Getting Off the Sidelines

February 17, 2010

We’re at a strange place in the market cycle. Depending on the day, investors are either fearful of a further decline or fearful of missing the recovery. No one can tell if we are in the eye of the storm and about to head into the dreaded double dip or if the nascent economic recovery has legs and is about to surprise on the upside. Despite the best year of the decade in 2009, it’s safe to say that investor confidence is still very fragile.

Amid that backdrop, investors have responded by clinging to cash. According to a recent article in Investment News, more than $9 trillion is on the sidelines. Investors need to figure out some way to get back in the game.

Of course, investor angst is understandable. Most investors diversified and tried to be patient, the very behavior they had been counseled to follow. Then 2008 came along and they got whacked when almost every asset class dropped. In other words, they did what they were told and it turned out disastrously for them. Now investors don’t know what to do or who to believe.

It’s not that investors are living in a cave. They can see the current environment and they understand that there are multiple risks they need coverage against: inflation, deflation, currency depreciation, and so on. With the yield on cash at essentially zero, they also know they can’t sit in money market funds forever and reach their investment goals.

Investors recognize that a potentially broader approach to asset classes would be helpful, but they are paralyzed with fear and have no idea how to implement that kind of investment policy. It’s not so much that they are afraid of the market as they are afraid of jumping in (or out) and getting it wrong.

Our Global Macro portfolio offers a possible solution for some of that $9 trillion sitting on the sidelines. Investors, I believe, after being beaten half to death by the proponents of sit-and-take-it investing, are now open to a tactical approach that offers great flexibility of exposure to different asset classes. They can see with their own eyes that the world has changed. They are just confused about how to handle the timing of multiple asset class exposures and reluctant to attempt it on their own.

Their problems can be addressed with something like the Global Macro portfolio because the timing and market exposure is handled for them. If conditions are harsh, the portfolio could be held in fixed income, inverse funds, and cash. If risk is being rewarded, aggressive assets such as domestic equities, emerging markets, and real estate might be held. In an inflationary environment, there might be more exposure to basic materials and commodities. If the dollar depreciates, the portfolio might be heavily laden with international equities and foreign currencies. The other significant benefit is that the systematic relative strength process used to run the accounts continues to adapt to new conditions as markets change. I think investors breathe a little easier when they recognize that there is a specific strategy that is being followed-it won’t be optimal in every environment, but it won’t be driven by fear and greed.

It’s up to each client and each advisor to figure out how to get off the bench and back into the game, but for many clients a global allocation product might smooth the transition back onto the field of play.


High RS Diffusion Index

February 17, 2010

The chart below measures the percentage of high relative strength stocks that are trading above their 50-day moving average (universe of mid and large cap stocks.) As of 2/16/10.

The 10-day moving average of this indicator is 37% and the one-day reading is 56%. After reaching a single-day low of 26% on 2/5/10, this oscillator has rebounded sharply.


Currencies: Focus for Financial Markets in Coming Decade?

February 16, 2010

Bloomberg’s Matthew Lynn makes the case why currency trading will be the place to make a fortune in the coming decade:

The sovereign-debt crisis, the demise of the dollar and the creation of new reserve currencies all mean that the great financial reputations and fortunes will be made in foreign exchange in the coming few years.

In any decade, one sector of the financial markets is usually dominant. There is one corner of the financial universe where so much new stuff is happening, and it is of such importance to the rest of the world, that it is far easier for a young, ambitious person to make their mark than anywhere else.

In the 1980s, it was mergers-and-acquisitions deals.

In the 1990s, it was the venture capitalist who backed technology companies, and the bankers who arranged initial public offerings for dot-com companies on the stock market.

In the 2000s, it was hedge funds, along with the derivatives traders that supplied them with products.

But in the 2010s, it will be currency trading.

He gives three reasons that this will be the case:

There are several good reasons for expecting currency trading to be the focus for financial markets this decade.

First, the sovereign-debt crisis. Governments took on huge debt to combat the financial meltdown. That didn’t really fix the problem. It just shifted it from one place to another. Now there are doubts about whether nations can service their obligations. The only way the markets can discipline governments, or pass a verdict on their performance, is via the currency markets. However the crisis eventually works out, it is the foreign-exchange markets that will be in the driver’s seat.

Second, the dollar is in long-term decline. Regardless of how well the U.S. recovers, the rise of new economies such as China, Brazil and India means America won’t be the dominant force in the world that it once was. The result? The dollar’s special status is coming to an end. That may be a good thing after some intense volatility as the world adjusts. Again, it is currency traders who will be in control of that transition.

