SSQc 6 reasons y high yield is overheated http://t.co/fKnHmBqD & http://t.co/UPVev0iD Feb 02, 2012
• QOTD: Regulators Watching Aggressive Yield Chasing http://t.co/iWimo3eg FINRA warns of undue risk in income seeking. Advisors take note $$ Feb 02, 2012
• Contra: The Safest 7% Yield in America http://t.co/VrXoLEFH Poor analysis does not take into account the highish leverage on mtge repo $$ Feb 02, 2012
• Shipping Loans Go Bad for European Banks http://t.co/y5Z0wt3R Highly glutted area w/many dead firms walking; how far down will the losses go Feb 02, 2012

Politics

• Group lists top stock investments by members of Congress http://t.co/CarxUCjS Top 50 hldgs -> in top 100 cos by mkt cap. Hard2manipulate $$ Feb 05, 2012
• Obama Re-Election Odds Versus the Stock Market http://t.co/F5EETcve Example of 2 variables that r correlated b/c they anticipate GDP changes Feb 05, 2012
• RE: @abnormalreturns Gold is mostly political philosophy. How much control do you want the government to have over mo… http://t.co/hRxIkaoo Feb 03, 2012
• Getting back to the gold standard http://t.co/pCk8Ij6j Gingrich & Ron Paul have said they would like to appoint James Grant as Fed Chairman Feb 02, 2012

Companies

• Carlyle’s proposed IPO disaster http://t.co/OqGke8eN So there’s no board. Most boards don’t do much. Mgmt will have no board 2 shield them Feb 05, 2012
• For These Fans, a Day With Buffett Offers Wealth of Photo Opportunities http://t.co/UpcwVKe7 I think Buffett is enjoying life more now. Feb 05, 2012
• Buffett Railroad Boosts Capital Plan to $3.9B http://t.co/9XEw2gyT Buffett changes; organic investment in capital-intensive biz $$ #olddog Feb 01, 2012
• Pep Boys Seen Gaining 27% as Cheapest Value Lures Bids http://t.co/GyfH7qRL Could a bidding war start? Company is undermanaged $$ Feb 01, 2012
• Jefferies Allows Bonus Recipients to Swap Stock 4 Cash With 25% Discount http://t.co/pfGB3Vmc Fair way2 let employees disconnect from $JEF Feb 01, 2012

Financial Services

• I’ve just started “Acts of God and Man,” by Michael Powers. In the intro, he goes through the various meanings of th… http://t.co/tX7uAlWl Feb 05, 2012
• When evaluating Investment Funds, use Dollar-weighted Returns http://t.co/N5g7PI0d This is a neglcted concept that is enjoying a rebirth $$ Feb 02, 2012
• After a Delay, MF Global’s Missing Money Is Traced http://t.co/4s6U8yOe Investigation moves to how to recover the $$ and who is at fault. Feb 01, 2012
• http://t.co/wBbJTe3D FINRA Alert: Do you use complex products? What additional work do you do 2 assure that they are being used properly? $$ Feb 01, 2012
• Banks Need Higher Interest Rates to Start Making Money http://t.co/SneRACCi Flat front end of yield curve squishes bank interest margins $$ Feb 01, 2012
• 401(k) Plans Step Into the Sunshine http://t.co/fvKeup2L But as with DB plans, as costs rise, companies will offer them less. $$ Jan 31, 2012

Value Investing

• The SEC’s “90% Convergence” Fantasy http://t.co/bkWaAS5S US GAAP has many flaws, but we know them. IFRS will introduce abusable flexibility Feb 02, 2012
• But on the bright side, value investors may do relatively better as financials become less trustworthy; the accruals anomaly will sing $$ Feb 02, 2012
• Need to consider (Cost of goods sold)/user $$ RT @ErikSchatzker: Facebook gets $4.39/yr of revenue per user. ESPN gets $4.69/mo. Feb 02, 2012
• Berkowitz: Fund Plunge ‘Makes Little Sense’ http://t.co/pcoPLahW BB, appoint someone in your group 2 seek out opinions contrary 2 yours $$ Feb 01, 2012
• @ADayforRabbit I have argued in the past that BB is not paying attention to the delevering, which is a real headwind for the banks. $$ Feb 02, 2012
• New Fund Hopes to Prove Outspoken Analyst’s Thesis http://t.co/cuVpRzvO I bet @rcwhalen does well like my friends @ Hovde or M3 Partners $$ Feb 01, 2012

