Tag Archives: management

Selling Winners And Holding Losers – Even The Smartest Investors Get It Wrong

The study of how human instinct impacts on investment decisions is hotly debated and sometimes controversial. But even Ben Graham, the father of value investing, was aware of the potential for investors to err. He famously warned that “the investor’s chief problem – and even his worst enemy – is likely to be himself.” One of the best known behavioural trap-doors is to hang onto losing investments for too long and sell winning positions too soon. It’s a phenomenon known as the Disposition Effect. For years, researchers have warned that investors can damage returns by cutting winners and riding losers. Often, this warning has been pitched in the direction of relatively unsophisticated retail investors. But new research suggests that the same behavioural flaw exists in some of the market’s smartest and best-informed traders – Short Sellers. It serves as a reminder that the risk of succumbing to selling the wrong positions is something every investor needs to be aware of. So here’s a review of how things can go wrong and why smart investors are susceptible too. Why we sell the wrong shares If you were looking at a map of behavioural finance, you’d arrive at the Disposition Effect directly from two other places: prospect theory and mental accounting. These are theories about how humans make choices between risky prospects and how they categorise them based on different outcomes. In the context of investing, these theories claim that investors treat the probability of a loss differently to that of a gain. With the Disposition Effect, what this means is that investors irrationally sell winners and hold losers even though it often makes no economic sense. Some of the best research into the consequences of all this was done by Terrance Odean, who waded through 10,000 accounts held at an American discount broker between 1987 and 1993. He found a clear tendency for investors to sell winning positions over losing positions. Moreover, there was no good reason for it – there was no evidence that these investors were deliberately rebalancing their portfolios. On average, after one year, the losing stock, that was held, fell by 1.0% against the market. While the winning stock, that was sold, actually gained 2.4% above the market. Momentum rides on the Disposition Effect Clearly, Odean’s findings show that the Disposition Effect can damage performance – but not everyone loses. Readers of Stockopedia will know that we view Momentum as a core driver of market returns – as do a number of academics and investment professionals. So it’s worth mentioning at this point that the Disposition Effect arguably has a role in driving momentum. Given that research shows that investors sell winning positions too soon, there’s a read-across to companies that issue good news to the market. Some evidence suggests that the share price rise that goes hand-in-hand with good or surprising news can be artificially held back. And it’s held back by investors succumbing to the Disposition Effect and selling out of those ‘good news’ stocks too early. It causes something called post-earnings announcement drift, where the market takes a protracted time to price in the full meaning of the good news. This is one of the ways that momentum has been shown to work – very successfully for those who catch the wave. Smart investors make the same mistakes! If all this sounds a bit like like academics have been nit-picking at the fallibilities of individual investors, think again. In the evolutionary tree of the stock market, Short Sellers (despite their opaque nature) are regarded as some of the smartest investors around. Geared up to bet on shares that will fall in price means that they have to operate with a high degree of confidence. Ultimately, that means deep pockets and very detailed, industry-leading research. But very recent analysis shows that these guys are equally susceptible to the Disposition Effect. Watch out, we’re straying into the realms of double negatives here… but the evidence shows that short sellers are more prone to realising a capital gain on a falling share then they are to cut a losing position (i.e. a share that has risen in price). This is interesting stuff, not least because it hasn’t been looked at in detail before. In particular it shows just how powerful this natural urge to cut a winner really is. Plus it casts a small shadow over just how effective short selling is at making markets more efficient by pricing stocks correctly. The implication is that short sellers unwind profitable positions before they really should, or could do. The research was done by Bastian von Beschwitz (an economist at the US Fed) and Massimo Massa (a professor at INSEAD business school). They studied shorting activity on all US stocks between mid-2004 and mid-2010. Given the assumption that short sellers are very smart, there was a suspicion that they held on to losing (poor performing) positions because they knew they’d eventually come good. But it turns out this wasn’t the case – there was an element of irrational behaviour. Those profitable losing stocks became more profitable even after the short sellers had cut and run. As the researchers concluded: “…short sellers are closing more positions exactly at the time when it would be profitable to keep the short position open and profit from the negative future return. Thus, their tendency to hold on to their losing positions and close their winning ones causes them to lose money, a clear sign that it is not a profit maximizing strategy.” Circling back to the momentum connection, this new research also suggested that the Disposition Effect behaviour leads both long traders and short sellers to add to momentum. What can investors learn from this? For individual investors, news that the market’s most ruthless traders are prone to the same behavioural bias is perhaps quite reassuring. Unfortunately, it appears that individuals are more susceptible. Comparing Terry Odean’s 1998 research with their own, von Beschwitz and Massa found that the average retail investor suffered from a Disposition Effect that is approximately 6 times as strong as that of the average short seller. Overall, the findings reinforce many years of research that shows that selling winners too soon and holding losers too long can be costly. Dealing with this, of course, is another matter.

