Tag Archives: apple

The Psychology Of Investing

The longer that I’ve been at this investing thing, the more convinced I am that the difference between an average investor and a good investor is all in the mind. I’ve been investing for over 15 years now and I’ve learned a lot along the way. I think it took me the better part of a decade to work out what makes a good business and a quality investment. The much harder aspect of investing is to summon the courage to commit your capital in the face of hundreds of other people telling you otherwise. These people can be respected investment analysts, talking heads on TV, and even your own friends and family. I now have a pretty good idea of what makes my cut as a high-quality business. That tends to be a business that produces high returns on equity in excess of 20%, strong free cash flow generation and conversion of revenue to free cash flow, all combined with a strong market opportunity and rapidly growing topline growth. Now these businesses aren’t necessarily easy to find; however, when you do identify them they are easy to spot. The harder aspect of investing is to commit your capital to these high-quality opportunities that you’ve identified in the face of 101 reasons not to do so. I’ll give you an example. Celgene (NASDAQ: CELG ) is an exceptionally high-quality business with strong rates of revenue growth and good cash flow generation. However, when you look at the stock, it’s had a rough go of things over the last three months. My own purchase is down a good 10% from where I made it. There are all manner of concerns with the stock, most of which I believe will prove to be relatively immaterial over the next five years. The biggest threat is the regulation of drug pricing under the Democrats. There is also the threat that Celgene may be unsuccessful in diversifying its revenue base away from Revlimid, its chief moneymaker. All those things are likely to be unfounded. It’s not in the Democrats’ best interest to make drug discovery unattractive to commercial interests. That will just dry up funding and investment into areas of medicine that have a real human need. Celgene also managed to negotiate a deal with the generic drug manufacturer that will effectively push out its window of exclusivity to almost 2025. That’s almost 9 years for the company to explore new partnerships, invest in new R&D and acquire potential companies that can diversify its revenue base. Yet, despite of this, the company’s stock price remains stubbornly near one-year lows while other companies are now routinely making 52-week highs. I’ve committed capital to Celgene; however, I feel I twang of remorse whenever I check my trading account and see this position solidly in the red while most of my other recent growth investments are now well in the green. I was thinking further about exactly why that is in my case. I don’t think it’s an aversion to losses. Rather I believe that in general we all have a desire for positive affirmation. That’s true for us with our friends with family and even in the workplace. We all want validation that we’ve made the right choices in all aspects of my life. Unfortunately in investing, things don’t this work that way unless you happen to ride a solid growth stock that just consistently appreciates month after month and year after year. You’re not going to get positive reinforcement of your investment decision continually. If you’re looking at taking deep value positions where you have the potential for the greatest upside, you need to lose the desire for positive affirmation and that’s not easy. In fact, it’s really hard because when you see that position continuously in the red, it makes you think that others in the market know something that you don’t or that you have missed something in your analysis. Deep value investing is a pretty lonely game. Invariably it means going against the crowd in almost every bet that you make. And this is where Buffett really stands out for me . More than any other investor, he has shown a unique ability to shut out external influences on his thinking and just go with his gut conviction in purchases of American Express (NYSE: AXP ), Solomon Brothers and to a lesser extent Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO ). These investments were all done at times when those companies were on the nose. American Express suffered from the effects of a salad oil scandal which effectively cut the company’s share price in half. Solomon Brothers suffered from a devastating bond trading scandal which at one point threatened it with bankruptcy. Even Coca-Cola ( KO ) looked like a business that was heading for a sustained slowdown at the point when Buffett invested, with annual revenue growth declining from 17.1% the decade earlier to just 5.2%. I look at my own current list of holdings, and there are more than a few that have suffered or are suffering through crises where investors doubt their ability to make a comeback. CochLear ( OTC:CHEOF ) was the most recent example of a situation where a devastating company event was successfully overcome by the company. Before 2011, CochLear was a high-quality, high-growth business delivering cochlear implants across the world. In fact, the business was the market leader for implants. Unfortunately in 2011, the company suffered from a product recall that sent the company’s share price down by almost 40%. When you are a healthcare company with a reputation for high quality, a product recall event could potentially be a devastating reputational blow. I recognized the opportunity and went in guns blazing . CochLear subsequently recovered lost market share and continues to grow strongly. The net result is that the share price has more than doubled from the lows that it reached during this period of crisis. However, it wasn’t smooth sailing. In fact, the company’s share price was depressed for a period of six months after I made my investment and there was more than an occasion there where I had to reflect and think about whether I’d made the right move. In more recent times, investors have been making assumptions that Chinese economic growth is going to slide to a standstill, and with that, the prospects of Baidu (NASDAQ: BIDU ) and Alibaba (NYSE: BABA ), two of China’s great growth stories will be heading down the toilet. However, both these companies have such strong competitive advantages that I took the view that they will likely prosper for a long time and proceeded to buy. In less than a month, the market subsequently reassessed its view of the Chinese recession and, more importantly, the long-term prospects of Baidu and Alibaba, and I find both positions up more than 17% from where I made my initial investment. The one remaining position that I have which is a real test of my conviction in the company and its ability to overcome adversity is my investment in Chipotle (NYSE: CMG ) that I’ve written about here extensively. The company has significant problems in regaining customer confidence in relation to its E. coli and norovirus scandals. This is a play where you have to believe that customers will ultimately forget these incidents over time, and the company can bring back customer trust and reestablish its position as a provider of high-quality food. However, it’s hard to see this as a long-term outcome when you’re bombarded with images of empty stores and constant analyst downgrades and reminders of incidents on social media of customers getting ill. I look at this investment as a test of my long-term ability to pick a company that has the potential to rebound after significant negative company events, and also as a test of my ability to stick with a position whose outcome is uncertain but which has the potential for significant upside. Investing is as much a test of your character as anything else. It tests the level of conviction that you have in your research and your ideas, and it’s the ultimate test because you literally have to put your money where your mouth is and be prepared to wait a long time to see if your conviction was correctly placed. Those that have the ability to master their emotions and drown out the noise truly have the qualities to be successful long-term investors. Given his track record of making many such successful contrarian plays in the presence of significant negative events and placing large amounts of capital in these plays, I place Warren Buffett at the very top of investors with the greatest mastery of their psychology. Editor’s Note: This article discusses one or more securities that do not trade on a major U.S. exchange. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks.

