Category: Value Investing

Is the PEG Ratio a Valid Concept?

Is the PEG Ratio a Valid Concept?

Posted on by David Merkel

This piece is a work in progress, so I solicit your feedback on it. How could it be improved?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I enjoy it when my expectations are proven wrong, because it means that I learned something in the process. When I began preparation for this post (which will probably have two parts, because I am having difficulty posting files, tables and pictures at my blog), I expected to write a post that would conclude that the PEG ratio (P/E divided by the anticipated growth rate expressed as an integer) is a nifty market artifact, but had no sound theoretical grounding.

The answer to the question in my title is complex. The answers are No, Sometimes, and Yes.

  • If you?re a deep value investor: No.
  • If you?re a moderate value or core investor: Sometimes.
  • If you?re a fundamentally-driven moderate growth investor: Yes.
  • If you?re an aggressive growth investor: No.

When I did my earlier post on my version of the Fed Model, I began by showing that it was a simplification of the simple version of the dividend discount model [DDM], which states that the value of a stock is equal to the present value of its future dividends. I?m going to do the same thing here with a few changes:

? I can?t prove what I am stating analytically, that is, by manipulating equations. I?m going to do it through scenario analysis and regression.

? My piece on my Fed model used the simple DDM. This piece uses a three-stage DDM. The stages are growth, transition, and maturity. For those with access to a Bloomberg Terminal, my implementation is a more conservative version of what they did.

Three-Stage DDM Assumptions

  • ? Initial forecast earnings (E1)
  • ? Initial dividend payout ratio as a portion of earnings (PR1)
  • ? Growth rate of earnings in the first phase of the model (g)
  • ? Length of the first phase (5 years)
  • ? Length of the second transition phase (6 years)
  • ? Ultimate earnings growth rate in maturity (6%)
  • ? Ultimate payout ratio in maturity (50%)
  • ? Discount rate for the dividend stream (ks), otherwise known as the required rate of return (i.e., what does an investor have to expect to earn in order to get him to part with his cash?)

In brief, in the first phase of the model, earnings grow at a rapid rate, and dividends are paid at a relatively low rate, in the second (transition) phase, the earnings growth and dividend payout rates grade linearly into the rates of the ultimate phase. The resulting dividend stream gets discounted at a discount rate reflecting the riskiness of the company.

Limitations of the Model

  • ? It is difficult to forecast earnings for next year, much less give a growth rate for the next 5 years. I use sell side estimates as an initial jumping off point.
  • ? Companies grow erratically.
  • ? The maturation of a company is rarely so linear.
  • ? The lengths of the first two phases are somewhat arbitrary, though the sell side typically does 5-year growth rates.
  • ? A 6% growth rate in maturity is consistent with long term nominal GDP growth, but it is still quite an assumption.
  • ? Payout rates and growth rates should be inversely correlated. To the extent that capital constrains business growth, a higher rate of dividend payout should result in a lower earnings growth rate.
  • ? The discount rate is difficult to calculate. Theoretically, it should be 2-3% percent higher than the highest yield on the longest, most subordinated debt or preferred of the company. If a company has no debt, compare it to the yields of bonds of other companies with similar put option implied volatility 20% or more out of the money. Then add 2-3% to those yields.
  • ? Payout rates and the discount rate should be negatively correlated. Companies with high payout rates will be judged to be less risky most of the time, and vice-versa.

All that said, the DDM is a model, and a richer model than the PEG ratio. My question became, ?Are there conditions where the results of the DDM resemble a PEG ratio?? The answer to that is yes, when:

  • The discount rate is 14% or lower
  • At lower discount rates, only for higher P/Es. For example at a discount rate of 8%, the PEG ratio works for P/Es 16 and higher.

Now I oversimplified my conclusions here. Look at this graphic:

Validity Space
Or, based off of that, consider this graph, which shows the PEG hurdle rates as a function of initial P/Es. and cost of capital (discount) rates:

Price-to-Value Graph

How did I come to this result? For differing levels of the discount rate, I varied P/E levels, calculating the initial phase growth rate that would make price equal to value in the DDM. Those P/E and growth levels gave me the PEG ratios. Those PEG ratios were often quite flat for higher P/Es at a given level of the discount rate of 14% or below. There is usually a bit of a smile or smirk, but you can see an average level.

At 16% or higher levels of the discount rate, the PEG ratio falls apart. At low levels of P/E the required PEG ratio should be low. At high levels of P/E, the required PEG ratio can be higher. The intuition here is that situations with high discount rates, and thus high risk, require high growth to fuel value in a DDM calculation.

At low discount rates, and low P/Es, the DDM says that value investors don?t need much growth at all in order to buy good values. If one considers the inverse of the P/E, the E/P, or earnings yield, when it is greater than the discount rate, it is hard to lose money, even when earnings don?t grow. Even more so when the dividend yield exceeds or is near the discount rate.

A Formula for the PEG Ratio Hurdle

Taking the average PEG hurdle rates for P/Es 16 and above, where price equaled DDM Value, for various discount and payout rates, I calculated a regression to give a more general PEG hurdle rate formula. The factors appeared multiplicative, so I used a formula that looked like this:

ln ( average PEG hurdle) = a + b * ln(discount rate) + c * ln(payout rate) + e (error term)

The regression had an adjusted R-squared of 98%, with all coefficients statistically significant at prob-values of 99% or better. a was 7.8646, b was -1.3169 and c was .0752. In summary form, the formula looks like this:

Average PEG hurdle = 26.03 * discount rate-1.3169 * payout rate0.0752

Pretty good, but after a little while, I asked if I could create a formula that better represented the curves in graph 2. So, I ran the following regression:

ln (PEG hurdle) = a + b * ln(discount rate) + c * ln(payout rate) + d * ln(P/E) + e (error term)

I had a debate as to how to censor the data. I threw out data points with negative PEG hurdles in the first analysis. In the second one, I threw out negative PEG hurdles, and PEG hurdles over 2.0x. On the second analysis, my reasoning was that if PEG hurdles over 2.0 are acceptable, we?re in weird times. Now perhaps that pre-judges the situation, but the right functional form for graph 2 eludes me here. Personally, I would use the second formula here:

Formula 1: Average PEG hurdle = 0.01823 * discount rate-1.6279 * payout rate0.1039 * PE Ratio0.1893

Formula 2: Average PEG hurdle = 0.02035 * discount rate-1.4215 * payout rate0.0941 * PE Ratio0.2704

Formula 1 has an R-squared of 76%, and with 2 it is 88%. The t-statistics are all significant at 99% levels.

Now, suppose I am a growth investor and I decide to apply formula 2. I look for stocks with PE ratios of around 20, my discount rate is 15%, and the dividend payout rate is around 10%. What annual earnings growth should I be looking for over the next 5 years? The formula says 36.6%. Pretty aggressive. At a discount rate of 12%, the growth rate drops to 26.6%.

What this points out in a way is the difficulty of making consistent money in growth stocks. The earnings growth rates needed to make money in excess of the discount rate on average over time is higher than most growth investors realize.

Growth investors overpay for growth. That is one of the reasons that I am a value investor.

One final note: Jim Cramer has a limit for what he is willing to pay for growth stocks ? a PEG ratio of 2.0x. Now, he?s a bright guy, so there are two ways that I can interpret this. 1) Since momentum plays a large role in Cramer?s investing, the 2.0x ceiling limits his risk while he plays momentum. Or, 2) he has longer periods of competitive advantage and transition than I do. I favor the first interpretation, because it is rare in my opinion that growth investors should pay over 1.5 times the growth rate for any investment, unless the barriers to entry are significant.

Summary

PEG ratios work for core and growth investors, but the PEG ratio hurdles needed for investment are lower than most investors think, so long as the expected rate of return (discount rate) is high.? As for me, I will stick with value investing, where the need for earnings growth is negligible.

One Year At The Aleph Blog!

One Year At The Aleph Blog!

Posted on by David Merkel

It has been one year since I started The Aleph Blog. During that time, we have seen a lot of changes:

  • The panic in China in late February 2007.
  • The troubles in subprime, home equity, and residential real estate generally. (Commercial real estate is a work in progress.)
  • Increased realized volatility in the markets.
  • Increased price inflation.
  • The accelerated decline in the US Dollar.
  • Blowout of private equity lending.
  • Trouble as the rating agencies and the financial guarantors.
  • Trouble in the money markets from SIVs and ABCP.
  • Troubles in the municipal bond markets, mainly from overspeculation, but also from troubles at the guarantors.
  • The FOMC shifts from being an inflation fighter to a weak economy and lending fighter.
  • I left my previous employer (good guys generally), and have become employed elsewhere (a much better match for my abilities and desires).
  • My broad market portfolio has adjusted to changing market conditions, and continues to outperform the S&P 500, as it has for the last 7.5 years.

Pretty amazing, I think. My blog is an expression of my character in the economics/finance/investment world. I have a lot of interests, so my blog is diversified in what I write about. There is almost always someone more experienced than me writing about a given issue. I think of myself as a good number 2 (3? 5? 10?) on many issues. Because of that, my job is to look for the interactions — the second-order effects in other markets that may give us a clue as to future happenings.

If you want to see a sampling of what I felt my best articles have been, you can look here. If you have other nominations for this category, I am all ears.

Why did I start the blog? Rejection from those that I wrote for and worked with. I was frustrated, and needed an outlet for self-expression. Learning from what I wrote at RealMoney, from the first day, I followed the same ethics code, to protect those that I worked for.

What of the future? I plan on some meaty articles on inflation, the PEG ratio, some book reviews, and perhaps a series on long-term investing for children. (In addition to what I mentioned in Post 500.)

Now, I did not expect the level of acceptance that I received in my first year, and so I thank my readers. I have been quoted in a wide number of places that I would not have expected when I started this. I only ask that if you like what I write, please refer my blog to your friends, as it seems best to you.

To all of my readers, here’s to a profitable year number two. Thanks for being with me over the past year. For those that have commented here, a special thank you. To my family and church, thank you. Finally, thanks be to Jesus Christ. Woo-hoo! What a great year! 😀

Happy Hour with Cody and Rebecca

Happy Hour with Cody and Rebecca

Posted on by David Merkel

I have never been on live television before; the only other times that I have been on any sort of television was when I taped two segments for TheStreet.com last October. We only did one take of each segment, so I guess that’s as good as live, though there was the possibility of re-taping.

So, it was interesting for me to be on Happy Hour yesterday.

What was I going to talk about? Well, that was uncertain until 2PM today. Cody wanted to talk stocks, but he also wanted to talk macroeconomics as well. I offered him seven stocks, four foreign, and three US insurers. He took the insurers. I offered him four macro topics, and he took the most topical one, Buffett’s offer to reinsure the muni business of the major financial guarantors.

As of 3PM, I had a problem, though. I hadn’t been able to connect to the internet all day long, and though I had talked with many people about Buffett’s proposal, I really did not have any in-depth knowledge of the proposal. The Waldorf Astoria’s free Wi-fi was not working for me, so I retreated to the business center for 20 minutes of catching up. That’s all it took to get the details hammered down, so I headed down to the Bull and Bear for the show.

I got there about four, and a perceptive staff member said, “Are you one of the guests? You have that look about you.” He then seated me at a nearby table and I pulled out my laptop, and wrote out my notes for what I would say. They read like this:

Guarantors:

Company that?s in trouble: sell your good business or bad business?

Buffett wants to buy the good business at what is a bargain price to him, leaving the bad business behind and less wherewithal to pay the claims, because the profit stream from the good muni business will be gone. NPV of the muni business is more than Buffett is offering. A company would only take up Buffett?s offer if they were desperate, or forced to by the regulators.

Now effect on Munis is limited, just because you might lose your guarantee doesn?t mean that the municipality can?t make payments.

Insurers:

  • ? Dragged down by financials
  • ? Dragged down by AIG
  • ? Assets are relatively clean (got religion 2001-2003)
  • ? Favorable demographics.
  • ? Growth in the markets will raise AUM.
  • ? Inexpensive on earnings and book.
  • ? High quality balance sheets.

HIG

  • ? Very diversified – P&C, Life, Group Benefits ? domestic and international
  • ? 1.2x book, 6.8x 2009 earnings
  • ? Quality company
  • ? Variable products sensitive to market movements

LNC

  • ? Still room for cost savings from the JP merger
  • ? Well positioned in life, annuity, and group benefits
  • ? 1.2x book, 8x 2009 earnings
  • ? Variable products sensitive to market movements

AIZ

  • ? The next AFLAC
  • ? Focused on specialty businesses that can obtain an above average ROE.
  • ? Warranties, Force-placed Homeowners, Individual Health, Small Group Benefits, Funeral (pre-need)
  • ? Deep management team ? they invest in their people
  • ? Good capital allocators
  • ? 1.8x book, 8.8x 2009 earnings

By the time I had written that, David Newbert, of ThePanelist.com showed up, and we began to talk. Nice guy with some heavy duty Wall Street experience. Then the Fanelli twins showed up; bright ladies.

