Category: Structured Products and Derivatives

On Rising Rate Funds, or, Who Remembers ARM Funds in the Early ’90s?

On Rising Rate Funds, or, Who Remembers ARM Funds in the Early ’90s?

In the early 90s, there were not many investment actuaries. ?One of the Holy Grail ideas of the early-to-mid ’90s was creating floating rate funds with yield so that floating rate Guaranteed Investment Contracts could be profitably written. ?I chronicled my efforts there in this article.

One avenue that I went down and rejected was ARM [Adjustable Rate Mortgage] funds. ?There was a minor craze for them in the early-to-mid ’90s, and there were not enough ARMs issued to meet the demand for high floating rates. ?As such, the prices for blocks of ARMs rose above par, sometimes significantly.

One truism of buying mortgages at a premium in the ’90s was that the ability to refinance got sharper and sharper. ?Those willing to buy mortgage securities above par usually took losses as rates fell.

Thus when I read articles about rising rate ETFs, which either invest short-term, or short the bond market synthetically or actually, I think “we’ve been here before.” ?It is difficult to gain incremental yield on short duration instruments without taking on risks like:

  • Credit, including weak covenants
  • Structure (another form of credit & illiquidity)
  • Negative optionality

So be wary here. ?Pay more attention to the return of your principal than the return on the principal.

Best of the Aleph Blog, Part 23

Best of the Aleph Blog, Part 23

Before I start this evening, I would like to explain some of the reasons for these “Best of the Aleph Blog” articles. ?I write these no closer than one year after an article was written, so that I can have a more dispassionate assessment of how good they were. ?I write these for the following reasons:

  • Some people want a quick introduction to the way I think.
  • Some publishers on the web want additional copy, and I let them republish some of my best pieces.
  • One day I may bundle a bunch of them together, rewrite them to improve clarity, and integrate them to create a set of books on different topics.
  • One of my editors at RealMoney once shared with me that I was one of the few authors there whose articles got re-read, or read after a significant time had passed. ?This is meant to be mostly “timeless” stuff.
  • New readers might be interested in older stuff.
  • I enjoy re-reading my older pieces, and sometimes it stimulates updates, and new ideas.

Anyway, onto this issue of the “Best of the Aleph Blog.” ?These articles appeared between August 2012 and October 2012:

On Credit Scores

Why credit scores are important; make sure you guard yours.

Retail Investors and the Stock Market

On the pathologies of being an amateur investor when there are those who will take advantage of you, and you might sabotage yourself as well.

On the Poway School District

Goes through the details of how a school district outside San Diego mortgaged the future of the next generation who will live there, if any will live there.

Using Investment Advice, Part I

Using Investment Advice, Part II

Using Investment Advice, Part III

Using Investment Advice, Part IV

A series of articles inspired by what I wrote at RealMoney, encouraging people to be careful about listening to advice in the media on stocks, including those recommended by Cramer.

The Future Belongs to Those with Patience

On why patience and discipline are required for good investing.

What Caused the Crisis?

A retrospective, if somewhat controversial.

On the International Business Machines Industrial Average

Replace the DJIA with a new cap-weighted index of the 30 largest capitalization stocks.

How Warren Buffett is Different from Most Investors, Part 1

How Warren Buffett is Different from Most Investors, Part 2

You have to understand Buffett the businessman to understand Buffett the investor.

Volatility Analogy

How an interview I messed up led to an interesting way to explain volatility.

Spot the Gerrymander

Eventually we need to eliminate gerrymandering — hey, maybe we can do that at the future Constitutional Convention.

Reforming Public School Testing

Creating exams where you can’t study for the test; you can only study.

Carrying Capacity

Governments imagine that they can shape outcomes, and in the short-run, they can.? In the long-run, the real productivity of the economy matters, and only those that can make it without government help will make it.? Whatever government policy may try to achieve, eventually the economy reverts to what would happen naturally without incentives.? There is a natural carrying capacity for most activities, and efforts to change that usually fail.

Actuaries Versus Quants

On why Actuaries are much better than Quants

Neoclassical vs Austrian Economics

Applying math to economics has been a loser.? Who has a consistently good macroeconomic model?? No one that I know.? Estimates of future GDP growth and inflation are regularly wrong, and no one calls turning points well.

The Dilemma of Adding Yield

A quick summary of risk in bonds, and why additional yield is often not rewarded.

The Dilemma of Adding Yield, Redux

On working out the pricing between discount, premium, and par bonds.

Too Much Investment

Investment is a good thing, overinvestment is a bad thing.

Got Cash? (Part 2)

On Buffett and others carrying cash to give themselves flexibility.

Set it and Forget it

On what uneducated investors should do.

Forest Fires and Central Banking

Short piece pointing out that small crises are needed to prevent huge crises.

Match Assets and Liabilities

Total Return Versus Long Liabilities

Cash flow matching has often been sneered at as an investment policy. ?I explain why such a view is naive, not sophisticated, and definitely wrong.

The Rules, Part XXXIV

?Once something is used for hedging purposes, it becomes useless for predictive purposes.?

Why I LOVE Blogging

On the downsides of blogging, and why they aren’t so bad.

Higher Taxes, Inflation, Default (Choose One)

Coming to a country near you, and soon!

On the Virtue of Hard Questions for Young Analysts

How young analysts toughen up through hard competitions.

Dealing in Fractions of Sense

On how to reform High Frequency Trading

Yield is the Last Refuge of Scoundrels

Far from offering high price appreciation, it is far easier to cheat many people by offering a high yield, because average people look for ways to stretch their limited resources with a tight budget.

