Showing posts with label short positions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label short positions. Show all posts

Sunday, August 18, 2024

The Strategic Art of Strategic Selling - Weekly Blog # 850

 

         


Mike Lipper’s Monday Morning Musings


The Strategic Art of Strategic Selling

 

Editors: Frank Harrison 1997-2018, Hylton Phillips-Page 2018

 



Playing the Game to Win

Playing baseball, producing a great painting, or writing a great piece of music, depends on many moves beyond a single swing of a bat, a great color, or a single melody. It is the same managing an investment portfolio. Amateur investors often evaluate two to hundreds of individual securities to choose a single security to sell.

 

Investors acting as long-playing professionals consider a myriad of factors in making the decision to sell a portion of their assets. The sole decision should not be based on the odds of the price of a security rising or falling a meaningful amount in a significant time period. The purpose of this blog is to examine the other factors one should consider.

 

A well-considered security contributes to the rising or falling of prices for the entire portfolio, in part as a result of its weight in the portfolio. Some managers may want to equal weight their components, but time creates changes in weighting. Other managers may choose to heavily weight some positions or have a portion of their portfolio as a "farm-team". This allows them to avoid missing the right idea, without making a significant commitment. One way to reduce daily volatility is to have a large number of positions, at the expense of near-term performance.

 

Other ways to examine a portfolio is to evaluate the risks the portfolio manager chooses to take. These include some of the following:

Inflation

Foreign Exchange

Political Risk

Critical Personnel

Legal Concerns

Tax Risks

Concentrated Personality Risks

Engineering and Manufacturing Risks

Other Risks

 

One of the bigger risks is owning too many speculative stocks with inexperienced shareholders. Warren Buffett, in managing Berkshire Hathaway (*), adjusts the size of some of his larger positions and/or hedges some holdings with others.

(*) Positions held in managed and personal accounts.

 

Some Clues in Plain Sight

  • Industrial prices, as measured by the ECRI, are slightly lower than a year ago.
  • The implications of having large short positions may not be as negative as it appears. Some of these may be short against the box.  (Short position offsetting similar long positions. Possible examples are Franklin Resources 7.72% and T. Rowe Price 4.21 % of float. Both are held in personal and client accounts)
  • There are approximately 5 times the number shares traded on the NASDAQ vs the NYSE. This suggests that in a low-volume week the remaining trading interest is speculative.
  • Studies indicate tariffs are inflationary and will lead to declines in employment, growth, and competitiveness.
  • James Mackintosh, a WSJ columnist, suggests the market is very expensive using 3 measures of CAPE adjusting for inflation the S&P 500, and the Fed model. (If one looks at long-term rate of gains performance records. They decline over time, the longer the period the lower the rate of gain and are below the spectacular performance of high-performing stocks. This probably means large gains now are eating into longer-term performance results.

 

Question: Does anyone see parallels to the period between the assassination of the Archduke and the beginnings of the actual conflict and starting WWI?

 

 

 

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

Mike Lipper's Blog: Investment Second Derivative: Motivation - Weekly Blog # 849

Mike Lipper's Blog: Fear of Instability Can Cause Trouble - Weekly Blog # 848

Mike Lipper's Blog: Detective Work of Analysts - Weekly Blog # 847



 

Did someone forward you this blog?

To receive Mike Lipper’s Blog each Monday morning, please subscribe by emailing me directly at AML@Lipperadvising.com

 

Copyright © 2008 – 2024

A. Michael Lipper, CFA

 

All rights reserved.

 

Contact author for limited redistribution permission.

 

Sunday, December 9, 2018

Investment Memory Friend or Foe? Answer: Supply/Demand Changes - Weekly Blog # 554

                                   

Mike Lipper’s Monday Morning Musings

Investment Memory Friend or Foe?
Answer: Supply/Demand Changes

Editors: Frank Harrison 1997-2018, Hylton Phillips-Page 2018 –
           
The professors at Caltech tell me that the portion of the brain associated with decision making is allied to our memory bank. Very recently the investing world has been besieged by erudite papers and comments predicting the forthcoming recession. (Not the more important issue, the recovery to rejoin the secular growth trends.) The doctrine being passed out essentially compares current indicators, e.g. short rates rising with long interest rates declining, etc. This seems like a trip down memory lane. In turn, memory dictates their judgement and thus their actions. It is as if they have surrendered to algorithms.

It is reported that the great philosopher who learned by several financial reversals, Mark Twain (Samuel Clements), said that history does not repeat itself, but it rhymes. Most major surprise victories won on the battle or sports fields, as well as those in business and in the financial markets, are not extrapolations of the recent past. Why then are so many surprised by the failure to repeat? I suggest that there are two main reasons: faulty memory and changes in supply and demand.