By this point it was close to 5PM. A little powder for my face and balding pate, I am going second at about 5:13. I ask the staff for advice, and they simply tell me to be opinionated and energetic. I try to be self-effacing, but I steel myself up for the task.

The first guy completes and they go to break. I’m up! They tell me to look at Cody and Rebecca, and sooner than I can expect it, we’re off. I had committed my notes to memory, but as in war, as Cody and Rebecca interact with me, I have to deviate from what I jotted out. We talk about Buffett and the Financial Guarantors, then move to stocks. I talk about Hartford, and a little about Assurant, and then, we’re out of time! That was fast! I get to name Lincoln National at the end as an afterthought. (At one point, Cody lavishes praise on me, and I get a little embarrassed. So it goes.)

The rest of the show goes on in the crowded space of the Bull and Bear, and before you know it, it’s over. The staff efficiently shuts down, and in 10 minutes, there’s no trace of what went on before. Cody and I meet for dinner later. It’s good to re-sync in our friendship.

I hope to get a copy of the video clip to post at my blog. If so, you will see it here. I had a lot of fun, and they invited me back. Should I get back to NYC, I will be back on Happy Hour.

Full disclosure: long AIZ HIG LNC

Still More Odds & Ends (Twelve this Time)

Still More Odds & Ends (Twelve this Time)

Posted on by David Merkel

1) I might not be able to post much for the next two days. I have business trips to go on. One is to New York City tomorrow. If everything goes right, I will be on Happy Hour with my friend Cody Willard on Tuesday.

2) As I wrote at RealMoney this morning:


 David Merkel
Buy Other Insurers off of the Bad AIG News
2/12/2008 2:54 AM EST

Sometimes I think there are too many investors trading baskets of stocks, and too few doing real investing work. I have rarely been bullish on AIG? I think the last time I owned it was slightly before they added it to the DJIA, and I sold it on the day it was added.Why bearish on AIG? Isn?t it cheap? It might be; who can tell? There?s a lot buried on AIG?s balance sheet. Who can truly tell whether AIG Financial Products has its values set right? International Lease Finance? American General Finance? The long-tail casualty reserves? The value of its mortgage insurer? I?m not saying anything is wrong here, but it is a complex company, and complexity always deserves a discount.

You can read my articles from 2-3 years ago where I went through this exercise when the accounting went bad the last time, and Greenberg was shown the door. (And, judging from the scuttlebutt I hear, it has been a good thing for him. But not for AIG.)

AIG deserves to be broken up into simpler component parts that can be more easily understood and valued. Perhaps Greenberg could manage the behemoth (though I have my doubts), no one man can. There are too many disparate moving parts.

So, what would I do off of the news? Buy other insurers that have gotten hit due to senseless collateral damage (no pun intended). As I recently wrote at my blog:

If Prudential drops much further, I am buying some. With an estimated 2009 PE below 8, it would be hard to go wrong on such a high quality company. I am also hoping that Assurant drops below $53, where I will buy more. The industry fundamentals are generally favorable. Honestly, I could get juiced about Stancorp below $50, Principal, Protective, Lincoln National, Delphi Financial, Metlife? There are quality companies going on sale, and my only limit is how much I am willing to overweight the industry. Going into the energy wave in 2002, I was quadruple-weight energy. Insurance stocks are 16% of my portfolio now, which is quadruple-weight or so. This is a defensive group, with reasonable upside. I?ll keep you apprised as I make moves here.

What can I say? I like the industry?s fundamentals. These companies do not have the balance sheet issues that AIG does. I will be a buyer of some of these names on weakness.

Position: long LNC HIG AIZ

3) More on AIG. As Cramer said yesterday: One last thought on the AIG issue: if President and CEO Martin Sullivan were to step down, the company might be more of a buy than a sale!

Maybe. Sullivan is a competent insurance executive with the biggest insurance job in the world. Breaking up the company, and letting the parts regain focus makes more sense. As an aside, M. R. Greenberg was known to be adamant about his ROE goal (15% after-tax on average equity), but he also liked the company to have bulk (high assets ? he liked asset-sensitive lines), which is why the ROA slid in the latter part of his tenure.

4) Some praise for Cramer on the same topic. As he said yesterday: AIG let me have it after I said last year that I couldn?t value the stock. They told me that there was a 92-page disclosure document and they wanted to know if I even looked at it. I shot back that not only did I look at it, but I had people comb it, including the forensic accountant I have on staff. The issue was always that despite the disclosure that they had CDO exposure, we couldn?t figure out what the real exposure was and we questioned whether THEY could.

Nothing gets a management more angry than being told that they don?t know what they are doing, but I was marveling at the certainty that they expressed. I told them they had tons of disclosure, but their estimation of possible losses seemed chimerical. I couldn?t figure out how THEY could value the stuff when no one else could with any certainty until it was off their books or written down. OF course, insurance companies aren?t held to the same standards of mark-to-market that banks are. They used mark-to-model, and the model, we learned today ? the Binomial Expansion Technique ? was totally wrong and dramatically understated the losses. All of this cuts to the incredible level of arrogance and stupidity on the Street, making judgments that were anti-empirical on data that could not be modeled but had to be experienced and examined nationally. In short, they were scientific and certain about something that couldn?t be quantified by science and certainly couldn?t be certain about.

Aside from the quibble that insurers for GAAP purposes are subject to the same rules as banks, Cramer got it right here. It is a major reason why I have been skeptical about AIG. Complexity in financial companies, especially financial companies that grow fast, is warranted. It is an unforgiving business where moderate conservatism works best.

5) Brief NAHC note: the CEO purchased more shares in the last few days. At least, it looks like it. Could he be acquiring shares to combat Hovde Capital? Honestly, I?m not sure, but this is looking more interesting by the day.

6) A new favorite blog of mine is Going Private. This post on insurance issues in Florida was unusual for that blog, but I thought it was perceptive. I wrote similar things at RealMoney:


 David Merkel
Move to Florida, Become a Reinsurer
3/27/2007 3:30 PM EDT

Interesting note in the National Underwriter on a Towers Perrin Study (also try here) describing how much Floridians will have to pay if a 1-in-250 hurricane hits Florida. Cost per household: $14,000, or $467 per year for 30 years. On a 1-in-50 storm, the figures would be $5,640, or $188 per year. There would also be a higher initial assessment as well. Note that the odds are actually higher than stated odds would admit. The stated odds of the large losses from the 2004 and 2005 storms happening in consecutive years would have been considered astronomical, but it happened anyway.

The Florida legislature can determine how the pain is shared, but they can?t legislate that the pain go away. No free lunch.

P.S. As an aside, the state of Florida is subsidizing reinsurance rates through its catastrophe fund. Ostensibly, Florida homeowners get a cut in rates, but the insurers give that cut only because their reinsurance costs are lower. Who?s the loser? The citizens of Florida will have to reach into their pockets to recapitalize the Hurricane Catastrophe Fund if big losses hit, and at the very time that they won?t want to do it. (Note to S&P: why do you give this state a AAA GO bond rating?)

Position: none mentioned


 David Merkel
The Worst Insurance State In The USA
2/2/2007 3:52 PM EST

I don?t want to go on a rant here, but I do feel strongly about this. It ill-befits a state government to behave like a bunch of thugs, even if it pleases the electorate. For over two decades, the worst state to do business in as an insurer was Massachusetts. New Jersey was competitive for a while, and California was pretty bad on Worker?s Comp, but now we have a new state on the top of the heap: Florida.

The failure of the Florida property insurance market was due to the lack of willingness to allow rates to rise sufficiently to attract capital into the market. The partial socialization of risk drove away that capital. So what does the governor and legislature of Florida do to meet the crisis? Increase the level of socialization of risk, and constrain companies to a binary decision: accept profits that don?t fairly reflect the risks underwritten, or leave the state. (And, they might try to forbid insurers from leaving.)

In my opinion, if they bar the door to insurers leaving, or not being allowed to non-renew policies, it is an unconstitutional ?taking? by the state of Florida. No one should be forced to do business that they don?t want to do. Fine to set up the regulatory rules (maybe), but it?s another thing to compel parties to transact.

Okay, here?s a possible future for Florida:

1) By the end of 2007, many insurers leave Florida; the state chartered insurer now has 33% of all of the primary property risk.
2) Large windstorm damages in 2008-2009, $100 billion in total, after a surprisingly light 2006-2007.
3) Florida finds that the capital markets don?t want to absorb more bonds in late 2009, after the ratings agencies downgrade them from their present AAA to something south of single-A.
4) The lack of ability to raise money to pay storm damages leads to higher taxes, plus the high surcharges on all insurance classes to pay off the new debt, makes Florida a bad place to live and do business. The state goes into a recession rivaling that of oil patch in the mid-1980s. Smart people and businesses leave, making the crisis worse.

Farfetched? No, it?s possible, even if I give a scenario of that severity only 10% odds. What is more likely is a watered-down version of this scenario. And, yes, it?s possible that storm damages will remain light, and Florida prospers as a result of the foolishness of their politicians. But I wouldn?t bet that way.

Position: long one microcap insurer that will remain nameless


 Marc Lichtenfeld
Florida Insurance
2/2/2007 4:17 PM EST

David,

While I don?t pretend to be the insurance maven that you are, I don?t believe it?s quite as black and white as you portray.

First, let me preface my comments by saying that I believe in free markets and don?t agree with the Governor?s plan, although I stand to benefit. Secondly, my insurance rates, while higher than I?d like are not too bad compared to others in the state.

That being said, I think something had to be done. In one scenario that you lay out, you describe smart people leaving due to higher taxes. That was already happening due to high insurance rates. Some people with affordable mortgages suddenly found their insurance rates skyrocketing from $2,000 to over $6,000. Lots of seniors on fixed incomes also saw their rates jump.

One factor in the housing slump is that buyers are having a hard time finding insurance on a house they are ready to close on. I know that three years ago, we were scrambling at the last minute to find an insurer who would write a policy ? and that was before all of the storms.

I?m not sure what the answer is. I fear that in an entirely free market, there will be very few insurers willing to do business here if there?s another bad storm.

Maybe that?s an argument that we shouldn?t be building major population centers right on the coast, but that?s another story.

Position: None



 David Merkel
My Sympathies to the People of Florida
2/2/2007 4:45 PM EST

Marc,

I understand the pain that many people in Florida are in. I know how much rates have risen. What I am saying is that the new law won?t work and will leave the people of Florida on the whole worse off. Florida is a risky place to write property coverage, and the increase in rates reflects a lack of interest of insurers and reinsurers to underwrite the risk at present rates and terms.

We don?t have a right to demand that others subsidize our lifestyle. But Florida is slowly setting up its own political crisis as they subsidize those in windstorm-prone areas, at the expense of those not so exposed. Commercial risks must subsidize coastal homeowners. Further, there is the idea lurking that the Feds would bail out Florida after a real emergency. That?s why many Florida legislators are calling for a national catastrophe fund.

They might get that fund too, given the present Congress and President, but Florida would have to pay in proportionately to their risks, not their population. Other proposed bills would subsidize Florida and other high risk areas. Why people in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio should pay to subsidize Florida and California is beyond me.

The new law also affects commercial coverages; the new bill basically precludes an insurer from writing any business in Florida, if they write homeowners elsewhere, but not in Florida. If you want to chase out as many private insurers as possible, I?m not sure a better bill could have been designed. The law will get challenged in the courts; much of it will get thrown out as unconstitutional. But it will still drive away private insurance capacity.

I?m not writing this out of any possible gain for myself. I just think the state of Florida would be better served, and at lower rates, with a free market solution. Speaking as an insurance investor, I know of half a dozen or so new companies that were contemplating entering Florida prior to the new law. All of those ideas are now dead.

I hope that no hurricanes hit Florida, and that this bet works out. If there is political furor now in Florida, imagine what it would be like if my worst-case scenario plays out.

Position: long a small amount of one microcap insurer with significant business in Florida

Florida had now dodged the bullet for two straight years. Hey, what might happen if we have a bad hurricane year during an election year? Hot and cold running promises; I can see it now!

7) One of the best common-sense writers out there is Jonathan Clements of the WSJ. He had a good piece recently on why houses are not primarily investments. Would that more understood this. There are eras where speculation works, but those eras end badly. You can be a landlord, with all of the challenges, if you like that business. You can own a large home, but you are speculating that demand for the land it is on will keep growing. That is not a given.

8 ) My favorite data-miner Eddy, at Crossing Wall Street comes up with an interesting way to demonstrate momentum effects. Large moves up and down tend to continue on the next day, and the entire increase in the market can be attributed to the days after the market moves up 64 basis points.

9) This is not an anti-Cramer day. I like the guy a lot. I just want to take issue with this article: ?Trading in CDOs Slows to a Trickle.?? The basic premise is that CDOs are going away because trading in CDOs is declining.? Well, the same is true of houses, or any debt-financed instrument.? Volumes always slow as prices begin to fall, because momentum buyers stop buying.

Short of outlawing CDOs, which I don’t think can be done, though the regulators should consider what financial institutions should be allowed to own them.? That would shrink the market, but not destroy it.? Securitization when used in a moderate way is a good thing, and will not completely disappear.? Buyers will also become smarter (read risk-averse) at least for a little while.? This isn’t our first CDO blowup.? The cash CDO vintages 1997-1999 had horrible performance.? Now we have horrible performance.? Can we schedule the next crisis for the mid-teens?

10) On Chavez, he is a dictator and not an oil executive.? Maybe someone could send him to school for a little while so that he could learn a little bit about the industry that he is de facto running?? As MarketBeat points out, take him with with a grain of salt.? Venezuelan crude oil needs special processing, much of which is done in the US.? If he diverts the crude elsewhere, who will refine it for sale?

11) I am really ambivalent about Bill Gross.? He’s a bright guy, and has built a great firm.? Some of the things he writes for the media make my head spin.? Take this comment in the FT:

That the monolines could shoulder this modern-day burden like a classical Greek Atlas was dubious from the start. How could Ambac, through the magic of its triple-A rating, with equity capital of less than $5bn, insure the debt of the state of California, the world?s sixth-largest economy? How could an investor in California?s municipal bonds be comforted by a company that during a potential liquidity crisis might find the capital markets closed to it, versus the nation?s largest state with its obvious ongoing taxing authority? Apply the same logic to the gargantuan size of the asset-backed market it has insured in recent years ? subprimes and CDOs in the trillions of dollars ? and you must come to the same logical conclusion: this is absurd. It is as if Barney Fife, television?s Sheriff of Mayberry in The Andy Griffith Show, promised to bring law and order to the entire country.

Most municipal defaults are short term in nature, even those of states, of which there have been precious few.? Ambac, or any other guarantor, typically only has to make interest payments for a short while on any default.? It is a logical business for them to be in… they provide short term liquidity in a crisis, while the situation gets cleaned up.? In exchange for guarantee fees the municipalities get lower yields to pay.

The muni business isn’t the issue here… the guarantors should not have gotten into the CDO business.? That’s the issue.

12) I try to be open-minded, though I often fail.? (The problem of a permanently open mind is that it doesn’t draw conclusions when needed.? Good judgment triumphs over openness.)? I have an article coming soon on the concept of the PEG ratio.? This is one where my analytical work overturned my presuppositions, and then came to a greater conclusion than I would have anticipated.? The math is done, but the article remains to be written.? I am really jazzed by the results, because it answers the question of whether the PEG ratio is a valid concept or not.? (At least, it will be a good first stab.)

Full disclosure: long AIZ HIG LNC NAHC

Ten More Odds & Ends

Ten More Odds & Ends

Posted on by David Merkel

I’m just trying to clean up old topics, so bear with me:

1) This blog is not ending because of my new job. Finacorp wants me to keep it going, and they may use the posts in PDF form for clients. Also, unlike my prior employer, Finacorp wants me to have a high degree of exposure, because it aids them. You may see me in more venues, which could include TV and radio.

2) In one sense, I had an unusually productive Saturday. I built two models — one for a critique of the PEG ratio, and one for a model of the Treasury yield curve. You will see articles on both of these, and I am really jazzed on both of them. It is not often that I get one impressive result in a day. Today I got two. I’ll give you one practical upshot for now, if you are an institutional bond investor: go long 10-year Treasuries and short 7-year. We are very near the historical wides. If you are like me, and can live with negative carry, dollar duration-weight the trade, so that you are immune to parallel yield curve shifts.

3) I didn’t read Barron’s, Forbes, or The Economist today, but I did read the Financial Analysts Journal. In it there were three articles that are worth a comment. There was an interesting article on fundamental indexation that comes close to my view on the topic. Fundamental indexation, when properly done, is nothing more than enhanced indexing with a value tilt. Will it make you more money than an ordinary index fund? Yes, it will, over a long enough period of time. Will it work every year? No. Is there one optimal way to fundamentally index? No. There is no one cofactor, or set of cofactors that optimally define value, if for no other reason than the accounting rules keep changing.

4) The second article went over the value of immediate annuities as risk reducers to retirees, something I commented on recently. The tweak here is buying annuities that start paying later in retirement, for example at 80 or 85, with the risk that if you die before then, you get nothing. Longevity insurance; a very good concept, but the execution is tough.

5) The third article was on Risk Management for Event-Driven Funds. Here’s my take: risk arb is like being a high yield bond manager. Anytime a deal is announced, you have to do a credit risk analysis:

  • How likely is it that this deal will go through?
  • How badly could I be hurt if it does not go through?
  • Am I getting paid more than a junk bond with equivalent risk?

But the portfolio manager must ask some more questions:

  • Are there any common factors in my risk arb book that could bite me? Sectors? Need for debt finance?
  • What if deal financing terms go awry all at the same time? How will that affect the worst risks in my book?
  • Am I getting paid more than a junk bond with equivalent risk? (Okay, it’s a repeat, but it deserves it.)

Risk arbs have been burned lately, with all of the deals that have been busted because financing is not available on easy terms. It’s tough but this happens. Most easy arbs tend to get overplayed before blowups happen. The lure of easy money brings out the worst in people, even institutional investors.

6) Naked Capitalism had an interesting post on GM. I made the following comment:

I took some criticism at RealMoney.com for writing things like this about GM, though the author here was a much better writer.

The thing is, there are enough levers here that GM can keep the debt ball in the air for some time, as can many of the financial guarantors, so long as they can make their interest payments.

The “Big 3” lose vitality vs. Toyota and Honda each year — in the long run GM and Ford don’t make it. Perhaps after they go through bankruptcy, and shed liabilities to the PBGC, and issue new equity to the current unsecured bondholders, they can exist as smaller companies that have focus. Maybe Ford could be a division of Magna, and GM a division of Johnson Controls. At least then there would be competent management.

7) Barry Ritholtz had a good post called, 5 Historical Economic Crises and the U.S. The paper he cited went into five recent crises in the developed world, and how the current US situation stacks up against that.? Here was my comment on one of the areas where the US situation did not seem so dire, that of the run-up in government debt:

On the last point about the increase in the debt, what is missed is that a lot of the government debt increase is hidden by the non-marketable Treasury bonds held by the entitlement programs. Add that in, and consider the unfunded promises made at the Federal, State, and municipal levels, and the debt increase on an accrual basis is staggering.

We do face real risks here.? The rest of the world will not finance us in our own currency forever.? Oh, one critical difference between the US and the 5 crises — we are the worlds reserve currency, for now.

8 )? I like Egan-Jones on corporate debt.? They have quantitative models that follow contingent claims theory, and use market based factors to estimate likelihood and severity of default.? They are now trying to do models for asset backed securities.? Very different from what they are currently doing, and their corporate models will be no help.? They will also find difficulties in getting the data, and few market-based signals that inform their corporate models.? I wish them well, but they are entering a new line of business for which they have no existing tools to help them.

9) This article from Naked Capitalism pokes at the rating agencies, and the proposed reforms from the SEC.? My view is this: the financial regulators need a model on credit risk.? They need a common platform for all credit risks.? They need one set of ratings that allow them to set capital levels for the institutions that they regulate, or they need to bar investments that cannot be rated adequately.? The problem is not the rating agencies but the regulators.? How do they properly set capital levels.? They either have to use the rating agencies, or build internal ratings themselves.? Given my experiences with the NAIC SVO, it is much better to use the rating agencies.? They are more competent.

10)? Finally, on Friday, a UBS report stirred the pot regarding non-borrowed reserves.? You can see the H.3 report here. Both Caroline Baum of Bloomberg and Real Time Economics debunked the UBS piece.? But it was simpler than that.? The Fed published its own explanation at the time they put out the H.3 report.? UBS did not include the effect of the new TAF.? Whoops.? Oh well, I make mistakes also.? It’s just better to make mistakes when one doesn’t sound so certain.
Full disclosure: long MGA, HMC

National Atlantic Notes

National Atlantic Notes

Posted on by David Merkel

I have to be careful as I write this post, because I have agreements with my former employer. I will stick with what is publicly understood, and avoid internal knowledge of what my former employer thought when I last worked with them.

Today, after the close, Hovde Capital filed a 13D, seeking to own more than 17% of National Atlantic, and asking for seats on the board of directors. Now, what I want to say to my readers might agree with what Hovde Capital might want. Don’t make too much out of this. First, the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance might turn Hovde down. Second, realize that any party acquiring 10% or more of any publicly traded company has to file two days after making any trade. That is the signal that I would be looking for.

National Atlantic is my largest holding, and I am aware of other parties considering buying National Atlantic, but they fail the urgency test for me. There’s lots of talk but no action. Don’t take any action off of Hovde’s SEC filing. There are too many uncertainties here, and wise investors will wait for favorable levels for investing.

Full disclosure: long NAHC

Ten Odds & Ends

Ten Odds & Ends

Posted on by David Merkel

I’ve wanted to post on a bunch of little things for a while, and while it won’t make for organized reading, maybe we can have some fun with it?? Here goes.

1) If Prudential drops much further, I am buying some.? With an estimated 2009 PE below 8, it would be hard to go wrong on such a high quality company.? I am also hoping that Assurant drops below $53, where I will buy more. ? The industry fundamentals are generally favorable.? Honestly, I could get juiced about Stancorp below $50, Principal, Protective, Lincoln National, Delphi Financial, Metlife…? There are quality companies going on sale, and my only limit is how much I am willing to overweight the industry.? Going into the energy wave in 2002, I was quadruple-weight energy.? Insurance stocks are 16% of my portfolio now, which is quadruple-weight or so.? This is a defensive group, with reasonable upside.? I’ll keep you apprised as I make moves here.

2) Reader Steve brought this to my attention: Mark Gilbert at Bloomberg brought attention to a monetary policy game at the San Francisco Fed’s website.? So did the estimable Marketbeat blog at the WSJ.? The game used to be found at this link.? Alas, no more.? Maybe all of the attention crashed the site, after all, the SF Fed can’t afford a heavy-duty website like mine.? Okay, sorry, they get 10x the traffic that I do, more like The Kirk Report.

Perhaps the game was removed over the embarrassment from Gilbert playing the game and applying the current Fed strategy to the game, and finding inflation going through the roof.? Now, for those that want to play a monetary policy game, my current favorite is this one from the Bank of Finland.? In a true American version of the game, we would replace the manic announcer with clips of who else, Jim Cramer.? Nobody does it better.? Oh and for true junkies looking for monetary policy games, here is a list of some of them.

3) Dig the falling long bond.? Worst day since 2004.? Echoing what I said yesterday, there’s a lot of fear in that part of the market, and a lot of foreign interest.? Well, at the 30-year auction, foreign interest was light at the lowest yield since regular auctions began in 1977.? A few strong economic numbers can make fear temporarily dissipate.

4) Here’s what I posted at RealMoney today:


 David Merkel
Moody’s Downgrades XL Capital Assurance
2/7/2008 3:34 PM EST

When the main rating agencies begin downgrading the lesser guarantors, the big guarantors are likely not far behind. Moody’s just downgraded XL Capital Assurance from Aaa to A3, and Security Capital Assurance From Aa3 to Baa3 (barely investment grade). Psychologically, the major rating agencies, Moody’s and S&P, have been taking baby steps toward downgrading Ambac, MBIA and FGIC. But first they have to do the lesser guarantors that are in trouble. As I have pointed out before, the major rating agencies are co-dependent with the major guarantors, and that will only throw the guarantors over the edge if hurts them more to leave the guarantors at AAA. That will cost them future revenues to cut the ratings of the major guarantors, but it might save their larger franchises. (Fitch, on the other hand, has less to lose and can downgrade with impunity.)

Now, the effects on the broader insured bond market are probably overestimated. There will be new entrants to take the place of the legacy companies that may have to go into runoff. The holding companies for the major guarantors could die, but a rescue of the operating insurance companies in runoff mode is more likely. Those who own equity in the holding companies or debt claims to the holding companies will not be happy with the results, though.

Watch for downgrades of the major guarantors. Unless a lot of new capital gets pumped into their operating insurance companies, the downgrades are coming, maybe within a month.

Please note that due to factors including low market capitalization and/or insufficient public float, we consider Security Capital Assurance to be a small-cap stock. You should be aware that such stocks are subject to more risk than stocks of larger companies, including greater volatility, lower liquidity and less publicly available information, and that postings such as this one can have an effect on their stock prices.

Position: none

Now after the close, MBIA offered stock at a 14% haircut to the closing price. ? Let’s see where the price closes tomorrow… it almost boils down to the number of buyers saying, “At a 14% haircut, there’s no way that it will close below that level.? We can buy and flip for an easy profit.”? In this case, though, there are 60%+ more shares after this issuance.? That’s some level of dilution.? MBIA may keep its AAA, but that says little for the value of holding company common stock.