Book Review: Treasure Islands

Book Review: Treasure Islands

9780230341722

Tax havens exist to lower taxes and regulations on corporations and wealthy individuals. ?But doing this involves significant complicated legal and accounting work. ?The average person could not benefit because the fixed costs are high. ?You need to have a lot of assets to benefit from tax havens.

So why do the wealthy governments of the world tolerate tax havens? ?Why don’t they “use NATO to blockade these places, and tell them to end their tax-avoidance-facilitation policies, or else.” ?Sadly, the wealthy have disproportionate power over politicians, and the majority of politicians are wealthy. ?They like the system as it is. ?You can make the tax code as progressive as you like; you will not end up taxing the intelligent wealthy much more.

This book confronts transfer pricing, where profits get shifted to low-tax countries by clever accountants. ?Very difficult to police.

The is an amusing section in the middle of the book about the City of London Corporation, which has unique rights in the UK. ?It is the home of most financial activity n London, and is mostly unaccountable to the UK.

In general, I believe that taxation should be the same regardless of the structure of the entity being taxed, its location, etc. ?To that end, I think that corporations should be taxed on their global income as expressed to its owners. ?Or, don’t tax corporations, but make all taxation like limited partnerships, and tax the individuals that own them.

There are other possible solutions. ?There can be limits on corporate structure. ?Israel limits subsidiaries such that the depth from the holding company cannot exceed two. ?There could be consolidation and/or non-recognition of ?subsidiaries in tax havens.

Additional Resources

Longreads article

Book website?(those reading at Amazon, come to Aleph Blog to get links)

Quibbles

The book makes its last chapter about how tax havens helped cause the financial crisis, but it makes a very weak case. ?Individuals and Banks overlevered themselves as asset prices rose, creating a bubble — not much different than the 1920s. ?Tax havens played little role, even if they aided securitization in a few ways.

The book argues for capital controls, but those controls often create incentives for greater corruption.

My main problem with the book is that it does not offer any workable solutions to the problems. ?My secondary problem is that the problem is not so much with the tax havens, which we could easily marginalize, but with the politicians, who do not do the hard work of seeing that taxation takes place, regardless of the corporate form or location.

Who would benefit from this book:?You have to be willing to endure complex arguments to benefit from this book.? If you want to, you can buy it here:?Treasure Islands: Uncovering the Damage of Offshore Banking and Tax Havens.

Full disclosure: I borrowed it at my library.

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.

Classic: Know Your Debt Crises: This Too Shall Pass

Classic: Know Your Debt Crises: This Too Shall Pass

The following was published at RealMoney on August 6th, 2007:

Editor?s Summary

The illiquid debt instruments at the heart of the current crisis are subject to regime shifts.

  • ?We?re in a periodic repricing of illiquid debt instruments.
  • Look for the time when the bulk of the losses will be reconciled.
  • Stick with the companies that have strong balance sheets.

I appreciated Cramer’s piece Friday morning, which picks up on many themes that I have articulated for the last four years here on RealMoney.? Here are a few:

  • Hedge fund-of-funds demand smooth returns that are higher than that which a moderate quality short-term fixed-income fund can deliver.
  • This leads to the creation of hedge funds that seek yield through arbitrage strategies.
  • And the creation of hedge funds that seek yield through buying risky debts, unlevered.
  • And the creation of hedge funds that seek yield through buying less risky debts, levered.
  • And the creation of hedge funds that seek yield through buying risky debts, levered.

In the short run, yield-seeking strategies work.? If a lot of players pursue them, they work extra-well for a time, as late entrants to the trade push up the returns for early entrants, with greater demand for scarce, illiquid securities with extra yield.? Pricing grids are a necessity for such securities, because the individual securities don’t have liquid secondary markets.? The pressure of demand raises the value not only of the securities being bought, but also of those securities that are like them.? (Smart managers begin to exit then.)

I’ve been through regime shifts in the markets for collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), asset-backed securities (ABS), residential-backed securities (RMBS) and commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS).? Something shifts at the back of the chain that forces everything to reprice.? For example:

1989-1994: After the real estate boom of the mid-1980s, many banks, savings & loans and insurance companies get loose in their lending standards and real estate investment, leading to a crisis when rent growth can?t keep up with financing terms; defaults ensue, killing off a great number of S&Ls, some major insurance companies and a passel of medium and small banks.

Late 1991-early 1993: The adjustable-rate mortgage market, fueled by demand from ARM funds, overbids for ARMs in an effort to provide a high floating rate yield.? As the FOMC loosens monetary policy, higher than expected prepayments force losses onto the ARM funds

Late 1993-late 1994: The FOMC threatens to, and does, start raising interest rates, which throws the residential mortgage-backed market into crisis.

Mid-1998-mid-1999: Long Term Capital Management blows up, forcing all manner of exotic ABS, CMBS and RMBS into the market for bids.? The bids back up, until the entire market reprices and then tightens in the space of one year.

1998-1999: Home equity ABS blow up, as defaults threaten to, and then do, emerge at levels far higher than anticipated.? Almost no originators survive.

1999-2001: Cruddy high-yield bonds reveal their true value as defaults threaten to, and then do, emerge.

2002-2003: The manufactured-housing ABS market blows up, as originators don?t take initial losses but roll borrowers over into new loans that reduce payments and extend payment terms, technically keeping the loans current.? The system collapses when the buildup of bad debts and repossessed homes becomes too great to roll over.

