Category: Speculation

Why We <B src=

Why We Don’t Need the Fed

I agree with Daniel Indiviglio about half of the time; I think he is a bright guy, but I disagree with him over certain principles.? He recently wrote a piece called Why We Need the Fed.? I am here this evening to take the opposite side of the argument.

We need to divide the argument, because there are two things being argued about:

  • What do we use as a currency?? Should currency have intrinsic value (privately determined), or is it just a social convention, a forcible notional unit of account (legal tender)?? If it is notional, should we let a bunch of largely unaccountable bureaucrats manipulate its value, ostensibly for our good, but more often for the ends that the bureaucrats prize?
  • How do we regulate banks?? Credit policy is more important than monetary policy.? How does a free society rein in the ability of financial companies from making financial promises that average people don’t realize that they can’t keep.

The second question is more important, because that is what drives our credit booms and busts.? If banks did not engage in maturity transformation, borrowing short and lending long, we would have almost no banking crises.? Crises happen because there is a run on liquidity.? Banks rupture when they don’t have liquidity to pay depositors or repo lines.? Banks that are matched have the short-term assets to liquidate to repay exiting lenders/depositors.

The thing is, we have rarely regulated our banks well in US history, whether we have a central bank or not, and whether our currency is backed or not.? We allow for too much leverage, and too much asset-liability mismatch.

I can hear a banking executive say, “But if you do that, we won’t be able to earn decent returns.? Our ROEs will be in the single digits.”? To which I would say, “Yes, in the short run, until enough excess capacity in banking exits, and your ROE gets into the low single digits because pricing power improves.? This would parallel what happened to the life insurance business when it improved its risk management.”

Indiviglio cits four core functions of the Fed, from the Fed website:

1. Conducting the nation’s monetary policy by influencing the monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rate

2. Supervising and regulating banking institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation’s banking and financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers

3. Maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets

4. Providing financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions, including playing a major role in operating the nation’s payments system

Let me take them out of order.? On point 2, the Fed played a leading role in the various banking regulators not doing their jobs during the booms in the 1920s, late 80s, and 2000-2007.? As I argued in my piece Who Dares Oppose a Boom?, the incentives are wrong unless regulators are willing to be tough as nails, and stand in the way of a wave of liquidity-driven seeming-prosperity. And in times of moral laxity, like the 20s and the last 30 years, regulators go with the flow.

On point 3, the Fed added to systemic risk again and again 1984-2007 by always loosening rates to defuse the unwinding of some area of overleverage.? This gave the markets a sense of complacency, such that in the last wave of speculation, almost everything was overlevered.? The name for this was the “Greenspan Put;” if the Fed is always willing to provide more liquidity to financial players after a crisis, guess what?? The financial players will take advantage of that.

If I had the power to change the mandate of the Fed, I would change its mandate to restraining leverage in the economy.? Ignore price inflation and labor unemployment — there is little evidence that the Fed has much direct influence there.? Faster growth happens when leverage is low; more disasters happen when leverage is very high, like in the 20s and today.? Debt-based systems are inherently inflexible; equity based systems deal with volatility better, and force managers to seek out organic growth opportunities, as opposed to financial engineering.

Thus on point 1, because the Fed allowed a borrowing bubble to build up twice, in the 20s and today, they ended up poisoning labor employment, because in a period of debt deflation, few companies want to hire on net.? We would have been better off if the Fed had allowed prior minor crises (LDCs, Continental Illinois, Commercial Real Estate, RMBS, Mexico, 97 Asian Panic, LTCM, Tech Bubble) to break ugly, so that bad investments would be liquidated, and capital released to more profitable ventures.? Then the crises would not have grown, and there would have been sufficient fear in the markets to restrain undue speculation.

The bust phase of the credit cycle has to be given the opportunity to do its work, and deliver losses to speculators without the Fed interfering.? If so, there will be less of a tendency to make money through speculation, and more made through organic growth.

Finally, on point 4, you don’t need the Fed to provide those services.? The Treasury could do it itself, or, as in much of US history, it could contract with a private commercial bank to do it for them.? That’s not all that important of a reason for the Fed to exist anyway.

If Not the Fed, Then Whom?

Commodity standards have problems, but so does fiat money.? And the problems are two-sided.? Why should we favor debtors over savers, or vice-versa?? If we view it this way, there is no answer, it only becomes a question of what do we favor as policy?? Hard money and savers, or easy money and debtors?? Is it just a class war thing, because the wealthy have assets and the poor don’t?

Yes it is partly that, but the poor don’t benefit from instability, and instability flows from high overall debt levels, which stem from easy money.? My view is that everyone benefits in the long run from hard money, whether we have a currency board, a tight central bank following a Wicksellian mandate, or yes, a commodity standard.

The nice thing about any of the prior three, is that the currency becomes inelastic, a store of value, allowing for rational calculations by businessmen, allowing the economy to grow more rapidly in the long run, so long as we don’t let bank credit get out of control.

I agree with Indiviglio here — toughen bank regulation.? Whether we have a central bank or not is a lesser matter, but the current Fed has blown it royally, and is no example for what we should have for monetary policy.

Book Review: Inflated

Book Review: Inflated

This book was not what I expected.? I expected a book on the current crisis, and got a book on monetary/credit policy over the whole of the existence of the US.? What is more, unlike most books that cover a long sweep of history, this book is even, and does not overemphasize the recent past, which is a humble thing for an author to do, because we don’t know the full ramifications of recent actions yet.

Now, I respect the writings of Chris Whalen at Institutional Risk Analytics and elsewhere — a bright guy.? But this outperformed my high expectations.? Some books I glide through because I know the topic well.? This was a book where I thought I knew the topic well, but found that I did not know as much as I thought, and so I read more slowly than I usually do.

But this book changed my view on financial crises.? Whether one is under a gold standard or a fiat currency standard, the main order for assuring stability is the regulation of banks and credit.

