March Madness

March 15, 2011

March Madness starts today as the first of 68 teams begin play for the NCAA men’s basketball title. While most of us will not be able to watch all the games, we will follow the results closely because we have one or more brackets completed for tournament pools.

There are almost as many methods for selecting teams as there are for selecting stocks. All of the methods used to select either teams or stocks have one thing in common: they do not give the correct pick every time. No matter what you do, some of your picks will not pan out.

However, we do know that some methods are statistically more successful overall and that is the topic of a recent article by Matthew Huston in the Psychology Today blog. The article recommends that players should not try to predict upsets in tournament pools. While there will certainly be upsets, trying to pick them is very likely to reduce your overall win percentage. Mr. Huston discusses the statistical fallacy at work here:

…McCrea and Hirt found that people did not predict upsets as a result of thinking the worse-seeded team was actually the better team. So what’s going on? The researchers concluded that fans adhere to a strategy called probability matching.

Let’s say you’re drawing balls from a large box that contains 25 red balls and 75 blue balls. Many people tasked with predicting draws will predict red 25 percent of the time and blue 75 percent of the time. They match their guesses to the probabilities of the outcomes, in this case yielding a 62.5 percent success rate. But if they just guessed blue on each draw, they’d be right, on average, 75 percent of the time.

Similarly, people know there will be a certain number of upsets in each NCAA tournament, and therefore betting on a Cinderella-free tourney seems silly. The only logical thing to do, they conclude, is to figure out when those upsets will take place. The drawback, of course, is that by shooting for perfection, they end up handicapping themselves. In McCrea and Hirt’s research using real NCAA data, for example, people would have been much better off just sticking to the seedings.

This strategy of probability matching is similar to trying to bottom fish stocks. It can be incredibly gratifying—not to mention ego-boosting—to correctly pick the Cinderella team or stock, but the probabilities are not in your favor. Instead of picking weak teams or weak stocks to win, you would most likely do better by going with strength even though not all your picks will be correct.

Source: www.faqs.org


What’s Hot…and Not

March 15, 2011

How different investments have done over the past 12 months, 6 months, and month.

1PowerShares DB Gold, 2iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF, 3iShares DJ U.S. Real Estate Index, 4iShares S&P Europe 350 Index, 5Green Haven Continuous Commodity Index, 6iBoxx High Yield Corporate Bond Fund, 7JP Morgan Emerging Markets Bond Fund, 8PowerShares DB US Dollar Index, 9iBoxx Investment Grade Corporate Bond Fund, 10PowerShares DB Oil, 11iShares Barclays 20+ Year Treasury Bond



Supply and Demand on the High Seas

March 15, 2011

In every corner of the world, supply and demand is the essential law of economics that never gets repealed. For proof, consider this quote from a Reuters story:

Somali pirates said on Sunday they would lower some of their ransom demands to get a faster turnover of ships they hijack in the Indian Ocean.

Armed pirate gangs, who have made millions of dollars capturing ships as far south as the Seychelles and eastwards towards India, said they were holding too many vessels and needed a quicker handover to generate more income.

In essence, supply is piling up and the pirates are cutting prices! This demonstrates pretty clearly why price is so important—it is the clearing level for supply and demand.

Source: www.timtim.com


Too Much Information Makes Elvis Leave the Building

March 15, 2011

If your teenage sends you a text with “TMI” in it, you’ve overshared. Unfortunately for investors, the financial markets overshare all the time. The flow of information can be so intense that your brain literally becomes overloaded. Between earnings releases, corporate news, talking heads on CNBC with gongs, sirens, airhorns, or a dramatic opinion about everything, it’s no wonder you are overwhelmed. No one can effectively process so much information.

Source: www.audiobooksonline.com

A Newsweek article on the science of decision making explains:

As the information load increased, she [Angelika Dimoka, director of the Center for Neural Decision Making at Temple University] found, so did activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, a region behind the forehead that is responsible for decision making and control of emotions. But as the researchers gave the bidders more and more information, activity in the dorsolateral PFC suddenly fell off, as if a circuit breaker had popped. “The bidders reach cognitive and information overload,” says Dimoka. They start making stupid mistakes and bad choices because the brain region responsible for smart decision making has essentially left the premises. For the same reason, their frustration and anxiety soar: the brain’s emotion regions—previously held in check by the dorsolateral PFC—run as wild as toddlers on a sugar high. The two effects build on one another. “With too much information, ” says Dimoka, “people’s decisions make less and less sense.”

That’s kind of scary—when you get information overload, your brain leaves the building and your emotions take over. It’s a double whammy because the two effects reinforce one another. It doesn’t matter how smart you are—the information overload is a neural reaction, not a decision that you make.

Source: www.tshirts.name

It’s well documented that emotional financial decisions are bad financial decisions. While gut feelings are often useful in a social context, they are lethal in the market.

The implications are obvious. 1) Shut off the ridiculous information flow. More information does not result in better decisions. Focus on the information relevant to your return factor, like relative strength or valuation. 2) Stay calm. In fact, cutting down the information flow will help you stay calm. The less distractions you have, the more likely you are to have a Zen-like focus on what really matters. Finally, you need to 3) systematically execute your investment process. All of your testing is worthless if you cannot execute transactions with conviction at the point of decision.

The nice thing about a systematic process (like our Systematic Relative Strength accounts) is that the process can be designed and tested without any psychological pressure. We find there is great peace of mind designing a process that adapts—when the environment changes, we don’t worry about the model breaking. We know it will be out of synch for a while at the turns, but then it will adapt to the new trends. Knowing that it will adapt makes it substantially easier to execute, I think. The whole goal is not to get emotions involved when you are interacting with the markets.