Hedge Funds

• Are Hedge Funds Worthwhile Investments? http://t.co/Lw2EhRPr Yet another “Hedge Fund Mirage” citation; the book is having a lot of influence Feb 02, 2012
• Are the hedge fund and private equity boys pulling a fast one? http://t.co/TNXFJo62 Beginning 2c the args of “Hedge Fund Mirage” everywhere Feb 02, 2012
• Did Hedge Funds Trigger the Financial Crisis? http://t.co/lNIb2dgF Secured asset classes can be overlevered; when they collapse, big mess $$ Feb 01, 2012

Miscellaneous

• Do the Job You’re Meant to Do http://t.co/wR3OX20N LIfe is too short to work with people you don’t respect, or tasks unfit for you $$ Feb 02, 2012
• Millionaire adopts girlfriend as daughter http://t.co/zffGCWbu Asset shelter. Does incest rely on consanguinity or on legal relationship? Feb 02, 2012
• Charles Murray Reiterates Willpower http://t.co/smeXZKNh Lack of self-control can destroy relationships, jobs, firms & lives $$ Feb 02, 2012
• I ran into @twitalyzer today. Lots of interesting analytics for tweeting. Here are some for me: http://t.co/HDdcFYaU & http://t.co/8uFFOMuP Feb 01, 2012
• At the first blogger summit at the UST, I recommended to the powers that be that they issue floaters. I also recommen… http://t.co/R3U8OHSi Feb 01, 2012
• California Faces Cash Shortfall by March on Low Receipts, Controller Says http://t.co/QxH1a6Re Could be interesting given the elections $$ Feb 01, 2012

Many investment ideas are promising so long as few do them.  Yes, there is an opportunity, but it is limited.  “Shh, don’t tell everyone about it.”

Thus, the concept of “risk parity.”  Lever every asset class up until it has the same volatility as common stocks. Under theoretical conditions, one could make extra money doing this, and with less risk than just a common stock portfolio.

That makes sense when few are doing it, but not when many are doing it.  When I worked for Hovde Capital Advisors, I highlighted to the group how hedge funds were forcing every asset class to the same level of riskiness.  A Grants Interest Rate Observer article on Leveraged Non-prime Commercial Paper is etched on my mind as emblematic of that era.

Risk parity can work so long as the total riskiness of the system does not get too high, as it did in 2007-8.  But if it does get too high, the assets that are levered face disadvantages versus volatile unlevered assets.  Failures of leverage feed on themselves, and lead to a real washout.  Failures of growth stocks don’t do that to the economy.

Risk parity turns managers into bankers, or worse yet, asset managers that specialize in non-AAA investment grade portions of structured securities deals.  Most asset managers are not used to thinking like bankers, largely because they think in terms of total return, and because they don’t have a balance sheet.  Their capital can run at will, unlike banks that have deposit stickiness, savings accounts, CDs, ability to borrow from the FHLBs, etc.  The banks can hold the assets to maturity, they have a buffer against losses in their capital, and don’t have to mark to market in an assiduous manner (though they *should* have to do so).

Think of the mortgage REITs in the most recent crisis — the ones that did the best were the least levered and had the longest terms for their repo lines.  In the short run, that costs more than the vain idea that one can roll over their repo lines every night, and that repo haircuts won’t rise.  Crises lead to a failure of both ideas, together with a set of forced sellers driving down the price of assets being repo-ed, which sometimes leads to a cascade where repo terms get progressively tighter, and only those that were the most conservative at the start of the crisis survive.

There is a Wall Street aphorism, “The fool does at the end of a bull market what the wise man does at its beginning.”  Risk parity falls into that bucket.  Early adopters of new asset classes and liability structures typically do well, but when they become mainstream, the dynamics can be ugly, as we learned in 2007-present.

So ignore the idea of risk parity.  Risk managers are not bankers, they don’t have the capacity to play leveraged spread games to maturity.  Risk parity if practiced on a large scale will produce wipeouts akin to the recent crisis.

A medium-sized publisher has approached me to write a book on value investing.  I might do it, or I might not.  I also might try to do it with another publisher, or I might do it through Amazon.  I solicit advice from my readers on the prospect.