The Wisdom Of Twitter Crowds: Tweet-Based Asset-Allocation Strategy Outperforms Several Benchmarks

By Jacob Wolinsky Interesting study and finding from Andrew Lo re Twitter and FOMC: “The Wisdom of Twitter Crowds: Predicting Stock Market Reactions to FOMC Meetings via Twitter Feeds” Pablo D. Azar is a PhD student in the Department of Economics and Laboratory for Financial Engineering, Sloan School of Management, MIT. Email: pazar@mit.edu Andrew W. Lo is Charles E. and Susan T. Harris Professor and the Director of the Laboratory for Financial Engineering, Sloan School of Management, MIT. Email: alo-admin@mit.edu Abstract With the rise of social media, investors have a new tool to measure sentiment in real time. However, the nature of these sources of data raises serious questions about its quality. Since anyone on social media can participate in a conversation about markets—whether they are informed or not—it is possible that this data may have very little information about future asset prices. In this paper, we show that this is not the case by analyzing a recurring event that has a high impact on asset prices: Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meetings. We exploit a new dataset of tweets referencing the Federal Reserve and show that the content of tweets can be used to predict future returns, even after controlling for common asset pricing factors. To gauge the economic magnitude of these predictions, the authors construct a simple hypothetical trading strategy based on this data. They find that a tweet based asset-allocation strategy outperforms several benchmarks, including a strategy that buys and holds a market index as well as a comparable dynamic asset allocation strategy that does not use Twitter information. Investor sentiment has frequently been considered an important factor in determining asset prices. Traditionally, sentiment is measured by observing analyst estimates, survey data, news stories, and technical indicators such as put/call ratios and relative strength indicators. Two drawbacks of these indicators are that they are based on a relatively sparse subset of the population of investors and, except for technical indicators, are not measured in real time. The rise of social media allows us to overcome these drawbacks and measure the sentiment of a large number of individuals in real time. These data sources give the quantitative investor a new tool with which to construct portfolios and manage risk. However, because social media data is generated by individual users and not investment professionals, the following questions arise about the quality of this data: • Do user messages contain relevant information for asset pricing? • Can this information be inferred from more traditional sources, or is it truly new information? • Can social media data help predict future asset returns and shifts in volatility? To answer these questions, we focus on a single recurring event that reveals previously unknown information to the market: Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meetings. Eight times a year, the FOMC meets to determine monetary policy. The decisions made by the FOMC are highly watched by all market participants, and often have a significant impact on asset prices.1 To understand how investors on social media behave around FOMC meeting dates, we create a new dataset of tweets that cite the Federal Reserve. Using natural language processing techniques, we can assign a polarity score to each Twitter message, identifying the emotion in the text. We show that this polarity score can be used to predict the returns of the CRSP Value-Weighted Index, even when limiting ourselves to articles and tweets that are published at least 24 hours before the FOMC meeting. We use these results to construct trading strategies that bet more or less aggressively in a market index depending on Twitter sentiment. We find that portfolios using Twitter data can significantly outperform a passive buy-and-hold strategy. Click to enlarge Click to enlarge Full study below SSRN-id2756815