Part of the faulty memory comes from forgetting some details over time. Perhaps more importantly, there are important contributors to the results that were not generally known at the time. Some of these unknowns resulted from the motivations of the various participants and some actions had little to do with the main thrusts of the large events of the day. These contemporaneous happenings and motivations were not triggered by the main event, but by their transaction volume which was included in the total volume of the “big event”. This makes me suspicious of most of the reporting of the event. (Remember, every day investors buy and sell to meet specific needs, which is not tied to what many others are doing.)

CHANGES IN SUPPLY AND DEMAND-Critical for 2019-2091
Most of the time when we look at economic and financial history we don’t tie the actions to supply and demand imbalances. It goes without saying that if supply and demand are in perfect balance there will be little if any price or other disruptive moves. Usually it is easier to assign numbers to the supply side of the equation. Often the only thing we know about the demand side is the quantity of the transactions; not the size of the unmet demand at various prices and specifications.

Most tradeable quantities are in sufficient supply at current prices; however, I am conscious of shifts in the demand side of the equation. For example, the recent bankruptcy of David’s Bridal was in part due to changes in American bridal practices - later marriages, less highly decorated formal religious ceremonies, and destination weddings over local situs. I suspect we may be seeing the last US manufactured sedans replaced by SUV and pick-up trucks. I was struck by the reported concerns of the leaders of OPEC, who are not concerned about the supply side of the price equation, but the demand side. They are probably seeing some of the changes in the usage and mileage driven by cars, the growth of Uber and Lyft, the growth of the use of LNG by utilities, and perhaps the overall consumption shift from manufactured items to services. Guessing the level and nature of demand is an extreme skill. Few have the ability of the late Steve Jobs of Apple (*). He successfully predicted the demand for products and services that didn’t already exist. His view was that only when potential customers saw his new inventions would they know that they wanted it. Some may feel that this is the quickest way to go broke, as there is a long and painful history of others producing new products that no one wanted at the time.

Investment Demand
Being a fiduciary investment manager as well as an investor for our family, I am concerned about two elements of demand that impact historic ratios, short selling and retirement capital. Because it has been very difficult to find individual winning short positions over the past ten years, the number of individual security shorts have been declining relative to the size of the market. With extremely rare exception, I am not a short seller directly or use funds that short individual securities. So why am I concerned about the drying up of individual short selling? I believe that intelligent successful short sellers are an important policeman operating in the market. They police financial statements and corporate actions in search of large mismatches between current perceptions and a more precise reality. Like a beat-cop, they are an influence to keep the game honest.

There is still a reasonable amount of short selling going on, but it doesn’t have the same curative value individual security short sellers used to have. These more modern short sellers are shorting various stock, bond, and commodity indices. They are doing this through the futures market or more cheaply through ETF/ETPs. Thus, one does not know in looking at the net daily flows made thru various Authorized Participants (AP), whether it’s market maker hedging or primary investment demand. Both the APs and the Exchange Traded Fund or Exchange Traded Product portfolio manager may be shorting daily to keep their book balanced.  In addition, there is a practice which invests in pairs of stocks, with one long and one short position. They make or lose money by the difference in the price spread between the long and short contracts. To avoid unrelated moves both issues need to be largely similar, with a price difference that mirrors a single essential difference.

Retirement Capital-The Second Element
In some respects, medical science is much more a curse on humanity than a benefit. Around the world people are living longer than their meager retirement capital and their medical and social needs are becoming even more expensive. Most politicians recognize that the various governmental healthcare plans do not have enough money to support them or pay for the increased expenses that are coming. “The yellow-vest” riots in France suggest that in most countries raising taxes materially won’t be feasible. The only sources available to meet these obligations are from the private sector. In the US it appears that the politics are not right to even get the miniscule retirement capital changes being sought in the current moribund second tax bill of the current administration. Actually, there is something likely to happen over the next several years that could be a major help to a significant, but not major portion of the population. After more than a decade, instead of robbing the purchasing power of savers through inflation and taxes, we have experienced a meaningful tax savings and higher interest rates. Cash has for the first time in quite a while become an acceptable investment asset class and we could see growth in cash savings if the banks and money market funds find credit worthy investments. This is a global problem and it is important to recognize that just as we saw in the Brexit referendum, the senior population will vote if their children and grandchildren don’t. After the turmoil of the oncoming recession, let’s hope that the subsequent recovery will attract long term investment capital for retirement.