(Of the existing large securitization markets, only the CMBS market so far has not faced a real crisis, partly due to the influence of the B-piece buyers cartel: six or so firms that buy the junk-rated debt of deals and enforce credit quality standards on the individual loans by kicking out poorly underwritten loans.? But who knows?? Even that could be overwhelmed under the right circumstances.)

In each of these situations, there was a boom-bust cycle.? The markets did not adjust slowly and evenly to changing conditions; the transitions between ?boom? pricing, and ?bust? pricing were swift.? This is the nature of markets, particularly when enough debt is employed to amplify the process.

There is no conspiracy necessary to make the shift happen (though often the media will make it seem like there was one); the bubble pops when the financing proves insufficient to carry the assets.? After the bubble pops, it becomes a question of what the underlying assets can be liquidated for, allocating losses mercilessly according to the loan documents and bankruptcy priority.

Today the crises are nonprime lending, leveraged buyouts and other high-yield debt and over-leverage in the CDO market.? These will get worked out, as all other crises do, handing losses to those who speculated unwisely and allowing those who financed properly to prosper on the other side of the crisis.

As you invest, look for the time when more than half of the losses will be reconciled.? That will be near the bottom for homebuilders and housing finance.

That time may not come for another two years or so, but there will be money to be made once the crisis is mostly reconciled.? Just stick with the companies that have strong balance sheets.

Thoughts on the Berkshire Hathaway Annual Letter & Report

Thoughts on the Berkshire Hathaway Annual Letter & Report

I’m going to try to take this topically. ?Here goes:

On Acquisitions

Buffett still has a strong desire for more acquisitions. ?After $18B to buy?52.6% of Heinz (counting in the low strike warrants), and all of NV Energy through MidAmerican, there were additional?bolt-on acquisitions $3.1B after additional payments of $3.5B to buy the rest of Marmon ?and Iscar. ?After all that, the cash level at BRK was virtually unchanged from the beginning of 2013.

He might like to own far more of Heinz in the future:

Though the Heinz acquisition has some similarities to a ?private equity? transaction, there is a crucial?difference: Berkshire never intends to sell a share of the company. What we would like, rather, is to buy?more, and that could happen: Certain 3G investors may sell some or all of their shares in the future, and?we might increase our ownership at such times. Berkshire and 3G could also decide at some point that it?would be mutually beneficial if we were to exchange some of our preferred for common shares (at an?equity valuation appropriate to the time).

And he might want to buy more utilities:

NV Energy, purchased for $5.6 billion by MidAmerican Energy, our utility subsidiary, supplies electricity?to about 88% of Nevada?s population. This acquisition fits nicely into our existing electric-utility?operation and offers many possibilities for large investments in renewable energy. NV Energy will not be?MidAmerican?s last major acquisition.

The Powerhouse Five

MidAmerican is one of our ?Powerhouse Five? ? a collection of large non-insurance businesses that, in aggregate, had a record $10.8 billion of pre-tax earnings in 2013, up $758 million from 2012. The other companies in this sainted group are BNSF, Iscar, Lubrizol and Marmon.

If you look at BRK earnings now, leaving aside derivatives, one-third of earnings come from insurance, and the rest stems from the industrial & utility enterprises. ?[Note: Buffett uses the word “sainted” which he used in the 1980s to describe a group of much smaller private companies that he owned in full then. ?He doesn’t mean holy, but leading and valuable. ?They are driving the economics of BRK.

None of the Powerhouse Five did badly in 2013, though Marmon was a little weak. ?It’s difficult to find any part of BRK that did badly in 2013. ?BNSF was particularly impressive, and I am glad that I thought it was a good move when Buffett bought it, because too many criticized it at the time.

As an aside, it’s interesting how much MidAmerican is pouring onto wind and solar power.

Debt

I’ve always thought Buffett was clever with debt issues. ?He never guarantees the debt when he takes over a company. ?He is willing to live with the complexity of subsidiary debt issues. ?But hear these quotations from the Annual Report:

  • Berkshire does not guarantee any debt or other borrowings of BNSF, MidAmerican or their subsidiaries.
  • BNSF?s borrowings are primarily unsecured.
  • All, or substantially all, of the assets of certain MidAmerican subsidiaries are, or may be, pledged or encumbered to support or otherwise secure the debt. These borrowing arrangements generally contain various covenants including, but not limited to, leverage ratios, interest coverage ratios and debt service coverage ratios.
  • The borrowings of BHFC, a wholly owned finance subsidiary of Berkshire, are fully and unconditionally guaranteed by Berkshire.?

Buffett only guarantees the debt of a small finance subsidiary, and nothing more. ?The rest of the debt is non-recourse to BRK, and so bondholders take their chances on a subsidiary failing.

Derivatives

Our credit default contracts generated pre-tax losses of $213 million in 2013, which was due to increases in estimated liabilities of a municipality issuer contract that relates to more than 500 municipal debt issues. Our credit default contract exposures associated with corporate issuers expired in December 2013. There were no losses paid in 2013. Our remaining credit default derivative contract exposures are currently limited to the municipality issuer contract.

The equity puts are way out of the money, and only municipal issues remain among his fixed income derivatives. ?BRK “made” $4B on the derivative positions in 2013, something that will be impossible to repeat.

Give Buffett credit, though, because he structured some clever trades that have made a lot of money. ?Value investing won vs option pricing. ?At present, the future performance of the derivatives is?close to immaterial, unless we have significant municipal defaults.

