Posts Tagged ‘portfolio management’

Many conversations about investing this year are centered on what is wrong with stock markets in 2011. The assumption underlying this concern is that markets are only acting correctly when prices move higher, like in 2009/10, and are therefore defective when they move lower.

There are however, periods of time when economic risk is higher; the global debt problems and Japan’s difficult natural disaster come to mind. In some time periods earnings are generally not growing. If markets are discounting higher risk then it stands to reason there should be some additional volatility and in this past quarter at least, uncertainty has resulted in lower stock prices.

Markets work properly when they can move both higher and lower. If common stock prices were simply pegged higher each quarter then they would not well reflect the variant conditions of the economy and society in general.

From 1970 to the end of 2010, total returns to stocks in Canada (S&P/TSX) and the US (S&P 500) have increased at a compounded rate greater than 10%. Inflation has been about 4% so real returns for the period are about 6% and investors have been well paid for accepting the risk of holding stocks. Not all decades are equal. The past 10 years have been less giving. In Canada the average returns since 2001 have been 6.6%. Inflation averaged 2.4% for a net of 4.2% in real inflation adjusted return. So the premium for holding risky assets has been below average.

How should this recent result impact our future expectations? Even in a below average return decade, patient investors did okay. They were rewarded with real returns and grew their money. While a definition of risk can be a future where “you don’t know the outcome,” long term averages should be attributed some predictive power. It seems to me that it makes more sense to consider a bigger sample (more years) than assume the recent experience will continue into the future.

There is plenty of risk in stock markets that is well rewarded and a source of good compensation for investors. There is also lots of risk assumed by the investment community that has no or perhaps negative compensation. Our investment focus is the elimination of risk that has no payoff.

Public stock market indexes have been a source of dramatic returns in excess of inflation for more than a hundred years. Investors can capture the returns to indexes at very low cost. However, there are problems with indexes. The S&P 500 for example is dominated by large growth companies. The calculation of the index has a bias toward large capitalization stocks. These features represent risk without compensation.

Another prominent example of non-compensated risk is assuming that stock markets provide risk free return by selecting only stocks that go up. Focus lists of investment houses are typical examples of this type of approach. The problem with these list approaches is they are not investable. You can’t be the first into the stock choices and the first out so the “return to the list” is not the investor experience. In my view, non-compensated risk like this should be minimized since they ultimately do not support the goals of investors.

Simple index returns can be improved upon. A better exposure to risk provides better compensation. We spend our time working at identifying risk worth taking and where possible, eliminating risk that doesn’t pay.

Patrick

September 9, 2011

I am not a fan of sequels.  It seems to me that little new is added to our understanding of the main characters, and the plot outcome seems predictable from the start. Many observers say sequels are never as good as the original hit, the exception perhaps being Godfather II.

The volatility and pressure in world stock markets is regrettable. Risk has manifested in providing little if any return for the past decade. It seems to me that this current downturn has been triggered by the perception of a lack of effective leadership on the part of governments around the globe.

Of the three main players in the economy – individuals, corporations and governments – the investment markets are concerned primarily with corporations. At this point, North American corporations as a group are much better off – as measured by balance sheet financial strength – than previous median levels. Companies have less debt and more cash than we expect them to have. This is a good thing that should be a source of investor confidence. On the other hand, many of the world governments are bankrupt: Iceland, Greece and Ireland come to mind.

Investment markets are concerned with predicting the future. In the bond markets, payback (yield) for investing in 10 Year Government of Canada Bonds is about two and a half percent. The same is true of 10 year U.S. treasuries.  Investors buying these yields are willing to take a return, after inflation, of less than zero for 10 years. That number looks worse after taxes. It is worth noting that in the case of Canada and the U.S., investors in government debt appear unconcerned about default.

Individuals in North America have more debt than usual and the unemployment rate remains relatively high. The recent recession has been a difficult and persistent one for consumers.

The agreement to extend US Government debt was essential in that all financial interests were served and every investor would have experienced losses if it had not been confirmed. The US Government is too big to fail. Essentially, all countries in the G10 are too big to fail.

