Portfolio Management – Page 121

If This Is Failure, I Like It

Posted on 2 January 2008 by David Merkel

I thought I did worse this quarter, but I ended up trailing the S&P 500 by less than 50 basis points. That meant that I trailed the S&P 500 for the first year in eight by somewhat less than 1%. So goes the streak.

On the bright side, it happened in a period where growth was trouncing value, and large capitalization stocks were trouncing the small.? My investing style is value-oriented, and all-cap, so I will always be smaller than the S&P.? I did better than value indexes, and better than small caps.? Is this examination of factors an excuse?? I don’t know.? The wind was at my back for the last seven years, and it is in my face now.? What I do know is that I’ve had my share of bad decisions, and I will try to rectify them in 2008.? The next reshaping is coming up soon, and I am gathering my tickers and industries.

But winning big and failing small should be good for anyone. With that, I wish you a Happy New Year.? Let’s make some serious money in 2008, DV.

Current Industry Ranks

Posted on 26 December 200729 December 2007 by David Merkel

Just a short post this evening because I’m tired, and not feeling that well. Here is an Excel file containing my industry ranks for year end 2007:

Year End 2007 Industry Ranks

Remember, this can be used two ways. In the short run, the “hot industries,” the ones in the red zone, can be bought if one follows a fast turnover momentum-type strategy. For those of us with lower turnover value-type strategies, we buy industries in the green zone, but insist on quality, and attempt to analyze how transient the industry troubles are likely to be. Note that I’m not looking at all industries in the green zone — areas affected by the housing and finance sectors, for example.

One more brief note, since a couple of readers e-mailed me on this. It looks like the forced sellers of National Atlantic are done. Also, the compensation decisions for the three senior executives give them some compensation if a deal goes through. I’m not smiling on this one yet, and things could still go badly wrong. Use caution here.

Full disclosure: Long NAHC

Depression, Stagflation, and Confusion

Posted on 26 December 2007 by David Merkel

I’m not sure what to title this piece as I begin writing, because my views are a little fuzzy, and by writing about them, I hope to sharpen them.? That’s not true of me most of the time, but it is true of me now.

Let’s start with a good article from Dr. Jeff.? It’s a good article because it is well-thought out, and pokes at an insipid phrase “behind the curve.”? In one sense, I don’t have an opinion on whether the FOMC is behind the curve or not.? My opinions have been:

The Fed should not try to reflate dud assets, and the loans behind them, because it won’t work.
The Fed will lower Fed funds rates by more than they want to because they are committed to reflating dud assets, and the loans behind them.
The Fed is letting the banks do the heavy lifting on the extension of credit, because they view their credit extension actions as temporary, and thus they don’t do any permanent injections of liquidity.? (There are some hints that the banks may be beginning to pull back, but the recent reduction in the TED spread augurs against that.)
Instead, they try novel solutions such as the TAF.? They will provide an amount of temporary liquidity indefinitely for a larger array of collateral types, such as would be acceptable at the discount window.
We will get additional consumer price inflation from this.
We will continue to see additional asset deflation because of the overhang of vacant homes; the market has not cleared yet.? Commercial real estate is next.? Consider this fine post from the excellent blog Calculated Risk.
The Fed will eventually have to choose whether it is going to reflate assets, or control price inflation.? Given Dr. Bernanke’s previous statements on the matter, wrongly ascribing to him the name “Helicopter Ben,” he is determined not to have another Depression occur on his watch.? I think that is his most strongly held belief, and if he feels there is a modest risk of a Depression, he will keep policy loose.
None of this means that you should exit the equity markets; stick to a normal asset allocation policy.? Go light on financials, and keep your bonds short.? Underweight the US dollar.
I have not argued for a recession yet, at least if one accepts the measurement of inflation that the government uses.

Now, there continue to be bad portents in many short-term lending markets.? Take for example, this article on the BlackRock Cash Strategies Fund.? In a situation where some money market funds and short-term income funds are under stress, the FOMC is unlikely to stop loosening over the intermediate term.

Clearly there are bad debts to be worked through, and the only way that they get worked out is through equity injections.? Think of the bailing out of money market funds and SIVs (not the Super-SIV, which I said was unlikely to work), or the Sovereign Wealth Fund investments in some of the investment banks.

Now, one of my readers asked me to opine on this article by Peter Schiff, and this response from Michael Shedlock.? Look, I’m not calling for a depression, or stagflation, at least not yet.? At RealMoney, my favored term was “stagflation-lite.”? Some modest rise in inflation while the economy grows slowly in real terms (as the government measures it).?? A few comments on the two articles:

?First, international capital flows from recycling the current account deficit provide more stimulus to the US economy than the FOMC at present.? Will they stop one day?? Only when the US dollar is considerably lower than now, and they buy more US goods and services than we buy from them.
Second, the Federal Reserve can gain more powers than it currently has.? If this situation gets worse, I would expect Congress to modify their charter to allow them to buy assets that it previously could not buy, to end the asset deflation directly, at a cost of more price inflation, and spreading the lending losses to all who hold longer-term dollar-denominated assets.? If not Congress, there are executive orders in the Federal Register already for these actions.
Third, in a crisis, the FOMC would happily run with a wide yield curve — they will put depositary institution solvency ahead of purchasing power.
Fourth, the Fed can force credit into the economy, but not at prices they would like, or on terms that are attractive.? In a crisis, though, anything could happen.
Fifth, I don’t see a crisis happening.? It is in the interests of foreign creditors to stabilize the US, until they come to view the US as a “lost cause.”? Not impossible, but unlikely.? The flexible nature of the US economy, with its relatively high levels of freedom, make the US a destination for capital and trade.? The world needs the flexible US, less than it used to, but it still needs the US.

One final note off of the excellent blog Naked Capitalism.? They note, as I have, that the FOMC hasn’t been increasing the monetary base.? From RealMoney:

		David Merkel
		The Fed Has Shifted the Way it Conducts Monetary Policy
		12/21/2007 11:56 AM EST

Good post over at Barry’s blog on monetary policy. Understanding monetary policy isn’t hard, but you have to look at the full picture, including the presently missing M3. I have a proxy for M3 — it’s total bank liabilities from the H8 report –> ALNLTLLB Index for those with a BB terminal. It’s a very good proxy, though not perfect. Over the last years, it has run at an annualized 9.4%. MZM has grown around 12.8%. The monetary base has grown around 3%, and oddly, has not been spiking up the way it usually does in December to facilitate year-end retail.

The Fed is getting weird. At least, weird compared to the Greenspan era. They seem to be using regulatory policy to allow the banks to extend more credit, while leaving the monetary base almost unchanged. This is not a stable policy idea, particularly in an environment where banks are getting more skittish about lending to each other, and to consumers/homebuyers.

This has the odor of trying to be too clever, by not making permanent changes, trying to manage the credit troubles through temporary moves, and not permanently shifting policy through adding to the monetary base, which would encourage more price inflation. But more credit through the banks will encourage price inflation as well, and looking at the TED spread, it seems the markets have given only modest credit to the Fed’s temporary credit injections.

I am dubious that this will work, but I give the Fed credit for original thinking. Greenspan would have flooded us with liquidity by now. We haven’t had a permanent injection of liquidity in seven months, and that is a long time in historical terms. Even in tightening cycles we tend to get permanent injections more frequently than that.

Anyway, this is just another facet of how I view the Fed. Watch what they do, not what they say.

Position: noneThe Naked Capitalism piece extensively quotes John Hussman.? I think John’s observations are correct here, but I would not be so bearish on the stock market.

After all of this disjointed writing, where does that leave me? Puzzled, and mostly neutral on my equity allocations.? My observations could be wrong here.? I’m skeptical of the efficacy of Fed actions, and of the willingness of foreigners to extend credit indefinitely, but they are trying hard? to reflate dud assets (and the loans behind them) now.? That excess liquidity will find its way to healthy assets, and I think I own some of those.

The Nature of a Nervous Bull

Posted on 13 December 200713 December 2007 by David Merkel

Cast your bread upon the waters,
For you will find it after many days.
2 Give a serving to seven, and also to eight,
For you do not know what evil will be on the earth.
3 If the clouds are full of rain,
They empty themselves upon the earth;
And if a tree falls to the south or the north,
In the place where the tree falls, there it shall lie.
4 He who observes the wind will not sow,
And he who regards the clouds will not reap.
5 As you do not know what is the way of the wind,^[a]
Or how the bones grow in the womb of her who is with child,
So you do not know the works of God who makes everything.
6 In the morning sow your seed,
And in the evening do not withhold your hand;
For you do not know which will prosper,
Either this or that,
Or whether both alike will be good. [Eccelesiates 11:1-6, NKJV, copyright Thomas Nelson]

The point of Ecclesiastes 11:1-6 is that the farmer in Spring, much as he might be hungry, and want to eat his seed corn, instead has to cast his seed into the muddy soil, perhaps planting 7 or 8 crops, because he doesn?t know what the future may bring. If he looks at the sky, wondering if it will rain enough, or whether the winds might ruin the crops, he will never get a crop in Summer or Fall.

That?s the way that I view investing. You always have to have something going on. You can?t leave the market entirely, because it?s really tough to tell what the market might give you. Typically, across my entire set of investments I run with about 70% equity investments, and the rest cash, bonds, and the little hovel that I live in. Private equity is a modest chunk of my equity holdings, so public equities are about 60% of what I own. Domestic public equities are about 45%.

I don?t think of that as particularly bullish or bearish. Even with public equities trading at high price-to-sales ratios, my portfolio doesn?t trade at high ratios of sales, cash flow, earnings, or book value. Together with industry selection, modest valuations provide some support against bear markets.

My tendency will be if the market moves lower from here to layer in slowly using my rebalancing discipline. That?s what I did in my worst period 6/2002-9/2002, and the stocks that I held at the end were ideally positioned for the turn in the market.

So, I never get very bullish, or bearish. I see the troubles in the markets, and I avoid most problem areas, such as in housing-related areas, but I continue to plug along, doing what I do best — trying to pick good stocks and industries (and occasionally, countries.)

Book Review: The Aggressive Conservative Investor

Posted on 8 December 20079 December 2007 by David Merkel

I am a fan of value investing in all of its different variations, and so when I run across a book on the topic, particularly from a skilled practitioner, I buy it. I’ll do more book reviews on value investing, but one of the first that I wanted to do was Value Investing, by Marty Whitman.

So, I start looking around for my copy, and I can’t find it. Arrrgh, I can guess what happened. I lent it out, I can’t remember who I lent it to, but the borrower never gave it back to me. Annoyed at myself, I do notice a book that was just as good, The Aggressive Conservative Investor, by Marty Whitman and Martin Shubik. Even better, it is back in print, after being out of print for 20+ years.

So, what’s so great about the book? (Most of this applies to both books.) Marty Whitman has a strong “What can go wrong” approach. He realizes that he, and most other investors, will be outside passive minority investors. We only ride on the bus. The inside active control investors drive the bus, and if we are going to make money with reasonable safety, we have to understand the motives of those that control the companies. They benefit somewhat disproportionately from control. They receive wages and benefits that other shareholders do not receive, can gain cheap outside financing, and limit tax exposures, in addition to other benefits.

Like me, Whitman doesn’t care much for modern portfolio theory. More notable for a value investor, he has a few criticisms for the traditional “Graham-and-Dodd” type of value investing.

Typically, it works best for “going concern” situations, and not situations where activism could be necessary to unlock value. (Though, Graham did do things like that in his career; he just didn’t try to teach amateurs about it.)
He doesn’t always stick to high quality companies, if enough information can be obtained about the target. Information allows for more risk to be taken.

There are four things that he insists on in equity investments:

Strong financial position
Honest management that is creditor-aware and shareholder-oriented
Adequate disclosure of information relevant to the success of the company
The stock can be bought for less than the net asset value (adjusted book value) of the firm.

If you have these items in place, you won’t lose much, and if the management team makes value enhancing decisions, one can make a lot of money on the stock.

Whitman places a lot of stress on reading through the documents filed with the SEC. They may not be perfect, but managements know that they need to provide adequate disclosure of material information, or they could be sued. A lot gets revealed in SEC filings, and not every investor sees that.

He also places great stress on understanding the limitations of the accounting, whether under GAAP, Tax, or any other basis. Comparing the various accounting bases can sometimes illuminate the true financial well-being of a company. (Note: this is what killed me on Scottish Re. I should have questioned the GAAP profitability, when they never paid taxes.) He lists the underlying assumptions behind GAAP accounting, and explains how they can distort the estimation of economic value. Honestly, it is worse today in some ways than when he wrote the First Edition in 1979. GAAP accounting is more flexible, and less comparable across companies today.

Marty Whitman looks for situations where resources in a company can be used in a better manner, creating value in the process.

Is the company too conservatively financed? Perhaps borrowing money to buy back stock, or issuing a special dividend could unlock value.
Are there divisions that are undermanaged, or would fit better in another company?
Are management incentives properly aligned with shareholders?
Would the company be better off going private?
Is government regulation a help or a hindrance? (Barriers to entry)
Analyzing corporate structures for where the value is.

Beyond that, he explains how to calculate net asset values, as distinct from book values. He describes the problems with earnings as a value metric. He explains the value of dividends and other distributions. He also explains when it can make sense to own companies that are losing money. (Underlying values are growing in a way that the tax accounting basis does not catch.)

It’s a good book. Together with Value Investing, it gives you a full picture of how Marty Whitman thinks about value investing. He is one of the leading value investors of our time, but he has spent more time than most on the underlying theory. For those who want to think more deeply about value investing, Marty Whitman is a highly recommended read. For those wanting still more, read his shareholder letters here.

Full disclosure: if you use the links on this page to buyread books, I receive a small amount of money.

PS — Twelve years ago, I wrote Marty Whitman, begging to be one of his analysts. Though I didn’t get a response, I still admire him and his staff greatly.

Personal Finance, Part 5.1 ? Inflation and Deflation 2

Posted on 7 December 2007 by David Merkel

I wish that I had more time to respond to readers both in the comments and e-mail.? Unfortunately, I am having to spend more time working as I am in transition as far as my work goes.? I’ll try to catch up over the next week or so, but I am behind by about 50 messages, and I hate to compromise message quality just to clear things out.

That said, my inflation/deflation piece yesterday attracted two comments worthy of response.? The first was from James Dailey, who I would recommend that you read whenever he comments here.? We may not always agree, but what he writes is well thought out.? He thinks I attribute too much power to the Fed.? He has a point.? From past writings, I have suggested that the Fed is not all-powerful.? What I would point out here is that the Fed controls more than just the monetary base.? They control (in principle) the terms of lending that the banks employ.? With a little coordination with the other regulators, the Fed could restrict non-bank lenders by raising the capital requirements that banks (and other regulated institutions) must maintain in lending to non-bank lenders.? So, if credit is outpacing the growth in the monetary base, it is at least partially because the Fed chooses to allow it.? Volcker reined in the credit card companies in the early 80s, which was not a normal policy for the Fed; it had a drastic impact on the economy, but inflation slowed considerably.? (Causation?? I’m not sure.? Fed funds were really high then also.)

The other comment came from Bill Rempel.? He objected more to my terminology than my content, though he disliked my comment that “Inflation is predominantly a monetary phenomenon.”? I think we are largely on the same page, though.? I know the more common phraseology here, “Inflation is purely a monetary phenomenon,” and I agree with it, but with the following provisos:

If we are talking about goods, services, and assets as a group, or,
If the period of time is sufficiently long, like a century or so, or,
If we are talking about monetary inflation.? (Who disagrees with tautologies? 🙂 Not me.)

Part of my difficulty here, is that when we talk about money, we are talking about something that lies on the spectrum? between currency and credit.? By currency I am talking about whatever physical medium can be commonly deployed to effectuate transactions.? By credit, anything where the eventual exchange of currency is significantly delayed, and perhaps with some doubt of collection.? Because of the existence of credit, over shorter periods, the link between monetary inflation and good price inflation is more tenuous, which leads people to doubt the concept that “Inflation is purely a monetary phenomenon.”? My post, rather than weakening that concept, strengthens it, because it broadens the concept of inflation, so that the pernicious effects of monetary inflation can be more clearly seen.? I wrote what I wrote to distinguish between monetary, goods and asset inflation.? I think it is useful to make these distinctions, because most people when they hear the word “inflation” think only of goods price inflation, and not of monetary or asset inflation.

