Lack of Confidence in Brexit Era Could be Costly

Introduction

I am a student of long-term investment performance for our accounts and my family. Some of the money entrusted to us is designed to make future payments many, many years into the future. Thus, I study which are successful and unsuccessful investors and their strategies over long periods of time. In that light I mentioned at a recent meeting of the New York Society of Securities Analysts celebrating the thinking of Ben Graham, the father of value investing, why I believed that the “experts” were wrong that the British would vote to remain within the European Union. They violated my rules for avoiding large losses that I derived from Ben Graham and my old professor David Dodd. The rules are:

A.  Overconfidence (Almost universal belief in an outcome)

B.  Faulty, incomplete, and poorly timed assumptions (Economic only

arguments) - Lack of non-financial milestones (Confusing money bets with bookies and number of bets + % undecided)

C.  The frequency of massive overconfidence in financial history is relatively rare; e.g., “Tulip Bulb” Sub-prime mortgages with house prices never declining. Avoiding those losses are critical to the number one rule of successful investing which is to avoid (big) losses along with the second rule, which is not to forget the first rule.

The First Two Rules Are Not Enough

One could have avoided losses from overconfidence by just moving into an all cash position and one would have saved all or the bulk of one’s capital. But if you stayed in cash you would have missed out on the compounding growth that investors have experienced over many years. Using a no-brainer approach of investing in a market index since 1926, one could have compounded at about 9% which doubles money every 8 years. (This is not a prediction of future returns.)

Our objective relative to the risks assumed is to do better than a mechanical index strategy. However, to beat the index one should analyze the performance of the index compared with actively managed investment accounts. In the periodic market declines, the index declines more than the accounts because first it does not have any cash and second most indices are heavily weighted in favor of the most liquid stocks which typically drop the most as they are the easiest to sell. The reverse is true on the way up from the bottom. The indices have no cash to reduce their rate of gains and are in the most liquid stocks that late-comers plow into.

As a student of investment performance of successful managers, I have noted that they have more confidence in what they are doing than others. Often they are lonely in adopting a particular stance or set of securities. Typically they are not positioned defensively in early stages of what proves to be a rising market. Many times this lonely confidence (compared to a market of little confidence) produces a superior compound growth rate. The superior managers don’t always do extremely well, which is why our portfolios have a number of funds that have characteristics that suggest in appropriate markets that they will do well.

Is Brexit an Opportunity?

Caveat emptor or buyer beware: we can not predict the future. My training at the race track is such to wish most of the time to avoid the betting favorites (weight of money) as well as my contrarian nature suggests that Brexit could well represent a major long-term opportunity for investors around the world.

Why?

There are potential parallels between 2016-17 and 1848 as indicated in last week’s post.    There are already eight European elections scheduled plus the re-vote in Austria. Australia finished voting this weekend with the present government weakened. The US will have a new administration and a different makeup of its Senate. There is a likely chance that within Europe there will be Brexit type votes either the in planned elections or in special referenda.

Around the world the existing order is under attack by groups on the right and the left claiming that the politicians and other “experts” have not delivered. Further they claim, governments are too big and therefore expensive and inefficient. Supranational bodies are viewed as even worse, as they are further away from the disgruntled people. In part due to social media, many minorities have expressed unhappiness with majority cultures and are expressing desires for autonomy or even independence. One wonders whether the concept of nationhood will need to change.

The world has changed. Even small companies and to some degree small investors view the world through multinational lenses. In the forthcoming negotiations between the UK and the EC, at the moment the UK has the advantage in that it should not be in any hurry. In the meantime it will be free to develop singular trade deals around the world. At the same time multinational companies and investors will seek out their own best deals. There is a long history of wartime enemies arranging a regular flow of trading between combatants. (I suspect that some in Germany are already at work on this option.) In the eventual final negotiation it would be wise for the UK to have one with the negotiating skills of “The Donald.” This is not a US political judgment, but one that recognizes commercial realities. It would not surprise me if the length of the negotiations is not similar to the twelve-year period between The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution. And that process had the benefit of the Founding Fathers led by Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe.

Perhaps coming out of all this will be a political shift favoring consumption over labor. China is attempting to do this with difficulty. The pro-labor attitude of the existing power structure has not worked. By raising the cost of labor (including benefits), it priced much of labor out of the market to be replaced primarily by automation, if not outsourced production beyond China’s borders. By focusing on consumption the drive will be in terms of price, quality, and safety which can produce a healthier and more satisfied society.