Insurance

A few qualitative notes: Buffett mentions that GEICO has passed Allstate to become #2 in Auto insurance. ?He later mentions State Farm (#1 in Auto, I think the first time he has mentioned it):

Unfortunately, the wish of all insurers to achieve this happy result creates intense competition, so vigorous?in most years that it causes the P/C industry as a whole to operate at a significant underwriting loss. This loss, in?effect, is what the industry pays to hold its float. For example, State Farm, by far the country?s largest insurer and a?well-managed company besides, incurred an underwriting loss in nine of the twelve years ending in 2012 (the latest year for which their financials are available, as I write this). Competitive dynamics almost guarantee that the?insurance industry ? despite the float income all companies enjoy ? will continue its dismal record of earning?subnormal returns as compared to other businesses.

But after mentioning State Farm’s abysmal underwriting, though Buffett doesn’t say it is such, he mentions how well BRK has done:

As noted in the first section of this report, we have now operated at an underwriting profit for eleven
consecutive years, our pre-tax gain for the period having totaled $22 billion. Looking ahead, I believe we will
continue to underwrite profitably in most years. Doing so is the daily focus of all of our insurance managers who
know that while float is valuable, it can be drowned by poor underwriting results.

BRK had a light year for catastrophes, which inflated their income somewhat. ?It also seems that they put the poor deal that they did with Swiss Re behind them.

Buffett also talked about the “float” growing — assets held for future payment where no interest has to be paid. ?It’s $70B+ now. ?More on that later.

Buffett also trumpeted a move into Specialty Insurance. ?He poached a team from AIG in 2013 to start this. ?Specialty Insurance means niche markets with very careful underwriting guidelines. ?I’m sure that Berkshire will do this well.

Finally, the insurers have good underwriting and reserving. ?BRK still has a underwriting profit over the past eleven years, and they continue to release reserves from prior year claims.

The Structure of Berkshire Hathaway [BRK]

Though insurance no longer provides the majority of income for BRK, it is crucial to BRK’s functioning. ?The insurance companies own almost of the industrial and utility enterprises. ?BRK has little?in fixed income and cash vs insurance reserves. ?Buffett says:

 

Payments of dividends by our insurance subsidiaries are restricted by insurance statutes and regulations. Without prior regulatory approval, our principal insurance subsidiaries may declare up to approximately $13 billion as ordinary dividends before the end of 2014.

 

There is a rule of thumb in P&C insurance. ?Claim reserves are funded by high quality bonds of equivalent length ?Unearned premiums are funded by short-term debt like commercial paper. ?Surplus funds are invested in risk assets, like equities.

With BRK, more is invested in risk assets than the rule of thumb would allow. ?I’m not sure how the Risk-based Capital formulas allow this. ?Other insurance companies can’t do this.

Notes

Buffett uses his private investments in?real estate investing to show the difference between private & public investing. ?This explains why we should be slow to trade. ?He also says:

Most investors, of course, have not made the study of business prospects a priority in their lives. If wise, they will conclude that they do not know enough about specific businesses to predict their future earning power.

And as such, an investor in that state of ignorance should index.

Other Notes

Those who want to ask questions at Buffett’s annual meeting should send questions to:?Carol Loomis, of Fortune, who may be e-mailed at cloomis@fortunemail.com; Becky?Quick, of CNBC, at BerkshireQuestions@cnbc.com; and Andrew Ross Sorkin, of The New York Times, at arsorkin@nytimes.com.

Some have complained about a lack of transparency at BRK, and I have to disagree. ?BRK is a collection of small and large businesses. ?The annual report adequately talks about all of BRK, but gives less time to smaller issues. ?BRK is the fifth largest company by market cap, and Buffett reveals more of his intentions then most CEOs.

I have more to say regarding Intrinsic Value & Compounding, but that will have to wait.

Full disclosure: Long BRK/B for myself and clients

On Emergent Phenomena

On Emergent Phenomena

How do you deal with a risk that has never been seen before?? I’m going to focus on financial risks here, but clever people can generalize to other classes of human risk, like war and terrorism.

By “emergent phenomena” I mean what happens when people act as a group pursuing the same strategy.? One person doing a given strategy means nothing.? But when millions do it, that can be significant.? Same for corporations, but the numbers are lower, because corporations are far bigger economically than the average household.

Here are some examples of emergent phenomena:

  • 1987 — Strategies for dynamic hedging became a large enough part of the market that the market became unstable, where parties would buy as the market rose, and sell as the market fell.
  • Tech stocks were the only place to be 1998-2000, until they weren’t 2000-2003.
  • Too much hedge fund money was playing the quantitative value plus momentum trade in 2007.? Many players borrowed money to goose returns in 2006-7.? It blew up in August 2007.
  • The fear of not getting “free money” caused many to overinvest in residential real estate 2004-7, until the free money was not only not free, but billing you for past indiscretions.
  • There was a frenzy among commercial real estate investor toward the end of the 1980s, which bid prices up amid more buying power from then-cheap commercial mortgage debt, leading to an overshoot, and fall in property value in the early 1990s.
  • In 2005, the CDO Correlation Trade led to a panic in the corporate bond market, and in auto stocks.
  • Into the late 1980s, Japanese households and some foreigners plowed progressively more liquid capital into the Japanese stock and warrant markets.? That was the peak, and few if any have made their money back.

Emergent phenomena stem from:

  • Many people and institutions doing the same thing at the same time.
  • Using debt to substitute for equity in a trade that has become a “sure thing.”
  • Multiple companies and industries pursuing the essentially same trade, but in different corners of the markets.? (Think of the real estate bubble.? There were so many different angles that the bulls played: mortgage insurance, financial guaranty, subprime loans and derivatives thereof, weakened lending standards on prime loans, etc.)
  • And it is more intense when economic agents borrow short-term to finance their efforts, because when things go wrong, the feedback loop is quick.

Everyone runs to the exits in a burning theater, and so, fewer get out amid the struggle, than if everyone patiently walked out.? In financial terms, this is why markets are more volatile than expected, particularly on the downside.? Too many people want to sell in a panic, after having pursued a well-known strategy that had been successful for quite a while.

But no tree grows to the sky.? The intelligent investor notes several things:

  • Where is the most new debt being applied, and to increasingly little effect?
  • What fad are players investing in, that you think can’t be maintained long-run?
  • What is happening that would not be happening if it were not for price momentum?
  • Where are players relying on price appreciation or else their levered positions will collapse?
  • Where is money being borrowed short-term to fund long-term assets?

People are prone to imitate past success, even when a rational person would conclude that it doesn’t make any sense to borrow money and buy an asset at a high price.? It’s easier to imitate than to think independently.

In the present market, I see large increases in government debt and student loans.? Beyond that, there is the income craze in investing.? Don’t look at the yield; look at the underlying business.

Be wary.? The stock market has run hard the last ~5 years, and I see valuation-sensitive investors retreating.? Even with bond rates low, that doesn’t mean stocks are better.

All for now.? Comments welcome.

 

Classic: The Fundamentals of Real Estate Market Tops

Classic: The Fundamentals of Real Estate Market Tops

I’ve mentioned before how all of my old articles at RealMoney were lost.? This was the draft version of Real Estate’s Top Looms published on 05/20/05.? I followed it up with? Housing Bubblettes, Redux on 10/27/05 and? September 2005 — The Residential Real Estate Inflection Point on 02/14/06.? Also, there was Wrecking Ball Looms for Big Housing Spec on 11/27/06, where I explained why it was likely that the subprime residential mortgage market was likely to blow up (can’t find the draft of that one).

But those links above no longer work — a real pity, and the one link below is corrected to point to the republished article at my blog.? Anyway, enjoy this if you want, because it outlines my thinking on how to recognize whether you are getting near the end of the bull phase of a market.

(Note: the italicized, indented portions, quote the original article The Fundamentals of Market Tops.? Much of what I write compares how residential real estate is similar to and different from stocks.)

-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=–=

About a year and a half ago, I wrote a piece called The Fundamentals of Market Tops.? It was an important piece for me because I received a lot of positive feedback from readers.? It was also important because it disagreed with the view of the firm that I worked for, and nearly led to my termination there, because they encouraged me to stop writing for RealMoney.? Neither termination happened, but it was touch-and-go for a while.

This piece unofficially represents the views of the firm that I work for, because my views of macroeconomics have become the firm?s views, but I don?t directly control our investment actions.? What I will try to accomplish here is to try to apply the logic of my prior article to the residential real estate market.? As opposed to my earlier article, I will try to show why I think we are close to a market top in residential real estate.? There is reason for pessimism.

The Investor Base Becomes Momentum-Driven

Valuation is rarely a sufficient reason to be long or short a market. Absurdity is like infinity. Twice infinity is still infinity. Twice absurd is still absurd. Absurd valuations, whether high or low, can become even more absurd if the expectations of market participants become momentum-based. Momentum investors do not care about valuation; they buy what is going up, and sell what is going down.

This is what I see in many residential real estate markets now: panicked buyers are saying ?this is my last chance,? and buying houses using risky forms of financing.? At the same time, I read stories of despair as some potential buyers give up and say that a house is out of their reach for now; they waited too long.? Occasionally, I see a few articles or e-mails regarding people who seem to be bright selling their homes and renting, but this is a minority behavior.

In the face of this, residential real estate prices continue to rise, particularly in the hot coastal markets, which tells me that the price momentum can continue a little while longer until it fails because there is no incremental liquidity available to expand the bubbles.

You’ll know a market top is probably coming when:

  1. The shorts already have been killed. You don’t hear about them anymore. There is general embarrassment over investments in short-only funds.

  2. Long-only managers are getting butchered for conservatism. In early 2000, we saw many eminent value investors give up around the same time. Julian Robertson, George Vanderheiden, Robert Sanborn, Gary Brinson and Stanley Druckenmiller all stepped down shortly before the market top.

  3. Valuation-sensitive investors who aren’t total-return driven because of a need to justify fees to outside investors accumulate cash. Warren Buffett is an example of this. When Buffett said that he “didn’t get tech,” he did not mean that he didn’t understand technology; he just couldn’t understand how technology companies would earn returns on equity justifying the capital employed on a sustainable basis.

  4. The recent past performance of growth managers tends to beat that of value managers. (I am using the terms growth and value in a classic sense here. Growth managers attempt to ascertain the future prospects of firms with little focus on valuation. Value managers attempt to calculate the value of a firm with less credit for future prospects.) In short, the future prospects of firms become the dominant means of setting market prices.

  5. Momentum strategies are self-reinforcing due to an abundance of momentum investors. Once momentum strategies become dominant in a market, the market behaves differently. Actual price volatility increases. Trends tend to maintain themselves over longer periods. Selloffs tend to be short and sharp.

