Tag Archives: feeds

Bill Ackman Is Nothing More Than A Big Bet Gambler

Taking concentrated fundamental bets is no different than playing craps in Vegas. By now, you’ve heard about Bill Ackman and his white whale, Valeant Pharmaceuticals (NYSE: VRX ). In 2015, Valeant plummeted and Ackman’s fund was down 20.5%. His misfortune continued into 2016, with his fund losing another 26% year to date after Valeant’s latest drop. Valeant’s share price was cut in half that day, and the troubled manager lost a cool billion on his position. Talk about a bad day at the office… A billionaire like Ackman could really use a lesson in risk control from a market technician. His hubris and ego has literally cost him billions. He’s failed to execute the most important rule for successful investing and trading – cutting losses. You would think he learned something from his first rodeo when he went “all-in” on a failing company. Ackman’s first hedge fund, Gotham Partners, doubled down on a bad bet and blew up as well. But remarkably, he was able to convince more people to come ride the pain train again in his new fund, Pershing Square. The importance of risk management and trade management in the market cannot be overstated. That’s why at Macro Ops , we use both fundamentals and technicals in our process. Stock picking and conviction is not enough to succeed in this game. In pure fundamental investing, it’s believed that the lower the price (all else equal), the more attractive the trade. This is because price is further away from the investor’s best guess (and yes, it’s nothing more than a guess) of “fair value”. This is not the case in technical investing. Technicians approach the market in the opposite fashion. They would tell you that price below your cost is a signal to exit. You’re wrong, and receiving negative feedback from the market. The attractiveness of the trade decreases as the price moves against you. We side with the technicians on this one. Arrogant fundamentalists like Ackman never admit defeat and never cut losses. Instead, they buy more because they believe they’re buying at a “better” price. At the beginning of 2016, Ackman doubled down and bought more Valeant shares despite piss poor performance in 2015. That’s called doubling down on stupid… The stock just continued to fall lower after his purchase. As you can see below, from its high, Valeant has lost over 87% of its value. Click to enlarge This approach of averaging down and holding onto losing bets is nothing more than gambling. Investing icons such as Ackman like to make big calls. If they’re right, assets under management swell. If they’re wrong, the fund blows out. Which is exactly what happened with Ackman’s first fund, Gotham Partners. This approach to markets has zero risk control. It’s the “pennies in front of a steamroller” trade in different form. No one can continuously outsmart the market, even with a Harvard MBA. If you don’t cut your losses, the market will do it for you with a margin call. And to make matters worse, your precious investors will redeem their assets once they see a big loss on their statements. This may come as a shocker, but the most important thing in trading has little to do with whether you find an undervalued stock that rises in price. Don’t take this the wrong way, trade selection has value, but it’s vastly subordinate to the path the underlying investment takes after you enter it, including how you manage that path. In other words, trade and risk management are a priority over everything else. A lot of people get confused when we talk about the “path of the underlying”, but the concept is simple. Take a look at the chart below: Click to enlarge The three lines represent three different “paths” that could play out after you buy a stock. The blue line trends straight to the target with little drawdown. The yellow line gives you a lot of heat, but eventually comes back and hits your target. And the purple line rewards you right off the bat, but then takes a turn for the worse. The purple line is Ackman’s Valeant. It’s impossible to predict this path with any amount of accuracy. You can try, but attempting to do so is akin to guessing what next Saturday’s Powerball numbers will be. You have zero control over whether people will buy your stock after you. You have zero control over what management will do in a company you don’t even operate. You have zero control over what the stock price does at all. But you DO have control over when you decide to hop on or off the path. At the end of the day, what shows up on your account statements are your entries and exits. Not your 80-page thesis that you touted to your Ivy League colleagues. The cold, hard profits and losses created by your buying and selling are the only thing that matter. Take any of your favorite performance metrics: Sharpe ratio, gain-to-pain ratio, Sortino ratio, and Calmar ratio. They all look at your equity curve, not your research. Your equity curve is what graphs your trading account’s performance. So ultimately, how you manage risk is what moves these numbers up or down. Your returns over your drawdowns is what matters the most, not whether you ended up being right on a thesis. This is why trade and risk management are far more important than investment selection for longevity and performance in the markets. To better explain this concept, let’s go back to the path diagram: Click to enlarge Pictured are three different scenarios, all of which you were “right” about at some point during the trade. Scenario one is the blue line. The blue line is the easiest path to stomach. It has little drawdown and slowly trends upward towards your valuation target. In raging bull markets, like we had since 2009, a lot of hotshot investors saw their picks trade in this fashion. They touted their “genius” and “insight”, which the investing public bought into, causing those managers’ AUM to soar. Scenario two is the yellow line. This is where things become tougher. Yes, your target was eventually hit, but look at the drawdown you had to suffer through to get there. Could you realistically stomach paper losses for the first year or so you were in the trade? How much doubt would you have? Also, holding this will put a dent in your performance metrics. Holding onto any type of drawdown will. Guys like Ackman will typically hold the yellow line, or even double down on the yellow line. This may work great for a while, until a purple line pops into your life… which can happen even if you’re a seasoned billionaire. Scenario three is the purple line – the most painful of them all. You bought the stock and were immediately rewarded. But it didn’t quite hit your valuation target. You were hoping for more from your little darling. Then, unforeseen information comes out and the stock starts to take a turn for the worse. But the initial run-up made you confident that the stock is a good company and that it’ll “come back.” Yet, as time passes, the stock drops, and you become more and more wrong. The anxiety and pain is now at level 11 out of 10. You aren’t sleeping at night. You’re pulling your hair out and questioning whether you had any investing skill in the first place. The problem is you never exit and control risk, because you believe in your own story over the market. The purple path is what finally blows out the arrogant who refuse to respect price. Holding onto a purple path is a career ender. It involves PERMANENT capital loss. And permanent loss in equities happens a lot more than you would think. You just never hear about the losers. Technicians wouldn’t stay on the purple path. They would react to the adverse price action and protect their profits. Or at least, exit that trade for a small loss. If stocks were illiquid like private investments, you would be stuck on the “path” and all the anxiety and negative emotions that come with it. But lucky for us, they aren’t! You don’t need to suffer through a purple path if you have appropriate trade and risk management. Fundamentalists can take a page from the technician’s handbook and have their entry and exit rules determined before they enter a trade. With rules in place, you can recover when you’re wrong and limit your account drawdowns to something that’s not career-ending. If you don’t control the path, the path will control you. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Secrets Of 2015’s Top 3 New Hedge Funds On Interactive Brokers Hedge Fund Marketplace

A great place to look for the smartest managers: Interactive Brokers (NASDAQ: IBKR ) has long been the trading venue of choice for sophisticated high net worth investors. Chairman and CEO Thomas Peterffy once explained the reason for this: “We believe that the better the prices we get for our customers, the better their performance will be and the more business they will bring to us. On the other hand, our competitors believe that most customers cannot tell the difference between good and bad executions. I think we’re both right. As a result, they end up with the customers who cannot tell the difference, and we end up with those who can. I like the side we are on. ” The point he is making applies equally to new hedge fund managers; the smartest, most client-oriented managers will find their way to the trading platform with the lowest-cost and best execution. Interactive Brokers leads by a mile in this respect due to its highly automated processes. It can be extremely difficult to find smart new hedge fund managers due to marketing restrictions that regulators impose. For that reason I was very excited to learn of the new Hedge Fund Marketplace that Interactive Brokers recently launched. This allows clients who are high net worth/accredited investors to request information on those funds which use Interactive Brokers for trade execution. If investors like what they see, they can invest directly in the funds through the platform. Given that the smartest new managers are likely to migrate to the IBKR platform for its low costs, the Marketplace should represent an excellent source of prospective hedge fund investments. With this in mind I looked up the top 3 new funds in the Marketplace based on 2015 returns. Since performance is generally higher for new hedge funds , I restricted my analysis to those that were founded from 2014 onwards. 1. Summit Premium Plus Fund Limited Partnership Fund manager contact: Malcolm Clissold Investment approach: Mr. Clissold runs a registered investment advisor known as SCC Capital Group . Mr. Clissold’s investment approach is to use technical analysis and a quant-oriented approach to position the fund’s investment portfolio. The technical indicators used to time investments include advance/decline measures, new highs/lows, interest rate measures, price/volume measures, price/volume trends and relative strength indicators. Discussion: From the detail given on technical measures used, these appear to be fairly well-known techniques so the magic of this fund is probably in its quant model. It can be difficult to assess quantitative strategies without knowing the inner workings of the “black box”, which of course managers are hesitant to publish. Prospective investors in this fund should request that detail in a discussion with the manager. Since speaking with the manager is outside the scope of this analysis, I’ll move on to other funds where it’s possible to figure out the source of superior returns from the available written material. 2. Shannonside Capital Fund Fund manager contact : Brian Flynn Investment approach: Shannonside follows a long-term, fundamental value approach in its long/short stock-picking strategy . The manager conducts extensive research calls to industry experts in addition to reading all the company filings, news archives and conference call transcripts to build up a mosaic on prospective investments. They look to invest in situations where the picture that they’ve meticulously assembled on a company is different from what the market (mis)perceives . This is the kind of second-level thinking that Howard Marks describes as critical to generating superior returns and is a solid reason for believing that an investment could be a bargain. It is also a very difficult approach to copy due to its time-intensive nature. The fund holds a concentrated portfolio with large positions taken in its top ideas. Discussion: Shannonside can go the extra mile with its research because it first filters the investment universe down to a smaller pool of interesting stocks using proprietary screens. These guys are willing to hold a concentrated portfolio in their best ideas. Hence they can focus their research on a small number of promising opportunities. Other managers that can’t handle volatility must be much more diversified (the norm is to hold over 200 stocks). Diversified managers can’t focus on their top ideas because they have to spread research efforts among many more stocks. Diversification (deworsification?) is the norm in the fund management industry because most managers are afraid of losing their jobs if they under-perform in the short run. My point is that Shannonside’s process is difficult for other managers to copy. As such it may generate superior returns for many years to come. Negatives: As a European-domiciled fund, Shannonside Capital Fund is not currently available to U.S. investors. It is a concentrated fund with big positions in its top ideas so it is only suitable for investors that can ride out temporary volatility along the way to building long-term wealth. For those who can, Shannonside may present the opportunity for excellent returns of the kind the fund earned in 2015. 3. Phoenix Capital Fund, LP (Note – I’m only analyzing new funds here so some older funds that had higher returns than Phoenix in 2015 are not discussed) Fund manager contacts : Erik Trofatter, Jordan Causer Investment approach : Short option premium selling. Phoenix’s managers sell short high probability, out-of-the-money option premium on liquid and efficient underlying securities. Furthermore, the fund times its trades in an attempt to sell short option premium on underlying securities that are trading at the high range of their implied volatility. Discussion: Out-of-the money call options with strike prices far above the current market security price are like lottery tickets – there is a low probability that they pay off big if the security moves up by a lot but most people who buy these will lose the amount they paid for their “ticket”. By going short a portfolio of out-of-the-money call options, Phoenix is like a lottery operator – selling overpriced “tickets” to all the punters who dream of hitting it big. On the other side of the spectrum, nervous investors are also willing to pay a steep price for insurance against extreme downside events. By going short a portfolio of out-of-the money put options, Phoenix is like an insurance company that sells insurance for 100-year storms to buyers whose area only gets hit by a storm once in a thousand years. By timing trades, Phoenix is like an insurer that tries to only sell insurance when insurance premiums are expensive. In other words, it seeks to sell when volatility is high with the hope that vol will revert to the lower norms of the past. In selling lottery tickets and tail-risk insurance, the fund appears to be designed to take advantage of the human tendency to pay too much for these products. Peoples’ willingness to pay above the odds is a result of a bias to overweight low-probability events. This ingrained tendency was studied by Daniel Kahneman (author of “Thinking Fast and Slow”) and Amos Tversky when they developed prospect theory . The result of this bias is that positive long-term rewards are possible for firms that sell lottery tickets and insurance to the “suckers” that pay too much. If this is what Phoenix is doing, they could certainly generate excess returns for