Portfolio Notes — July 2007

Posted on 19 July 200720 July 2007 by David Merkel

I have three portfolios that I help manage. They are listed over at Stockpickr.com. The big one is insurance stocks, where I serve as the analyst, and have a lot of influence over what is selected, but don’t make the buy and sell decisions. The second is my broad market fund, over which I have full discretion. The last is my bond fund, which doesn’t have an independent existence, but fills the fixed income role for the two balanced mandates that I run, in which the broad market fund serves as the equity component. I’m going to run through each portfolio, and hit the high points of what I think about my holdings. Here we go:
Bond PortfolioI sold our last corporate loan fund in early June. We made a lot of money off these over the past two years as LIBOR rose, and the discounts to NAV turned into premiums. New issuance of corporate loans has been more poorly underwritten. I’m not coming back to the corporate loan funds until I see high single digit discounts to NAV, and signs that credit quality is flattening from its recent decline.

The portfolio is clearly geared toward preservation of purchasing power. We have TIPS and funds that invest in inflation-sensitive bonds [TIP, IMF]. We have foreign bonds [FXC, FXF, FXY, FAX, FCO]. The Yen and Swiss Franc investments are there as systemic risk hedges. The Canadian bonds and the two Aberdeen funds are there for income generation. If energy stays up, Canada might never need to borrow in the future. I also have a short-term bond fund [GFY] trading at a hefty discount, and cash. Finally, I have a speculative deflation in long Treasuries. [TLT]

This is a very eclectic portfolio that has done very well over the last 24 months. This portfolio will underperform if any of the following happen:

Inflation falls
The dollar strengthens
The yield curve steepens amid the Fed loosening
Credit spreads tighten

The Broad Market Portfolio

There are four things that give me pause about RealMoney. First, there is a real bias toward sexy stocks, and commonly known stocks. That bias isn’t unusual; it plagues all amateur investors. Two, few players talk about bonds, and how to make money from them, as well as reducing risk. Three, almost everyone trades more than me. Finally, there is a “home turf” bias, where everyone sticks to their niche, whether it is in favor or not.

I try to be adaptive in my methods through careful attention to valuation and industry rotation. Underlying all of it, though, is a focus on cheap valuations. There are seven summary categories here at present, and then everything else. Here are the categories:

Energy — Integrated, Refining, E&P, Services, Synfuels. I am still a bull here.
Light Cyclicals — Cement, Trucking, Chemicals, Shipping, Auto Parts
Odd financials — European banks, an odd mortgage REIT [DFR], and Allstate [ALL].
Latin America — SBS, IBA, GMK. All are plays on the growing buying power in Latin America.
Turnarounds — SPW, SLE, JNY. Give them time; Rome wasn’t burnt in a day.
Technology — NTE, VSH. Stuff that is not easily obsoleted.
Auto Retail — LAD, GPI.

So far this overall strategy has been a winner for the past seven years. No guarantees on the future, though. In the near term, rebalancing trades could include purchases of JNY and sales of DIIB and SPW. Beyond that, I am waiting for a week or so to sell my Lyondell. It is possible that another bid might materialize. Allstate is also on the sell block, though, I might just trim a little. What makesme more willing to sell the whole position is the disclosure of an above average position in subprime loans.

Insurance

There is one easy play going into earnings season, and one moderate play. Beyond that, there is dabbling in the misunderstood.

Easy: buy asset sensitive life insurers, ones with large variable annuity, life and pension businesses. Who? LNC, NFS, SLF, MFC, PNX, PRU, MET, HIG, and PFG. Why? Average fees from domestic equities are up 5% over the first quarter, and the third quarter looks even better for now. Guidance could be raised. Away from that, the dollar fell by 2% on average over the quarter, so those with foreign operations (excluding Japan) should do well also, all other relevant things equal.
Moderate: no significant hurricanes so far. Given that there is some positive correlation between June-July, and the rest of the season, are you willing to hazard some money on a calm storm season? With global warming DESTROYING OUR PLANET!!!! (not, this is cyclical, not secular.) If you are willing to speculate, might I recommend FSL? They manage their business well, though they are new.

Beyond that, I would commend to you both Assurant (a truly great company that will survive the SEC), and Safety Insurance (investors don’t get the risks here, they are small, and management is smart).

Summary

Managing portfolios has its challenges. One has to balance risk and reward on varying investments. Sometimes the market goes against you, and you question your intelligence. But good fundamental managers persevere over time, and produce good returns for their investors. That’s what I aim to do.

Full Disclosure: all of my portfolios are listed here.

Late editorial note: where I wrote FSL above, I meant FSR.? Thanks to Albert for pointing the error out.

Joys and Difficulties of the Day

Posted on 17 July 2007 by David Merkel

Not such a great day for me. Yes, Lyondell got bought out. Nice. But in my insurance portfolio, Aspen gets tarnished by IPCR’s earnings warning regarding floods in North England and in New South Wales, Australia. Aspen has exposure to the UK, but not necessarily Australia. I find it unlikely that it should have driven down the price 4% though.On another front after falling 8% over two weeks, Safety Insurance fell another 1.3% today over fears that liberalizing Massachusetts auto insurance markets will lead to decreased profitability in the future. A few notes: 1) the proposed liberalizations will not likely make it through the legislature. 2) the liberalizations are not thorough enough to attract meaningful competition to Massachusetts. 3) Safety management is ready for the liberalizations if they should happen. They have proven themselves to be worthy competitors over the years.

Were I able to buy Safety for myself (I can’t because of restrictions), I would do so here. Have a good night.

full disclosure: long LYO SAFT AHL

Ten Important, but not Urgent Articles to Ponder

Posted on 16 July 200717 July 2007 by David Merkel

I am an investor who does not consider background academic and semi-academic research to be worthless, even though I am skeptical of much of quantitative finance. Here are a few articles to consider that I think have some importance.

Implied volatility is up. Credit spreads are up, and the equity market has not corrected. Time to worry, right? Wrong. When implied volatilities (and credit spreads) are higher, fear is a bigger factor; valuations have already been suppressed. Markets that rally against rising implied volatility typically have further rises in store.
Many thanks to those that liked my piece on the adaptive markets hypothesis. Here is a piece about Andrew Lo, one of the biggest proponents of the AMH, which fleshes out the AMH more fully. I would only note that the concept of evolution is not necessary to the AMH, only the concepts inherent in ecological studies. Also, all of the fuss over neuropsychology is cute, but not necessary to the AMH. It is all a question of search costs versus rewards.
John Henry alert! Will human equity analysts be replaced by quantitative models? Does their work have no value? My answer to both of those questions is a qualified “no.” Good quant models will eat into the turf of qualitative analysts, and kick out some of the marginal analysts. As pointed out by the second article analysts would do well to avoid focusing on earnings estimates, and look at other information that would provide greater value to investors from the balance sheet and cash flow statement. (I am looking at Piotroski’s paper, and I think it is promising. He has made explicit many things that I do intuitively.
I work for a hedge fund, but I am dubious of the concept of double alpha. It sounds nice in theory: make money off of your shorts and longs without taking overall market risk. As I am fond of saying, shorting is not the opposite of being long, it is the opposite of being leveraged long, because in both cases, you no longer have discretionary control over your trade. Typically, hedge fund investors are only good at generating alpha on the long side. The short side, particularly with the crowding that is going on there is much tougher to make money at. If I had my own hedge fund, I would short baskets against my long position, and occasionally companies that I knew had accounting problems that weren’t crowded shorts already (increasingly rare).
Maybe this one should have run in my Saturday piece, but some suggest that we are running out of certain rare metals. I remember similar worries in the early 70s, and we found a lot more of those metals than we thought possible then. There is probably a Hubbert’s peak for metals as well, but conservation will increase the supply, and prices will rise, quenching demand.
For those that remember my piece, “Kiss the Equity Premium Goodbye,” you will be heartened to know that my intellectual companion in this argument, Morningstar, has not given up. Retail investors buy and sell at the wrong times because of fear an greed, so total returns are generally higher than the realized returns that the investors recieve.
When there are too many choices, investors tend to get it wrong. When there is too much information, investors tend to get it wrong. Let’s face it, we can make choices between two items pretty well, but with many items we are sunk; same for choosing between two interpretations of a situation versus many interpretations. My own investing methods force me to follow rules, which limits my discretion. It also forces me to narrow the field rapidly to a smaller number of choices, and make decisions from that smaller pool. When I make decisions for the hedge funds that I work for, I might take the dozen names that I am long or short, and compare each pair of names to decide which I like most and least. Once I have done that, numeric rankings are easy; but this can only work with small numbers, because the number of comparisons goes up with the square of the number of names.
Jeff Miller aptly reminds us to focus on marginal effects. When news hits, the simple linear response is usually wrong because economic actors adapt to minimize the troubles from bad news, and maximize the benefits from good news. People don’t act as if they are locked in, but adjust to changing conditions in an effort to better their positions. The same is true in investing. Good news is rarely as good as it seems, and bad news rarely as bad.
This article describes sector rotation in an idealized way versus the business cycle, and finds that one can make money using it. Cramer calls methods like this “The Playbook.” (Haven’t heard that in a while from Cramer. I wonder why? Maybe because the cycle has been extended.) I tend not to use analyses like this for two reasons. First, I think it pays more to look at what sectors are in or out of favor at a given moment, and ask why, because no two cycles are truly alike. They are commonalities, but it pays to ask why a given sector is out of line with history. Second, most of these analyses were generated at a time when the US domestic demand was the almost total driver of economic activity. We are now in a global economic demand context today, and those that ignore that fact are underperforming at present.
Finally, it is rare when The Economist gets one wrong. But their recent blurb on bond indexing misses a key truth. So bigger issuers get a greater weight in bond indexes. Index weightings are still proportional to the range of choices that a bond manager faces. Care to underweight a big issuer because they have too much debt outstanding? Go ahead; there are times when that trade is a winner, and times when it is a loser. Care to buy securities away from the index? Go ahead, but that also can win or lose. If bond indexes fairly represent the average dollar in the market, they have done a good job as a benchmark; that doesn’t mean they are the wisest investment, but indexes by their very nature are never the wisest investment, except for the uninformed.

Well, that’s it for this evening. Let’s see how the market continues to move against the shorts; there are way too many shorts, and too many people wondering why the market is so high. Modifying the concept of the pain trade, maybe the confusion trade is an analogue, the market moves in a way that will confuse the most people.

At The Periphery of Investing

Posted on 14 July 2007 by David Merkel

I have a friend who works for the Williams Inference Service.? Those who work for WIS spend their time looking for deep trends in our world that are underappreciated.? I dedicate a little of my time to that as well, and try to draw investable conclusions from odd bits of data that come across my radar.? But even without explicit conclusions, it richens my knowledge of our world, and perhaps with other data, will yield some return for me.? If nothing else, I love reading and writing, so join with me on this tour of articles around the web.