In the same way that people need help in verifying whether a drug is effective or food is pure, they need to know that promises to pay will be honored.? It does not matter what backs the currency if banks are allowed to overlever, or mismatch assets long — there will be a financial panic, and it is not due to gold, silver, or fiat money necessarily, but that that banks made promises that could not be kept under all scenarios.

Yes, I think it is better to be under a gold standard, because it restricts the power of the government.? But that is not the main issue with financial crises; we need to restrict that ability of banks to borrow short and lend long; we also need to restrict their overall leverage.? Do that, and crises disappear — also, banks are far less profitable, and that is a good thing.? We will get fewer banks, and bright people will go to more useful places in the economy.

Other things that stood out to me were the First and Second National Banks of the US, and how their creation led to booms, and dissolution led to busts.? Lincoln is unique in every way, even in monetary policy terms, as he created unbacked paper money to fight the civil war, which funded a lot of it.? After the war, the return to the gold standard, much as it should have been done, was depressive, but it was an effect of paying off the war.

I came away from this book with a more balanced view of US politics — many of those I like came off worse, and those I did not like were shown to have been better than I thought — with the exception of Lincoln, who in hindsight seems to be a radical in most senses.? I am very glad that slavery is gone, but not the way that it got done.

Quibbles

Ignore Roubini’s introduction.? Better Whalen should have gotten a real intellect like James Grant or Caroline Baum.

Also, in the middle of the book, in WWII, the US spends far more than its GDP on the war.? I get it, but I think it would be more reasonable to classify defense spending inside GDP so that we can see what proportion of national output is going to the war effort.

Who would benefit from this book:

Anyone with a moderate intellect or better could learn from this balanced account of America’s monetary and credit policies.? It is very well written; those with little knowledge will learn much, but those with greater knowledge will still learn something.

If you want to, you can buy it here: Inflated: How Money and Debt Built the American Dream.

Full disclosure: This book was sent to me, because I asked for it.

If you enter Amazon through my site, and you buy anything, I get a small commission.? This is my main source of blog revenue.? I prefer this to a ?tip jar? because I want you to get something you want, rather than merely giving me a tip.? Book reviews take time, particularly with the reading, which most book reviewers don?t do in full, and I typically do. (When I don?t, I mention that I scanned the book.? Also, I never use the data that the PR flacks send out.)

Most people buying at Amazon do not enter via a referring website.? Thus Amazon builds an extra 1-3% into the prices to all buyers to compensate for the commissions given to the minority that come through referring sites.? Whether you buy at Amazon directly or enter via my site, your prices don?t change.

Incentives Matter, or, Why I Didn’t Set up as a Hedge Fund

Incentives Matter, or, Why I Didn’t Set up as a Hedge Fund

I didn’t set as a hedge fund for a reason.? First, I changed my mind from prior plans, and wanted to serve people below the top 1% of society, as well as those above, and institutions.? But there is another set of reasons that is more fundamental.

My view is that requiring a manager invest almost all of his spare assets in his strategies is a far more effective means of aligning interests than a performance fee, because it discourages taking undue risk.? It?s the same reason why Wall Street worked a lot better when the firms were all partnerships, and not offering performance incentives to employees.? I?m with Buffett on this one, which is why I set up my firm the way I did ? 80%+ of my liquid assets are in the strategy.? Buffett started with more of a hedge fund structure, and ended up running a corporation where most of his assets were invested.? That provides alignment of interests, while acting to limit the downside, which I think are the goals of most investors.

Beyond that, I think shorting is a difficult way to make money.? Double alpha sounds wonderful in theory, but is really difficult to do in practice.? Common risk control works for long investments — as investments rise, trimming them locks in gains and lowers risks.? As investments fall, their ability to hurt diminishes.? Downside is limited, and upside is unlimited.

With shorting, upside is limited and downside is unlimited.? I can’t tell you how frustrating it is in working for a hedge fund when a large short moves against you.? You might be right in the long run, but can you survive the short run?? As a short goes wrong its impact gets larger, versus when a short goes right, its impact diminishes.

This is why I think alpha-is-the-goal shorting is very difficult to do.? My suspicion is that the average hedge fund that tries it loses, which is why bear funds rarely attract assets, even over a decade as bad as the last one.? Also, hedge fund fee structures encourage undue risk taking.? I did not set up as a hedge fund partly out of my last hedge fund experience, where I saw that risk control is almost impossible to achieve on the short side in a concentrated portfolio.

Part of the problem rests in the concept of the? credit cycle.? The best time to be a short is when the negative phase of the credit cycle arrives.? Aside from that, you are wasting your time being a short.? But who can wait for that time?? The optimal portfolio would be long during the boom phase of the credit cycle, and short during the bust phase.? That is tough to do, but at least it helps to know what the goal should be.? For me as a long only manager, it means taking more risk when credit spreads are tightening, and less when they are falling apart.

I am not out to make a fortune for myself, just enough to support my family.? If more comes beyond that; that’s fine, but I am not aiming for that.? Money for me is not my main goal, rather, I will not be happy at all if my clients do not do well.? I abhor the idea of being a sponge off of the assets of others.? I want to earn my own way for clients.? Lord helping me, I will do that.

UPDATE: One more note.? I say “I eat my own cooking.”? Hedge funds might say (after the truth serum was administered): “We eat lots of our own cooking when we succeed, much less when we don’t.”

Incentives matter.? Do you want asymmetric (but still positive) goals for your managers, or do you want them to genuinely lose money if they fail?? The hedge fund structure offers a free-ish option to the managers — after all, much like mutual funds, they can start a new fund if the first one fails.? Eventually some fund will achieve a performance incentive.

Book Review: What Investors Really Want

Book Review: What Investors Really Want

Meir Statman wants to tell us about the human condition.? We make bad economic decisions regarding investments.? That comes mostly from having multiple desires regarding investing that are inconsistent.? What are our problems?