The 4 Horsemen Of Southern Utilities, Revisited

Combined, these four utilities service over 22.8 million customers in 11 states. These states represent some of the best for regulatory friendliness to utilities, an important fundamental for all utility investors. The Southeast’s economic growth has lagged the national average, but the recent growth curve appears to be favoring this region. In March 2013, I penned an article that suggested owning four utilities servicing the southern states. These were Southern Company (NYSE: SO ), Dominion Resources (NYSE: D ), Duke Energy (NYSE: DUK ), and SCANA Corp. (NYSE: SCG ). There is still good reason to implement this strategy. The first is the geographical territory covered by these. Combined, the geography stretches from Virginia to Mississippi and from Florida to Indiana and Ohio. A basic concept for utility investing is: It’s all about location, location, location. After SO gobbles up AGL Resources (NYSE: GAS ), these four will service a combined 22.8 million customers. Below is a list of states covered by each firm: Southern Co.: Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and soon to add Arkansas with the AGL merger Dominion Resources : Virginia, West Virginia, and Ohio Duke Energy : Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Indiana SCANA Corp. : South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia These states represent areas of improving economic growth. Over the past four years, the Bureau of Economic Analysis has pegged the average annual growth in the Southeast at 1.3%, after getting a slow start in 2011 at a sub-par growth of 0.6%, or less than half the 2011 national average. In 2014, the percent change in GDP for the Southeast was 1.7%, still slightly worse than the national average of 2.2%. However, the percentage growth trend line is one of the best in the country. From a regional growth perspective, the Southeast has improved from last in 2011 to fourth out of eight in 2014. Continuing regional and national outperformance in key service states of Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Ohio will offer better organic opportunities for these utilities. Personal income annual growth has been approximately the same as the national level at a four-year average of 3.75%. Population growth has been strong at 12% above the national average at 0.9% a year. Below is a graph of GDP growth by state offered by the BEA. (click to enlarge) These four utilities cover states that are usually considered healthier for regulatory oversight. The credit side of S&P offers an assessment of the regulatory environment as their friendliness, or lack thereof, has an impact on the credit worthiness of regulated utilities. Pre-2014, S&P offered a four-category grouping (More Credit Supportive, Credit Supportive, Less Credit Supportive, Least Credit Supportive), but since changed to a three-category grouping (Strong, Strong/Adequate, Adequate), which is a bit less precise. However, it is still a meaningful comparison of the 10 states listed above. Southern Co.: Mississippi (Adequate, Credit Supportive), Alabama (Strong, More Supportive), Florida (Strong, More Supportive), Georgia (Strong/Adequate, More Supportive), and Arkansas (Strong/Adequate, Credit Supportive) Dominion Resources: Virginia (Strong/Adequate, Credit Supportive), West Virginia (Strong/Adequate, Less Supportive), and Ohio (Strong/Adequate, Credit Supportive) Duke Energy: Florida (Strong, More Supportive), South Carolina (Strong, More Supportive), North Carolina (Strong, Credit Supportive), and Indiana (Strong/Adequate, More Supportive) SCANA Corp.: South Carolina (Strong, More Supportive), North Carolina (Strong, Credit Supportive), and Georgia (Strong/Adequate, More Supportive). On average, Duke and SCANA have better regulatory profiles than Southern and Dominion. Below are S&P Credit post- and pre-2014 utility regulatory assessments by state: (click to enlarge) Source: S&P Credit (click to enlarge) Source: S&P Credit Below is a table comparing various stock fundamentals for each of the four horsemen: Source: Guiding Mast Investments, reuters.com, morningstar.com Since 2013, Dominion’s equity rating fell one notch while SCANA’s increased one notch. Southern Company’s credit rating fell by one notch and Duke’s increased by the same amount. From the table above, the PEG ratio indicates the better value seems to be Dominion and SCANA while Southern and Duke have the highest yields. Dominion and SCANA’s trailing 12-month return on invested capital, ROIC, is higher than their respective five-year averages, indicating improving capital management. Below are fastgraph.com presentation of each of these stock’s 20-year history and current valuations: (click to enlarge) (click to enlarge) (click to enlarge) (click to enlarge) Below are total return performance charts of the four utilities, as offered by Morningstar.com, starting with a graph of total return of a $10,000 investment five years ago: Source: morningstar.com However, each utility has some issues. Southern Co. and SCANA share similar concerns with large nuclear power construction projects in progress. Dominion is spinning off natural gas assets into its drop-down MLP. Duke may have paid a high price for its latest acquisition as it continues to move towards a higher exposure to regulated returns. Both Duke and Southern Company are expanding their regulated businesses by buying more natural gas customers in existing service territories. Within the realm of underlying consolidation trend in the utility sector, three of the four should remain the acquiring companies while SCANA could be an acquired company, especially after its large construction exposure diminishes over the next few years. For example, with an enterprise value of $15 billion, SCANA could be absorbed by any of the other three. Overall, utility investors looking to expand their horizons should consider any or all of these four horsemen of the southern utilities. Author’s note: Please review disclosure in author’s profile.