Now, onto today’s topic: how to protect ourselves from inflation and deflation.? With goods price deflation (should we ever see that under the Fed), the answers are simple: avoid debt, lend to stable debtors, and make sure you are economically necessary to the part of the economy that you serve.? You want to make sure that you have enough net cash flow when net cash flow is scarce.? You can use that cash flow to buy distressed assets on the cheap.? Economically necessary and low debt applies to the stocks you own as well.

On goods price inflation, take a step back and ask what is truly in short supply, and buy/supply some of that.? It could be commodities, agricultural products, or gold. ? As a last resort you could buy some TIPS, or just stay in a money market fund.? You won’t get rich that way, but you might preserve purchasing power.? In stocks, look for those that can pass through price inflation to their customers.? In bonds, stay short, unless they are inflation-protected.

This is not obscure advice, but there is an art to applying it.? There comes a point in every theme where prices of the most desirable assets discount or even over-discount the scenario.? Safe assets get overbought in a deflation toward the end of that phase of the cycle.? Same thing for inflation-sensitive assets during an inflation.? As for me at present, you can see my portfolio over at Stockpickr; at present, I split the difference, though my results over the last five months have been less than stellar.? I have companies with relatively strong balance sheets, and companies with a decent amount of economic sensitivity, whether to price inflation or price inflation-adjusted economic activity.

I don’t see the global economy heading into recession; I do see price inflation ticking up globally, and also asset inflation in some countries (China being a leading example). ? But we have a debt overhang in much of the developed world, so we have to be careful about balance sheets.

I may have it wrong at this point.? My equity performance over the last seven-plus years has been good, but the last five months have given me reason for pause.? Well, things were far worse for me 6/2002-9/2002; I saw that one through.? I should survive this one too, DV.

Personal Finance, Part 5 ? Inflation and Deflation

Posted on 6 December 2007 by David Merkel

This is another in the irregular series on personal finance.? This article though, has implications beyond individuals.? I’m going to describe this in US-centric terms for simplicity sake.? For the 20-25% of my readers that are not US-based, these same principles will apply to your own country and currency as well.

Let’s start with inflation.? Inflation is predominantly a monetary phenomenon.? Whenever the Fed puts more currency into circulation on net, there is monetary inflation.? Some of the value of existing dollars gets eroded, even if the prices of assets or goods don’t change.? In a growing economy with a stable money supply, there would be no monetary inflation, but there would likely be goods price deflation.? Same number of dollars chasing more goods.

Let’s move on to price inflation.? There are two types of price inflation, one for assets, and the other for goods (and services, but both are current consumption, so I lump them together).? When monetary inflation takes place, each dollar can buy less goods or assets than in the absence of the inflation.? Prices would not rise, if productivity has risen as much or more than the amount of monetary inflation.

Now, the incremental dollars from monetary inflation can go to one of two places: goods or assets.? Assets can be thought of? as something that produces a bundle of goods in the future.? Asset inflation is an increase in the prices of assets (or a subgroup of assets) without equivalent improvement in the ability to create more goods in the future.? How newly printed incremental dollars get directed can make a huge difference in where inflation shows up. Let me run through a few examples:

?In the 1970s in the US, the rate of household formation was relatively rapid, and there was a lot of demand for consumer products, but not savings.? Money supply growth was rapid.? The stock and bond markets languished, and goods prices roared ahead.? Commodities and housing also rose rapidly.
In? the mid-1980s the G7 induced Japan to inflate its money supply.? With an older demographic, most of the excess money went into savings that were invested in stocks that roared higher, creating a bubble, but not creating any great amount of incremental new goods (productivity) for the future.
In 1998-1999, the Fed goosed the money supply to compensate for LTCM and the related crises, and Y2K.? The excess money made its way to tech and internet stocks, creating a bubble.? On net, more money was invested than was created in terms of future goods and services.? Thus, after the inflation, there came a deflation, as the assets could not produce anything near what the speculators bid them up to.
In 2001-2003 the Fed cut rates aggressively in a weakening economy.? The incremental dollars predominantly went to housing, producing a bubble.? More houses were built than were needed in an attempt to respond to the demand from speculators.? Now we are on the deflation side of the cycle, where prices adjust down, until enough people can afford the homes using normal financing.