Markets Pivots on China’s Supply and Demand
A very recent contradictory trend is occurring in Chinese stock prices. Since the beginning of November Chinese stock prices are performing better than those in the US and many other markets. This makes sense to me in light of my call in September and October for US investors to hedge their US positions by purchasing Chinese securities or funds holding those positions. The hope was that the Chinese stocks would continue their decline and the US stock prices would rise. This is a classic example that in a good hedge at least one side of the hedge should make money. All of this is happening when many observers are betting that the Chinese economy will grow at slower rates in 2019 and perhaps beyond. (If you will, review the second derivative from last week’s blog.)

The current leadership of both countries, while discussing tactical issues, are very focused on strategic issues. There are two examples of this. The first is that China is very dependent on imported resources and is the world’s leading importer, and for at least a while is the leading exporter. Most of these goods traverse the South China Sea with its man-made new island forts. To my mind, this is one of the reasons behind the tariff issues, not the relatively small number of manufacturing jobs in key states. On the surface it is the free navigation of these waters by naval ships and planes that is being fought over. Now there has been no discussion regarding commercial passage, but without appropriate protection commercial shipping is at risk if only one navy can protect it.

The second example was mentioned in a small article in the NY Times. The Chinese sent up the first known rocket to probe the dark side of the moon. This is important, for it demonstrates the capability of Chinese rockets and instruments. One can see that these capabilities could be a potential threat to other nations. One can see the US’s interest in a sixth military force in the Space Corps. This probably won’t happen until the Pentagon and Congressional powers can be brought on board. Nevertheless, the long-term threat is there.

What is Missing?
While “the world is too much with us” we need to think beyond the oncoming recession and even the 2020 election. Though there are some heralded overnight successes, most major change agents take at least twenty or more years from the spark of genius to widespread use. As investors, hopefully for ourselves, but more importantly for future generations, we should be paying attention to these changes in demand that will fund the supply side and set new parameters for growth.

(*) A long position is held in personal accounts.     


Did you miss my past few blogs? Click one of the links below to read.

https://mikelipper.blogspot.com/2018/12/worries-2nd-derivative-3rd-degree-and.html

https://mikelipper.blogspot.com/2018/11/on-road-to-capitulation-and-recoveries.html

https://mikelipper.blogspot.com/2018/11/selectivity-over-factors-weekly-blog-551.html


Did someone forward you this blog?
To receive Mike Lipper’s Blog each Monday morning, please subscribe by emailing me directly at AML@Lipperadvising.com

Copyright © 2008 - 2018
A. Michael Lipper, CFA

All rights reserved
Contact author for limited redistribution permission.

Sunday, October 23, 2016

My Investment Views in 3 Periods



Introduction

As part of my work in designing specific portfolio elements for our Timespan L Portfolios® , I have begun to separate my thoughts about future inputs into specific time horizons. Please let me know what you think about this approach.

Limited Term Horizon


I have little to add to the vast majority of investment chatter other than a few facts and beliefs:

1.  With the bulk of the purchasers of ETFs being investment advisors, hedge funds and other traders there is a belief the average holding period for them is two years or less as compared with between four and five years for equity mutual funds. This leads me to believe that these are more price rather than investment merit-oriented and are short-term focused. In the latest week the two ETFs that had the biggest inflows were invested in the Russell 2000 and the S&P500. My guess is that these were not sole positions, but were probably hedging concentrated short positions.

2.  Alluding to short positions at least for one stock, it is said every available security that could be loaned out has been. This could be just a prelude to a short squeeze which could spike the stock. It could also lead to a corner being declared. This translates to many transactions being cancelled. Is this an indication of our speculative times?

3.  I believe there is a major misconception that the money being redeemed from mutual funds is going into ETFs or passive funds. The two actions are in my opinion not completely related. My guess is that a large portion of mutual fund redemptions are in effect "completions." That is, they were purchased to fund a particular need and the time has come to meet that need. Many redemptions of funds are investor initiated whereas ETF purchases are coming from investment advisors or trading type organizations.

4.  There are three indicators that make me worried about high quality fixed income investing now. First, in the latest week only fixed income funds, including ETFs  saw inflows and all other asset classes saw outflows. As mentioned in last week's post, my early analytical training was at the racetrack where favorites win only about a third of the time.   

More importantly the size of the winnings for the bettor is insufficient to cover losses on other races. One of the reasons for that is the difference between mathematical probabilities and track odds.  The first is the calculated chances of winning based on lots of conditions. The second is calculated on the amount of money relative to all the money bet less payments to the tracks and state/local taxes. Probabilities are based on judgments whereas odds are based on the needs of the track and governments plus the distribution of opinions, some better than others.