  • We look for free lunches.
  • We think he past is prologue.
  • We get hopeful.
  • We want to look like a winner for friends.
  • We follow the herd.
  • We are reckless with money not easily earned.
  • We save too little.
  • We want an option on riches, and a guarantee against poverty.
  • We are loss averse.
  • We are tax averse.
  • We want to be accepted into exclusive investments.
  • We want our investments to reflect our values.
  • We want fairness.
  • We want our progeny to thrive.
  • We don’t know what we are doing, can someone teach us?

The spirit of the book says to me that most people don’t have the vaguest idea on what to do with investments.? They invest for many reasons, many of which are not economic.

This is a reason why pension plans should strip the investment authority away from participants, and put it in the hands of trustees.? Face it, only 20% of people at most know how to invest.? Amateurs have a hard time? distinguishing between the long-run and the short-run.

My take is that one has to unemotional, Vulcan-like, in investing, in order to be successful.? Our feelings, whether of fear or greed, deceive us.? We must resist and suppress our feelings in order to be good investors.? And as for me, it took me 5-10 years to get there.? By the time I was done, I created a system that tied my hands when I would be tempted to make a rash decision.

Quibbles

Page 84 demonstrates how short-sighted people pay up for flexibility, paying credit card rates for extra cash. On pages 96-97, he managed to convince me by bad arguments that the old system of segregating capital and income is correct.? Truth, a market-base spend in rule would float with the 10-year Treasury yield, with adjustment for how optimistic we are about the stock market.? Unless the income taken from an endowment floats with the market, it is not possible to be fair across eras.

The book describes our problems in economic decision-making, but provides no cure.? The last chapter tries to make up for it, by suggesting that an intelligent mix of paternalism and libertarianism would be the best solution.

Yes, that would be the best solution, but the devil is in the details, and the author spells out few of them.

Who would benefit from this book:

Anyone wanting to understand why he makes bad economic decisions would benefit from this book.? That would include most of us, and me.? As you read it, think of how you would change your behavior for your good.? Personally, I have designed my buying and selling methods in the stock market to avoid these troubles, but it means I have to have no emotions in the market, and that is tough to do.

If you want to, you can buy it here: What Investors Really Want.

Full disclosure: This book was sent to me, because I asked for it.

If you enter Amazon through my site, and you buy anything, I get a small commission.? This is my main source of blog revenue.? I prefer this to a ?tip jar? because I want you to get something you want, rather than merely giving me a tip.? Book reviews take time, particularly with the reading, which most book reviewers don?t do in full, and I typically do. (When I don?t, I mention that I scanned the book.? Also, I never use the data that the PR flacks send out.)

Most people buying at Amazon do not enter via a referring website.? Thus Amazon builds an extra 1-3% into the prices to all buyers to compensate for the commissions given to the minority that come through referring sites.? Whether you buy at Amazon directly or enter via my site, your prices don?t change.

Comment on: Was It All Just A Bad Dream? Or, Ten Lessons Not Learnt

Comment on: Was It All Just A Bad Dream? Or, Ten Lessons Not Learnt

I have the fun of speaking at the Burridge Center Conference at the University of Colorado at Boulder this week on Friday.? The CFA Society of Colorado is co-sponsoring it.? As a guide, they have asked my panel to comment on this piece? by James Montier of GMO: Was It All Just A Bad Dream? Or, Ten Lessons Not Learnt.? I’m going to comment on each of the ten questions, and show where I agree and disagree.

Lesson 1: Markets aren?t efficient.

“As I have observed previously, the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) is the financial equivalent of Monty Python?s Dead Parrot. No matter how many times you point out that it is dead, believers insist it is just resting.”

I partially disagree.? The EMH is valid as a limiting concept. The markets tend toward efficiency, but there are many disturbances in the market, and some of them are quite big.

The EMH properly understood only means that it is intensely difficult to beat the market, nothing more.? Market prices reveal the current expectations of the market as a knife edge — sharp but thin.? They might be the best estimate of values for the moment, but offer no infallible guide to the future. The crisis tells us nothing about the EMH.

Lesson 2: Relative performance is a dangerous game.

Definitely true.? Those chasing relative performance tend to destabilize markets to the degree that their time horizons are short.? Focusing on short term relative performance leads to an over-emphasis on momentum, and when too many focus on momentum, the markets tend to go nuts — overshooting and falling dramatically, until enough momentum players exit.

Lesson 3: The time is never different.

It’s never different, or it’s always different — which one you choose is a matter of semantics.? The main thing to remember is that human nature never changes.? In aggregate, we don’t learn from market behavior.? We follow trends — we arrive late to the party, and leave the hangover near the nadir.

Most professionals and nonprofessionals tend to chase performance — see lesson 2.? That is a large part of the boom-bust cycle, which no amount of government intervention can repeal.

Here’s some advice: read books on economic history, and avoid current books on how to beat the market.? Learning economic history will help inoculate an investor against greed and panic, and will help the investor understand the guts of the speculation cycle.

Lesson 4: Valuation matters.

You bet it matters.? Excellent long term results stem from buying cheap, among other factors, like margin of safety, earnings quality, and having a sense of the credit cycle, and industry pricing cycles.

Bubble language such as “This time is different,” often appears near the end of booms.? The truth is: it’s never different, or, it’s always different.? Human nature in individual and aggregate, does not change.? Watching valuation is a major way of avoiding getting whipped at extremes, and encourages willingness to invest in the depths of panic.

Lesson 5: Wait for the fat pitch

Also agreed.? One thing that I have focused on in my money management ideas, is to avoid thinking short-term.? There are too many hedge funds, day traders, swing traders, and high-frequency traders out there for me to compete against.? Even mutual funds turn over their positions too rapidly.

I aim to hold investments for three years, but I am not wedded to a time period.? If an investment still looks attractive after five years, compared to the other investments that I hold, I will keep it.? If I find a more? attractive investment than my median idea, I will buy it, and fund it with the proceeds from one of my investments scoring worse than my median idea.