I can give you more examples.? The main point is that inflation does not have to occur in goods in order to be damaging to the economy.? It can occur in assets when people and institutions become maniacal, and push the price of an asset class well beyond where its future stream of cash flow would warrant.

Now, it’s possible to have goods deflation and asset inflation at the same time; it is possible to save too much as a culture.? The boom/bust cycles in the late 1800s had some instances of that.? It’s also possible to have goods inflation and asset deflation at the same time; its definitely possible to not save enough as a culture, or to have resources diverted by the government to fight a war.

The problem is this, then.? It’s difficult to make hard-and-fast statements about the effect of an increasing money supply.? It will likely create inflation, but the question is where?? Many emerging economies have rapidly growing money supplies, and they are building up their productive capacity.? The question is, will there be a market for that capacity?? At what price level?? Many of them have booming stockmarkets.? Do the prices fairly reflect the future flow of goods and services?? Emerging markets presently trade at a P/E premium to the developed markets.? If capitalism sticks, the premium deriving from faster growth may be warranted.? But maybe not everywhere, China for example.

The challenge for the individual investor, and any institutional asset allocator is to look at the world and estimate where the assets generating future inflation-adjusted cash flows (or goods and services) are trading relatively cheaply.? That’s a tall order.? Jeremy Grantham of GMO has done well with that analysis in the past, and I’m not aware that he finds anything that cheap today.

We live in a world of relatively low interest rates; part of that comes from the Baby Boomers aging and pension plans investing for their retirement.? P/E multiples aren’t that high, but profit margins are also quite high.? We also face central banks that are loosening monetary policy to reduce bad debt problems.? That incremental money will aid institutions not badly impaired, and might eventually inflate the value of houses, if they get aggressive enough.? (Haven’t seen that yet.)? In any case, the question is how will the incremental dollars (and other currencies) get spent?? In the US, we have another demographic wave of household formations coming, so maybe goods inflation will tick up.

We’ll see.? More on this tomorrow; I’ll get more practical and less theoretical.

Ten Notes on Our Crazy Credit Markets

Posted on 5 December 2007 by David Merkel

This post may be a little more disjointed than some of my posts.? Recently I have been working on calculating the fair value for mezzanine tranches of a series of real estate oriented CDOs.? Not pretty.? Anyway, here are few articles that got me thinking yesterday:

Let’s? start with CD rates.? Bloomberg had a nifty table on its system which I can’t reproduce here, except to point you to the data source at the Fed.? Note how one-, three-, and six-month CD rates have been rising, somewhat in sync with LIBOR, but widening the gap with Treasury yields. (Hit your “end” button to see the most recent rates…)
As a result, I have been debating whether the FOMC might not do a 50 basis point loosen next Tuesday.? CDs aren’t the bulk of how most banks fund themselves, but they can be a way to get a lot of cash fast.? Remember that after labor unemployment and inflation, the Fed’s hidden third mandate is protecting the depositary financial system, particularly the portion that belongs to the Federal Reserve System.
Now, I’m not the only one wondering about what the FOMC will do.? There’s Greg Ip at The WSJ, who speculates on the size of the cut, and whether the discount rate might not be cut even more, with a loosening of terms and conditions as well.? Bloomberg echoes the same themes.? Even the normally placid Tony Crescenzi sounds worried if the FOMC doesn’t act aggressively here.
The US isn’t the only place where this is a worry.? The Bank of Canada cut rates yesterday, as noted by Trader’s Narrative, partly because of credit pressures in Canada and the US.? The Financial Times notes that Euro-LIBOR [Euribor] is also rising vs. Government short-term yields, which may prompt the ECB to cut as well.? Or, they also could cut their version of the discount rate, or liberalize terms.
It doesn’t make sense to me, but the Yen is weakening at present.? With forward interest rate differentials narrowing as more central banks tip toward easing, I would expect the carry trade to weaken; instead, it is growing.? For now.
As noted by Marc Chandler, the Gulf States have largely decided to keep their US Dollar peg.? I found the article to be interesting and somewhat counterintuitive at points, but hey, I learned something.? Inflation is rising in Kuwait after they switched from the US Dollar to a basket of currencies, because residential real estate prices are rising.
Credit problems continue to emerge on the short end of the yield curve.? Accrued Interest has a good summary of the problems in money market funds.? It almost seems like Florida is a “trouble magnet.”? If it’s not hurricanes, it’s bad money management.? Then there’s Orange County, which has a 20% slug of SIV-debt in its Extended Fund.? It’s all highly rated, so they say, but ratings don’t always equate to credit quality, particularly in unseasoned investment classes.? Then there’s the credit stress from borrowers drawing down on standby lines of credit, which further taxes the capital of the banks.
As a final note, both here (point 6) and at RealMoney, I was very critical of S&P and Moody’s when they decided to rate CPDO [Constant Proportion Debt Obligation] paper AAA.? I’ll let the excellent blog Alea take the victory lap though.? We finally have CPDOs that are taking on serious losses (and here).
In summary, we are increasingly in a situation where the major central banks of our world are reflating their currencies as a group in an effort to inflate away embedded credit problems.? Most of the credit problems are too deep for a lowering of the financing rate to solve, though it will help financial institutions with modest-to-moderate-sized credit problems (say, less than 25% of tangible net worth — does the rule of thumb for P&C reinsurers apply to banks?).? This can continue for some time, and credit spreads and yield curves should continue to widen, and inflation (when fairly measured) should increase.? Some of the inflation will move to assets that aren’t presently troubled, perhaps commodities, and higher quality equities, which are doing relatively well of late.
Quite an environment.? The big question is when the “free lunch” period for the rate cuts end, and the hard policy choices need to be made.? My guess is that would be in mid-to-late 2008, just in time for the elections.? Now, wouldn’t that spice things up? 🙂

On the Value of Secondary and Primary Markets

Posted on 3 December 20074 December 2007 by David Merkel

My main thesis here is that secondary and primary markets benefit investors in different ways, but that they are equally valuable to investors, and the public at large. Government policy should not discriminate in favor of one or the other.

I come at this topic from the point of view of someone who has been both a bond and stock investor professionally. When managing bonds, one boss of mine would say, “Primary market levels validate trading levels in the secondary market.” His point was that in the bond market, since a large proportion of the dollar value of transactions came from new issues, those deals in the primary markets were a good indication of where trades should go on in the secondary market for similar pieces of paper. He had a point; bigger markets should dominate smaller similar markets in discerning overall price/yield movements.

In the primary markets, deals have to come a little cheap on average in order to get deals done. That cheapness is necessary in order to get a lot of liquidity from investors at once. But that level of cheapness attracts flippers, i.e., people who buy the cheap new issue, and sell it away for a quick profit in the secondary markets. Bond underwriter syndicates do what they can to detect flippers, but some almost always get in. Even so, the flippers have some value. They reveal the level of discounting inherent in the offering process; when the discounting is high, there’s a lot of fear in the marketplace, and new deals stand a decent chance of performing well. Vice-versa when discounting is low, or even worse, when a new deal “backs up” and closes below the IPO price.

One way to tell how hot the market is, is how rapidly deals close. Seven minutes? Days?? Mania and Lethargy are common attitudes for the market.? Normal behavior is, well, abnormal.? Abnormal behavior provides clues into what is likely to happen next, even if the timing is difficult.? Hot IPO markets eventually go cold, and vice-versa.

The secondary markets provide valuable clues for the primary market as to where deals should be priced, whether equity or debt.? Even if the primary market were dominated by buy-and-hold investors (more common in bonds, less common in stocks), the speculation inherent in much secondary trading provides real value to the IPO syndicates, and longer-term investors.

Longer-term investors who buy-and-hold, or sell-and-sit-on-cash provide clues to speculators as well. The longer-term investors are the ones who create “support” and “resistance” levels.? They care about valuation.

Secondary markets need primary (IPO) markets also.? Without the possibility of a company being bought out, share prices tend to suffer.? When few new companies go public, it is often a sign that the secondary markets are cheap.