years to come. Negatives: The main downside to this type of strategy is that it could be like picking up pennies in front of a steamroller. The fund could appear to be consistently profitable by earning premiums from selling out-of-the-money options, and then a flash crash or 1987-style rout hits and suddenly all the out-of-the money put options jump to become in-the-money. In such a market, losses from selling puts could result in a big hit to the portfolio. I think the best way to get comfortable with this risk is to appropriately size any prospective investment in the fund. Conclusions: Hedge fund managers generally have their best years when they are young, hungry and driven but due to marketing restrictions this is also when they are hardest to find. Interactive Brokers Hedge Fund Marketplace is an exciting new place to discover managers at this early stage. This service should accelerate IBKR’s growth because it will attract new hedge fund clients to its brokerage platform. It is great for clients because they can find rising hedge fund stars and it is great for the funds because new clients can invest through the platform. As discussed above, I think I’ve found funds that could generate superior returns for investors for years to come. I’m excited to look further because I’ve only scratched the surface of what is available. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, but may initiate a long position in SHANNONSIDE OR PHOENIX over the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Robo-Advisors Are Desperately Clinging To A Dangerous Dogma

I’ve recently argued that the success of passive investing potentially sows the seeds of its own demise . Patrick O’Shaughnessy also made a similar point recently and probably a bit more eloquently. But, to dig deeper into the push towards passive, there’s one big problem I have with virtually every one of the major robo-advisors that very few folks seem to be talking about. That is they all seem to advocate a heavily overweight position in equities, and for the most part, this is skewed towards U.S. equities. For example, below is the allocation Wealthfront would put me in. It’s 91% in stocks, 49% U.S. stocks and 42% foreign, and 9% muni bonds (This is its taxable allocation, but the retirement allocation is very, very similar). Click to enlarge I assume this massive equity overweight is simply based on the, “stocks for the long run,” dogma that everyone has bought into in recent years. The trouble with this is that it fails to take into account the simple fact that, in recent years and across a wide variety of time frames, bonds have outperformed stocks and with far less volatility, or what some might call, “risk.” As The Economist points out , “there was a point in 2011 when equities had lagged Treasury bonds over the previous 30 years.” 30 years! Intrigued, I decided to run some of the numbers myself. The chart below tracks the difference in performance between Vanguard’s S&P 500 index fund versus its long-term treasury fund. It dates back to the start of 1999; that’s as far as StockCharts.com will let me go. Notice that since then, bonds have nearly doubled up on the performance of stocks, and this includes some of the greatest years in stock market history! This time frame is especially compelling to me because stocks are currently valued, according to the Buffett yardstick and a few other valuable measures, just as highly today as they were back in 1999-2000 . Click to enlarge We can also just look at the past 10 years. Stocks have had an incredible run recently; surely they’ve outperformed bonds over the past decade. Nope. Bonds win again and, if you owned them instead of stocks, you felt much better about your investments during the financial crisis and were thus much more likely to stick with your investment strategy through that difficult period. Click to enlarge So it’s fascinating for me to see so many hang on so fiercely to the idea that buying and holding U.S. stocks over any and all time frames is the way to go despite their much greater volatility and lagging performance in recent years. And to see this dogma take form across every robo-advisor I’ve found just validates how deeply ingrained this dogma has now become. In fact, Wealthfront is so in love with the idea it wouldn’t put any of my money at all into long-term treasuries. Why not? Because it’s clinging to a dogma that perhaps worked at one point a long time ago, when stocks were more consistently fairly valued. But this dogma hasn’t worked for quite a long time now. Maybe this is why Ray Dalio’s firm, which has adopted just the opposite dogma – overweight bonds versus stocks because they offer better risk-adjusted returns over the long term – has become the largest hedge fund firm by assets in the world. Now I’m not saying you should forget stocks and put all your money in bonds. But there is a wonderful case to be made for diversifying across a variety of asset classes. Wealthfront makes it appear as if it’s doing so. It’s not. In fact, it would just put all my money in the stock market and say, “good luck!” True diversification is something very, very different and also something far more valuable. Sadly, it may take another painful bear market in equities before the robos learn this important lesson.