  6. Markets driven by momentum favor inexperienced investors. My favorite way that this plays out is on CNBC. I gauge the age, experience and reasoning of the pundits. Near market tops, the pundits tend to be younger, newer and less rigorous. Experienced investors tend to have a greater regard for risk control, and believe in mean-reversion to a degree. Inexperienced investors tend to follow trends. They like to buy stocks that look like they are succeeding and sell those that look like they are failing.

  7. Defined benefit pension plans tend to be net sellers of stock. This happens as they rebalance their funds to their target weights.

Houses aren?t like stocks for several reasons:

  1. Unlike stocks, houses are used by their owners every day.
  2. We can short stocks, but we can?t short houses.? (Personally, I hope no one comes up with a clever way to do so.? We have enough volatility already.)? The most someone can do is sell his home and rent.
  3. Perhaps the equivalent of a long-only manager is someone who owns his property debt-free, like me, and doesn?t see the need to lever up by moving up to a larger home.? Measured against the standard of ?what might have been? is a terrifying taskmaster from an investment standpoint.? I avoid it in equity investing, and in home ownership.
  4. I am aware of a number of people (I have been assured that they are not mentally incompetent) who have sold their homes and started renting.? This to me is the equivalent of going totally flat in equities, or other risky assets.? Not that one faces negative carry, because the ratio of rent to in the hot markets is pretty low.? In many markets, you can earn more off the proceeds than you pay in rent (leaving tax consequences aside).? This leaves aside the issue of appreciation/depreciation of housing values, but when one can rent more cheaply than buying, it is a negative for the housing market.
  5. My point about momentum strategies is definitely pertinent here.? With the existence of contract-flipping, a high level of amateur investment (seemingly under the guise of ?buy what you know?), and a high level of investor interest (10%+), there is a lot of momentum in real estate investment.? People buy because prices are going up.? Some buy because it is ?the last train out,? and they have to jump rather than be stranded.? Nonetheless, momentum tends to maintain in the short run, and the slowdown posited last fall definitely has not occurred.
  6. Value vs. Growth does not exactly apply here, but in the housing market, people are paying up for future prospects more than they used to, which is akin to growth investing.
  7. This is just an opinion, but those who are making money in residential real estate today are inexperienced and less rigorous than most good businessmen.? They see the potential for profit, but not the possibility of loss.
  8. Unfortunately, it is difficult to partially own a home.? Home ownership is largely a discrete phenomenon.
  9. Using a concept from value investing we can look at the earnings yield that residential real estate is throwing off.? Compare the rents one could receive from a property versus the cost that it would take to finance the property on a floating rate basis.? What I am seeing is that more and more hot coastal markets earn less from rents than they require in mortgage payments.? Property price appreciation is no longer a nice thing; it is required to bail out inverted investors.? Contrast this with those that invested in tech stocks on a levered basis in early 2000; they paid cash out to hold appreciating positions, before they paid cash to hold depreciating positions, before they blew the positions out in panic.

Corporate Behavior

Corporations respond to signals that market participants give. Near market tops, capital is inexpensive, so companies take the opportunity to raise capital.? Here are ways that corporate behaviors change near a market top:

  1. The quality of IPOs declines, and the dollar amount increases. By quality, I mean companies that have a sustainable competitive advantage, and that can generate ROE in excess of cost of capital within a reasonable period.
  2. Venture capitalists can do no wrong, so lots of money is attracted to venture capital.
  3. Meeting the earnings number becomes paramount. What is ignored is balance sheet quality, cash flow from operations, etc.
  4. There is a high degree of visible and/or hidden leverage. Unusual securitization and financing techniques proliferate. Off balance sheet liabilities become very common.
  5. Cash flow proves insufficient to finance some speculative enterprises and some financial speculators. This occurs late in the game. When some speculative enterprises begin to run out of cash and can’t find anyone to finance them, they become insolvent. This leads to greater scrutiny and a sea change in attitudes for financing of speculative companies.
  6. Elements of accounting seem compromised. Large amounts of earnings stem from accruals rather than cash flow from operations.
  7. Dividends become less common. Fewer companies pay dividends, and dividends make up a smaller fraction of earnings or free cash flow.

In short, cash is the lifeblood of business. During speculative times, watch it like a hawk. No array of accrual entries can ever provide quite the same certainty as cash and other highly liquid assets in a crisis.

  1. Every time a new home is sold, a privately placed IPO is held, with one buyer.
  2. When rates are low, it is no surprise that the homebuilders try to take advantage of the situation, and provide supply to meet the demand.? But if it is only rate-driven, rather than from growth in real incomes in the economy, the quality of the new buyers will be low, because now they can just barely finance the house they could not previously.? If their income level falters, they will not have any safety margin allowing them to hold onto the house.
  3. Private investors in residential real estate have multiplied at present.? This is akin to an increase in venture capital.
  4. Leverage for new buyers has never been higher.? This occurs through second and third mortgages, as well as subprime mortgages.? Interest only mortgages are commonplace among new mortgages.? Beyond this, investors hide themselves so that they can get the cheap rates associated with owner-occupied housing.
  5. With housing, making the earnings estimate means being able to pay the mortgage payment each month.? The degree of slack here is less than in the past.

Other Gauges

These two factors are more macro than the investor base or corporate behavior but are just as important.? Near a top, the following tends to happen:

  1. Implied volatility is low and actual volatility is high. When there are many momentum investors in a market, prices get more volatile. At the same time, there can be less demand for hedging via put options, because the market has an aura of inevitability.
  2. The Federal Reserve withdraws liquidity from the system. The rate of expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet slows. This causes short interest rates to rise, making financing more expensive. As this slows down the economy, speculative ventures get hit hardest. Remember that monetary policy works with a six- to 18-month lag; also, this indicator works in reverse when the Fed adds liquidity to the system.