I’m not sure if pollution problems in China are any worse than the problems faced by the US or the UK at similar points in their development.? That said, one major constraint on their ability to grow is pollution.? These articles from the Wall Street Journal are an excellent example of that: heavy metals in the food supply, and lead in jewelry that they sell domestically and export, with the lead coming from US scrap metal.? These practices may allow businesses to survive in the short run, but soon enough, jewelry will get tested in the US, and importers sued for liability.? In China, there will be increasing pressure for change, perhaps even violent change.? In Chinese history, there is a tendency for change not happen, or to happen rapidly when troubles for average people become too great.
Demographics is a favorite topic of mine, particularly as the world slowly heads into a shrinking population.? For the most part, national economies don’t work so well when population levels shrink, which leads to pressure to import low skilled laborers from nations with surplus workers.? One nation that is at the front of the problem is Japan, where the population is shrinking pretty rapidly today.? Japan is now seeing that its pension system will be hard to sustain because of the lack of children being born.? Europe will face this problem as well.? The US less so, because of the higher birth and immigration rates; for us, the foreign debt will be our problem.
Is war with Iran a done deal in a few years?? I hope not.? Given the mismanagement of the Iranian economy in the hands of the cronyist mullahs that run the joint, and the genuine difficulty of producing effective nuclear weapons without a strong academic/technical/manufacturing base, my guess is that there will be another revolution there before a significant bomb gets made.? (We’re still waiting on North Korea; what a joke.)? Economically, Iran is a basket case.? As I have mentioned before, they have mismanaged their oil resources.? What is less noticed is their coming demographic troubles.? Not all Muslims are fanatics, and many are having small families, which will generate it’s own old age crisis thirty years out.? That said, if Iran is provoked, it’s leaders will not give in; they iwill fight, as the second article i cited points out.? Better to quietly hem the current Iranian leadership in by supporting their enemies, than to risk another war that the US does not have the resources to fight.? Iran is weaker and more divided than it looks; its government will fall soon enough.
Memo to all quantitative investors: are you ready for IFRS?? IFRS, the European accounting standard, particularly for financials will change enough things that older formulas of calculating value and safety may need to be severely modified.? The larger the importance of accrual items to an industry, the worse the adjustment will be.? All I say is, watch this.? If it changes, it will affect the way that we numerically analyze investments.? We are definitely losing foreign economies on our exchanges, mainly due to Sarbox, not accounting rules, but I think we are rushing through a compromise with IFRS to protect the interests of our exchanges, and I think that is a mistake.
Then again, maybe we don’t need the Europeans to mess up our accounting rules; we can do just fine ourselves.? Our accounting standards are a hodgepodge between amortized cost and fair value standards… we keep moving more and more toward fair value, but will the auditors be able to keep up?? Auditing amortized cost is one thing; there are different skills required when fungible but not liquid assets can be written up on a balance sheet. (Think about real estate or mortgage derivatives.)? Accounting will become less reliable in my opinion.
I wish we had a harder currency; why else do I buy foreign bonds?? Anyway, I appreciated this short partial monetary history of the US, from the Civil War onward, from Elaine Meinel Supkis.
When you can’t deliver the underlying, typically futures markets don’t work well.? It is no surprise then that a derivatives market on economic indicators closed.? Futures markets exist to allow commercial interests to hedge.? Where there is nothing to hedge, it is akin to mere betting, and without the extra thrill of a sports contest, that rarely attracts enough interest to be economic.? That said, aren’t the VIX futures and options contracts catching on?
Not sure what the second order effects will be here, but a rule is finally coming that will require the trade execution occur at the best price.? It will be extra work for the exchanges, but it will probably centralize exchanges in the intermediate term.? If you have to share data, why not merge?
One reason that Buffett was/is that best was his ability to learn from mistakes.? He kept his mistakes small and eventually found ways out of many of them.? US Air?? Salomon Brothers?? He eventually gets cashed out.? General Re?? The earnings from investing float bails him out. The “Shoe Group” and World Book?? Small, and you can’t win them all.
What do you do when the market has passed you by?? You got burned 2000-2002, and moved to a more conservative posture, only to find that the market ran like wild while you weren’t there.? What do you do now?? My advice: do half of what you would do if the market hadn’t run.? If you are at 20% equities, and you know that in normal times you should be at 60% equities, raise your investment level to 40% equities.? If the market rallies, you have more on, if it falls, you will have the chance to reinvest another 20% into equities at more attractive prices.
I usually agree with Eddy Elfenbein; he’s very common sense.? But here I do not.? Get me right here, Eddy is correct in all that he says.? I frame the problem differently.? You have someone sitting on cash, and the market has appreciated to where valuations are high-ish.? You can? 1) invest it all now, 2) dollar cost average, or 3) do nothing.? Eddy doesn’t consider that many will choose 3.? On average, 1 beats 2 by a small margin, but 2 beats 3 by a wide margin.? Dollar cost averaging is a way to get psychologically unprepared people into the market who would never risk putting it all in at once.? We use DCA to get inexperienced investors from a bad place to a “pretty good” place, because the best place is unimaginable to them.
Desalination is the wave of the future, even in the US.? Potable water is scarce globally (think of India and China), and the cost of potable water justifies the energy and other costs associated with desalination.? The article that I cited does not capture the environmental costs of desalination, in my opinion, but it gives a good taste of what the future will hold.