Third, the advent of new reserve currencies. With the dollar on the way down, the world will need something as a reliable store of value. There are plenty of candidates: It might be gold, an International Monetary Fund-sponsored basket of currencies, or a new world currency. Who knows, it could be something nobody has thought of yet. Ultimately it will be foreign-exchange traders who decide what works and what doesn’t.

Maybe Lynn is right, maybe he is wrong. However, he makes some very logical arguments. Having the ability to invest in currencies may be increasingly important in the coming decade.


Relative Strength Spread

February 16, 2010

The chart below is the spread between the relative strength leaders and relative strength laggards (universe of mid and large cap stocks). When the chart is rising, relative strength leaders are performing better than relative strength laggards. As of 2/12/2010:

After being out of favor for the better part of a year, the stage is set for relative strength to re-emerge as a winning investment factor. None of us know how soon we’ll again see a sustained rising spread, but the historical tendency has been for periods of underperformance for relative strength factors to be followed by periods of strong outperformance.


Weekly RS Recap

February 16, 2010

The table below shows the performance of a universe of mid and large cap U.S. equities, broken down by relative strength decile and quartile and then compared to the universe return. Those at the top of the ranks are those stocks which have the best intermediate-term relative strength. Relative strength strategies buy securities that have strong intermediate-term relative strength and hold them as long as they remain strong.

Last week’s performance (2/8/10 – 2/12/10) is as follows:

Excellent performance for high relative strength stocks last week.


Sector and Capitalization Performance

February 12, 2010

The chart below shows performance of US sectors and capitalizations over the trailing 12, 6, and 1 month(s). Relative strength strategies buy securities that have strong intermediate-term relative strength and hold them as long as they remain strong. Performance updated through 2/11/2010.


10 Issues That We Don’t Have

February 11, 2010

Brett Steenbarger lists the top ten reason that traders lose their discipline:

Losing discipline is not a trading problem; it is the common result of a number of trading-related problems. Here are the most common sources of loss of discipline, culled from my work with traders:

10- Environmental distractions and boredom cause a lack of focus;

9- Fatigue and mental overload create a loss of concentration;

8- Overconfidence follows a string of successes;

7- Unwillingness to accept losses, leading to alterations of trade plans after the trade has gone into the red;

6- Loss of confidence in one’s trading plan/strategy because it has not been adequately tested and battle-tested;

5- Personality traits that lead to impulsivity and low frustration tolerance in stressful situations;

4- Situational performance pressures, such as trading slumps and increased personal expenses, that change how traders trade (putting P/L ahead of making good trades);

3- Trading positions that are excessive for the account size, created exaggerated P/L swings and emotional reactions;

2- Not having a clearly defined trading plan/strategy in the first place;

1- Trading a time frame, style, or market that does not match your talents, skills, risk tolerance, and personality.

Emotions are a performance and discipline killer. The difference in stress levels between managing money based on systematic models and using manager discretion is immense! You can spend a lifetime trying to make yourself immune to emotions (not going to happen while you are still breathing) or you can rely on systematic models. Systematic models have the benefit of never getting tired, upset, nervous, or bored. Furthermore, research in a variety of fields confirms the performance advantage of systematic models.


Getting Torched By Expert Opinion

February 11, 2010

Barry Ritholtz has posted a 5 minute clip of some of Ben Bernanke’s public comments between 2005-2007 on the housing market and the broader economy. The point of me posting this is not to say that Bernanke is a complete moron because I have little doubt that he is one of the brightest financial minds in the country. However, talk about being dead wrong! If you relied on these opinions in order to make investment decisions, you likely got torched. If you can’t rely on expert opinion when making investment decisions, then what options do you have?

This highlights the value of trend-following systems. Trend following requires zero reliance on expert opinion; it simply allows the investor to adapt to whatever trends the market offers, whether or not experts expected things to play out in a given way. With trend following, you’ll have plenty of losing trades, but you’ll also avoid sitting in losing trades for long periods of time. Furthermore, systematic trend-following has an excellent track record (see here and here.) Trend following allows you to cut your losses short and to hold on to your winners. Frequently, the strongest trends end up being very different from what even the brightest experts predicted.