There are two other interest rates concerns which are present. Short-term rates with maturities five years and under are higher now than a year ago, but not so for longer maturities, which is often a sign of instability. In addition, published money market accounts at banks have been moving up and are near the high point for the year. Banks raise deposit rates to attract new money or when they need to retain existing deposits. As usual it appears that the Fed is behind the real market.

5.  Over the next fifteen months there are a number of national elections. Some entrepreneurs and other investors will be disappointed in the results. This may lead to an increase in the number of private businesses and other assets being offered for sale. Often the buyers will be publicly owned companies. This is worrisome. The sellers appreciate the complexity of operating their assets on a daily basis. The buyers believe that they can produce better results than the prior owners because the new managers can put into place uniform principles and more complete solutions. Thus we could be entering another period where the buyers will disappoint their investors.

Intermediate Influences

1.  For years the front cover picture of a couple of magazines were wonderfully negative indicators. They were actually correct at the time the accompanying article was produced, they were just wrong as a predictive device. A Wall Street Journal article entitled “The Dying Business of Picking Stocks” could be a good example. The first line in the article went further and said, "Investors are giving up on stock picking." Other articles seem to be in support of that contention showing in the Large Cap mutual fund arena, that over ten years the percentage of actively managed funds dropped from 84% to 66%. 

I have mixed feelings about these views. As a contrarian I am delighted that there will be fewer competitors when I am trying to buy a bargain. Further, when I choose to sell a position I am pleased that a more supposedly successful stock will have more buyers at higher prices than passive funds. On the other hand fewer people adding significantly to their retirement capital means that my tax burden will go up. My guess is that when the equity market produces 2-3 times what the ten year current interest rate will, then be there will be a rush into the market and many people will become stock pickers for the ride as long as it lasts.

2.  One current market observer has commented that almost everything is going up a bit; in my mind this lack of successful selection skills will be only a temporary phenomenon.

3.  One of the current fads is factor investing where a single investment is used as a singular screen. In many ways the first factor was bonds and the second was stocks. These were combined into a balanced account for trusts. Thus the very first mutual funds in the US were Balanced funds. I have been exposed to balanced accounts and Balanced funds since the 1950s. Over time I have noticed that some performed better than others. Several managers, actually economists in training, varied the ratio of stocks to bonds. This explained a number of the differences in performance but not enough. When I looked into the portfolio at first I saw that perceived quality made a significant contribution to both the stock and bond returns. But that did not explain enough. Clearly the prices paid for the securities made a big difference. Trading competence and clout, particularly on the bond side was important. Some funds were close to frozen and others had high turnover of their portfolio. On the equity side whether they were growth, GARP (growth at a reasonable price), value or dividend-oriented also made a difference. Further, whether there was there just one portfolio manager or multiple managers eventually also produced different results. Over time Balanced funds became less attractive to investors as many wanted more distinct performance compared with a more level result when stocks and bonds were going in different directions (which was the original intent).

To the extent that the more modern factor funds can learn from the analysis of Balanced funds would be useful. Further the sooner they move away from analyzing only the published financials the better. This week Goldman Sachs* reported its third quarter results. Going back to my early experience of taking Securities Analysis under Professor David Dodd of Graham and Dodd fame, I reconstructed elements of the balance sheet and income statement. While the reported results were significantly better than the "street" expectation, the stock rose only slightly. In my analysis I noted the shift in the investment banking line to more advisory and a smaller amount of underwriting. In addition, I was conscious that non-compensation expenses were sharply curtailed, plus I saw a shift in the number of employees involved in investment banking and technology (investment banking was reduced, IT was increased). All of these observations added up to the conclusion that the firm is changing and the past record and ratios are of less value today than in the past. Yet many algorithms based on the pure reported results would not have picked up these changes as used by factor funds.

*Held in the private financial services fund I manage.


Longer Term Observations

The number of US publicly traded companies has declined by half over the last 20 years, but the average size of companies is now six times larger. To some degree this means there is less of a need for a large corps of analysts, particularly covering small companies. But this may well be a chicken and egg argument, for over time the level of commissions has shrunk as has spreads between the bid and asked. I suspect that many of the small company analysts that I grew up with are still delving into small companies for their own account, but are not sharing their work with clients. This could work out well for those of us who do not like crowds.

One of the reasons that there are fewer companies could be that the global development cycle has been shortened. Thus lower cost entrepreneurs with reasonable to better technology can quickly enter a market for new products and can rapidly capture market share that would not have been possible twenty years ago. So our protective umbrella has been pulled down.