Anyway, I thought about what the book might look like, and to do so, I went through the entirety of my Value Investing category, and my page called Major Article List,  which described my best articles from my RealMoney days.

What you will see after this is less than a first draft of chapters.  I plan on categorizing it and simplifying, but here it is for now:

1. Bonds
2. Use of cash – buybacks, dividends, strategic use, delay
3. Valuation
4. Cycles
5. On being wrong – planning for failure
6. On financial companies
7. Growth expectations
8. Following leaders vs surfacing your own ideas; who are you playing with/against?
9. Weighing vs Voting
10. Use of free cash by management
11. Avoid buggy whips
12. Industry analysis and economic sensitivity
13. Embrace trends, resist trends
14. Take prudent risks
15. Three year horizon
16. Understand balance sheets; quality, anomalies
17. Management incentives
18. Discipline: tie your hands, do something, but don’t react; you are you own worst enemy
19. Risks, not risk
20. Markets are mostly, but not entirely efficient
21. Margin of safety
22. Diversify, but not too much
23. Safe assets and Risk assets
24. Avoid complexity; embrace complexity
25. Sum of the parts
26. Realistic expectations
27. On shorting
28. Ask the opposite question
29. Rank your ideas
30. No, macroeconomics *does* matter

This could be one, two or three books depending on me and the goals of the publisher.  As I read through my blog, I realized that I wrote a lot more about value investing at the beginning of this blog.  I think the crisis caused me to shift.

But as I went through what the book could look like, I got more excited about it — there is a lot of potential here to explain value investing in a comprehensive  way to readers.

PS — Any publisher contacts that you want to share are appreciated.  Thanks to those who have given me advice so far.

If someone were to ask me my opinion on Junk Bonds at present, fool that he would be to ask me because I know real experts elsewhere, I would say this: They are good for a speculative trade, but dumb money has arrived.  Be ready to sell when the momentum fails.

High yield ETFs sell at decent premiums which leads to the creation of more units.  High yield closed-end funds — 73% trade at a premium.  You could issue a new high yield CEF, and come out at a lower premium than the current average.  I think I smell smoke.

Hmm….  If I owned junk bonds I would hold, and wait for momentum failure.  Buying now seems risky to me.  Most of the risk stems from global conditions.  We don’t know what will happen in the Eurozone. The rest of the risk stems from speculation.

I am a fan of junk bonds when nobody likes them, but there are too many fans now, and for bad reasons, most of which boil down to “I am old and I need income.  The fed has eliminated good choices for income, but I need income anyway, so get me yield.”

I had a conversation with a friend of mine in her upper 70s today where she asked “why are you suggesting I sell my funds that provide the most income?”  I said that I did not trust junk bonds at present and would look to lighten up, besides, the fund she owned has underperformed over the last 10 years.  If she really wanted income from junk bonds, I would look for a new fund for her.  So I am looking for a new HY fund, with an arm twisted behind my back.  It’s not the right idea, but she won’t listen.  (She’s not paying me.  I help my friends as best I can.)

The illusion of yield drives many older investors; they need income, and the delusional Fed thinks that low yields will yield prosperity.  It may make some people take more risk, but it will not yield prosperity.  There will be a lot of impoverished old people at the end of this, and they will be angry — at themselves, their advisors,  and the powers that be.

-==-=-=–=-==–=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==–=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

This is not to say say that junk spreads are low; they are moderate to high at present.  But the spread relationship is manipulated by the Fed at present, making spreads seem high.  No market is truly free, but the Treasury market is affected by the Fed to a high degree.  The high quality bond market follows Treasuries closely.  Junk bonds don’t.  Junk bonds follow a hybrid of what Treasuries and common stocks are doing.  With stocks doing well, junk bonds run as well.

But we are still in an environment where more things can go wrong than right.  Until the US government figures out how to finance itself, we are in dangerous territory.  Given present political conditions, I don’t see how that works out; everything looks like a stalemate at present.

So be wary, and don’t overcommit to risk assets.  I would be neutral on risk assets at presemt, but ready to be bearish if there are problems in Europe or China.

There are two things that I want to comment on Fed policy this evening: Transparency is overrated, and Bernanke does not understand savings.

Transparency is Overrated

Ever heard of the phrase “data overload?”  Greenspan would do that verbally in his testimony to Congress, providing them with more data than they needed, and occasionally contradictory so that each side could quote what they wanted.

Well, the present transparency policy of the Fed is another version of data overload.  Give lots of data — some similar, some different.  Opinions, forecasts, policies — average people have a hard time with the nuances; even some professionals do.

After a certain point, the more data you reveal, the harder it gets to evaluate what is going on.  Far better to reveal to the public the core data that explains policy than to make them slog through big data releases.

Transparency is overrated.  Not sure which foolish economist thought of this one, but more data does not mean better decisions, or better public understanding.  Humans are not Vulcans (only logical), nor Ferengi (only greedy); we are complex, and that makes prediction of actions difficult.

Bernanke does not Understand Savings

Twice in his press conference yesterday, Bernanke showed that he was out of touch with average Americans.  He argued that average people could keep up with a 2% increase in the price level by investing in stocks and (presumably short-term) bonds.

(Speaking to The Bernank)

I’m sorry, Ben, but ya gotsta come down from the uneducated ivory tower and wallow in the mud wit da restov us.  There are three problems with what you said:

• It’s hard to earn 2% (after-tax) consistently when the Fed funds rate is zero.
• Only the top 20% of the wealthy have enough assets to keep themselves afloat using the asset markets.  Most people would like to do something to protect themselves from inflation, but lack the means to do so.
• Average people do not invest, they save at financial intermediaries like banks, S&Ls, and life insurers.  Fed policy kills rates for savers.  They will not become investors, because they lack the knowledge to do so.

I am again sorry, Ben, because your policies discriminate against the poor, and the lower middle class.  Yes, the rich and the upper middle-class clever can escape the penalties stemming from your policies, but the lower-middle class and the poor can’t.

Think of it this way: your policies are making it more palatable for average people to buy gold, because the alternatives in savings are lousy.  If there is no income, why not grab safety from inflation?

Are you really trying to wrest the thorny crown of “worst Fed Chairman” from Arthur Burns?  If so, well done, you are achieving your goals.  Even Alan Greenspan did not do that, though he tried.

My advice to you is simple.  Raise the Fed funds rate to 1%, and stop the QE, and pseudo-QE.  At the zero bound, monetary policy has no punch, and the same for QE.  It affects asset markets; it does not affect goods markets.

Time to abandon useless theories about the Depression, and embrace the practical difficulties that we now face.  Ben, grow up and abandon your failed theories on the Great Depression.  And resign, if you can’t grow up.

Comments

• So they extend the period of accommodation by a little more than a year.  Sends financial markets flying, and especially TIPS prices, but will have little impact on the economy.  (Do they want the yield on 30 year TIPS to go negative?  Looks that way.)
• GDP growth is not improving much if at all, and the unemployment rate improvement comes more from discouraged workers.  Inflation has moderated, but whether it will stay that way is another question.
• In my opinion, I don’t think holding down longer-term rates on the highest-quality debt will have any impact on lower quality debts, which is where most of the economy finances itself.
• Also, the reinvestment in Agency MBS should have limited impact because so many owners are inverted, or ineligible for financing backed by the GSEs, and implicitly the government, even with the recently announced refinancing changes.
• The key variables on Fed Policy are capacity utilization, unemployment, inflation trends, and inflation expectations.  As a result, the FOMC ain’t moving rates up, absent increases in employment, or a US Dollar crisis.  Labor employment is the key metric.
• The Fed is out of good policy tools, so it will use bad policy tools instead, and for longer than before.

Questions for Dr. Bernanke:

• Why do think extending the period of accommodation by a little more than a year will have any significant effect on the economy, aside from stock and bond prices?
• Is it possible that you don’t really know what would have worked to solve the Great Depression, and you are just committing an entirely new error that will result in a larger problem for us later?
• Discouraged workers are a large factor in the falling unemployment rate. Why do you think the economy is doing so well at present?
• Why do you think that holding down longer-term rates on the highest-quality debt will have any impact on lower quality debts, which is where most of the economy finances itself?
• Why will reinvestment in Agency MBS help the economy significantly?  Doesn’t that only help solvent borrowers on the low end of housing, who don’t really need the help?
• Couldn’t increased unemployment be structural, after all, there is a lot more competition from labor in emerging markets?
• Isn’t stagflation a possibility here?  I mean, no one expected it in the ‘70s either.
• Could we end up with another debt bubble from keeping short rates so low?
• If the Fed ever does shrink its balance sheet, what effect will it have on the banks?