One final note about my indicators: I have found that different indicators work for market bottoms and tops, so don’t blindly apply these in reverse to try to gauge bottoms.

?There is no options market for residential housing, but the Federal Reserve is still a major influence in the housing market.? When the Fed is withdrawing liquidity from the system, the price of housing tends to slow down, if not reverse.? Like the equity market, this is not immediate but follows a six- to 18-month lag.? This is another case of ?Don?t fight the Fed.?

No Top Now

There are reasons for concern in the present environment. Valuations are getting stretched in some parts of the market. Debt capital is cheap today. There are an increasing number of momentum investors in the market. Making the earnings estimate is once again of high importance. Nonetheless, a top in the market is not imminent, for these reasons:

  • The Fed is on hold for now. Liquidity is ample, perhaps too much so.
  • Actual price volatility is muted.
  • Since all of the accounting scandals of the last few years, many corporations have cleaned up their accounting and become more conservative.
  • Cash flow from operations comprises a high proportion of current earnings. More dividends are getting paid.
  • Leverage has not declined, but most corporations have succeeded in refinancing themselves in a low interest rate environment.
  • Conservative asset managers have not been fired yet.
  • Most IPOs don’t seem outlandish.

Not all of the indicators that I put forth have to appear for there to be a market top. A preponderance of them appearing would make me concerned, and that is not the case now.

?Some of my indicators are vague and require subjective judgment. But they’re better than nothing, and kept me out of the trouble in 1999 and 2000. I hope that I — and you — can achieve the same with them as we near the next top.

The current market environment is not as favorable as it was a year ago, but there are still some reasonably valued companies with seemingly clean accounting to buy at present. Right now, being long the market is more compelling to me than being flat, much less short.

I would retitle this the ?The Top is Coming Soon.?? The reasons that I mentioned to be worrisome remain:

  • Valuations are getting stretched in some parts of the market.
  • Debt capital is cheap today.
  • There are an increasing number of momentum investors in the market.
  • Making the earnings estimate is once again of high importance. (Gotta pay my mortgage!)

But there is more that makes me even more bearish:

  • The Fed is on the warpath, and liquidity is scarce.
  • Appraisals overstate the value of property that financial institutions lend against.
  • Homeowners have a smaller margin of safety than they have had in the past.
  • Leverage has increased for the average homebuyer.
  • People are paying more than they ought to for new and existing homes.

I am decidedly a bear on housing prices (at least in the hot coastal markets) at present, but I recognize that momentum can carry prices far beyond sustainable levels.? That?s the way markets work.

Nonetheless, I am still a bear on those who build homes, and those who finance them.? We are at an unsustainable place in the ability to finance the residential hosing market.? Either an increase in interest rates or a decrease in ability to pay for housing can derail the market.? This is the inflection point that we are at over the next year.

An Expensive Kind of Insurance

An Expensive Kind of Insurance

Strategy One: “Consistent Losses, with Occasional Big Gains when the Market is Stressed”

Strategy Two: “Consistent Gains, with Total Wipe-out Risk When Market is Highly Stressed”

How do these two strategies sound to you?? Not too appealing?? I would agree with that.? The second of those strategies was featured in an article at Bloomberg.com recently — Inverse VIX Fund Gets Record Cash on Calm Market Bet.? And though the initial graph confused me, because it was the graph for the exchange traded note VXX, which benefits when the VIX spikes, the article was mostly about the inverse VIX?exchange traded note XIV.

Why would someone pursue the second strategy?? Most of the time, it makes money, and since January 2011 we haven’t a horrendous market event like the one from August 2008 through February 2009, it makes money.

I would encourage you to look at the decline in the second half of 2011, where it fell 75% when the VIX briefly burped up to around 50.? But given the amazing comeback as volatility abated, the lesson that some investors drew was this: “Volatility Spike? Time to buy XIV!”? And that explains the article linked above.

You might remember a recent book review of mine — Rule Based Investing.? In that review, I made the point that those that sell insurance on financial contracts tend to win, but it is a volatile game with the possibility of total loss.? To give another example from the recent financial crisis: most of the financial and mortgage insurers in existence prior to 2007 are gone.? Let me put it simply: though financial risks can be insured, the risks are so volatile that they should not be insured.? You are just one colossal failure away from death, and that colossal failure will tend to come when everyone is certain that it can’t come.

But what of the first strategy?? How has it done?

Wow!? Look at the returns over the last few weeks!? Rather, look at a strategy that consistently loses money because it rolls futures contracts for the VIX where the futures curve is upward-sloping almost all the time, leading to buy high, sell low.

Does it pay off in a crisis?? Yes.? Can you use it tactically?? Yes.? Can you hold it and make money?? No.

Back to the second strategy.? People are putting money into XIV because they “know” that implied volatility always mean-reverts, and so they will make easy money after a volatility spike.? But what if they arrive too early, and volatility spikes far higher than expected?? Worse yet, what if Credit Suisse goes belly-up in the volatility?? After all, it is an exchange-traded note where owners of XIV are lending money to Credit Suisse.

Back to Basics

Do I play in these markets?? No.

Do I understand them?? Mostly, but I can’t claim to be the best at this.

What if I try both strategies at the same time?? You will lose.? You are short fees and trading frictions.