And, with that, that completes my tour of the periphery.? Next week, I hope to provide more color for you on our changing risk environment.

A Fundamental Approach to Technical Analysis

Posted on 13 July 200713 July 2007 by David Merkel

This was an article that I submitted to RealMoney, but was rejected because it was not relevant enough to “retail investors.” I offer it to you for your consideration. It was the follow-up piece to this article: The Long and Short of Trend Investing.

Throw in the Short Run

But now let?s move to the technicals of the situation. Given that I am a longer-term investor, this doesn?t play as great a role for me as other investors at RealMoney, but I don?t ignore it entirely. I simply view technicals through a fundamental framework. I have described this in the following articles, which still have value today, in my opinion:

1. Managing Liability Affects Stocks, Pt. 1

2. Separating Weak Holders From the Strong

3. Get to Know the Holders’ Hands, Part 1

4. Get to Know the Holders’ Hands, Part 2

(As an aside, I would simply say that technical analysis, as construed by most technicians, does not work on average. Most technicians die the ?death of a thousand cuts,? as they take multiple small losses. Successful technicians have something fundamental going on, whether they realize it or not.)

Institutional investors run most of the money in the market. Most of them have been trained to think in valuation terms exclusively, and so they set buy and sell prices for their positions. This influences even small investors, because of the impact of sell-side research. Almost every buy or sell recommendation comes with a price target. The sell side analysts often issue new buy or sell when a price target they have been looking for occurs.

But not every fundamental investor agrees on what the proper prices are for buying and selling. As the old saying goes, ?It takes two to make a market.? Sometimes, I will make it into the office and my trader will tell me that someone is aggressively selling a company that we own. I might ask him if our brokers have any feel for the size of the seller, and how desperate he is. The answer is usually ?no,? but if we do get an answer, that can help dictate our trading strategy. We would want to buy more as the big seller is closer to being done. In fact, we want to buy his last block of shares from him, if possible. Sometimes that can be arranged by talking to our broker; other times not.

As another aside, this is simpler to do in the bond market than the stock market. The large brokers generally know who is doing what. Be nice to your sales coverages, and you?d be amazed what they will tell you?. Here?s a stylized example.

Broker: ?You sure you want to buy that Washington Mutual bond??

Me: ?Yes, why??

Broker: ?Uh, there?s someone with size selling the name.?

Me: ?How much size??

Broker: ?Best indications are eight times your order size.?

Me: ?I can?t take that much down. Keep me in mind, and when he gets down to about double the size of my order, call me, and I?ll take the tail [everything that?s left].?

Broker: ?You got it.?

But suppose we don?t have any idea what the intentions of the seller are. We would have to be more humble, and try to infer from the chart what his methods are. Does he put a ceiling over the stock price, and only sell when it gets to a certain level? Or is he a ?mad bomber? that keeps selling regardless of the price level? Looking down the holders list, can I figure out anyone who might be incented to sell so much, and so aggressively? Who is disappointed at present that has a trading style like the group that is selling the stock?

Does he sell in dribs and drabs, scaling over time? Does he do a series of block trades? Is he using some sort of quantitative selling strategy that incorporates both time and price? These are the questions that I try to answer as I strategize my trading. It doesn?t give me perfect information, but it aids me at the margins.

So, say after your analysis of the technicals, you think the stock will continue to go down for a while, or won?t rise because the seller is big, seemingly larger than you can take down. Still, you like the company at the present valuation levels. What do you do?

You could sit on your hands, and wait out the seller. But what if you?re wrong about the size of the seller? The stock could move higher before you get a position on if the seller is smaller than you anticipated. Remember, other traders are watching the big seller also, and they will be waiting for him to be done as well.

You also could buy your full position immediately. After all, you have firm convictions about the secular trends and the stock?s valuation. Timing is for losers, and we are fundamental investors. Well, okay, but what if you are wrong, and the seller is right? Or, what if you like the idea here for the long run, but you would buy even more at lower prices? As Bill Miller has put it, ?Lowest average cost wins.?

Again, we could put on half the position and wait for the seller to be done. I like that, but are there alternatives? We could estimate the size of the seller (imperfectly), try to figure out how long he will be around and do a time-based scale where we put on 80-90% of a full position over that estimated time period. We also could do a price-based scale, and try to estimate (even more imperfectly) how much the seller will drive down the price before he is done. Buy 25% of a full position now, and then scale the remainder of what would be 80-90% of a full position down at the price you the seller gets exhausted at.

These strategies are illustrative, and meant to show the range of ways that one can balance off fundamental conviction versus the technicals of the market. In general, price scales work better when you think the seller is valuation sensitive, or other buyers are showing up in size to gobble up the seller?s supply at a given level. In the absence of that, time-based scales are the proper strategy if you have some confidence in the timing of the seller. Failing all of that, my humble strategy is to buy half and wait. It will never be perfect, but if I am right on the fundamentals, the results will be good enough.

The “Fed Model”

Posted on 9 July 200720 June 2017 by David Merkel

Recently there has been a discussion of the so-called ?Fed Model,? with some questioning the validity of model, and others affirming it. Even the venerable John Hussman has commented on models akin to the Fed Model that he dislikes. This piece aims at taking a middle view of the debate, and explain where the Fed Model has validity, and where it does not.

What is the Fed Model?