Fund Flows

February 11, 2010

The Investment Company Institute is the national association of U.S. investment companies, including mutual funds, closed-end funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), and unit investment trusts (UITs). Members of ICI manage total assets of $11.82 trillion and serve nearly 90 million shareholders. Flow estimates are derived from data collected covering more than 95 percent of industry assets and are adjusted to represent industry totals.

Net fund flows are shown in the table below:

There were big inflows for taxable bonds and big outflows for U.S. equities for the week ending February 3.


Why We Like Price

February 10, 2010

Relative strength calculations rely on a single input: price. We like price because it is a known quantity, not an assumption. In this deconstruction of the Price-to-Earnings Growth (PEG) ratio, the author, Tom Brakke, discusses all of the uncertainties when calculating even a simple ratio like PEG. And amidst all of the uncertainties he mentions is this:

In looking at that calculation, only one of the three variables has any precision: We can observe the market price (P) at virtually any time and be assured that we have an accurate number. The E is a different matter entirely. Which earnings? Forward, trailing, smoothed, operating, adjusted, owner? Why? How deep into accounting and the theory of finance do you want to go?

For most investors, not very far. We like our heuristics clean and easy, not hairy. So, in combining the first two variables we get the P/E ratio, the “multiple” upon which most valuation work rests, despite the questionable assumptions that may be baked in at any time. The addition of the third element, growth (G), gives us not the epiphany we seek, but even more confusion.

The emphasis is mine. This isn’t a knock on fundamental analysis. It can be valuable, but there is an inherent squishiness to it. The only precision is found in price. And price is dynamic: it adapts in real time as expectations of the asset change. (Fundamental data is often available only on a quarterly schedule.) As a result, systematic models built using relative strength adapt quite nicely as conditions change.


Irrational Loss Aversion

February 10, 2010

It’s well known in behavioral finance that investors experience a loss 2-3x more intensely than a gain of the same magnitude. This loss aversion leads investors to avoid even rational bets, according to a Reuters story on a recent study by a Cal Tech scientist.

Laboratory and field evidence suggests that people often avoid risks with losses even when they might earn a substantially larger gain, a behavioral preference termed ‘loss aversion’,” they wrote.

For instance, people will avoid gambles in which they are equally likely to either lose $10 or win $15, even though the expected value of the gamble is positive ($2.50).

The study indicates that people show fear at even the prospect of a loss. Markets are designed to generate fear, not to mention all of the bearish commentators on CNBC. Fear leads to poor decisions, like selling near the bottom of a correction. Unless you are planning to electrically lesion your amygdala, the fear is going to be there-so what’s the best way to deal with it?

The course we have chosen is to make our investment models systematic. That means the decisions are rules-based, not subject to whatever fear the portfolio managers may be experiencing at any given time. Once in a blue moon, excessive caution pays off, but studies suggest that more errors are made being excessively cautious than overly aggressive. A rules-based method treats risk in a even-handed, mathematical way. In other words, take risks that historically are likely to pay off, and keep taking them regardless of your emotional state. Given enough time, the math is likely to swing things in your favor.


The 80/20 Rule in Action

February 10, 2010

According to a fascinating study discussed in Time Magazine based on 27 million hands of Texas Hold’em, it turns out that the more hands poker players win, the more money they lose! What’s going on here?

I suspect it has to do with investor preferences-gamblers often think the same way. Most people like to have a high percentage of winning trades; they are less happy with a lower percentage of winning trades, even if the occasional winner is a big one. In other words, investors will often prefer a system with 65% winning trades over a system with 45% winning trades, even if the latter method results in much greater overall profits.

People overweigh their frequent small gains vis-à-vis occasional large losses,” Siler says.

In fact, you are generally best off if you cut your losses and let your winners run. This is the way that systematic trend following tends to work. Often this results in a few large trades (the 20% in the 80/20 rule) making up a large part of your profits. Poker players and amateur investors obviously tend to work the other way, preferring lots of small profits-which all tend to be wiped away by a few large losses. Taking lots of small profits is the psychological path of least resistance, but the easy way is the wrong way in this case.


Bill Miller on Bonds

February 10, 2010

Bill Miller opines on investor’s ‘perverse’ affinity for bonds over stocks:

This affinity for bonds over stocks is understandable when looking at the past 10 years, but perverse, we believe, when looking at the likely course of the next 10. Bonds crushed stocks the past 10 years, with riskless Treasuries returning more than 6 per cent per year, while stocks lost money on average each year of the past 10. Ten years ago stocks were expensive; now they are not.

