‘A COP: “Anything else that’ll stop the elevator from falling ?
JACK: “The basement.”’
- From the screenplay for ‘Speed’ by Graham Yost.
It comes to something when you make a habit of watching the opening
Normandy landings sequence of ‘Saving Private Ryan’ just to relax. Where
conventional fund management theory is hugely deficient is in its almost
complete absence of reference to the emotional impact of huge volatility, let
alone both mark to market and realised losses.
As Mike Tyson once said, everyone has a plan until they’re punched in
the mouth. Though to be fair, behavioural economics addresses the cognitive and
emotional factors that affect investment decisions. And there’s a book on my
bookshelf with the title ‘Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases’. But
you can tell it probably wasn’t written by Woody Allen.
Amid multiple markets (certainly not just equities) tossed so brutally and
seemingly randomly this way and that, heuristics (“methods to help solve
problems, commonly informally”) are one of the few things of practical use. To
address the ‘why’ of volatility: presumptions that investors are pricing in
horrific global economic contraction may be very wide of the mark, although global
recession (of indeterminate length) looks like a done deal. The role of
widespread hedge fund deleveraging is surely closer to the heart of the
problem. To address the ‘how’ of a pragmatic strategic response: short term
policy rates are almost certain to be slashed. Notwithstanding future issuance,
short-term government debt is the logical way for investors to play the
anticipated monetary response. Yield curves are also likely to steepen to allow
commercial banks to repair their balance sheets by borrowing at increasingly
attractive short rates and lending long.
Away from the government bond market, battered equity markets are
starting to reveal terrific promise. The logical reaction for investors looking
to increase equity exposure (pound cost averaging also looks like the prudent
way forward) would be to concentrate selectively on bombed-out growth stocks
(the miners are a steal if valuations don’t deteriorate further), and to
consider the time-honoured defensives: food; brewing; tobacco; utilities; consumer
staples and in particular pharmaceuticals.
One of the first rational responses to a gale of fear and uncertainty is to try and remain calm. That’s the sort of advice you get during a nuclear air raid warning. But as John Hussman asks in an excellent edition of his weekly report,
“1)
How many people do you know whose bank has failed and have had any difficulty
recovering their deposited funds? Anyone?
2) Do
you personally know anyone whose money market fund has “broken the buck” and
has not received the full assurance of the government that their claims will be
paid in full?
3)
Have you yourself had any difficulty making any transaction (not tightly
related to your personal credit rating) in any aspect of daily life such as
credit card purchases, grocery, gas, shopping, or for any other purpose?”
John also suggested that
“The
only thing we have to fear is the fearmongering of Wall Street itself.
“Look
– a few weeks ago, there was a $700 billion pile of money on the table, but the
only way for Wall Street and bureaucrats to get their paws on it was to scare
the public out of its collective gourd. They succeeded, but created the
psychology that the U.S. was on the verge of depression if the bailout wasn't
passed. Having created that psychology, the crisis took on a life of its own.”
The next stage of the crisis, however, is real, inasmuch as it reflects
the unholy mess that is the impact of Lehman’s bankruptcy (and other shock
financial dislocations) upon the hedge fund industry. HFRI index returns for
2008, an almost unbroken wall of red ink, only show part of the pain; with
redemption requests falling like autumn leaves, many of the more leveraged (and
/ or dumb and / or simply unfortunate) players will be fighting for their
survival and selling assets wherever they can. As Paul Kedrosky points out, the
great hedge fund unwind is under way. The investment media are not
necessarily reporting the underlying reality behind current market action. Savaged
equity prices may be reflecting fears about recession, but an altogether more
plausible answer, as Paul suggests, is that
“the selling is about broken hedge funds being forced to sell whatever
is liquid to respond to margin calls, and equities are more liquid than
anything else they own, so they get sold.”
And with 3,500 hedge funds reportedly receiving margin calls from PwC
while their assets are frozen in the wreckage of Lehman Brothers, and with
plenty of panicked investors issuing redemption requests now and asking
questions later, the great hedge fund unwind – with all its attendant
volatility across multiple asset classes – will be with us for some time to
come. So if the markets are overdue a bounce, that recovery will not exactly
manifest itself in the form of an orderly straight line.
This will, in time, leave the very best hedge funds in a uniquely
advantageous position. Their rivals will be liquidating themselves out of
business while Wall Street proprietary desks – those that are left – will for
an extended period be just a faint shadow of the belligerent force they were
before.