Perhaps linked to this thought is that, according to recent surveys, 82% of parents in China today believe that their children will be better off in the future than the parents are now. In the US only 32% of the parents felt the same way. My guess is that these expectations will narrow, in part because the US will continue to disproportionately attract some of the best and brightest.

Question for the week: Do you separate your investment views by time periods?         
 
_________________
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.

Sunday, October 11, 2015

Was the first week of October the Bull Market?


 Introduction

When everything was falling in price in August, I suggested that one should start to place orders to buy some of the "falling knives" which had the biggest declines, around -20%. These items included commodities and commodity related investments as well as TIPS. My view was that off a bottom there is often roughly a ten percent "relief rally" and this was the easiest money to earn in a new bull market.

In the period from October 1 - 8 , 2015, the following six out of 96 equity oriented mutual fund classifications' investment objectives produced double digit returns:

Natural Resource funds                   
+ 14.34%
Precious Metals funds                     
+  13.58
Global Natural Resources funds      
+  13.32
Equity Leverage funds                      
+  12.04
Energy MLP funds                             
+  11.18 
Basic Materials funds                         
+  10.76

As we know the price of crude oil rose 9% during the week, but there was more to these gains than the oil price pop. While there was undoubtedly a rush to cover various short positions, there were some participants that were sensing the potential for future inflation. More will be needed for the investors in these funds to break even for the year. Even after the double digit gains for the week, five out of the six groups shown above were still down double digits. (Equity Leverage funds were down -9.72% for the year to date.)

Smaller gains were made in the week by 93 out of 96 investment objectives tracked by my old firm now part of ThomsonReuters. Only few of these were able to show gains for the year. These tended to be large growth funds often with meaningful positions in the much politically derided Health/Biotech group. At least Moody's is concerned that we have not seen the bottom of oil prices, they have lowered the credit ratings on five US regional banks which have substantial energy loans outstanding. Being a contrarian I would watch these for an entry point, as I am convinced that in time the underlying collateral will be good on balance.

Even though we are not traders (as we invest for lengthy periods) we need to be aware of others in the marketplace. The risk for the trader is that the double digit that some funds enjoyed fulfilled "the easy 10%" pop expected after the sharpness of the summer declines. Now the trading question becomes whether the August lows will need to be tested in order to put in the low for the year, if we are going to have a meaningful recovery before the US presidential election year.

We Don't Care

As long-term investors we are not very excited by this year's performance unless it has significance in terms of the implications of meeting our clients’ longer term payments needs of their distant beneficiaries. Why am I so relaxed at the moment? First, I believe last week's move was in recognition of some changing attitudes beyond the "oil patch." As is often is the case, I look to the fixed income world for guidance. Domestically, taxable bond fund classifications showed gains, albeit small. These for the most part were funds that trafficked in lower credit rated paper. For people to bid these up they could not be very concerned about a meaningful recession. The other message that I perceived was that the poorly performing TIPS funds gained while other US Government Bond funds showed minor losses.

Foreign Signals

Emerging Market Bond funds, in local currencies, produced the best returns among fixed income types by a wide margin last week, +4.44%; in contrast with Emerging Markets Debt hard currency issues +1.84%. Bond funds which invested in more developed countries gained +1.3%.  My interpretation of these results is, at least for the week, that market participants were suggesting the meteoritic rise in the dollar was at least peaking.

Volatility

The investing public that is glued to the media is fearful of triple digit price changes in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Using the somewhat less volatile S&P 500 since 1928 according to Factset/StockCharts, the days with a 1% (Up or Down) occurs every four or five days. As a matter of fact I set my computer alerts to only inform me when prices move at least 2% and don't consider action below 3-5%. The New York  Federal Reserve Bank is somewhat addressing these concerns in the corporate bond market that has had bank trading capital reduced by 75%. They maintain that there is ample liquidity to absorb sudden shifts in prices. (Interestingly enough, they did not address what in theory is the deepest fixed income market in the world, the market for US Treasuries. Because of rapid global trading of these instruments through computer interfaces by non-bank dealers and investors, I am worried. During hectic periods of unwinding "carry trades" when treasuries are collateral for borrowings in more exotic paper, I am concerned by the chance for some indigestion.) 

Question of the Week: How are you addressing this market, did this week mean anything?

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

Comment or email me a question to MikeLipper@Gmail.com.

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 - 2015
A. Michael Lipper, C.F.A.,
All Rights Reserved.
Contact author for limited redistribution permission.