Decide on a Process and Stick To It

August 4, 2009

Jonathan Hirtle is CEO of the investment consulting firm Hirtle, Callaghan. In this article, he points out that investment policy committees made all of the same errors as individual investors over the last 18 months. He has five policy prescriptions to solve the problem, but a couple of them really resonated with me.

First, he says, “decide on a fact-based decision process and stick to it.” I think this very strongly favors managers that have done extensive research and can demonstrate that they have an edge over time. So much of what we “know” in the investment business amount to unsupported assertions. It’s important to quantify your work. He adds, “unless the macro-decision process has been measured and proven to add value, the rest becomes little more than a social exercise.” If the process becomes an exercise in group think, little good will come of it. And it’s difficult to improve a process until you measure it. Once again, quantification is very important.

One of his prescriptions seems a little off the wall, but I think may have a great deal of value. He suggests that investors and advisors form support groups. That might sound unusual, but he explains, “it has been widely demonstrated that we humans act destructively around money. When we encounter destructive behavior in other aspects of our lives, we form a support group. We encourage our client investment committees to think of their outside advisers and themselves as a support group whose aim is to help each other stay on the wagon of enlightened investing.” We’ve written many times on this blog that most investment errors turn out to be, at their core, behavioral errors. So I think his suggestion has a lot of merit. Clients and advisors need to stick together and help one another out.

One of the things we hope to encourage with this blog, besides being able to explain our thought process and investment discipline, is interaction among our readers. We love questions that might spur research on a new idea or comments that could get a lively discussion going on a topic that is relevant to client portfolios in a turbulent time like this. We hope that you enjoy the content, but we also encourage you to contribute your voice to the discussion.

Posted by:


Sugar, Sugar

August 4, 2009

Tom Dorsey often points out that supply and demand is the one concept from economics that really resonates with him. This article, about the sugar crop in India, shows how clearly supply and demand works all over the globe. In India’s case, the government has gotten involved in trying to fine tune sugar production and prices, which unfortunately has made the boom and bust cycles worse.

Relative strength, because it is purely price-based, is also a measure of supply and demand—in this case, relative supply and demand. We want to own the assets where demand is strong and avoid the assets that are overwhelmed by supply. There will always be big swings in supply and demand from cyclical factors like those described in the article, not to mention government intervention, so opportunities for trend followers will always be plentiful.

Posted by:


Arrow DWA Tactical Fund Update

August 4, 2009

The Arrow DWA Tactical Fund has completed conversion to a global macro style. For more information, you should go directly to Arrow Advisors. This fund might be especially useful if you are interested in our Systematic RS Global Macro strategy and it is not available on your firm’s platform, or if you have a smaller account that does not qualify for our separate account minimum.

Click here to visit ArrowFunds.com for a prospectus & disclosures. Click here for disclosures from Dorsey Wright Money Management.

Posted by:


More Proof

August 4, 2009

In his book What Works on Wall Street, James O’Shaughnessy examined literally hundreds of strategies to see which really outperformed. He discovered that relative strength worked, as did some value strategies. Eventually, he settled on two strategies, Cornerstone Growth, which married value and relative strength, and Cornerstone Value, which used both value and high dividend yield. Since the book came out originally in the 1990s (the copyright on my copy is 1997), the skeptical folks at CXO Advisory recently examined how the strategies have performed since then.

The relative strength strategy has continued to shine. Cornerstone Growth has outperformed the market by about 5% per year over the 12-year period. This speaks to how adaptive and robust relative strength is. Cornerstone Value, on the other hand, has had a fall from grace. Even though it outperformed during the test period, in real life it has lagged the market by about 2% annually.

Third-party studies like this are quite important in separating fact from fiction in the investment world, and it is just more proof of the inefficiencies in the financial markets and the value of relative strength.

Posted by: