Introduction
Some
people consider me an expert, thus I get lots of investment questions. Usually
I can divide the questions and therefore the answers by identifying the depth
of investment knowledge and experience of those asking the questions. I find it
useful to divide those asking the questions into three broad groups with lots
of sub-divisions.
The
first group, are often the managers of the funds we choose to consider for
investment.
The
second group are people who devote little time and effort into financial and
investment matters; e.g., the general public.
The
third group includes gatekeepers or
members of investment committees mixed with pros and others. In many ways this is the most difficult group; those who pose as members of the first group, but
in their heart of hearts, they are much more like the public that watch general
news or read mass publications. Thus,
when I get a question from this third group, looking for a simplistic answer, I
don’t know where to start other than saying most specifically ‘No’ or in less
than polite society ‘H… No!’ This is followed, if they are really interested,
in a discussion of human nature and doses of history and why they are vital
investment considerations.
Safe for whom?
Governments
pass laws and regulations to promote their own safety and to prevent themselves
from being turned out gently or violently by the abused public. If you examine
almost all prudential regulations, they are designed to avoid criticism of the
regulators. Little or no real efforts are made to help investors to either make
good investments or to at least avoid bad exit investments. Bottom line: Gains
and losses are the product of human behavior, driven by greed, fear and
sloppiness with an accelerator of leverage thrown in to shorten the terminal
period. This is the way it has always been and probably always will be.
A historical example
Jason
Zweig who is a columnist at The
Wall Street Journal, but in reality is a history scholar, mentions in his weekend piece that some 4000 years ago in Mesopotamia there were legal
regulations as to future contracts on silver and barley. (I wished I had read
them when I tried to take advantage of the apparent mismatch between London
Silver and US Treasuries on light margin.) At one of the cradles of our culture, there was an attempt to keep the trading businesses
thriving to prevent the losers from destroying the winners and the government.
Thus a pattern was ignited that has been repeated by many societies all over
the world to “keep the game going.”
A current and
controversial example
When
a large number of employees who normally vote with their powerful and high
spending unions could have lost their high-paying jobs due to mistakes made by
management, politicians and unions, it was decided to bailout GM and Chrysler
rather than let them go through what private companies would do (an orderly
bankruptcy). The US government loaned these and other companies taxpayer money
through a pre-packaged bankruptcy that ignored the priorities in the Bankruptcy
Act.
Because
of this bailout attitude, the government followed a similar practice with the
US banking system and at least one large insurance company. These bailouts
ignored the history that after similar bankruptcies in the past, new
organizations sprung up employing many of the former mid to low level employees
at market rates. High priority lenders received reasonable payments, lower
credit borrowers or vendors much less and for all practical purposes the
equity owners were usually wiped out.
Quite
properly voters were incensed by the spending of their money in a way not
intended at the time when they voted for
President and members of Congress. To prevent future criticism the two administrations
and Congress felt they were trapped by “too
big to fail” financial institutions. In practice, these politicians followed the
old Pentagon approach of planning for the future by fighting the last war
brilliantly.
Notice
the current US Administration and its immediate predecessor were repeating the
failed strategy of the Mesopotamian rulers of protecting the government from
criticism, not preventing management and investor mistakes. Today all are free
to produce below-market quality products at over-priced levels with inadequate
research just as investors are free to hide from their long-term investment
responsibilities until the next series of crises. Based on history they are
almost guaranteed to occur.
Where are we?
As
we entered this year I stated that the odds involved a 20% or greater movement of
price. That is either a gain of 20% or a loss of 20% or possibly in an
extremely volatile year, both. This is a year that superior tactical skills
will be needed for the first two of our Timespan L Portfolios™ of operational needs and replenishment
capital. These portfolios should have largely, if not exclusively, easily sold
or redeemed securities (funds) because prices are likely to offer more than
normal risks and opportunities.
Where am I looking?
I
am first looking to sense the amount of investor enthusiasm that is present.
There are always some isolated pockets of extreme enthusiasm and desperation. A
great deal of enthusiasm will be needed to generate my 20% gains. (Also, this
level is needed to create a top from which a major collapse can occur. ) An
example of this is the recent price of Tesla which at one point was selling just
shy of ½ the value of General Motors. Tesla produces about 90 cars a day.
GM makes about 90 cars every five minutes. On a full accounting basis it
appears that it will be some time before Tesla can report a regular profit.
What is important is that some people are willing to project way beyond 2020
when Tesla is expected to break even and begin to show exponential growth. It
has believers. (As they say at the track and in politics, I don’t have a horse
in the race either as an owner of either Tesla or GM cars or shares.)
By
the way: Tesla's innovative manufacturing can be viewed in this clip.
I am searching for a similar level of enthusiasm for other investments in
the years ahead. Possibly I might get sucked into investments falling for the
greater-fool-theory trap and hope that I will be able to execute a separation
in time. Greater volatility is expected; e.g., on Tuesday the Dow Jones
industrial Average moved 424 points.
Since
for the first time in many years the market had five consecutive days of losses,
I am looking for proverbial canaries in a mine that can signal potential
elements of strain. One such item is a much larger than normal decline in the Barron’s Confidence Index of
the yields of high grade bonds versus intermediate bonds. The index dropped
almost 3 percentage points this week when normally it moves 1 percentage point
or less. While it could be a warning because both yields declined (greater
popularity), the best grade declined more, 22 vs. 12 basis points. Are the bond
mavens becoming worried about intermediate quality paper? These are not the energy-related
high yield plays.
As
strange as it may seem to most readers, I wonder whether there is a message in
the price of gold. If you accept gold as a quasi currency in 2014, it was the
second strongest major currency. Even before the Swiss National Bank move,
investors have been flowing into Treasuries and Gold. Will these fearful
investors prove to be ahead of the crowd?
Question of the Week:
What are the signals that you are currently using? Please share with me (not for
publication or attribution).
__________
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 - 2015
A. Michael Lipper, C.F.A.,
All Rights Reserved.
Contact author for limited redistribution permission.
All Rights Reserved.
Contact author for limited redistribution permission.
Posts