5) One reader wrote me, “mr. merkel — would you care at all to expound on point 2? it’s been the assertion of some that what makes the monoline threat a non-issue is specifically that there IS a harmony of interests in seeing ambac, mbia et al at least get to a point where they can run off their obligations. however, i must admit, i’ve not seen the case made with specificity — that is, what are the interests of the interested parties, and how do they conflict or coincide?”

Point 2 was the idea that a bailout would be tough to achieve, because of differing interests on the part of those being sought to bail out the guarantors. ? Here’s my rationale: different investment banks have differing levels and types of exposure to the credit risks covered by the guarantors.? Coming up with an equitable allocation of concessions would be tough, but not impossible.? Beyond that, you have all of the ways that the guarantors reinsured each other, which further tangles the web of promises.? A bailout could be done, given enough time, and enough angelic third-party experts to divide the pie perfectly.? Time is short here, and I suspect the rating agencies will lose patience, given their need to protect their franchises.

6) At present, the yield curve indicates a 2% Fed funds rate by mid-to-late 2008.? Uh, that’s not what I would do, but it seems pretty likely for now.? What kind of price inflation would get the attention of the Fed here?? Beats me; the slope of the yield curve today is adequate to allow banks to make money; if the Fed waits at these levels, the economy should recover over the next two years.

7) I liked the idea of this post at the American Prospect, but for a different reason.? Since I called the housing bubble very clearly over at RealMoney, and even subprime too, does that mean that I can criticize the Fed with impunity?? Constructively, of course.

8) From another reader, Bamboo: I have not seen much discussion of the statutory capital requirements of the financial guaranty insurers.? It seems that Article 69 of the New York Insurance Law is the critical statute.

Although the rating agencies do not consider mark to market losses in their evaulations of capital adequacy, do they affect statutory capital?

Is there a possibility that the financial guarantors will have to take a premium deficiency reserve for their structured finance business?

I would like to get a copy of article 69, but I can’t find one.? In general statutory regulations are less market-oriented than rating agencies and GAAP.? The problems usually show up faster on GAAP than Stat, leaving aside high growth situations.

9) Another reader, Bill Luby of VIX and More, writes: Hi David,

Once again, kudos for keeping up a consistently high quality of posting here.? Your thinking often sets my brain in motion — in a very good way.

If you don’t mind, I’d be interested to get your take on the current status of the bond insurer problem and how you think it might play out.? In addition to what happens to MBI and ABK, I am also interested in whether you think others with a stronger financial position (AGO?) might make significant gains in this space.

Cheers,

-Bill

Yes, AGO, Dexia (FSA), and Berky all do well from the turmoil.? Strong balance sheets benefit from increased volatility, even as weak balance sheets are harmed.

10) Finally, from Reader Scott, regarding Medicare and entitlements, “David, wondering your thoughts on how the situation gets addressed.? There is no question at all that the equation doesn’t solve, presently.? My current thoughts are that (1) taxes go higher – not even up for serious discussion; and (2) so do trade barriers.? we trade some protectionism, a la Europe, and reduced overall welfare, for a feel-good “leveling” of some of society’s current inequties.? our nation’s most influential demographic, old folks, who vote, are appeased. add to that, perhaps, some guest worker immigration policies.? second class citizens earning second-tier wages.? on balance, we begin looking a lot more like Europe, reversing the cherished myth of American exceptionalism, and staving off acceptance of the twenty-first being the China Century.? Care to comment?”

Americans are exceptional, and that is not always a good thing.? We have fewer presuppositions than most of the world, and that leads to innovative solutions, a certain amount of unnecessary chaos, and occasional hubris.? We are probably heading for an era of leveling, but that is not certain.? Historically, it is likely.? Trade may be another matter; we may be getting close to a point where the rest of the world sees the value of freer trade, even if the US goes the other way.? Organized efforts against free trade are weak compared to protectionist eras.

As for old folks that vote, yes, that’s what makes this problem tough.? I’m not into doom and gloom, but I can see a negative self-reinforcing cycle coming.? If Bush, Jr., got smacked over his all-too-cautious attempt at Social Security reform (it would have done almost nothing, but listen to the squeals), can you imagine what true reform of a much bigger problem might entail?? We would need a full blown panic in the debt markets to get focus there, and as for now, foreigners are still very willing to roll over US debt denominated in US dollars.

Full disclosure: long AIZ, LNC

The Boom-Bust Cycle, Applied to Many Markets

The Boom-Bust Cycle, Applied to Many Markets

Posted on by David Merkel

Every now and then, valuation metrics in a market will get changed by the entrance of an aggressive new buyer or seller with a different agenda than existing buyers or sellers in the marketplace.? Or conversely, the exit of an aggressive buyer or seller.

Think of the residential mortgage marketplace over the last several years.? With an “originate and securitize” model where no one enforced credit standards at all, credit spreads got really aggressive, and volumes ballooned. Many marginal mortgage lenders entered the market, because it was strictly a volume business.? Now with falling housing prices, there are high levels of delinquency and default, and mortgage volumes have shrunk, leading to the failures/closures of many of those marginal lenders.? Underwriting standards rise, as capacity drops out.? Even prime borrowers face tougher standards.? In two short years, fire has given way to ice.

If you’ll indulge another story of mine, I worked for an insurer who had a well-run commercial mortgage arm.? Very conservative.? They did small-ish loans on what I would call “economically necessary real estate.”? See that ugly strip mall with the grocery anchor?? Everyone in the area shops there; that’s a good property.

Well, in 1992, the head of the Commercial Mortgage area had a problem.? The company had only three lines of business, and two lines representing 60% and 20% of the assets of the firm were full up on mortgages.? What was worse, was they didn’t want to even replace maturing loans, because the ratings agencies had told the company that commercial mortgage loans were a negative rating factor.? Never mind the fact that the default loss rate was 40% of the industry average.

He stared down the possibility that he would have to close down his division.? He had one last chance.? He called the actuary that ran the division that I was in (my boss), and pitched him on doing some commercial mortgages.? The conversation went something like this:

Mortgage Guy: I know you haven’t liked commercial mortgages in the past, but my back is against the wall, and if you don’t take my originations, I’ll have to shut down.? You’ve heard that the other two divisions won’t take any more mortgages at all.?

Boss: Yeah, I heard.? But the reason we never took commercial mortgages was that we didn’t like the credit spread compared to the risks involved.? 150 basis points over Treasuries just doesn’t make it for us.

M: Well, because many companies have reduced originations, the spreads are 300 basis points now.

B: 300?! But what about the quality of the loans?

M: Only the best quality loans are getting done now.? I can insist on additional equity, in some cases recourse, and faster amortization.? My loan-to-values are the lowest I’ve seen in years.? Coverage ratios are similarly good.