There is Still One Thing Missing.

The two largest economies in the world have been built by risk-takers. In both the US and China, the countries are populated by people who took the risk to move to their present location. Historically in the US, it is important to remember that with the exception of the Native Americans, we all came from someplace else for the past four hundred years. Because we arrived with very little in the way of financial assets, we were, and many of us are still today, risk-takers. This makes us unique among nations at the moment, which will have to be corrected if the Europeans want to catch up to the US.

Pardon a parochial view, but I often view the world through mutual fund glasses. One measure of the risk-taking attitude of investors is the portion of their assets invested in equity funds. On paper, Europe as a whole is the same size as the US economy. As of the end of the first quarter of 2016, the world has invested $16.4 Trillion in equity mutual funds. US registered funds accounted for 60.9%. All of Europe had only 27% in equity funds, including Luxembourg and Ireland which are favored by tax aware global investors outside of the US. Excluding the tax shelter investors, the four European nations with the largest share of the global equity funds were the UK with 4.3%, France 1.9%, Netherlands 1.7% and Germany also 1.7%. The potential of  less expensive and bureaucratic government focus on consumption is great. However, it won’t be achieved if most of the risk-taking comes from US and Chinese sources.

	Assets in Equity funds: as of 3/31/2016
All Equity Mutual funds	100%
US-registered funds	60.9 %
All of Europe? (including Lux & Ireland)	27.0 %
UK	4.3 %
France	1.9 %
Netherlands	1.7 %
Germany	1.7 %

Source:  ICI

How should one invest in the Brexit Opportunity?

This will undoubtedly be a long and laborious task. In a time-segmented portfolio as in our TIMESPAN L Portfolios^®, I would begin with small commitments to International funds which have 40% in Europe and buy more during periodic setbacks. The small fund participation rate in Europe may be an opportunity for financial services investing. I will be happy to discuss privately how we do it in our private financial services fund.    

_________________

Did you miss my blog last week?  Click here to read.

Did someone forward you this Blog?  To receive Mike Lipper’s Blog each Monday, please subscribe using the email or RSS feed buttons in the left column of MikeLipper.Blogspot.com 

Copyright © 2008 - 2016

A. Michael Lipper, C.F.A.,
All Rights Reserved.
Contact author for limited redistribution permission.

Europeans Win, Experts Lose, Trading Opportunity vs.1848

Introduction

The essential difference between market followers and sound analysts is the former follow short-term momentum and the latter long-term directional changes. I embrace the second responsibility. Brexit, in my opinion, is the beginning milestone on the march to an era of more freedom of consumption and investment which will lead to better lives for many Europeans. Note I am focusing on people not present political countries.

The Perils of Over-Confidence

The focus on the needs and desires of most people is exactly what the expert class was not doing. They did not see or hear what the working class and much of the middle class were saying. The colossal surprise of the upset is only a surprise in that the expert classes of economists, political scientists, politicians, portfolio managers, senior investment people and media pundits had never considered that they were wrong. They had no plan “B.” In the US Marine Corps young officers are instructed you will only be judged on what you execute which will largely be plans “B,C,D, E, or F.”

This tendency of overconfidence will be part of a panel discussion this week at the New York Society of Securities Analysts celebrating the work of Benjamin Graham, the father of value investing. At the meeting I will be focusing on mistakes investors make keying off some of the mistakes that Berkshire Hathaway has made over the years. I have been asked about the single biggest cause of professional investment mistakes. I will discuss the overconfidence which has led to sizable losses. A similar pattern was in evidence in the London approach to Brexit. 

What Actually Happened: A tale of Three Countries

In Great Britain the London-centric experts thought the campaign would be won focusing on the fear of economic disruption. They were not listening to the people of the North of England and Wales who were primarily concerned with the loss of national sovereignty in terms of immigration and Brussels’ determined justice and procedures. These working classes and much of the middle class were fed up with what they perceived was likely to happen to them.  

One of the signs of this great division with those who wished to remain is the number of voting districts where the winning side polled more than 60%. We are used to seeing a split in many voting areas similar to the final 52/48%. The wider spread indicates to me that both sides were effectively only talking to their own and not engaging with the sizable undecided or opposed. The London-centric people initially bet over 90% of the money with the book makers that they would win only in the last few hours of the referendum, bet 90% on Brexit. (Too bad the Londoners didn’t know their history. More on that later.) Since the bulk of the more active institutional and trading money is intellectually based in London, over the preceding days they were heavily buying securities and sending similar thoughts to other markets. Interesting when the shock of the results became clear, the UK stock market declined one of the smaller falls in the world in part because only 35.5% of the indices’ revenues were domestic to the UK.