The Fed Model is a reasonable but imperfect means of comparing the desirability of investing in stocks versus bonds. It can be considered a huge simplification of the dividend discount model, applied to the market as a whole, rather than an individual stock. The dividend discount model states that the value of the stock is equal to the future stream of dividends discounted at the corporation?s cost of equity capital.

What simplifying assumptions get applied to the dividend discount model to create the Fed Model?

The market as a whole is considered rather than individual stocks.
A constant ratio of earnings is paid out as dividends.
The growth rate of earnings is made constant.
A Treasury yield (or high/moderate quality corporate bond yield) is substituted for the cost of equity capital.
Instead of following a strict discounting method, the equation is rearranged to make an explicit comparison between bond yields and equity yields.

Assuming that the dividend discount model is valid, or at least approximately so, what do these simplifying assumptions do to the accuracy of valuing the market as a whole? The first assumption is more procedural in nature, and does no major harm. The fifth assumption simply reorganizes the equation, and doesn?t affect the outcome, but only the presentation. The real changes come from assumptions 2-4.

Dividends are more stable than earnings, so the payout ratio certainly varies over time. Additionally, corporations have shown less willingness to pay dividends, and investors have shown less inclination to demand dividends, to the payout ratio today is roughly half of what it was in the early 60s.

Earnings don?t grow at a constant rate, either. Over the last 53 years, earnings have grown at a 6.7% rate, but that has included times of shrinkage, and boom times as well.

As for the cost of capital to a corporation, I believe that the Capital Asset Pricing Model is genuinely wrong, and I refer you to Roll?s famous critique for what should have been its burial. Academics need risk to be something simple though, with risk being the same for all investors (not true), so that they can easily calculate their models, and publish. The CAPM provides useful, if mistaken, simplification to financial economists. It is not going away anytime soon.

One day I will write an article to explain my cost of equity capital methods in more depth, which derive corporate bonds and option pricing theory. In basic, for any corporation, the basic idea is to compare the riskiness of the equity to that of a bond. Look at the yield on juniormost debt security of the firm, the cost of equity is higher than that. Examine the implied volatility [IV] on the longest dated at the money options for the firm. How do those implied volatilities compare with other firms? In general the higher the IV, the higher the cost of equity capital.

Practically, when looking at the capital structure of the firms in the S&P 500, I think that the yield on a BBB bond plus a spread could be a good proxy for the weighted average cost of capital for the firms as a group. I?ll get to what that spread might be in a bit. We have BBB yield series going back a long way. Equity risk for the S&P 500 (a high credit quality group) is probably akin to the risk of owning weak BB or strong single-B bonds on average. (My rule of thumb for cost of equity capital in an individual corporation is take the juniormost debt yield and add 3%. For those with access to RealMoney, I have written more on this here.)

To summarize then: there?s not much I can do about assumptions 2 and 3. The only thing I might say is that earnings are a better proxy for value creation than dividends, and that expectations for longer-term earnings growth do not change nearly as much as actual earnings growth does. On assumption 4, a BBB bond yield plus a spread will be a reasonable, though not perfectly accurate proxy for the cost of equity. My view is that spread should be between 2.5%-3.0%.

The Results

With that, the ?Fed Model? boils down to a comparison of BBB bond yields less a spread versus earnings yields. Wait, ?less? a spread? Didn?t I say ?plus? above?

Let?s consider how a stock differs from a bond. With a bond, all that you can hope to get is your principal and interest paid on a timely basis. With equity, particularly in a diversified portfolio, one can expect over the long term growth in the value of the business from a growing dividend stream, and reinvestment of retained earnings. As I mentioned above, that has averaged 6.7%/year earnings growth over the past 53 years.

If I were trying to balance the yield needed from bonds to compete with equities, it would look like this, then:

Earnings Yield + 6.7% = BBB bond yield plus 2.5-3.0%

Or,

Earnings Yield = BBB bond yield – 4% (or so)

Here is how earnings yields and BBB bond yields have compared over the years.

Thus my criteria for investing would be under the ?Fed Model,? when the earnings yield is more than 4% less than the BBB bond yield, invest in bonds. Otherwise, invest in stocks. Following this method, how would a portfolio have done since 1954?

Wow. Pretty good rule, in hindsight. Is the spread of 4% the best spread for simulation purposes?

Pretty close. The optimum value is 3.9%. This chart uses an actuarial smoothing method to give a fairer view of noisy historical results. (Life actuaries use this smoothing method in cash flow testing to calculate required capital, because sometimes small changes in spread produce large differences in the results for a particular scenario.)

The strategy produces a return roughly 2.0%/year higher than investing in stocks only, with a standard deviation roughly 1.5%/year lower. At least in a backtest, my version of the ?Fed Model? works.

Limitations

Okay, given the above, I endorse my version of the ?Fed Model? as being useful, but with five caveats:

The first thing to remember is that the ?Fed Model? doesn?t tell you whether stocks are absolutely cheap, but whether they are cheap versus bonds. There may be other more desirable asset classes to choose from: cash, commodities, international bonds or equities, etc.

The second thing to remember is that when interest rates get low, yields do not reflect the true riskiness of bonds ? a slightly superior model would be 107% of BBB yields less 4.7%. But that could just be an artifact of backtesting. To its credit though, the slightly superior model behaves the way that it should in theory, in term of how credit spreads move.

Number three, ideally, all models would not use trailing earnings yields, but expected earnings yields. That said, trailing yields are objective, and expected yields have often proiven wrong at turning points.