Chile As A Proxy For Copper

Summary Copper has fallen a great deal in recent months, which means a bounce in prices is likely. Copper is extremely important to Chile’s economy, which makes it very vulnerable whenever prices go down. Chile will most likely remain weak in the near future even if copper prices recover somewhat. Prices in the commodity sector have certainly been on the decline. Of all the commodities that have seen prices go down, one of the worst affected has to be copper (NYSEARCA: JJC ). Copper has in fact been on the decline the last four years and is now down roughly 60 percent from its highs in 2011. This decline has even accelerated the last six months with prices down by a third. The two charts below show how copper has behaved the last five years and the last 12 months: Such a big decline of more than 30 percent in such a short amount of time increases the odds of a bounce in copper prices. Copper is very much oversold, and there is a good chance that prices should go up somewhat at these levels. Those who are still negative on copper may therefore be interested in an alternative, and that alternative can be found in the country of Chile. Why Chile can be considered a proxy for copper Chile is by far the biggest producer and exporter of copper. For the whole of 2014, statistics show that Chile contributed 5.8 million metric tons of copper with global production at 18.7 million metric tons. Copper makes up almost half of Chile’s total exports, making its economy highly dependent on whatever happens to copper. If copper prices go down as they have been in recent times, Chile is bound to feel the effects. Economic indicators suggest that Chile is getting weaker as copper prices are sliding. For instance, exports have been shrinking, led by the decline in copper prices, as the chart below indicates. Both the government budget and the trade balance are now in a deficit, which seems to be getting bigger as time goes by. A sharp reversal from the sizable surpluses seen in recent years: (click to enlarge) Overall, growth in Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”) is slowing down, and the economy is struggling to avoid falling into a recession. The weakness in Chile’s economy is best reflected in the exchange rate between Chile’s domestic currency, the peso, and the U.S. dollar. The peso has already lost 17.5 percent of its value in 2015 and further devaluations are very likely, if not necessary, versus the U.S. dollar. The current trend certainly does not look good for Chile. (click to enlarge) Copper prospects While copper prices may witness a bounce in the short term, if only because of oversold conditions, a return to recent highs is highly unlikely. The strong growth of copper in recent years was primarily driven by China, which now accounts for almost half of the global consumption of copper. However, growth in demand for copper in China seems to be moderating and is now only in the low-single digits. Demand for copper outside of China is much weaker. The International Copper Study Group (“ICSG”) forecasts a flat market for copper with supply and demand evenly balanced. Much will depend on what happens in China or its economy, but there isn’t much demand for copper globally once you ignore China. There’s the possibility that there may be a slight deficit in copper supplies next year, especially if companies cut production more than expected, but nowhere near the levels seen in previous years. This should help keep a lid on copper prices, which is not good news for Chile. Chile relative to copper Since copper is oversold as a commodity, it’s realistic to expect a bounce in prices in the not-too-distant future. Initiating new shorts at these levels is therefore not recommended, at least for now. Those who are still negative when it comes to copper may instead want to look at Chile as an alternative or a proxy to copper. Exposure to Chile can be had through, for instance, ETFs such as the iShares MSCI Chile Capped ETF (NYSEARCA: ECH ). Chile could also serve as a hedge for any long or short positions in copper. For instance, a long position in Chile to offset a short position in copper or vice versa. This will remain the case for as long as Chile’s economy is heavily dependent on the export of copper and it does not diversify its economic base. The fact is that Chile is overly exposed to the prospects of a single commodity (“copper”), which in turn is highly dependent on the prospects of a single country (“China”). If copper prices go up by a lot, it’s boom time for Chile. But, if copper prices go down, Chile’s economy will get weaker. Not a very healthy situation to be in. The bottom line is that even if copper prices were to increase somewhat in the future, Chile will still not experience the windfall it received in previous years. For that to happen, copper would have to return to the very high prices of several years ago. A very unlikely prospect. Chile can be expected to remain relatively weak even if copper experiences a bounce in prices.