In the next decade, the story is likely to be quite different. As the economy gradually (or quickly) recovers, the Fed will remove the extraordinary monetary accommodation it provided during the crisis, and shrink its balance sheet. A neutral Fed funds rate would be in the 2.5 per cent range or thereabouts, perhaps higher. Long term, the ten-year Treasury ought to yield about the nominal growth rate of GDP, so somewhere in the 4.5 per cent to 5.5 per cent range, leading to substantial losses in Treasuries and probably investment grade corporates as well. High-yield bonds ought to do better, but they had their big move last year, rising over 50 per cent and providing the best returns relative to equities ever. All this, though, assumes benign inflation of 2 per cent to 3 per cent. If the inflation bears are right, bonds will be a disaster. [Emphasis Added]

It is quite possible that asset allocations with inflexible exposure to bond funds could be in big trouble over the next decade.


High RS Diffusion Index

February 10, 2010

The chart below measures the percentage of high relative strength stocks that are trading above their 50-day moving average (universe of mid and large cap stocks.) As of 2/9/10.

The 10-day moving average of this indicator is 35% and the one-day reading is 31%. This indicator reached a single-day low of 23% on 2/8/10. Dips in this indicator have often been good opportunities to add to relative strength strategies.


Relative Strength Spread

February 9, 2010

The chart below is the spread between the relative strength leaders and relative strength laggards (universe of mid and large cap stocks). When the chart is rising, relative strength leaders are performing better than relative strength laggards. As of 2/8/2010:

Everyone loves a comeback. After being very much out of favor for the better part of a year, the stage is set for relative strength to re-emerge as a winning investment factor. None of us know how soon we’ll again see a rising spread, but the historical tendency has been for periods of underperformance for relative strength factors to be followed by periods of strong outperformance.


Will We Ever Again Trust Wall Street?

February 8, 2010

The WSJ asks Will We Ever Again Trust Wall Street? I suppose that it is only natural to pose such a question after the poor performance of equities over the past decade. However, it is worth pointing out the equity returns following another period when investors were similarly disillusioned with Wall Street.

In 1952, two full decades after the Great Crash hit bottom, only 19% of wealthy Americans regarded stocks as the wisest investment choice, according to a Federal Reserve survey. Most investors thus sat out the great bull market of the 1950s, when stocks gained 19.4% annually.


Weekly RS Recap

February 8, 2010

The table below shows the performance of a universe of mid and large cap U.S. equities, broken down by relative strength decile and quartile and then compared to the universe return. Those at the top of the ranks are those stocks which have the best intermediate-term relative strength. Relative strength strategies buy securities that have strong intermediate-term relative strength and hold them as long as they remain strong.

Last week’s performance (2/1/10 – 2/5/10) is as follows:

High RS stocks held up better than the universe last week.


Social Security Goes Cash-Flow Negative

February 5, 2010

Allan Sloan at Fortune makes a great point about the Social Security system. It will be cash-flow negative for the first time since the early 1980s. Covering the shortfall will inevitably lead to either more debt or some kind of benefit reductions. Alternatively, I guess, they could just print more money and create inflation, although there are a number of economists who argue that deflationary forces (from deleveraging) in the economy are so strong right now that we don’t have to worry about inflation at all.

Fortunately I’m not an economist so I don’t really have a position on this. We’ll find out everything we need to know from the price of government debt and U.S. credit default swaps. Although it is impossible to precisely forecast what the effects on financial markets might be, supply and demand will figure it out over time.


Interview with Carmen Reinhart

February 5, 2010

Carmen Reinhart has collaborated with Kenneth Rogoff for nine years now-they were both economists at the International Monetary Fund. They are the foremost experts on financial crises and their aftermath. The Wall Street Journal today carried a very informative interview with her about where we are in the financial crisis.

Ken and I have been arguing fairly forcefully that historically, following a wave of financial crises especially in financial centers, you get a wave of defaults. You go from financial crises to sovereign debt crises. I think we’re in for a period where that kind of scenario is very likely.

Her main point is that we could be in for a long period of deleveraging, and obviously some of that deleveraging could be accomplished through default.

Although direct parallels to the 1930s may be overdone, Reinhart makes the case that we haven’t seen anything similar to this in the investment careers of anyone around today.

We have not seen an economic downturn so synchronized, a downturn in trade so sharp and widespread, post-World War II. We have not seen this many economies in the advanced world, which accounts for the lions’ share of world GDP, simultaneously have financial crises since the 1930s. Nothing even close.