The fourth limitation: a high earnings yield might reflect low earnings quality or profit margins higher than sustainable. No doubt that is possible, and particularly in the current era. On the flip side, there may be times when a low earnings yield might reflect high earnings quality or profit margins lower than sustainable. A rule is a rule, and a model is only a model; they don?t reflect all aspects of reality, they are just tools to guide us.

What P/E ratio would the current BBB bond yield (6.74%) support? I am surprised to say that it would support a P/E in the high 30s; 39.8 for the simple model, and 35.2 for the ?slightly superior? one. With the current trailing P/E at 18.1, that would indicate that on an unadjusted basis, the market could be twice as high as it is presently.

That thought makes me queasy, but here three other ways to look at it:

How inflated are profit margins? If they are going to regress by less than half, then stocks are still a bargain.
Are bond yields/spreads too low? The recycling of the current account deficit into US debt instruments keeps yields low, and the speculation in the credit markets keeps spreads low. What should be the normalized BBB yield?
Will earnings growth slow beneath the 6.7% average? If so, the spread needs to come down.

Fifth, this is simply a backtest, albeit one that conforms to my theories. The future may not resemble the past.

Conclusion

My version of the Fed Model provides us with a way of comparing corporate bond yields with earnings yields, giving credit for growth that happens in capitalist economies that are free from war on their home soil. There are reasons to think that current profit margins are overstated, and perhaps that corporate bond yields will rise. All of that said, there is a large provision for adverse deviation in the present environment.

I would rather be a moderate bull on stocks versus bonds in this environment as a result. Don?t go hog wild, but current bond yields are no competition for stocks at present. If you think bond yields will normalize higher, perhaps cash is the place you would rather be for now.

Quantitative Analysis is not Trivial — The Case of PB-ROE

Posted on 6 July 200722 June 2017 by David Merkel

I debated on whether to post on this topic or not. I try to be a gentleman, so I don’t want to be too rough on those I criticize. Let me start out by saying that those I criticize have honorable intentions. They want to make investing simple for investors. Noble and laudable; the trouble comes when one over-simplifies, and errors get introduced as a result.

I am both a quantitative and a qualitative analyst, which makes me a little unusual. It also means that I am not as good as the best qualitative or quantitative analysts. To be the best, it takes dedication that would squeeze out spending too much time on the other skill. I have always tried to stay balanced, which helps me as a businessman, actuary and investor. Good problem solving requires looking at a problem from many angles, and then choosing the right analogy/tool to do the job.

One of my readers, Steve Milos, forwarded to me a piece from Merrill Lynch’s life insurance analyst suggesting that Price-to-Book — Return on Equity [PB-ROE] analyses were simply low P/E investing in disguise. I tossed back a comment “The Merrill analyst doesn’t understand what he is talking about. PB-ROE analyses are richer than low PE, though in a few environments, like the present, they are similar.”, prompting Steve to say, “LOL, I love that ? now tell me what you really think!”

I decided to let the matter drop until Zach Maxfield, one of the analysts from Bankstocks.com, posted a laudatory article on Ed Spehar’s piece. I didn’t learn what I am about to write in a day, so let me take you on a journey explaining how I came to learn that PB-ROE analyses are valuable.

Back in 1982, I was a graduate teaching assistant at UC-Davis. The professor that I worked for used regression analysis in financial analysis to try to separate out effects that might be more complex than current modeling would admit. I did not get a chance to use the idea though, until 1992, when I began value investing, after my Mom gave me a copy of Ben Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” As I began investing, I noted that some stocks seemed better valued using book, others by earnings, and some by other metrics. Initially I began doing rule-of-thumb tradeoffs like Price to (book plus 5 times earnings). Eventually I wondered whether I had the right tradeoff or not, and how I might work in other metrics like dividends, sales, cash from operations [CFO], and free cash flow [FCF].

I’m not sure when it hit me, but I decided to run a regression of price versus earnings, book, sales, FCF, and CFO. Reasoning that sectors have different economic models, I did separate runs by sector. Truly, I should have done it by industry, or subindustry, as I do it today, but my initial attempts still found promising inexpensive stocks.

It was not until 1998 that I ran into PB-ROE analysis for the first time. Morgan Stanley was marketing a derivative instrument that would reduce book, turn it into earnings, and reduce taxes at the same time. I became the external expert on that derivative instrument, while hating its sliminess. (The whole story is a hoot, but it would take too long, and isn’t relevant here. Suffice it to say that the EITF and the IRS killed it six months after the first transaction got done.)

For those who believed PB-ROE analysis, the derivative was a godsend — less book, more earnings. With my more general model, I said, “So what, give up book, get “earnings,” which come back to book value anyway. These are just accounting shenanigans.” I didn’t see the value of PB-ROE then.

By 2001, I was a corporate bond manager. The Society of Actuaries Investment Section recommended the book, “Investing by the Numbers” by Jarrod Wilcox. An excellent book, I learned a lot from it, and he explained the PB-ROE model to me for the first time. To the best of my knowledge, it is the only place where I have seen it explained.