My main point here is both markets are valuable, and they need each other.? Speculation is an inescapable part of the capital markets, and it should not be legally discouraged.? (Note: I am not about to become a speculator; I am a longer-term investor, and will stay that way.)

How does the system discourage speculation?? There are differential rates of taxation based on holding period, or investment class. My view is that all income, no matter how generated, should be taxed at the same rate.? All income generation is equally valuable, whether it comes quickly or slowly.

So, when I read drivel like this fellow Lawrence Mitchell is putting out, advocating high taxes on short-term investing, I sit back and say, “You’re not thinking systematically.? You’ve only thought through the first order effects; the remaining effects have eluded you.”? Imagine a system where we are all forced to become buy-and-hold investors through tax policy.? Where would the price signals for the primary markets come from?? Where would liquidity come from?? Would activist investing shrink, with the honesty that it helps to bring?? Who would be willing to step up to an IPO if he knew that tax policy favored him holding for ten years?? What would happen to venture capital if the secondary markets dried up because of tax policy?? Where would their exit door be?

A world composed of only long-term investors would not be as rich of world as we have now.? Though many short-term investors are only “noise traders,” the ability of short-term investors to take advantage of market dislocations helps stabilize the markets.? There should be no penalty to short-term investing versus long-term investing.

Now, if that’s not controversial enough, perhaps I will write a post where I say that tax policy should not favor savings over consumption.? Let people make their own decisions on buying and selling, and let the IRS take a consistent cut, but social policy through tax preferences is for the most part not a good idea.

Ten Chosen Items from the Current Market Troubles

Posted on 27 November 2007 by David Merkel

Superstition is alive and well.? Google at $666?? Personally, I think it is all hooey.? There has always been a morbid fascination about the Antichrist in Western Culture.? Would that they had more concern about Christ.
Longtime readers know I am no fan of FAS 157 or FAS 159.? From the Accounting Onion, here is a good demonstration of what could go wrong as FAS 157 is implemented.? In my opinion, the concept of fair market value allows managements too much flexibility.? For assets that have a liquid market bigger than the holdings of the company in question, fair market value is not a problem.? It is a misleading concept otherwise, because the ability to realize that asset value in a sale is questionable.
This is an “uh-oh” moment on two levels.? Level one is defined benefit pension plans exiting US equities.? They are big holders, and a reallocation could hurt US stock prices.? Level two is that foreign markets have outperformed the US by a great deal over the last few years.? Perhaps the DB pension plans are late to the party?
There are no “almosts” in investing.? I have owned Genlyte twice in my life.? Great company.? I had it on my candidate list in my last reshaping.? I didn’t buy it then.? Now it is being bought out by Philips Electronics.? Good move for Philips; the only way they could make it better would be to take the management team of Genlyte, and have it run Philips.? That won’t happen; it is more likely that Philips will ruin Genlyte.
Activist hedge funds don’t always know best.? Smart managements and boards don’t get scared.? They calculate.? What’s the best thing for shareholders in the long run?? Do the hedge funds really have the willingness to fight?? Personally, I think it is usually best for managements to “call their bluff” and make the hedge funds work for control, rather than wave the white flag early.
Higher US dollar oil prices are only partly a dollar phenomenon.? Oil prices are rising in almost every currency; there is a relative shortage of crude oil globally.
Want an antidote to pessimism?? Read this post from VOX.? Personally, I think the lending issues are bigger than they think, but it is true that corporate balance sheets are in good shape.? Would that we could say the same for the consumer or the government.
Appreciation of the Chinese Yuan versus the Dollar may be accelerating.? Alongside that, many of the Gulf States are re-evaluating their peg to the US Dollar.? Given the inflation, who can blame them?
$300 Billion in losses from US residential mortgages?? That’s a believable figure to me.? Underwriting got progressively worse from 2003 to the first quarter of 2007.? Needless to say, that would kill a lot of non-bank mortgage lenders, and a few banks as well.
Could Japan be the great countercyclical asset in this market phase?? There is more speculative fervor in Japan at present, and many Japanese investors are buying stocks and selling bonds, partly due to relative yield measures.

That’s all for now.? More to come.