Sellers in the stock market will see much slower growth in the future. In terms of national accounts, aggregate demand is a function of buying power. The pessimistic view is that individual consumers and governments are tapped out. Companies who might otherwise be expanding are reluctant to do so if, in the future, there are fewer customers willing to buy their products. The thinking is that with fewer customers there is no growth. This is an important assumption that may prove to be incorrect.

In my view, predictions of future corporate earnings are a poor guide to investment decisions. This poor predictive power holds true for those that use so-called top down (aggregate economy based) analysis or bottom up (individual company) focus. Professional analyst predictions are frequently wrong and show little persistence when they do get it right. I think the balance of investment return for appropriate risk assumed will re-establish. Stocks will outperform bonds in the future, just as they have in the past. Good companies will innovate to find new customers and are already doing so.

We will re-balance our allocations once things settle down and we can confirm how this recent decline has impacted the plans for your portfolio. We re-balance when we have the evidence to do so and avoid the trap of attempting to generate investment returns by predicting short term outcomes.

Thank you for being our client and please pass this along to any friends or colleagues who could use a little reassurance and understanding.

Best Regards,

Patrick

Our primary goal is to create smart and hard working portfolios that focus on the goals our clients tell us are important to them. Generally, if we can do more with less money then we are on the right track. With that in mind and since we want to outperform the public stock markets, we are most interested in any assets that provide greater returns than stock market indexes.

We include private investments in our portfolios because the returns are potentially higher. We think they are higher because investors demand more return to invest in a market where information is not readily available and where liquidity is challenging. We know from the evidence that institutional investors as a group are also increasing the percentage of their overall portfolios allocated to private equity. Extra return comes at a price and the price in private equity markets is access to information and networks of trusted contacts.

Many of the people we talk to have had experience investing in a “friends and family” round of a private company. While this investment is a private transaction, it doesn’t compare to our approach in this market. We expect that as a whole, the returns to private equity are higher so we want broad diversification. We win by accessing a broad exposure to this asset class. In our pooled approach we own 2-3% positions in any one private company on average. We think throwing all your money at one position represents too much risk of total loss of capital. In addition, there is excess reward available by using relatively better information to guide investment activity. Friends and family may be less focused on relative value than they ought to be. Private companies should pay a fair price for capital.

Publicly-listed securities represent a small percentage of all companies. There are 3 or 4 private companies for every public one. According to Tom Kennedy, Managing Director of Kensington Capital, there is profit available when markets are unbalanced:

“There are approximately 100 billion dollars chasing one trillion dollars in potential transactions in the private Canadian marketplace.  Excess demand for capital represents a great opportunity for potential investors.”

In Canada at least, there is much greater demand for capital than potential supply available. We like these odds, as market imbalances tend to favour one side; in this case the suppliers of capital as a group, who should expect to be rewarded with higher returns for risk assumed. It is important to understand that investors still have to do their homework and not all participants in private equity investments will be rewarded equally.

Public markets are often referred to as “efficient” in that most information about public companies is broadly understood. Information is readily available and instantaneously transmitted to a large audience. By comparison, information about private companies is generally not available. As a result, better information is a source of returns in the private markets.

The total return to public stock markets is the sum of all return to the participants in that market. Overconfident financial marketers are paid to encourage us to consider strategies to perform better than the probable outcome. By definition, not everyone can do better than average, and once fees are considered most will underperform the average of the group. We can’t all eat someone else’s lunch. If we want portfolios that perform better than average, then we should include assets like private equity that provide higher returns.

Patrick

The opinions expressed in these articles are the opinions of the author and readers should not assume they reflect the opinions or recommendations of Richardson GMP or its affiliates.

At this time of year many of us plan to improve. Diets are popular, the gyms are full and, perhaps randomly, a disproportionate number of spouses file for divorce. Beginning of year activities tend to align to specific goals, and policies are set to support the desired outcomes. Unfortunately, many of these policies are temporary. Experience suggests that gyms are much quieter come March. Of all these goals, divorce proceedings may be one of the more persistent policy changes. I should note that I have no personal experience to draw on here.

From an investor viewpoint, net worth can be checked against previous levels to hopefully see some progress. Improvement often means more money to draw on, as more is better when it come to supporting future lifestyle choices.

Let’s assume a primary financial goal is increased retirement income. Do your actions support your goals?  Future retirement income is positively affected by savings and growth on those savings. So an important policy to support your new financial success is to create some savings, or perhaps spend less.

I have found discussing spending habits to be something of a buzz kill.  Some people tell me that they are better at making more money than budgeting. Making more money can work, but there still has to be some savings, and spending cuts are more predictable that earnings growth.

Once you have some savings, and are in the habit of creating an ongoing supply, it’s time to consider money growth strategy.

Investment management fees and expenses do not support the goal of growing your savings. On the other hand, properly constructed portfolios do a better job of wealth creation than throwing money at the markets and hoping and praying. Some fees pay for experience and judgment. Some fees end up paying for other people’s entertainment.  You should have a policy of supporting investment advice and minimizing entertainment expenses.

As a guideline, the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board pays about three quarters of one percent per year in fees and expenses to manage their 120 billion dollar fund. For most of us it is reasonable to expect to pay a little more to have our money managed. Your policy should be to pay a right amount and yes, lower fees are better.

Your growth expectations should be supported by the investments you hold. For example, if the long term return to equities is 12 percent, expecting 20 plus percent return is bad policy. You may indeed have periods when you achieve the big number, but there is no sense being disappointed at what is a highly probable outcome. If you expect to achieve more return than is available, you should have a policy of investing in assets that provide higher return than stock markets.

Leverage doesn’t increase only the positive return; you get more of the bad as well. A leveraged portfolio expected return has a broader range of possible outcomes. If you are paying incentive fees, like many hedge fund models, then the most probable outcome is a lower number than if no leverage is applied. Your investment policy should consider the math of your approach and check to see that the incentives support your goals.

We are focused on our goal of building the finest platform for investment advice. I am convinced we are on the right track with policies that directly support the goals of our clients. Let’s chat about your investment policies. This is the year, now is the time.

Patrick

The opinions expressed in these articles are the opinions of the author and readers should not assume they reflect the opinions or recommendations of Richardson GMP or its affiliates.

US stocks represented by S&P500 were up 8.44% for the month of March. The Canadian S&P TSX60 grew by 7.99%. Morgan Stanley’s EAFE was 3.74% higher. While we are still 49% lower than the high in November of 2007, we have rallied 8% off the low point earlier in March.

While most of the worries and economic turmoil persists, there has been some measure of relief to the stock markets. We are at a point of growing divergence between wall street and main street. More evidence is expected of shrinking economies in North America and overseas yet these backward looking measures were not reflected in the recent buoyant return to stocks across the world.

The short term return to investment returns is random but momentum trends do make themselves known. For this positive return environment to continue investors will have to ignore the results from main street. They will have to ignore the fact that consumers are saving more and deferring large purchases. The market will have to rally in the face of lower earnings reports from companies and yes more bankruptcies and higher unemployment figures. There are no assurances, risk is pervasive even from these price levels. If this is the beginning of a turnaround in fortune for the stock markets then it would be consistent with the beginning of other bull markets, shrugging off the bad news and climbing higher in spite of the evidence.

We are learning more about the US Feds efforts to improve securitized mortgage markets. Specifically, the legacy loans program and the legacy securities program are designed to entice private investment involvement in turning around the credit crises. There is a good review of the Toxic-asset proposal in today’s Wall Street Journal.

The incentives have to be generous enough so as to attract private investors but not so generous that a risk free return is funded by tax dollars to the benefit of private interests. So what is a reasonable return for assuming this risk? How will these prices be established?  The public purse will be best served by a wide and broad market with many participants. Some will get better deals than others but on average many participants will serve to get the prices right and move the market to an equilibrium position, balancing risk assumed and return yielded. If we end up with a closed shop -where access is limited to a few players, then the likelihood of a subsidy from taxpayers to a small number of market dominant players is enhanced.  PIMCO spokesman Bill Gross has already voiced his firm’s intention to support the program.

Joint ventures between government and private investors are complex and rightly the subject of increased scrutiny by all interested parties. If you are a tax payer then you are a stakeholder. There is a big cost to focusing on limiting return through regulation.  There have been a series of announcements from AIG that executives will return some bonuses. These relatively small victories act as a dis-incentive to those that are considering participation. There is a view that so called excessive future gains may be clawed back by government after the fact. Increased perceived risk (regulation) will require an offsetting increased future return.

In my view, well executed programs will result from a large number of independent private interests bidding for these assets. More participants results in better asset pricing. Better asset pricing will reduce the likelihood of subsidies to private interests from taxpayers.  It is in all of our interest that the program become accessible to all parties willing and able to assume the risk. We need many participants and we should encourage bidders. We have had enough focus on punishing executives and managers of financial firms. It will not help to discourage their participation. We need to get past the need to find and punish the  parties responsible for this mess and instead focus on the task at hand. Increased effort to identify and pursue manager bonuses is an unnecessary additional cost to the bailout.

Well as the above math indicates, the markets have improved so now they are  fully half of what they once were.

There are so many opinions/recipes/predictions for fixing the financial system:

Do Mark to Market assets on company balance sheets to improve visibility and certainty about earnings; or

Don’t mark to market assets as these add to volatility in earnings and in the end are estimates only

Buy equities, the recession is ending in 2009; or

Do nothing, the recession is deeper than expected and mid 2010 is the earliest relief point

Since the public purse is bailing out AIG (Citigroup, Bank America…) the new owners should protect us by reneging on employee bonuses. The principle is one of fairness to those who are preventing these companies from disappearing entirely; or

Pay the bonuses, keeping the companies whole will pay off in the future as a more valuable asset is sold. These bonuses represent insignificant dollar values

New expanded monetary policy is helpful in the short term and disastrous later; or

The US economy is expected to drive world recovery, the reasonable  cost of this effort is more US dollars in circulation

I expect many of you find all of these conflicting views compelling even as they are source of argument. I  usually find both sides of the noise plausible and somewhat meaningless as a result. The loudest opinion is unlikely to be the most helpful, or best considered. In times as these, we need to have some reasonable basis for  making investment decisions.

There seems to be a quest to define the moment of inertia, when the economy begins to grow instead of shrink.  If we could guess the day what would we do exactly? Search for a new job… buy an investment property? Maybe we could pick that exact moment to buy stocks in our retirement accounts.

Unfortunately,  we would probably be late to the party for stock markets.   If we look at the most severe recessions in the past 40 years for Japan, UK, US and Germany at the official end of each recession the local stock market had rebounded from a low of 31% in US markets in March of 1975 to a high of 137% in the UK in December of 1975. Of course the end of recessions are defined by looking back 6 months. Not helpful if you are trying to time a stock entry point or major purchase.

Good judgement starts with clearly understanding your unique situation. Investment activities should be added to after accounting for and funding cash requirements and perhaps reducing debt. In this way you will not be forced to turn what should be a positive into a negative investment experience.

It seems to me that the world has been thinking a good deal about risk and money lately. We manage money for families. We think of our roll as that of supporting our clients in achieving their stated goals. This is an important contribution, one that we don’t take lightly, and I can say very rewarding when it works as designed. Unfortunately, today is the most challenging period for wealth management of my generation. As I write this entry I realize I am writing these posts on Capital Stories to remember this time and what we did and thought as we passed through it. This is as much then for me as it is for those of you who choose to read.

In my view, fixed income investments have been a significant contributor to the financial circumstances in which we find ourselves today. As interest rates fell to 30 year lows, smart people occupied themselves finding ways to increase yield. They captured more and more risk to do so. When this risk manifested itself, investors and the sponsors of these engineered products took the hit.

Our clients have to be confortable with what we do now. Confidence is the key to future performance in that rash, emotional decisions without vision will cause the greatest losses. What we should review is our allocation to the fixed income asset class. For our clients we will concentrate on arranging maturities so that guaranteed assets mature each year to satisfy their income requirements from the portfolio. It seems to me that if a family can see where their spending money is coming from 3, 4 , 5 and perhaps 6 years in the future, our suggestion is that with the remaining capital, they can have the confidence it takes to let their longer term return assets run the course.