Lesson 6: Sentiment Matters

Yes, sentiment matters, at least until too many people follow it.? I do this in an informal way by following the credit cycle — when risky yields are tight, only own safe stocks.? Volatile stocks rely on sentiment — it is almost a tautology.

Lesson 7: Leverage can’t make a bad investment good, but it can make a good investment bad!

Any investment can be overlevered, and die.? Think of Fannie and Freddie.? They ran on thin capital bases for years, thinking that they could never lose.? So long as housing prices continued to rise, they were right.? And for many, the idea of housing prices falling in aggregate was ridiculous.? Those who suggested that it would happen, like me, were roundly derided.

Yes, leverage can make a good investment bad.

Lesson 8: Over-quantification hides a real risk.

Just because you can quantify it does not mean you understand it.? The Society of Actuaries has a vapid motto quoting John Ruskin: The work of science is to substitute facts for appearances and demonstrations for impressions. Easy to say; hard to do.? Scientists are biased? like everyone else.

Mathematics applied to economics or finance serves to show where assumptions are inaccurate.? Mathematical risk controls are less important than changing the culture of a firm, and setting in place checks and balances.? Toss out VAR, and reduce incentives that would motivate people to take inordinate risks — instead, hire idealists that love the work because they would do it even if they weren’t paid.? That’s how I feel about investing; I just love the game, and wouldn’t want to do anything else.

Lesson 9: Macro matters.

Much as I admire Marty Whitman (and Peter Lynch), I am with Montier and Graham regarding the value of Macro.? Whitman, Pzena, Miller and some others rightfully got their heads handed to them when they neglected the key doctrine of value investing , which is “margin of safety.”? Most of my great mistakes have come from similar neglect.

Particularly when times are unusual, macro factors drive stocks.? But, how well can we predict that?? I’ve done okay over the years, but I am skeptical on being able to do that all of the time.

Lesson 10: Look for sources of cheap insurance.

Again, easy to say, hard to do.? I would like an infinite stream of patsies to soften the blow if I make bad decisions.? In the middle of the 2000s, I felt that shorting credit was nearly a free option, but will there always be bulls making stupid decisions during the bull phase of the market?

On second thought, yes, that should always be true, so where you find cheap insurance, like CDS 2003-2007, buy it.

-==–==-=-=-=-=–=-==-=–==-=-=-

So, after all that, aside from point one, I agree with Montier almost entirely.? What a great article he wrote, and what a great article to stimulate the panel that I am on.

Book Review: Risk and the Smart Investor

Book Review: Risk and the Smart Investor

Risk and the Smart Investor

Not every book grabs me at first.? “Risk and the Smart Investor” was one such book.? But it grew on me.? Having been through many exercises in risk control inside insurance companies, I can sympathize with the much more complex job that it is to control risk inside investment banks.

I was fascinated with the structure of the book, which I found tedious and hokey at first, but I grew to like the intriguing and novel approach.? The author introduced the topic through his experience, then explained the theory, then showed how neglect of it led to failure, and then gave stories of Max and Rob, two very different men whose lives illustrated risk management, and the lack thereof.

Risk control has to be realistic.? You can’t eliminate all risks.? You shouldn’t even want to eliminate all risks.? Anyone who tries to eliminate all risk will end up killing the profitability the business.? As that great moral philosopher James Tiberius Kirk once said, “Risk is our business.”? (For the jobs were I was explicitly a risk manager, I kept that quote on my wall.)

I am going to touch on the themes of the book as I understand them.? In order to control risk, one must first be able to control himself.? Without self-control, there is no risk control.? That process requires humility.? Almost every action of risk control involves limiting the behavior of those that have the power to commit money for investment or to sell assets to raise cash.

Part of that comes down to understanding what are reasonable goals, and what aren’t.? Nothing grows without limit.? Almost every business has a maximum growth rate, which if exceeded materially raises the probability of insolvency.? This is true for individuals as well.? Peter Drucker once said something like, “Jobs should be big enough to be challenging, but not so big that they require superhuman effort.”? In the same way, efforts to grow your personal assets too quickly will lead to decisions with a high probability of large losses.

For risk control the context of large firm, the critical question is cultural issues.? That involves instilling the idea of risk control in every person if the firm ? making it a part of the firm DNA.? It must extend to the very pinnacle of management, and not let it be seen as something that is a tradable issue.? It is similar to the idea of a reputation.? You only get one reputation.? Your reputation is your brand.? If your reputation is harmed or destroyed, rebuilding it is desperately tough.? Granted, America is the land of unlimited second chances, but rebuilding is still tough.

We can diversify lines of business.? We can diversify assets.? We can diversify funding sources.? We can’t diversify our reputation.? We only have one reputation.? It is as one of my favorite bosses of the past said, “I’m willing to take lots of moderate risks, but not willing to take an action that has a material probability of destroying the firm.”? This is just another way to say that there are things that can be diversified and things that can’t.

Corporate culture cannot be diversified; it flows from the top and affects all employees.? Good risk control cultures inculcate checks and balances.? They make sure that no one has too much power, such that the work cannot be checked.? They insist on transparency within the firm and transparency outside to the degree that it facilitates business and satisfies regulators.

Such a corporate culture monitors continuously the factors that affect profitability future risks.? It also learns from mistakes, but keeps the risks small early in the process so that learning from mistakes is not an expensive and surprising endeavor.

The structure of the book contrasts financial risks and life risks through the lives of Rob and Max.? They are two very different people, one of whom is careful about risk, and one of whom ignores risk.? Just as we have seen firms that were careful about risk, during the present crisis, and firms that ignored risks, so we have seen the same in ourselves and our friends.? The stories of Rob and Max on the risks that we go through life and the risk that we go through markets.? In my opinion it richens the book a great deal.

Risk is inherent to life.? And, the ultimate risk is death.? You can’t diversify death.? You can’t pay a certain spread over LIBOR in order to engage to death swap on your own life.? The most you can do is build something that may last for some small to moderate amount of time after your death.? Even the great Warren Buffett is trying to do something like this, as I explained in my piece Moat, Float, Growth.

Quibbles

None.? It’s a really good book; very well-thought out.

Who would benefit from this book:

This book would benefit anybody who deals with the question of risk, whether personally or corporately, and that means all of us.? Not only do you get a lucid perspective on the causes of the financial crisis, but you get to see firsthand how corporations deliberately the word sound risk management principles in order to make money in the short term.

The reader also gains perspective on how to deal with risk in his or her own life.? Will you go the way of Rob, or will you go the way of Max?? Or, as most of us, will you do little of both?

I read lots of books on asset allocation, but relatively few books on risk control, because few accessible books get written on that topic.? This in my opinion was a very good book on risk control.? It has my highest recommendation.

If you want to, you can buy it here: Risk and the Smart Investor.

Full disclosure: I was asked if I would review a copy of the book.? It sounded interesting, so I said I would consider it; I was e-mailed an advance copy of the book.

If you enter Amazon through my site, and you buy anything, I get a small commission.? This is my main source of blog revenue.? I prefer this to a ?tip jar? because I want you to get something you want, rather than merely giving me a tip.? Book reviews take time, particularly with the reading, which most book reviewers don?t do in full, and I typically do. (When I don?t, I mention that I scanned the book.? Also, I never use the data that the PR flacks send out.)

Most people buying at Amazon do not enter via a referring website.? Thus Amazon builds an extra 1-3% into the prices to all buyers to compensate for the commissions given to the minority that come through referring sites.? Whether you buy at Amazon directly or enter via my site, your prices don?t change.

Twenty Answers from the Author of Risk and the Smart Investor

Twenty Answers from the Author of Risk and the Smart Investor

A little bit ago, I published Twenty Questions for the Author of Risk and the Smart Investor.? Well, David X. Martin got back to me, and here are his thoughtful answers.? I will have more commentary on this as I write the book review, which I am doing immediately after posting this.

1. Q: Imagine you are talking to a bright 12-year old girl.? How would you explain to her why and how the financial crisis happened?

A: Think of what happens when you blow up a balloon. First it expands, but eventually, if you continue to add more and more air, it bursts. The air going into the balloon in the years leading up to the recent financial crisis was either ?borrowed? air, that is air that was bought on credit, or air that was highly leveraged. In other words, only a small part of the air was paid for, and the rest was borrowed. And when the balloon burst most of those that had borrowed air, or had lent air to others, were left with nothing.

2. Q: I was fascinated with the structure of your book, which I found tedious and hokey at first, but I grew to like it.? The way I see it, you introduce the topic through your experience, then explain the theory, then show neglect of it led to failure, and then you give us the stories of Max and Rob.? How did you hit upon this intriguing and novel way to write your book?

A: I first thought about the decision process, and described the continuous process of risk management in relatively simple steps?i.e., assessment (know where you are and what you do not know); rules of the game (know your risk appetite, transparency, diversification, checks and balances); decision-making (alternatives, responsibilities, reputation and time frame); and finally, reevaluation (monitor and learn from your mistakes ). My goal was not to write a “how to book” but rather to help readers build frameworks?to make good decisions, and it seemed it would be helpful, and entertaining, I hoped, to see the process in action through the fictional risk story.

3. Q: Why do you suppose so few people in risk management, and senior management at major financial firms, were unwilling to consider alternative views of the sustainability of the risks being taken as the risks got larger and larger relative to the equity of individual companies, the industry as a whole, and the economy as a whole?

A: People get lulled into seeing the world from a particular viewpoint, particularly if they have never been through the worse case scenario. I?ve been through many of them.

4. Q: As a risk manager, bosses would sometimes get frustrated with me when they wanted a simple answer to a complex question that had significant riskiness.?They did not like answers like, ?I don?t know, it could have six significant effects on our company.?? How can we convey the limits of our knowledge in a way that management can get the true uncertainty and riskiness of the environment that we work in?? How can we get management to consider scenarios that are reasonable, and could harm the company, but few others in similar situations are testing for?

A: Scenarios are a great way of thinking about the future in terms of the realm of possible outcomes. Thinking now about what you can/should be doing about those possible outcomes, is an excellent way to communicate risk potential to management. and engage their interest.

5. Q: In your experience, how good are the managements of financial companies at establishing their risk tolerances?? Better, how good are they at enforcing those limits, such that they are never exceeded?

A: Not very good. Businesses have strategies, strategies entail risks, and risks require capital. Very few companies take a holistic view of risk, capital, and strategy.

6. Q: How do you create a transparent risk culture in a firm?? How do you get resisters to go along, even if it is management that does not see the full importance of the concept?

A: Cultures do not change rapidly, they migrate. Transparency starts at the top and it will never spread through a company if management doesn?t recognize its importance, and communicate its importance to everyone in the firm.

7. Q: Are most cases where a person or a company fails to diversify intentional or unintentional?? Do we put too many eggs in one basket more out of ignorance or greed?

A: Diversification is a strategy that requires discipline. Take the case where you start with a diversified portfolio, and then one position takes off and acquires a disproportionate weight in your portfolio. Regardless whether the cause is ignorance (you did not monitor your portfolio?s balance) or greed (you rode the stock up ), the root problem is a lack of discipline.

8. Q: Why do you suppose that checks and balances for risk management are not built into the cultures of many financial companies?

A: When does a problem exist? Even if it has always been there, it comes into existence only when you recognize that it is a problem. Many times checks and balances do not exist because no one recognizes the risk/problem and therefore no one evaluates the checks, and balances, and controls needed to manage it.

9. Q: I have a friend Pat Lewis who developed a risk management system for Bear that could have prevented the failure of the firm, but it was ignored because it got in the way of profit center manager goals.? Was it the same for you at Citigroup when your ?Windows on Risk? got tossed out the window?

A: See pages 124-5 in my book. You never have to ask a portfolio manager what he or she thinks, just look at their portfolio. When I found out Citibank was no longer using Windows on Risk I sold my entire position that day. I recall it was at $51.75.

10. Q: Can culture and personal judgment work in risk management ever?? Take Berkshire Hathaway ? risk control is embedded in the characters of a few people, notably Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger.?If the culture is really, really good, and it comes from the top, can risk management work when it is seemingly informal?? (Remember, you don?t want to disappoint Warren.)

A: Risk management is all about culture and personal judgment. I remember pondering the question, “How high is up” at a Windows on Risk meeting at Citibank. The most senior management were sitting around the table. We came to our answer by asking the following question: What was the amount of loss we would be embarrassed to read about in the WSJ? That number, it turned out, was not very high, at least in the judgment of the people sitting around that table. News of that decision got around and had an impact on the company culture.

11. Q: How can you teach younger people in risk management intuition about risk that helps them have a healthy skepticism for the results of impressive complex modeling?

A: I co-wrote an article with Mike Powers from the London School of Economics titled “The End of Enterprise Risk Management.? Models are just one input; they are not a substitute for good judgment.

12. Q: Is it possible to do effective risk management in a financial firm if management is less than wholeheartedly committed to the goal?

A: I forgot where I first heard the expression, but it explains my feelings. “A fish starts to stink from its head first.?

13. Q: Aside from AIG, and other financial insurers, the insurance industry came through the crisis better than the banks because they focused on longer-term stress tests, and not on short-term measures like VAR.? Should the banking industry imitate the insurance industry, and focus on longer-term measures of risk, or continue to rely on VAR?

A: VaR is one measure. It has deficiencies. For example, the loss amounts predicted in the tails (that is, the extreme cases) are the best case scenarios, not the worse case. Institutionalizing this one measure, or relying on the measurement of “risk based capital,” has not worked.

14. Q: Seemingly the big complex banks did not analyze their liquidity risk, particularly with repo lines.? Why did they miss such an obvious area of risk management?

A: Liquidity is a very difficult concept. If you decide to sell your house in the suburbs at 2AM in the morning and put a “for sale” sign on your lawn at that hour, how quickly do you think it will sell. Liquidity, therefore, has to be thought of in terms of time. If, for instance, you see high average daily volume in a stock what is your real liquidity if the volume is the result of a nano second of high speed trading?.

15. Q: How much can risk management be shaped in financial firms by the compensation incentives that employees and managers receive?

I saw Walter Wriston six months before he died. He asked me how things were going. I said, nothing wrong with risk as long as you manage it. He smiled at me from ear to ear because those were his words, from his book Risk and other Four Letter Words. I think it is all about matching responsibility and authority, having the right culture, learning from errors, and promoting ethics. Incentives are on the list, but not at the top.

16. Q: I have often turned down shady deals in business, saying that you only get one reputation in this world.? How do you encourage an attitude like this in financial firms among staff?

A: If you go to sleep in s–t, you will most likely wake up covered with flies. I would start with an ethics committee, and make sure the most important people in the firm were on it.

17. Q: A lot of portfolio management and risk management is juggling different time frames.? Is there a good structure for balancing the demands of the short-, intermediate-, and long-terms?

A: A poor investment decision is still the same poor investment decision irrespective of the time frame. If you always try to do the right thing, time frames become less important.

I am not saying to forget about the timeframe, just that you shouldn?t let it lead you to a poor decision.

18. Q: Most developed country economic players assume that wars will have no impact on their portfolios.? Same for famine, plague, or environmental degradation.? What can you do to get investors to think about the broader risks that could materially harm their well-being?

A: Great question, but this one is outside my realm of expertise.

19. Q: Are Rob?s more common in the world than Max?s? That?s my experience; what do you think?

A: I purposely made Rob and Max pretty different in order to illustrate the principles in the book. I think we are all human and have a little bit of each.

20. Q: At the end of your book, one of your friends dies.? Did you mean to teach us that even if we manage our risks right, we still can?t overcome problems beyond our scope, or were you trying to say something else, like creating a system or family that can perform well after you die?

A: My first draft of the book began with what is now the concluding chapter?the one in which I discuss the courage necessary to face death. The developmental editor at McGraw-Hill, of course, didn?t like it up front, so I moved it to the end, where I wrote: ?It is at that moment, when death is imminent, and there is no possibility of escape, that courage comes into the picture.?

My view is that this mindset can be useful long before we consider our mortality, by helping us understand that there are realities that must be faced and not avoided. In investing as in life, long term success results from thoughtful, timely preparation. Or in other words, the best decisions are made before we are forced to make them. The best decisions are made before certain inevitabilities, so long on the horizon, appear unexpectedly in front of us, and we no longer have the time to consider the alternatives; when we can still calmly and intelligently assess our circumstances, consider alternatives, and make informed decisions, monitoring the results as we go.

This is what I refer to as ?de-risking,? and although the principles set out here are drawn from my experience as a risk manager at a number of leading investment firms, they apply not only to financial matters, but to almost every decision you?ll make over the course of your life.

So to my way of thinking, ?when lightning strikes–the processes that you have put in place make courage less necessary. Put another way, if you embrace risk by following an orderly process you will have constructed a framework that will help you make the right decisions

Book Review: The Club No One Wanted To Join

Book Review: The Club No One Wanted To Join

When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.? Over two dozen people that survived losing a lot of their money in the Madoff Ponzi scheme wrote down their stories.? For one thing, I’m sure it was cathartic to do so.? Something that many regarded as being one of the most dependable parts of their lives ended up proving utterly undependable.

Out of loss, many of the writers rediscovered the simpler joys of life — family and friends.? Even new friends, as many of them banded together to figure out which end was up.

The tales that the authors tell are not identical, but they certainly rhymed.? Here would be my stylized example of the outline of one of their stories:

  • Growing up in a lower-to-middle class family
  • Being taught to work hard and be frugal
  • Achieved some degree of success
  • Was not sure what to do as the excess assets grew
  • A family member or friend introduced me to Madoff
  • Looked like a smart deal; Madoff always seemed to do well, so the person put most to all of his investable assets there.
  • Sometimes even borrowed money rather than tap the Madoff funds.
  • Life was good; he was charitable, enjoyed life, was generous with friends.
  • The shock came that Madoff was a fraud, a Ponzi scheme.
  • Adding insult to injury, learned that the SIPC would not pay off much at all of the losses, seemingly contrary to their prior actions in other cases.
  • The best option for many was to file as a total loss, and recover back taxes.
  • Retirement dreams turned back to work, and who would hire an old person?
  • Friends and family often proved helpful, but it is hard to go from being a giver to being dependent.

Personally I would like to meet most of these people, give them a hug, and affirm to them that true wealth isn’t money, but relationships.? Poor people are poor because they lack the connections the they can trust, and have the power to help them.

Now, I don’t want to say they should not have seen this coming.? This blog is about risk control in investing.? Remember, you are your own best defender when it comes to investing, and saying “no” is almost always safer than saying “yes.”? Let me quote from a piece written near the time that Madoff was sent off to the pokey:

The sad aspect of plumbing for the financial markets today is that we are drawn to the front end of investing processes.? This man looks successful.? He has a great story; a way to make money that others do not know about.? There are documents showing his track record ? impressive, though he doesn?t solicit publicly; investing with him is a family affair.? Do you want to be part of the family and gain the benefits thereof?

There are questions to be asked, particularly of nonstandard ventures:

  • How are the returns earned?
  • Who checks the results?? (Auditing ? should not be a small firm.)
  • Who has custody of the assets?
  • Is the trustee a reputable third party?
  • Is liquidity proportionate to the asset class invested in?
  • Is this under US law?
  • Do the returns look too good to be true, either in absolute amount, or always positive with low volatility?
  • Is this marketed to everyone, or just a select few suckers?
  • Is the profit motive of the sponsor obvious and standard?
  • How are asset values calculated each accounting period?

Whether we are talking about Madoff, Stanford, or any of the other recent frauds, an attention to the details of how the financial plumbing works can pay off in terms of avoiding situations that are too good to be true.

You are ultimately responsible for losses that you receive.? Yes, no one can know everything, but if you don’t have any idea of how someone investing for you is making money, you probably should not invest with that person, because you are incapable of evaluating what they do in broad.

No one with a serious risk control discipline invested with Madoff or Stanford.? These are cases where paying a little for expert help would have paid off big.

Does that mean I look down on those that lost?? Not at all.? Most ordinary investors don’t have the vaguest idea what they are doing.? They are blessed because no one they knew would introduce them to Madoff.? For those that lost, I only have sorrow and pity.? I wish that you had friends and family that would have steered you better.? We all rely on friends, but there is still a danger in that reliance.

Quibbles

As I read more of the book, it felt like some of the authors had rehearsed story lines with each other.? Now, that is natural, because they talked with each other and planned strategy together regarding the SIPC and other hurdles.? So, I don’t begrudge that much.

What I do begrudge is the 8-page investment “analysis” at the end of the book that says that no one should have been suspicious of an 11%/year return, because equity funds from many major mutual fund companies earned 11%/year over the same period.? Total hooey.? Few would have invested with Madoff given the lack of disclosure had not the returns been so regular on a monthly basis.? The mutual funds had large runs up, and large drawdowns.? Investors, not savers, would buy such mutual funds.? The attraction of Madoff’s scam was that it was designed for savers, not investors.? No volatility, high returns, no worries.? Thus someone with the personality of a saver could put money there, and not worry, because Uncle Bernie was a genius who was taking care of them.

And indeed, Madoff took care of them, with malice.? The underfunded SIPC could do little to help, given the enormity of the fraud.

Who would benefit from this book

Anyone who wants to sympathize with and support those who lost to Madoff would benefit from this book.? It does a fairly complete job, and is not long at ~230 pages.? As I write this it is, out of stock at Amazon, but when available, you can buy it here: The Club No One Wanted To Join-Madoff Victims In Their Own Words Barnes & Noble does have copies.

Full disclosure: An author sent me a copy, after asking if I would like to receive a review copy.

If you enter Amazon through my site, and you buy anything, I get a small commission.? This is my main source of blog revenue.? I prefer this to a ?tip jar? because I want you to get something you want, rather than merely giving me a tip.? Book reviews take time, particularly with the reading, which most book reviewers don?t do in full, and I typically do. (When I don?t, I mention that I scanned the book.? Also, I never use the data that the PR flacks send out.)

Most people buying at Amazon do not enter via a referring website.? Thus Amazon builds an extra 1-3% into the prices to all buyers to compensate for the commissions given to the minority that come through referring sites.? Whether you buy at Amazon directly or enter via my site, your prices don?t change.

The Rules, Part XVIII

The Rules, Part XVIII

When rules become known and acted upon, the system changes to incorporate them, making them temporarily useless, until they are forgotten again.

When a single strategy becomes dominant, it can become temporarily self-reinforcing.? Eventually, it will become self-reinforcing on the negative side.

A healthy market ecology has multiple strategies that are working in separate areas at the same time.

I have been invited to speak twice in the next two months on the efficient markets hypothesis [EMH].? Once in Denver, once in NYC.? Fortunately for me, the folks in Denver are paying my way, and I will take a regional train to NYC and back.

I grew up on the idea that the EMH in its weak form was true, no doubt.? No one can make money looking at past price movements.? As for the semi-strong form of the EMH, which says that you can’t make money off of any past or present public data, I believed it with some reservations.? My mother was a self-taught investor who regularly beat the markets.? She used a discipline of half utilities (“they are my bonds”) and half “growth at a reasonable price” [GARP] stocks.? She is why I went to Johns Hopkins, rather than the University of Wisconsin.

The EMH in its strong form, that no one can make money off of insider information, was doubted by almost all.? Even today, we track insiders, and there is money to be made by following them.? Even following 13F filings of successful investors is profitable to many.

Yet, the EMH is compromised even in its weak form.? When one reads academic research on the markets, what is the most durable and powerful of all of the anomalies? Price momentum, which violates the weak EMH.? That said, a lot of economic actors know that price momentum works well, and so it gets used.? And overused.

Any strategy can be overused.? Before a strategy peaks, the overuse of a strategy makes the strategy work overly well, as prices for stocks are pushed above equilibrium levels through strategy momentum.

In the long run the stock market is a weighing machine, so the short-term overshoot will correct itself eventually.? But when too many follow momentum, the market goes wild.? Volatility rises; daily moves tend to be up or down a percent or more.? During such a period, price momentum stops working for a time, until enough abandon the strategy.

The same applies to longer term strategies, like value investing, or overweighting small companies, or overweighting companies with sound financials, or low price volatility, etc.? Any one of these can be pursued too much.? When any of them is pursued too much the stocks involved will overshoot and plunge.

There is no magic strategy that works all of the time.? Smart investors have to be aware of almost all of the strategies that exist in the market, and understand when they are underplayed (buy) and overplayed (sell).

Healthy markets have multiple strategies that work.? When the strategy becomes monoculture, e.g. tech stocks, then beware.? When there is only one road to wealth, the market is in a bad place, and smart investors will hold cash, or invest conservatively away from the one thing that is working now.? Broad leadership is needed in a true bull market.? When leadership thins to one idea, it is time to take profits.

Don’t confuse brilliance with a bull market.? Try to understand where you are in the cycle of your stock picking strategy.? It does not work all the time, so when things are at the best that you have seen, wait a bit, and then take two steps back.? When things are horrible, wait a while and redouble your efforts.

Factors in investment returns move in cycles. Be aware of where you are in the cycles, and maybe you can profit from them.

Dave, What Should I Do? (2)

Dave, What Should I Do? (2)

For what it is worth, I don’t encourage calling me “Dave.”? My wife, my pastor, and some close friends call me that.? I learned to love my given name when I became an adult — David is a wonderful name, and I am glad my parents gave me that name.? It is an informal age, with the benefits and problems thereof.

On with the scenarios:

4) I have had short jobs: helping a young man to decide whether to buy a house or not.? My counsel: not.? So far so good.? Helping an older lady figure a complex tax basis of stock her father left her inside a DRIP.? A pain but a finite process.

5) A friend my age (50s) who runs a successful business asked me for advice ten years ago.? My advice was don’t run with negative working capital; leave some margin for error.? It took him nine years to figure out that I was right, and the business suffered 3-4 near death experiences en route.? Now he is more profitable than ever, and was grateful for my advice.? As a shareholder, I am glad that he listened.

6) A younger friend (30s) who runs a successful small business who asks what he should do with his excess money.? I told him to put it in Vanguard’s Balanced Fund, or the STAR fund, if he really did not need it for his business.? But he is the sort that always wants to do the best, and feels mediocre results are laziness.? I have told him, focus on your business; it is what you are best at.? What you earn on spare cash balances, particularly in this low-return era, will not avail as much as you could by selling more, and providing good service.

7) A friend (50s) a few years older than me has been put to the test.? His employer has offered him a severance package if he leaves of a little more than one year’s income.? His pension, if taken today, will barely cover expenses, but is roughly equal to his salary.? He has no savings, and has helped put 3 of his 5 kids through college, with 2 to go.? I advise that he continues to work, and that he turn down the package, because it is unlikely that he could get work nearly as remunerative.? Risk: his company folds, and he loses the package.

8 ) A friend (50s) who has planned asks whether his plan is wise.? I told him that the asset allocator using DFA is pretty smart, and and the cost is reasonable.? Beating the S&P 500 over 9 years by 4%/year is hot stuff.? My only critique is that it is a 100% equities program, which is fine if you can live with that level of volatility.

9) My pastor came to me in 2007, asking whether he should still be in the money market fund for his defined contribution plan.? I had been waiting for this moment, because he was too cowardly in investing, but it was the wrong moment.? I told him to take the moderate allocation, because moderate and aggressive allocations do the same over time, but the moderate will let you sleep.? He came through 2008 like a trooper, with the losses, and bounced back in 2009.? The mix will do him well over the long run.

His case made me look over the denominational plan.? I concluded that the asset allocations were set one notch too high at each level… technically, the percentages allocated between risky and safe assets might be correct when thinking about lifespan, certainty of future earnings, but does not take into account the fear factor so well, i.e., people changing their strategy in the midst of panic, at the wrong moment.

So I let the pastors know that, and told them to shade their asset allocations to the conservative side last June.? It does not help that we are in a period of debt deflation, which will retard asset appreciation for some time.? It is harder for asset prices to rise, when the buying power from debt is diminishing.

And yet there are more who want my advice but haven’t sent me the documents yet… It reinforces to me that most don’t know what to do with excess money.

Perhaps that is a lesson — most people are technical specialists, and do their jobs well, but many are ill-adapted to managing their excess funds wisely.? Another reason to end Participant-directed defined contribution pension plans, and create trustee-directed plans, or even defined benefit plans.

Yes, this is a paternalistic view, and is at odds with my normal libertarian ways of thinking.? As policy goes, let people be free to have whatever savings/investment plan they like.? But if you care for those that you have some charge over, create a plan that takes the investing out of their hands.? Then make sure that it is prudently invested.

And in the end, remember, though it is almost always better to have more than less, invest in such a way that you, and those that rely on you will make it to your goal comfortably.? Just as valuable is the ability to sleep at night, and know that your plan has enough slack to enable you to take some hits, and come through fine.

Theme: Overlay by Kaira