These developments also leave private clients well positioned relative
to their institutional peers. Unlike long-only institutional funds and hedge
funds, private clients don’t have to report their performance figures – to
anybody, over any time period. But like banks, private clients can also engage
in the miracle of maturity transformation – essentially, by converting their
ongoing income into longer term investments by means of their savings and
pension funds. The financial storm may not have abated (note the anticipated
further waves of hedge fund deleveraging), but the bulk of its fury is surely
now spent. It leaves in its wake a number of hugely attractive opportunities in
the equity market. When stocks like BP are available at forward price /
earnings multiples of less than 5, and when the entire Japanese stock market is
left trading close to book value at levels, in real terms, equating to where it
traded in the early 1970s, one has to wonder whether private clients look very
well positioned by comparison to bombed out hedge funds and sickly prop.
desks who are either unable or unwilling to take on long-only bargains.
Sensible asset allocation is still warranted, of course, but as regards the big
picture: fear is still widespread, and valuations have been indiscriminately
thrown around. Time to get, selectively, greedy.
Maybe we should go and measure our Cortisol levels, and understand how Fear impairs our judgmental ability.
I listened to an interview with Dr John Coates last night on the affect of testosterone and cortisol levels on our confidence (or lack of it).
Link: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/interviews/interview/999/
Posted by: Simon Winfield | October 21, 2008 at 01:25 AM
I disagree with the assumption that hedge funds forced to delever are swamping the market with sell orders. Hedge funds aren't 100% long, that's the point to hedge funds. A deveraging hedge fund has to sell longs, but it also has to buy out shorts (see VW). Unless you think the hedge fund world is significantly net long, I don't see how this theory makes sense.
Posted by: Contrary Indicator | October 22, 2008 at 03:56 PM
Contrary Indicator - fine, but then WHO IS DOING THE (PRESUMABLY FORCED) SELLING DOWN HERE ? For all readers: answers on a virtual postcard please..
Posted by: timprice | October 22, 2008 at 04:32 PM
Unfortunately, the above poster knows nothing about hedge funds. Hedge funds have a beta of about 0.7, i.e. they are long the stock market (stock market beta = 1). Market neutral would mean a beta of zero but hedge funds are not market neutral. Again, hedge funds in aggregate have a beta of 0.7. So Tim Price is quite right that HF liquidations would mean selling stocks.
Posted by: CK | October 22, 2008 at 09:28 PM
Tim, great analysis as usual. an admin point - my monday mornings used to be a great time to read TPE but , possibly due to the unprecedneted volatility, your postings have turned a bit erratic in their timing. could we have a bit more normality please :)
Posted by: ben w | October 23, 2008 at 12:09 PM
ben w: If you'd like to retain the Monday morningness feel of the commentaries, I typically send them by email (PDF) each Monday. If you crave something approximating to regularity in these turbulent times, just send me your email address and I'll add you to my distribution list. all the best.
Posted by: timprice | October 23, 2008 at 12:24 PM
blatant theft of YOUR material
This entire site
http://www.wallstreetrisks.com/Articles/FullArticle/tabid/57/selectmoduleid/381/ArticleID/235/reftab/36/Default.aspx
http://www.wallstreetrisks.com/Articles/FullArticle/tabid/57/selectmoduleid/381/ArticleID/244/reftab/36/Default.aspx
http://www.wallstreetrisks.com/
is 100% theft in violation of copyright laws
Literally EVERY article that appears on this site was stolen without permission from someone.
There was (but it has since been removed) an entire section of every blog from about the top 20 bloggers in the country, stealing every article verbatim.
Just letting you know.
Contact them at mail@wallstreetrisk.com
You also need to fill out a complaint ticket at web host
http://support.websecurestores.com/Customer/SubmitTicket.aspx
I am contacting every one of the people this guy is ripping off
Mike Shedlock
Mish
Posted by: Mike "Mish" Shedlock | October 24, 2008 at 06:01 AM
WallStreetRisks did write to me and ask permission to reprint articles, which I happily gave. I can't really complain that they're doing what they asked to do.
Posted by: timprice | October 24, 2008 at 08:26 AM
Tim, looks like UK company directors agree with you. Buys outnumber sells in October by between 6:1 and 10:1.
The last time we saw a number anywhere like this was in December '02, at 5:1.
Posted by: Simon Winfield | November 02, 2008 at 12:52 PM
ifehyds dhqwjgmao xozswp qtabz chbxz ilxmyzet srhog
Posted by: eogmlnwka kbuw | February 22, 2009 at 07:33 AM
Forex managers and introducing brokers are likely to be required to be registered within the next year as the CFTC proposes forex registration rules for forex firms and associated persons. The new rules will require the associated person to pass the Series 34 Exam, a new proficiency exam administered by FINRA. For more information on the registration rules or if you are thinking of setting up a forex hedge fund, please feel free to contact Bart Mallon for more information.
Posted by: Bart Mallon | April 02, 2009 at 06:35 PM