Where does the PB-ROE model come from? It is a simplification of the dividend discount model. In 2004, I gave a talk to the Southeastern Actuaries Conference. The relevant pages are 5-11, where I go through an example of a PB-ROE analysis, and give the limitations of the analysis. There are several limitations, here they are:

Encourages maximization of ROE in the short run, rather than the long run
Revenue growth is often equated with earnings growth in practice
?Run rate earnings? is adjusted (operating) GAAP earnings, versus distributable earnings (free cash flow)
Implicit assumption of constant earnings growth, required return, and dividend policy in the Price to Book versus ROE metric
The model assumes that capital is the scarce resource needed to produce more earnings.
ROA is more critical than ROE; it?s harder to achieve. In bull markets, anyone can add leverage.

Items 4 & 5 are the only problems intrinsic to the PB-ROE model; the rest are problems with how the model gets abused by practitioners. I don’t think that any industry fits those conditions perfectly, but I usually think that the are good enough for a first pass, and after that I make adjustments for different expected growth rates, excess capital, earnings quality and more.

PB-ROE is equivalent to low P/E investing when the regression line comes close to going through the origin (0,0). From my experience, that rarely happens. For my nine insurance subgroups (bigger than Mr. Spehar’s analysis — I cover them all), almost all of the intercept terms are different than zero with statistical significance. Or, as a colleague of mine said to me recently, “Thanks for teaching me how to do PB-ROE analysis,it really helped with my analyses on Japanese banks and US investment banks.”

Now, there is a seventh problem with PB-ROE, but it is more complex. So you run he regression and get the tradeoff of P/B versus ROE that the market is currently pricing. Is that the right tradeoff in the intermediate term, or are investors overvaluing or undervaluing ROE? Hard to tell, but when the regression line is flat or downward sloping (it happens every now and then), one has to question whether the market’s judgment is right or not.

In some environments, PB-ROE and low P/E investing will be similar, but that will not always be true. Do not accept a false simplification, even though it may be true at present. The PB-ROE model is richer, and works in more environments, after adjusting for the limitations listed above. PB-ROE is a very useful tool, and not “gobbledygook.”

Reasons For Short-Term Optimism

Posted on 4 July 20075 July 2007 by David Merkel

Bond investors and value investors tend to be cautious in investing. It is possible to be too cautious, though, and so sometimes it pays to lay out the bull case. Indirectly, I learned this after several years of sitting next to the high yield manager at Dwight Asset Management (a very good firm that few know about). He wasn?t unconcerned about negative developments, but knew that fewer bad things happen than get talked about, and that they tend to take longer to happen than most imagine. He knew that he had to take some risks, because if you wait for the market to correct before you enter, you will miss profits while waiting, and the correction could be a long time in coming.

Also, I fondly remember our weekly economic conference calls in 2002, where the high yield manager and I would take the bull side in the discussions. For me it was fun, because it was so unlike me (I tend to be a bear), and it helped me to learn to balance the risks, and not be a perma-bull or a perma-bear.

So with that, here?s my quick list on what is going right in this environment:

Earnings yields are higher than bond yields, particularly among many investment grade companies, fostering buybacks and occasional LBOs. Profit margins may mean-revert eventually, but it might be a while for that to happen, given the global pressures that are keeping wage rates low.
The financing of the US current account deficit is still primarily being done through the purchase of US dollar denominated debt securities, keeping interest rates low in the US. This may shift if enough countries experience inflation from the buildup of US dollar reserves that they do not need, and allow their currencies to appreciate versus the US dollar. That hasn?t happened in size yet.
ECRI?s weekly leading index continues to make new highs.
Money supplies are growing rapidly around the world. Most of the paper is creating asset inflation, rather than goods inflation so far.
Bond yields have moderated since the yield peak in mid-June. Spreads on corporate investment grade debt have not widened much. Financing is cheap for the creditworthy.
Short sales are at a record at the NYSE. Part of that is just the influence of hedge funds.
Vulture investors have a lot of capital to deploy. Marginal assets are finding homes at prices that don?t involve too much of a haircut. (I?m not talking about subprime here.)
On a P/E basis, stocks are 45% cheaper than when the market peaked in March 2000.
Sell-side analysts are more bearish than they ever have been.
Investment grade companies still have a lot of cash sitting around. The washout from 2000-2002 made a lot of companies skittish, and led them to hold extra cash. Much of the cash has been deployed, but there is still more to go.
The FOMC is unlikely to tighten before it loosens.
Yield-seeking on the part of older investors is helping to keep interest rates low, and the prices of yield-sensitive stocks high.
DB Pension plans and endowments are still willing to make allocations to private equity.
The emerging markets countries are in aggregate in better fiscal shape than they ever have been.
Trade is now a global phenomenon, and not simply US/Europe/Japan-centric.
The current difficulties in subprime are likely to be localized in their effects, and a variety of hedge funds and fund-of-funds should get hit, but not do major damage to the financial system.

Now, behind each of these positives is a negative. (Every silver cloud has a dark lining?) What happens when these conditions shift? Profit margins fall, interest rates rise, inflation roars, risk appetites decrease, etc?

These are real risks, and I do not mean to minimize them. There are more risks as well that I haven?t mentioned. I continue to act as a nervous bull in this environment, making money where I can, and realizing that over a full cycle, my risk control disciplines will protect me in relative, but not absolute terms. So I play on, not knowing when a real disaster will strike.

Editing note — my apologies.? The second paragraph omitted the word “not” in the original publication.? What a word to omit, not. ??

Efficient Markets Versus Adaptive Markets

Posted on 2 July 200720 June 2017 by David Merkel

The Efficient Markets Hypothesis in its semi-strong form says that the current market price of an asset incorporates all available information about the security in question. Coming from a family where my Mom was a successful investor, I had an impossible time swallowing the EMH, except perhaps as a limiting concept — i.e., the markets tend to be that way, but never get there fully.