B: Well, well.? Perhaps I’ve been right in the past, but I’m not pigheaded.? Look, we could take our percentage of assets in mortgages from 0% to 20%, but no more.? At your current origination rate, that would allow you to survive for two years.? We will take them all, subject to you keeping high credit quality standards.? Okay?

M: Thank you.? We’ll do our best for you.

And they did.? For the next two years, our line of business and the mortgage division had a symbiotic relationship, after which, spreads tightened significantly as confidence came back to the market.? We had 20% of our assets in mortgages, and the other two lines of business now felt comfortable enough with commercial mortgages to begin taking them again — at much lower spreads (and quality) than we received.

It’s important to try to look through the windshield, and not the rear-view mirror in investing.? Analyze the motives of current participants, new entrants, and their likely staying power to understand the competitive dynamics.? I’ll give one more example: the life insurance industry was a lousy place to invest for years.? Why?? A bunch of fat, dumb, and happy mutual companies were willing to write life insurance business earning a minimal return on capital.? As another boss of mine once said, “It doesn’t take mere incompetence to kill a mutual life insurer; it takes malice.”? Well, malice, or at least its cousin, killed a number of insurers, and crippled others in the late 80s to mid 90s.? Investment policies that relied on a rising commercial real estate market failed.

But that was the point to begin investing in life insurers.? They began pricing capital economically, and the industry began insisting on higher returns as a group.? Many mutuals demutualized, and the remaining large mutuals behaved indistinguishably from their stock company cousins.? The default cycle of 2001-2003 reinforced that; it is one of the reasons that the life insurance industry has had only modest exposure to the current difficulties afflicting most financials.? After years of being outperformed by the banks, the life insurers look pretty good in comparison today.

I could go on, and talk about the CDO and CLO markets, and how they changed the high yield bond and loan markets, or how credit default swaps have changed fixed income.? Instead, I want to close with an observation about a very different market.? Who likes Treasury bonds at these low yields?

Well, I don’t.? At these yield levels the odds are pretty good that you will lose purchasing power over a 2-3 year period.? Then again, I’m a bit of a fuddy-duddy.? So who does like Treasury yields at these levels?

  • Players who are scared.
  • Players who have no choice.

There is a “fear factor” in Treasury yields now.? Beyond that, there is the recycling of the current account deficit, which is still large relative to the issuance of Treasuries.? The current account deficit is large, but shrinking, since the US dollar at these low levels is boosting net exports.? As the current account deficit shrinks, Treasury yields should rise, because foreign demand has been a large part of the buyers of Treasuries.? The Fed can hold the short end of the curve where it wants to, but the long end will rise as the current account deficit shrinks.

I think the current account deficit does shrink from here, because the cost of buying US debts, and not buying US goods is getting prohibitive.? Also, fewer retail buyers will take negative real yields.

That’s my thought for the evening.? Analyze the motives of other players in your markets, and don’t assume that the current state of the market is an equilibrium.? Equilibria in economics are phantoms.? They exist in theory, but not reality.? Better to ask where new entrants or exits will come from.

A Practical Reason to be Aware of ETF Activity

A Practical Reason to be Aware of ETF Activity

Posted on by David Merkel

In investing, it is important to understand what industries the companies in which you invest are in.? There are several reasons for this:

  • Companies within an industry tend to face the same cost pressures.
  • Companies within an industry tend to face the same revenue drivers.
  • Companies within an industry tend to face the same regulators and political pressures.
  • Companies within an industry tend to face the same behavior from debt-financers and equity investors.

Now, some companies have competitive advantages that are difficult to replicate, but those are not plentiful.? It is no surprise then that equity performance within industries tends to be tightly correlated.

Now consider ETF activity.? The largest ETFs cover whole stock markets, or sectors containing many industries.? The trading can drive the prices of many stocks regardless of the fundamentals in the short run.? The ETFs allow for simple decisions to be made.? “Financials stink; sell the XLF.”? “Technology stinks; sell the XLK.”? “Energy and materials will do well here, buy the XLE and XLB.”

The thing is, in each of those sectors, there is a lot of variation.? Is there a reason to worry about financial companies that focus on mortgages?? Yes.? Does that have anything to do with insurers?? Aside from mortgage, financial and title insurers, no, it doesn’t.? What do chemicals have to do with base metals?? Not much.? Do refiners and E&P companies benefit similarly from a rise in the price of oil?? No, it is the opposite; one buys oil, the other sells.

ETF trading activity can be a benefit to the fundamental investor.? When your companies come under pressure from ETFs because ETF holders sell indiscriminately and the company that you own is not a party to the macro phenomenon that is leading to the selling, it is time to buy a little more.? When your companies rise because ETF buyers buy indiscriminately and the company that you own is not a party to the macro phenomenon that is leading to the buying, it is time to sell a little.

ETFs simplify decision-making for many investors.? Sophisticated investors will avoid the simplification and drill down the economics and the industries and companies that they own, leading to greater profits in the long run.

Back in the Black

Back in the Black

Posted on by David Merkel

No way. If you had asked me two weeks ago whether I would get back in the plus column for 2008, I would have said, “Yes, but in eleven months.” Well, my broad market portfolio is up on the year. Even now, I know that when I write next week, I could be on the other side of the line.

The thing that gives me some degree of confidence at this point relates to what I wrote at RealMoney earlier today:


 David Merkel
Rebalancing Trade
2/1/2008 2:56 PM EST

It’s not supposed to work this fast, but I did a rebalancing sale on Alliance Data Systems. Looked really cheap after the merger agreement blew; I guess it was cheap! Hanging onto the balance for more gains. It’s been a weird year so far. On the bright side, I am back to breakeven for 2008, and I have a better, cheaper, more financially sound batch of stocks than I did in mid-2007.

That means something to me. I even think my portfolio has more growth potential than the one I was running with in mid-2007, and I don’t pay up for growth. I do accept it if it is being offered gratis.

There is something different going on in the markets now. It is as if the wind has moved to my back and out of my face. That said, it could just be a bear market rally, or a brief spurt of mid- and small-cap value amid a market favoring growth investing.

Then again, I am grateful to God for the turn; I’ve made a number of good picks and sales lately, and they have paid off more rapidly than normal. With that, I am ready for some retrenchment here, but who knows? My philosophy is to play for maximum advantage; if I have made gains early in the year, I want to play for more. I always hated the idea of indexing if one had a good start to the year. Why cheat your clients? Do your best regardless, and most of the time, it will win.

Hey, I’m just grateful to have made money in 2008. Hope you make money too, and more than me.

Full disclosure: long ADS

Theme: Overlay by Kaira.