What if I short both strategies at the same time?? Uncertain. It comes down to whether you can hold the shorts over the long term without getting “bought in” or panic when one side of the trade runs the wrong way.

Recently, someone pinged me to speak to CFA Institute, Baltimore, where he wanted to talk about “not all correlations of risky assets go to one in a crisis” and pointed to volatility investing as the way to improve asset allocation.? Sigh.? I’m inclined to say that “you can’t teach a Sneech.”

I favor simplicity in investing, and think that many exchange traded products will harm investors on average because the investors do not understand the underlying economics of what they own, while Wall Street uses them as a cheap way to hedge their risk exposures.

There may be some value to speculators in using “investments” like strategy one for a few days at a time.? But holding for any long time is poison.? Worse, if you are accidentally right, and the world comes to an end — this is an exchange-traded note, and the bank you lent to will be broke.? That will also kill strategy two.

So, my advice to you is this: avoid either side of this trade.? Stick with simple investments that do not invest in futures or options.? Complexity is the enemy of the average investor.? I can understand these investments and they don’t work for me.? You should avoid them too.

PS — before I close, let me mention:

Good article in both places.

Systemic Risk Stems from Asset-Liability Mismatches

Systemic Risk Stems from Asset-Liability Mismatches

What happens when a crisis hits?? There are demands for cash payment, and the payments can’t be made because the entities have short liabilities requiring immediate payment, and long illiquid assets that no longer can be sold for a price consistent with average market conditions.? When there are many firms for which this is true, and they rely on each other’s solvency, that creates a systemic crisis.

Whether through:

  • Owning long assets, and financing short, or
  • Using the repo market to hold long assets, thus disguising it for accounting purposes as short assets
  • Taking deposits, and investing long,

it creates an imbalance.? It is almost always more profitable in the short-run to finance short and lend long.? But when there is a demand for cash, such institutions are on the ropes and might not survive.? Less than half of the major American investment banks existing in 2007 were alive in 2009 to today.

But what if you were clever as a financial institution, and had liability structures that were long, or distributed the risk of what you were doing back to clients.? You would always have adequate liquidity, and would not be in danger of default for systemic reasons.

Thus, I think the Financial Stability Oversight Commission [FSOC] is nuts to regulate insurers such as MetLife, Prudential, AIG and Berkshire Hathaway.? They do not face the risk of a run on the bank.? Look at the history of insurers: those that failed due to a run on the bank were those that:

  • Issued guaranteed investment contracts that would be immediately payable on ratings downgrade.
  • Issued P&C reinsurance contracts that would be immediately payable on ratings downgrade.

Aside from that, there were badly run companies that failed but no systemic risk.? There was also AIG, which faced a call on cash from its derivatives counterparty, but not the insurance entity.

As for investment managers, they have no systemic risk.? It does not matter if Blackrock, Pimco, Fidelity and Vanguard would all fail.? Mutual fund holders would find their funds transferred to solvent entities, and any losses? they might receive are the ordinary losses they could receive if the management? firms were still solvent.

Someone lend the FSOC a brain.? Big size does not equal systemic risk.? Systemic risk stems from a call on liquidity at financial firms that borrow short and lend long for their own accounts.? That does not include asset managers and insurers, no matter how big they are.

What this says to me is that financial reform in DC is brain-dead.? (Surprised?? Nothing new.)? They have fixated on the idea that big is bad, when the real problem is asset-liability mismatches, amplified by size and connectedness.? Big banks are a problem.? Big insurers and asset management firms are not.

Book Review: Rule Based Investing

Book Review: Rule Based Investing

Everyone would like a “money machine.”? Follow simple rules, and “Wow, this makes money.”? This is that kind of book but it has better foundations than most in its class.

The book examines three types of investing, most of which are foreign to average investors.? Most investors don’t invest in equity by shorting it, and most investors are not currency traders.

But that is what the book encourages.? I’m going to digress here, because I have to explain some salient matters, and say what I think, so that my later critique makes sense.

Volatility and credit are cousins.? After all when markets go nuts, and everything is in disarray, those that have been trying to borrow at low interest in one currency, and invest at higher interest in another currency get hosed.? Why?? Because in volatile times, the riskier currencies face capital flight versus safer currencies that have the confidence of the markets.

All of the methods mentioned in this book as a result are making bets on volatility/credit, and try to control the bet by monitoring implied volatility, credit spreads, and momentum.? They limit when they are in the market and when they are out.

I don’t have a problem with the theory here, but with the ability of average people to carry it out.? This book would be good for quantitative hedge fund managers; I am less certain about individuals here.

As an aside, what the book describes is how PIMCO has done so well at bond investing over its history — shorting volatility to pick up yield.

But the main criticism is this: the author optimized the book to fit her full data set.? When you read the last chapter, and see that you could have earned 30%+/year for 13 years, if you were as clever as the author, you should think, “Yes, if I had 20/20 foresight.”? The methods will not do as well in prospect as in retrospect.

Quibbles

There is little that I disagree with in the book on a theoretical basis.? Where I differ comes in two areas: individual investors will not have the fortitude to carry out what is a complex method of investment.? Secondly, when enough hedge fund money adopts these strategies, the pricing in the market will shift, and the hedge funds will no longer have easy money.

Who would benefit from this book:?If you are willing to do the work of a volatility-selling hedge fund manager, this is the book for you. ?If you want to, you can buy it here: Rule Based Investing.

Full disclosure: The publisher sent me the book after he offered me 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.

 

Theme: Overlay by Kaira