I’m a value investor, and generally, over the past fourteen years, my value investing has enabled me to earn superior returns than the indexes. A large part of that is being willing to run a portfolio that differs significantly from the indexes. Now, not everyone can do that; in aggregate, we all earn the market return, less fees. The market is definitely efficient for all of us as a group. But how can you explain persistently clever subgroups?

Behavioral finance has been the leading challenger to the efficient markets hypothesis, but the academics reply that behavioral anomalies are not an integrated theory that can explain everything, like the EMH, and its offspring like mean variance analysis, the capital asset pricing model, and their cousins.

Though it is kind of a hodgepodge, the adaptive markets hypothesis offers an opportunity for behavioral finance to become an integrated theory. First, behavioral finance is a series of observations about how most investors systemically misinterpret investment data, allowing for value investors and momentum investors to make money, among others. The adaptive markets hypothesis says that all of the market inefficiencies exist in a tension with the efficient markets, and that market players make the market more efficient by looking for the inefficiencies, and profiting from them until they disappear, or atleast, until they get so small that it’s not worth the search costs any more.

Consider risk arbitrage strategies for a moment. Arbitrage strategies earned superior returns through 2001 or so, until a combination of deals falling through, and too much money chasing the space (powered by hedge fund of funds wanting smooth returns) made it less worthwhile to be a risk arb. It is like there were too many fishermen in that part of the investment ocean, and the fish were depleted. After years of poor returns money exited the space. Today with more deals to go around, and fewer players, risk arbitrage is attractive again. No good strategy is ever permanently out of favor; after a strategy is overplayed to where the prospects of the assets are overdiscounted, a period of underperformance ensues, and it gets exacerbated by money leaving the strategy. Eventually, enough money leaves the the strategy is attractive again, but market players are slow to react to that, becaue they have been burned recently.

Strategies go in and out of favor, competing for scarce above-market returns in much the same way that ordinary businesses try to achieve above market ROEs. Nothing works permanently in the short run, though as a friend of mine is prone to say, “There’s always a bull market somewhere.” Trouble is, it is often hard to find, so I stick with the one anomaly that usually works, the value anomaly, and augment it with sector rotation and the remainder of my eight rules.

Now, I’m not a funny guy, so my kids tell me, but I’ll try to end this piece with an illustration. Here goes:

Scene One — Efficient Markets Hypothesis

An economics professor and a grad student are walking along the sidewalk, and the grad student spots a twenty dollar bill on the sidewalk. He says, “Hey professor, look, a twenty dollar bill.” The professor says, “Nonsense. If there were a twenty dollar bill on the street, someone would have picked it up already.” They walk past, and a little kid walking behind them pockets the bill.
Scene Two — Adaptive Markets Hypothesis, Part 1
An economics professor and a grad student are walking along the sidewalk, and the grad student spots a twenty dollar bill on the sidewalk. He says, “Hey professor, look, a twenty dollar bill.” The professor says, “Really?” and stoops to look. A little kid walking behind them runs in front of them, grabs the bill and pockets it.

Scene Three — Adaptive Markets Hypothesis, Part 2
An economics professor and a grad student are walking along the sidewalk, and the grad student spots a twenty dollar bill on the sidewalk. He says quietly, “Tsst. Hey professor, look, a twenty dollar bill.” The professor says, “Really?” and stoops to look. He grabs the bill and pockets it. The little kid doesn’t notice.
Scene Four — Adaptive Markets Hypothesis, Part 3
An economics professor and a grad student are walking along the sidewalk, and the grad student spots a twenty dollar bill on the sidewalk. He grabs the bill and pockets it. No one is the wiser.
Scene Five — Adaptive Markets Hypothesis, Part 4
An economics professor and a grad student are walking along the sidewalk, and the grad student is looking for a twenty dollar bill lying around. There aren’t any, but in the process of looking, he misses the point that the professor was trying to teach him. The professor makes a mental note to not take him on as a TA for the next semester. The little kid looks for the twenty dollar bill as well, but as he listens to the professor drone on decides not to take economics when he gets older.

It was a Good Quarter; Also, my Favorite Managers

Posted on 30 June 200730 June 2007 by David Merkel

It’s good to be back home with my wife and kids. There truly is no place like home, particularly when things seem to be working well with my wife and kids.

Two quick notes, because I’m kind of tired:

I wondered at many points this quarter whether I would beat the S&P 500 or not. Not counting my unpaid dividends and interest, I can say that I was ahead by 110 basis points for the quarter, bringing the year-to-date figure to 590 basis points. I don’t expect to win every quarter, and not every year either, but the streak is at six years now, and I hope to prolong it. Let’s see how I do at the next portfolio reshaping, which should come this week.
One of my readers asked for my favorite mutual fund managers. Here they are: Marty Whitman at Third Avenue, Ron Muhlenkamp at the Muhlenkamp Fund, Don and Craig Hodges at the Hodges Fund, Ken Heebner at CGM, and Bob Rodriguez at FPA. (There are other value managers I like as well, Tweedy Browne, and Heartland Value, to name a few. I am a value guy, but I like rotating sectors.)

All of these managers are willing to look for cheap assets, and sectors that are undervalued. That’s what I do, and my record is comparable to theirs, though I run a lot less money.
Here’s to a great second half of the year. Let’s make some money together, or, at least not lose more than the market.