Viewed from that standpoint, what we are going through doesn’t have any easy comparisons. We’re somewhat in uncharted waters. We have a big downturn like the 1930s, yet the world is a very different place today. A more global, more tactical approach to investing might be required to navigate through these treacherous waters.


Hilarious Clip of NFL Players at the Super Bowl

February 5, 2010

CNBC’s Darren Rovell went around Miami quizzing Colts and Saints on the Economy (as reported at The Business Insider.) My favorite line: After finding out the unemployment rate is 10%, Colts linebacker Cody Glenn exclaimed “What’s everybody crying about?”


Sector and Capitalization Performance

February 5, 2010

The chart below shows performance of US sectors and capitalizations over the trailing 12, 6, and 1 month(s). Relative strength strategies buy securities that have strong intermediate-term relative strength and hold them as long as they remain strong. Performance updated through 2/4/2010.


U.S. to Lose AAA?

February 4, 2010

Moody’s warned that the U.S. government is in danger of losing its AAA credit rating. The Financial Times has a nice piece on it.

Unless further measures are taken to reduce the budget deficit further or the economy rebounds more vigorously than expected, the federal financial picture as presented in the projections for the next decade will at some point put pressure on the triple A government bond rating,” the rating agency added in an issuer note.

Clearly, Moody’s-along with probably most of the American public-was not impressed with the recent budget proposal, which contains growing deficits for the next couple of years. After that, strong economic growth is forecast to reduce the deficits. What happens if we don’t have strong economic growth? No one wants to think about that.

Even the optimistic budget proposal show U.S. debt as a percentage of GDP growing to 77% by 2020, only a decade away. The 80% level is the level at which Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart have noticed significant slowing in economic growth because of the debt burden. But it turns out, according to Moody’s, that we are already much closer to that number than we think.

Moody’s, however, says this understates the overall US debt level.

“Using the general government measure, including state and local governments as well as the federal government, which is used internationally, this ratio would be well over 100 per cent in 2020.”

In other words, due to an accounting convention, we don’t count debt like everyone else. This accounting fiction makes our debt burden relatively lighter on paper, but markets often figure out the real truth.

Markets are already punishing Greece and Portugal because of their debt burdens. If fiscal policy is not reined in, the U.S. could have some of the same problems down the road. Global markets always turn out to be more powerful than sovereign nations.


New Normal or Same Old, Same Old?

February 4, 2010

Bill Gross is expecting low growth and low inflation in the “new normal” environment. For a contrasting viewpoint, Vivesh Kumar discusses how bond owners could get whacked if growth turns out to be stronger than expected. The ICI data is still showing big flows into bonds, so bond buyers are implicitly endorsing the low growth, low inflation scenario.

We’ll have to see how it plays out, but it seems apparent that not even safe investments may be safe.


Fund Flows

February 4, 2010

The Investment Company Institute is the national association of U.S. investment companies, including mutual funds, closed-end funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), and unit investment trusts (UITs). Members of ICI manage total assets of $11.82 trillion and serve nearly 90 million shareholders. Flow estimates are derived from data collected covering more than 95 percent of industry assets and are adjusted to represent industry totals. The table below is ranked in descending order based on flows through 1/27/2010.

Data Courtesy of ICI.

Investors continue to flock to bonds.


China Tightens Australia’s Monetary Policy

February 3, 2010

In case you are not convinced that we have a new world order, here is an interesting tidbit from the Wall Street Journal. On Tuesday, the Reserve Bank of Australia was expected to raise interest rates. They did not. The Australian dollar had been expecting the rate increase and took a hit when it didn’t happen. The most interesting reason is why Australia didn’t make a rate change.

…[the Reserve Bank of Australia] surprised the market by holding steady at 3.75%, noting among other factors China’s efforts “to reduce the degree of stimulus to their economy.”

You may ask what China’s slowdown has to do with Australia’s monetary policy. It’s pretty straightforward.

Because a reduction of credit in China will ripple through to demand for Australia’s raw materials, China essentially did Australia’s tightening for it.

So there you have it. China is such a large trading partner for Australia that the assumption is that there will be a trickle-down effect. It used to be said that when America got the sniffles, the rest of the world caught a cold. Now, at least in Asia, that role is being played by China.

It’s not clear what the investment implications of the new world order will be, but it’s pretty clear that some traditional relationships are going to change dramatically. Your investment portfolio needs to be broad enough to have the ability to adapt.