If All Investments Were Private

This piece is another one of my experiments, please bear with me. “Measure Twice, Cut Once” – A very intelligent woman (I suspect) whose name never got recorded the first time it was uttered “Only buy something that you’d be perfectly happy to hold if the market shut down for 10 years.” – Warren Buffett Imagine for a moment: The public secondary markets didn’t exist Investment pooling vehicles were all private, and no one published NAV estimates Stocks and bonds existed, but they were only formally offered through the companies themselves, and all private secondary trading was subject to a right of first refusal on the part of the issuing corporation. This includes short-term debts like commercial paper. Banks and life insurance companies still offer products to retail savers/investors, but nonforfeiture laws didn’t exist, and CD penalty clauses were very ugly. In other words, because of no public secondary markets, the price of liquidity was very high, with a strong incentive to hold financial instruments to their maturity date. Accounting rules are only partially standardized. Deposit insurance still exists. So does limited liability. In this thankfully fictitious world, what would investing be like? The main factor would be that liquidity would be dear. Because the “out” doors for liquidity are thin or closed for a long time, money would go into any investment only after great study. The 4 Cs of credit would be present with a vengeance – character, capacity, capital and conditions – and character would be chief among them as J. P. Morgan famously said. This would be true even if one were investing in the stock of a firm, rather than the debt. Investing in such a world, even with limited liability, is tantamount to an economic marriage back in a time where divorce was mostly for cause, and not easy to get. You’d have to be very certain of what you were doing. Perhaps you would diversify, but one would quickly realize how difficult it can be to keep up with a bunch of private firms – we take for granted how information flows today, but with private firms, you are subject to the board and management. What do they choose to share with outside passive minority investors? Excursus: It is said that it is easy to teach a child to say “please,” because it is the equivalent of “gimme.” It is harder to teach them “thank you,” until they realize that it means, “I’d like an option on the next deal.” Why would private firms choose to be open with outside private minority investors? They want a continuing flow of capital, and with no secondary markets, that can be difficult. Granted, there are always hucksters that say with P. T. Barnum, who is alleged to have said, ” There’s a sucker born every minute .” Those characters exist regardless of market structure, but in a healthy culture, they are a small minority in the markets. The same would apply to the debt markets. The fourth C, Conditions, would also impact matters. If you can’t get out easily/cheaply, then you will limit the term of the borrowing at which you are willing to lend, unless there are features allowing for participation in the upside, such as stock conversion rights. You might also find that insolvency becomes a very personal matter, as prior capital providers who know the business better than others, are invited to “prepackaged reorganizations” when the business is illiquid or insolvent. The bankruptcy code might still exist, but gaining enough data on a firm in trouble would probably prove difficult. The board and management, unless legally compelled, might not find it in their interests to be open. Control is a valuable option, one that is only surrendered when the situation is virtually hopeless. That said, a man very good at estimating character and business value could make some amazing profits, because “in the land of the blind, a one-eyed man is king.” And, the opposite would be true for many, as they get taken advantage of by less scrupulous management teams. Back to the Present “…[R]isk control is best done on the front end. On the back end, solutions are expensive, if they are available at all.” – Me, in this article , and a bunch of others. The purpose of what I just wrote is to get you to think about an illiquid world as a limiting concept. All of the problems of our world are there, usually in a form that is less severe than we experience because of the benefit of liquid secondary markets and vehicles for diversification. If valuable for no other reason, market panics make liquidity disappear, and it is useful to think about what you will do in an absence of liquidity before the time of trouble happens. The same is true of corporations needing liquidity. Buffett said something to the effect of, “Get financing before you need it; it may not be available later.” It’s also useful to consider more carefully the financial commitments that you make, so that you don’t make so many blunders. (True for me, too.) The ability to trade out of investments is useful but limited, because we don’t always recognize when we are wrong, and mechanical trading rules can lead us to the “death by one thousand cuts.” Beyond that, realize that character does matter. A lot. The government tries as hard as it can, but it is far better at punishing fraud after the fact than it is catching fraud before the fact. It will always be that way because the law is tilted in favor of the one in control; it has to be, or property rights are meaningless. But consider those that try to warn about financial disasters – they do not get listened to until it is too late. Madoff, Enron, housing bubble, various short sellers alleging improprieties, etc., etc. Very few listen to them, because seeming success talks far louder than an outsider. My counsel is the same as always, just look at the risk control quote above. But to make it stark, ask yourself this, a la Buffett, “Would you still buy this if you couldn’t sell it for ten years?” Then measure twice, thrice, ten times if needed, and cut once. Disclosure: None