German investors suffered a 12% decline in part because 72.4% of their revenues are international in scope. One corollary measure is in the US, the Vanguard Europe ETF fell 11.3% as noted by my friend Jason Zweig.

In the US with approximately 70% of our revenues produced domestically, the main stock averages fell in the neighborhood of 3%.

This needs to be put into perspective. First, the decline essentially corrected the last several days’ rise based on our trading fraternity believing what they were hearing from London as well as significant short covering by hedge funds and similar traders. I believe the over 600 point fall in the Dow Jones Industrial Average was caused by the absence of short covering and algorithm-driven quant funds that sold as various price levels were violated. People at JP Morgan believe that from this source some $25 billion dollars were thrown on the market. If there is a continuation of the sharp decline they are looking for up to $300 billion more to be added to the market.

For those of a trading mentality I suggest at some point a near-term bottom will be reached, possibly on Monday. Current prices for many securities are back down to the bottom of their recent trading ranges which could well hold. If these trading bottoms do not hold further, declines will find other bottoms. Whenever the bottoms are found, subsequent rises could be dramatic because of the absence of positioning capital on trading desks.

While I recognize a potential trading opportunity, at the moment I do not see a substantial reason to change fundamental investment strategy. In terms of our four chamber TIMESPAN L PORTFOLIOS^® I might adjust the second chamber or the Replenishment Portfolio’s equity trading account to either take advantage of some cheaper merchandise or reducing risk if there are more violations of support levels. I would not change either the Endowment or Legacy Portfolios.

Londoners Had the Answer

The intelligentsia in London had the answer if they knew where to look. I do not know whether or not the restaurant that was in the downstairs floor of the residence of Karl Marx is still functioning. One evening my wife Ruth and I climbed the rickety stairs to his apartment which still had no electricity. At the request of the German Communist Party, Karl Marx authored the Communist Manifesto in early 1848. (A side note: because of his subversive activities in Europe he was never allowed to become an English citizen even though he was buried there.) He believed that it was in England that the revolution of the proletariat would begin because of its class structure.

1848

The main reason to focus on Karl Marx is the year 1848. This was the year of some 50 revolts by the working and middle classes throughout Europe and Latin America. These brought down a number of governments including in France. There was widespread dissatisfaction with the political leadership. Nationalism was on the rise in France, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark and Italy among other places. The violence of the revolts and the desperation of the people led to massive migration into “the new world” which in one generation proved to be a major brain drain. Lenin summed up what happened. “There are decades when nothing happens and there are weeks when decades happen.” (Courtesy of John Mauldin)

Perhaps the bureaucrats in Brussels and the current political leaders on the Continent are now seeing the risk to their structure. As is natural their first instinct is to punish the interloper, the second is to become defensive and the third hopefully to negotiate and evolve. Possibly Dr. Brendan Brown of Mitsubishi UFJ Securities is correct when he says. “The referendum result marks the start of A European journey out of a failed EU.  Britain is in the lead…There are serious grounds for hope (for) greater economic and political freedoms, prosperity and European harmony.” Greater Europe has for centuries developed official and more informal trade patterns that has produced satisfactory results both in peace and war and I would expect that to continue. In that light I believe that Europeans need the British as much if not more than the British need various European elected and non-elected states.

What to Do?

Many of the better US managed international funds have significant portions of their portfolios invested in Europe. I suspect over time these will be good investments and could find places within sound Endowment and Legacy Portfolios. For those whose preference is individual financial services securities, on a long-term basis they may wish to examine INVESCO, Franklin Resources, and Goldman Sachs all three are long term positions in our private financial services funds and have been under pressure recently. There are similar long-term attractive non-US domiciled financial service companies that I will be happy to discuss with our readers.

_________________

Did you miss my blog last week?  Click here to read.

Did someone forward you this Blog?  To receive Mike Lipper’s Blog each Monday, please subscribe using the email or RSS feed buttons in the left column of MikeLipper.Blogspot.com 

Copyright © 2008 - 2016

A. Michael Lipper, C.F.A.,
All Rights Reserved.
Contact author for limited redistribution permission.