Master of Disaster

August 27, 2009

Ken Rogoff is just a brilliant guy. First of all, he is an International Grandmaster in chess and in the 1970s won the U.S. Under 21 Championship when he was only 16. After getting his Ph.D. in Economics from M.I.T., he served as the chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, where he had to deal with systemic banking failures in a number of nations. He and Carmen Reinhart have written insightfully on the banking crisis in the past. Mr. Rogoff might know more about how to solve banking crises than anyone, and certainly more than Congress or their lobbyists.

His latest piece is important reading. He concludes “within a few years, western governments will have to sharply raise taxes, inflate, partially default, or some combination of all three.” Possibly like the rest of us, he sees little prospect that Congress will ever actually cut spending.

Most western nations, and certainly the U.S., have not been in that position in the recent past. If Mr. Rogoff’s scenario comes to pass, having a Global Macro-type portfolio could be a lifesaver. The only way to protect hard-earned capital might be to have investment access to a wide range of asset classes around the globe.

Click here for disclosures from Dorsey Wright Money Management.

Posted by:


Trend Following and Randomness

August 27, 2009

Clay Allen of Market Dynamics has an outstanding and lucid piece about the relationship between random price activity and trends. He presents the case for the importance of observing and following trends without worrying about prediction. Must reading, in my opinion.

Posted by:


Sit and Take It

August 27, 2009

Buy and hold investing (I like to refer to it as “sit and take it”) has such a hold on the population that a recent Wall Street Journal story points out that the majority of investors—61%—have made no changes to their 401k allocations since the stock market began to decline. If investor behavior works like it has historically, most of the 39% who did make changes probably did the wrong thing.

Frankly, even investors who did nothing had their allocations change dramatically, because the market movement changed their allocation for them—although maybe not in the way they intended. Standing pat has just as many consequences as any other choice.

Various financial advisors quoted in the article give widely varying advice on what clients should do, as if they weren’t confused enough already. One advisor says many new clients “are arriving with portfolios heavily weighted in cash and questions about when and how to enter the market.” In other words, they are dazed and confused.

I can’t think of a better argument for an adaptive, systematic investing strategy. A systematic strategy gives you a plan of action that can be followed in all markets. An adaptive plan changes holdings as the market environment changes. Not every change will work out perfectly, of course, but a systematic, adaptive plan that exploits a factor known to outperform over time (like relative strength) gives you a good shot to do the right thing.

Posted by: