BlueCrest’s Michael Platt

Michael Platt and BlueCrest Capital have been in the headlines recently as the latest hedge fund billionaire to return external capital and morph into a private partnership / family office. Below are portfolio management tidbits from Platt's interview with Jack Schwager in Hedge Fund Market Wizards. Capital Preservation, Risk, Team Management

“I have no appetite for losses. Our discretionary strategy’s worst peak-to-trough drawdown in over 10 years was less than 5 percent, and this strategy lost approximately 5 percent in one month. One thing that brings my blood to a boiling point is when an absolute return guy starts talking about his return relative to anything. My response was, ‘You are not relative to anything, my friend. You can’t be in the relative game just when it suits you and in the absolute game just when it suits you. You are in the absolute return game, and the fact that you use the word relative means that I don’t want you anymore.’”

“The risk control is all bottom-up. I structured the business right from the get-go so that we would have lots of diversification. For example, on the fixed income side, I hire specialists. I have a specialist in Scandinavian rates, a specialist in the short end, a specialist in volatility surface arbitrage, a specialist in euro long-dated trading, an inflation specialist, and so on. They all get a capital allocation. Typically, I will hand out about $1.5 billion for every $1 billion we manage because people don’t use their entire risk allocation all the time. I assume, on average, they will use about two thirds. The deal is that if a trader loses 3 percent, he has to give me back half of his trading line. If he loses another 3 percent of the remaining half, that’s it. His book is auctioned. All the traders are shown his book and take what they want into their own books, and anything that is left is liquidated.”

“Q: What happens to the trader at that point? Is he out on the street? A: It depends on how he reached his limit. I’m not a hard-nosed person. I don’t say, you lost money, get out. It’s possible someone gets caught in a storm. A trader might have some very reasonable Japanese positions on, and then there is a nuclear accident, and he loses a lot of money. We might recapitalize him, but it depends. It is also a matter of gut feel. How do I feel about the guy?

Q: Is the 3 percent loss measured from the allocation starting level? A: Yes, it is definitely not a trailing stop. We want people to scale down if they are getting it wrong and scale up if they are getting it right. If a guy has a $100 million allocation and makes $20 million, he then has $23 million to his stop point.

Q: Do you move that stop up at any point? A: No, it rebases annually.

Q: So every January 1, traders start off with the same 3 percent stop point? A: Yes, unless they carry over some of their P&L. One year, one of my guys made about $500 million of profits. He was going to get a huge incentive check. I said to him, ‘Do you really want to be paid out on the entire $500 million? How about I pay you on $400 million, and you carry over $100 million, so you still have a big line.’ He said, ‘Yeah, that’s cool. I’ll do that.’ So he would have to lose that $100 million plus 3 percent of the new allocation before the first stop would kick in.”

“I don’t interfere with traders. A trader is either a stand-alone producer or gone. If I start micromanaging a trader’s position, it then becomes my position. Why then am I paying him such a large percentage of the incentive fee?”

“We have a seven-person risk management team…The key thing they are monitoring for is a breakdown in correlation…because most of our positions are spreads. So lower correlations would increase the risk of the position. The most dangerous risks are spread risks. If I assume that IBM and Dell have a 0.95 correlation, I can put on a large spread position with relatively small risk. But if the correlation drops to 0.50, I could be wiped out in 10 minutes. It is when the spread risks blow up that you find out that you have much more risk than you thought.

Controlling correlations is the key to managing risk. We look at risk in a whole range of different ways…They stress test the positions for all sorts of historical scenarios. They also scan portfolios to search for any vulnerabilities in positions that could impact performance. They literally ask the traders, ‘If you were going to drop $10 million, where would it come from?’ And the traders will know. A trader will often have some position in his book that is a bit spicy, and he will know what it is. So you just ask him to tell you. Most of what we get in the vulnerabilities in positions reports, we already know anyway. We would hope that our risk monitoring systems would have caught 95 percent of it. It is just a last check.”

Creativity, Psychology

“The type of guy I don’t want is an analyst who has never traded—the type of person who does a calculation on a computer, figures out where a market should be, puts on a big trade, gets caught up in it, and doesn’t stop out. And the market is always wrong; he’s not…

I look for the type of guy in London who gets up at seven o’clock on Sunday morning when his kids are still in bed, and logs onto a poker site so that he can pick off the U.S. drunks coming home on Saturday night. I hired a guy like that. He usually clears 5 or 10 grand every Sunday morning before breakfast taking out the drunks playing poker because they’re not very good at it, but their confidence has gone up a lot. That’s the type of guy you want —someone who understands an edge. Analysts, on the other hand, don’t think about anything else other than how smart they are.”

“I want guys who when they put on a good trade immediately start thinking about what they could put on against it. They just have the paranoia. Market makers get derailed in crises far less often than analysts. I hired an analyst one time who was a very smart guy. I probably made 50 times more money on his ideas than he did. I hired an economist once, which was the biggest mistake ever. He lasted only a few months. He was very dogmatic. He thought he was always right. The problem always comes down to ego. You find that analysts and economists have big egos, which just gets in the way of making money because they can never admit that they are wrong.”

“Both the ex-market makers who blew up became way too invested in their positions. Their ego got in the way. They just didn’t want to be wrong, and they stayed in their positions.”

Psychology, Opportunity Cost, Mistake

“I don’t have any tolerance for trading losses. I hate losing money more than anything. Losing money is what kills you. It is not the actual loss. It’s the fact that it messes up your psychology. You lose the bullets in your gun. What happens is you put on a stupid trade, lose $20 million in 10 minutes, and take the trade off. You feel like an idiot, and you’re not in the mood to put on anything else. Then the elephant walks past you while your gun’s not loaded. It’s amazing how annoyingly often that happens. In this game, you want to be there when the great trade comes along. It’s the 80/20 rule of life. In trading, 80 percent of your profits come from 20 percent of your ideas.”

“…I look at each trade in my book every day and ask myself the question, 'Would I enter this trade today at this price?' If the answer is 'no,' then the trade is gone.”

“When I am wrong, the only instinct I have is to get out. If I was thinking one way, and now I can see that it was a real mistake, then I am probably not the only person in shock, so I better be the first one to sell. I don’t care what the price is. In this game, you have an option to keep 20 percent of your P&L this year, but you also want to own the serial option of being able to do that every year. You can’t be blowing up.”

How many of us have been in a situation when we were busy putting out fire(s) on existing position(s) when we should have been focused on new/better ideas?

Exposure

“I like buying stuff cheap and selling it at fair value. How you implement a trade is critical. I develop a macro view about something, but then there are 20 different ways I can play it. The key question is: which way gives me the best risk/return ratio? My final trade is rarely going to be a straight long or short position.”

His core goal is not all that different from what fundamental investors are try to achieve: buy cheap, sell a fair or higher value. The main difference stems from how the bets are structured and the exposures created.

Creativity, Diversification, Correlation 

“I have always liked puzzles…I always regarded financial markets as the ultimate puzzle because everyone is trying to solve it, and infinite wealth lies at the end of solving it."

“Currently, because of the whole risk-on/risk-off culture that has developed, diversification is quite hard to get. When I first started trading about 20 years ago, U.S. and European bond markets weren’t really that correlated. Now, these markets move together tick by tick.”

“The strategy is always changing. It is a research war. Leda has built a phenomenal, talented team that is constantly seeking to improve our strategy.”

Markets are a zero sum game less transaction costs. Participants / competitors are constantly shifting and changing their approach to one-up each other because there is infinite wealth involved. What worked yesterday may not work today or tomorrow. Historical performance is not indicative of future result. This is also why so many quantitative frameworks for diversification and correlation that use historical statistics are so flawed. Investors must constantly improve and adapt to current and future conditions. Otherwise someone else will eat your lunch.

Whitebox on Risk & Risk Management

There must be something in the Whitebox water supply: it's producing an army of investment math nerds with acute self-awareness and sensibilities, led by their fearless leader Andy Redleaf. Those of you who have not yet seen Whitebox's "10 Enduring Principles To Interpret Constant Market Change" are missing out -- it is absolutely worth three minutes of your day. The text below is extracted from a Jan 2015 Andy Redleaf article titled "Getting Past the Romance of Risk":

“The courage to ‘take a chance.’ The fearlessness of being a ‘risk taker.’ Risk as the force of entrepreneurship. These ideas are so ingrained in the American psyche that in the investment industry they have become dogma: to increase returns the investor must be willing to accept more risk. That is the core result of Modern Portfolio Theory, even if it is hedged with theories about how to accept risk systematically on the “efficient frontier.”

Given this persistent quasi-romance with risk, we have to ask: What great investor or entrepreneur ever succeeded by deliberately taking on more risk?

...the entrepreneur’s goal should always be to create asymmetries of risk and reward in which there is far more to be gained than lost. We strongly believe all investment managers should be doing the same, which is why the first of Whitebox’s 10 Investment Principles is: The source of investment return is the efficient reduction of risk.

If risk is not the basis of return, should an investor strive to take no risk at all? No. There is no such thing as a risk-free portfolio. We believe that the right goal is to reduce risk efficiently: reduce the risks of a position more than one reduces its potential return. One can do this in various ways, but it comes down to the investor striving to own only and exactly what he wants to own…

How do we believe an investor can own only and exactly what he wants to own? In practical terms, what does this look like?

In reality, most securities, taken individually, are bundles of both good and bad qualities. Even a stock that presents generally favorable prospects for potentially good returns is likely to contain at least some unfavorable qualities; the same is generally true for bonds. As such, we believe the key – and the whole point of alternative investing – is to be able to identify and isolate the good from the bad, so that you own only and exactly what you want.

How is this achieved? Sometimes this is done at the security level, by buying securities with desirable qualities and canceling out the undesirable qualities through carefully constructed positions in our short book. Sometimes it is done at the portfolio level, by combining investment “themes” in ways that retain the attractive qualities of an investment idea while, hopefully, canceling out the risks.

Sometimes, it can be achieved by striving to identify and implement hedges that are in themselves what we perceive as sound, attractive investments, the goal being to reduce risk through tactics and decisions that are themselves potentially return-generating investments…

Viewing risk-reduction in itself as a source of potential returns is in stark contrast to a more traditional approach, which we believe accepts some measure of loss in exchange for potential payoff.

Exercising sound judgment in investing, we believe, involves choosing the particular over the abstract. This can mean the difference between buying up “lots” of securities in bundles (often to satisfy a predetermined allocation percentage, for example) versus sorting through individual names, looking for nuances lurking beyond-the-obvious that enhance value, and identifying idiosyncratic dislocations – even among securities that are bought and sold in “lots.” It means looking at risk specifically, not from a high level of abstraction, striving to reduce that risk efficiently through a hedge that in itself is an investment with potential payoff.

Put another way, we believe efficient reduction of risk begins with and cannot be separated from the investment process. To us, every investment decision, therefore, should be a decision about risk. We reject the concept of risk management as an “overlay.”

Most of all, we believe this investment principle entails viewing risk and risk mitigation as a matter of judgment. We feel confident in our belief that investors who exercise good judgment are more likely to prosper than investors who do not…

Seen from this perspective, the concept of risk is somewhat reframed. We simply reject the idea that says “the greater the risk, the greater potential for return.” To us, a truly alternative approach to investing involves what we believe to be a fairly straightforward endeavor: efficiently reduce risk so as to own only and exactly what you want to own.”

On efficient markets: “We believe this…approach to investing isn’t safe, mostly because we see it as lazy. On every point listed above, we’re convinced that money managers who go along with these dogmas are saving themselves work, but risking investors’ money.”

Montier on Exposures & Bubbles

Below are some wonderful bits on bubbles and portfolio construction from James Montier. Excerpts were extracted from a Feb 2014 interview with Montier by Robert Huebscher of Advisor Perspectives – a worthwhile read. Cash, Expected Returns, Exposure

“The issue is…everything is expensive right now. How do you build a portfolio that recognizes the fact that cash is generating negative returns…you have to recognize that this is the purgatory of low returns. This is the environment within which we operate. As much as we wish it could be different, the reality is it isn’t, so you have to build a portfolio up that tries to make sense. That means owning some equities where you think you’re getting at least some degree of reasonable compensation for owning them, and then basically trying to create a perfect dry-powder asset.

The perfect dry-powder asset would have three characteristics: it would give you liquidity, protect you against inflation and it might generate a little bit of return.

Right now, of course, there is nothing that generates all three of those characteristics. So you have to try and build one in a synthetic fashion, which means holding some cash for its liquidity benefits. It means owning something like TIPS, which are priced considerably more attractively than cash, to generate inflation protection. Then, you must think about the areas to add a little bit of value to generate an above-cash return: selected forms of credit or possibly equity-spread trades, but nothing too risky.”

Dry powder is generally associated with cash. But as Montier describes here, it is possible that in certain scenarios cash is not the optimal dry-powder asset.

His description of creating a perfect dry-powder asset is akin to creating synthetic exposures, something usually reserved for large hedge funds / institutions and their counterparties.

Interestingly, anyone can (try to) create synthetic exposures by isolating characteristics of certain assets / securities to build a desired combination that behaves a certain way in XYZ environment, or if ABC happens.

For more on isolating and creating exposures, see our previous article on this topic. 

Hedging, Fat Tail

“Bubble hunting can be overrated…I’m not sure it’s particularly helpful, in many regards…

Let’s take an equity‐market bubble, like the technology‐media‐telecom (TMT) bubble. Everyone now agrees I think, except maybe two academics, that TMT was actually a bubble. To some extent it didn’t really matter, because you had a valuation that was so extraordinarily high. You didn’t actually have to believe it was a bubble. You just knew you were going to get incredibly low returns from the fact that you were just massively overpaying for those assets.

Knowing it was a bubble as such helped reassure those of us who were arguing that it was a bubble, though we could see the more common signs of mania like massive issuance, IPOs and shifting valuation metrics that eventually were off the income statement altogether.

All of those things are good confirming evidence, but ultimately it didn’t matter because the valuation alone was enough to persuade you to think, ‘Hey, I’m just not going to get any returns in these assets even if it isn’t a bubble.’

Bubblehunting is much more useful when it is with respect to things like credit conditions and the kind of environments we saw in 2007, when it was far less obvious from valuation alone. Valuation was extended, but wasn’t anywhere near the kinds of levels that we saw in 2000. It was extended, but not cripplingly so by 2000 standards. But the ability to actually think about the credit bubble or the potential for a bubble in fundamentals or financial earnings is very useful.

The use of bubble methodology is certainly not to be underestimated, but people can get a little too hung up on it and start to see bubbles everywhere. You hear things about bond bubbles. Do I really care? All I need to know is bonds are going to give me a low return from here. Ultimately, for a buy-and-hold investor, the redemption yield minus expected inflation gives me my total return for bonds. There can’t be anything else in there.

You get the conclusion that, ‘Hey, I don’t really care if it’s a bubble or not.’ I suspect bubble hunting can be useful in some regards. But people use the term too loosely and it can lead to unhelpful assessments.”

Expected Return, Capital Preservation

“You can imagine two polar extreme outcomes: Central banks could end financial repression tomorrow. You would get real‐rate normalization and the only asset that survives unscathed is cash. Bonds suffer, equities suffer and pretty much everything else suffers. Or, the central banks keep their rates incredibly low for a very, very long period.

The portfolios you want to hold under those two different outcomes are extremely different. I have never yet met anyone with a crystal ball who can tell me which of these two outcomes is most likely – or even which one could actually happen. You’re left trying to build a portfolio that will survive both outcomes. It won’t do best under either one of the two outcomes or the most probable outcome, but it will survive. That really is the preeminent occupation of my mind at the moment.”

When To Buy, When To Sell, Psychology

“One of curses of value managers is we’re always too early both to buy and to sell. One of the ways that were trying to deal with that is to deliberately slow our behavior down, so we try to react at least to a moving average of the forecast rather than the spot forecasts.”

PM Jar Exclusive Interview With Howard Marks - Part 4 of 5

Below is Part 4 of PM Jar’s interview with Howard Marks, the co-founder and chairman of Oaktree Capital Management, on portfolio management. Part 4: The Art of Transforming Symmetry into Asymmetry

“If tactical decisions like concentration, diversification, and leverage are symmetrical two-way swords, then where does asymmetry come from? Asymmetry comes from alpha, from superior personal skill.”

Marks: Everything in investing is a two-way sword – a symmetrical two-way sword. If you turn cautious and raise cash, it will help you if you are right, and hurt you if you are wrong. If tactical decisions like concentration, diversification, and leverage are symmetrical two-way swords, then where does asymmetry come from? Asymmetry comes from alpha, from superior personal skill.

Superior investors add value in a number of ways, such as security selection, knowing when to drop down in quality and when to raise quality, when to concentrate and when to diversify, when to lever and when to delever, etc. Most of those things come under the big heading of knowing when to be aggressive and when to be defensive. The single biggest question is when to be aggressive and when to be defensive.

I believe very strongly that investors have to balance two risks: the risk of losing money and the risk of missing opportunity. The superior investor knows when to emphasize the first and when to emphasize the second – when to be defensive (i.e., to worry primarily about the risk of losing money) and when to be aggressive (i.e., to worry primarily about the risk of missing opportunity). In the first half of 2007, you should have worried about losing money (there was not much opportunity to miss). And in the last half of 2008, you should have worried about missing opportunity (there wasn’t much chance of losing money). Knowing the difference is probably the most important of all the important things.

PM Jar: How do you think about the opportunity cost when balancing these two risks? Is it historical or forward looking?

Marks: If you bought A, your opportunity cost is what you missed by not holding B. That’s historical. Similarly, when you look forward, you can take an infinite number of different actions in putting together your portfolio.Opportunity cost is what you could lose by doing what you’re doing, as opposed to other things that you could have done.

Opportunity cost is a sophisticated sounding way to address the risk of doing something versus the risk of not doing it. This is how we decide whether and how to invest: If I buy it, could I lose money? If I don’t buy it, could I miss out on something? If I buy a little, should I have bought a lot? If I bought a lot, should I have bought a little?

Investing is an art form in the sense that it can’t be mechanized. There is no formula or rule that works – it’s all feel. You get the inputs, analyze them, turn the crank, get numbers out – but they are only guesswork. Anything about the future is only a guess. The best investing is done by people who make the best subjective judgments.

Anyone who thinks they are going to make all decisions correctly is crazy. But if you make mistakes, you have to learn from them. Otherwise you’re making another huge mistake if you ignore the learning opportunity. One of my favorite sayings is, “Experience is what you got when you didn’t get what you wanted.”

Continue Reading — Part 5 of 5: Creating Your Own Art

Bill Lipschutz: Dealing With Mistakes

The following excerpts are derived from Jack Schwager’s interview with Bill Lipschutz in The New Market Wizards. Lipschutz helped build and ran Salomon’s currency desk for many years – here is a 2006 EuroMoney Article with additional background on Bill Lipschutz. There are number of worthwhile portfolio management tidbits here, mainly the relationship between making mistakes, portfolio sizing & exposure, and controlling one’s psychological reactions. Mistake, Liquidity, Psychology, Process Over Outcome

“Missing an opportunity is as bad as being on the wrong side of a trade…”

“…the one time since I first started trading that I was really scared…our position size at the time was larger than normal…the dollar started moving up in New York, and there was no liquidity. Very quickly it was up 1 percent, and I knew that I was in trouble [1% of $3 billion = $30 million loss]…It transpired in just eight minutes. All I wanted to do was to make it through to the Tokyo opening at 7pm for the liquidity…By the time Tokyo opened, the dollar was moving down, so I held off covering half the position as I had previously planned to do. The dollar kept collapsing, and I covered the position in Europe…The reason that I didn’t get out on the Tokyo opening was that it was the wrong trading decision...

…That was the first time it hit home that, in regards to trading, I was really very different from most people around me. Although I was frightened at the time, it wasn’t a fear of losing my job or concern about what other people would think of me. It was a fear that I had pushed the envelope too far – to a risk level that was unacceptable. There was never a question in my mind about what steps needed to be taken or how I should go about it. The decision process was not something that was cloudy or murky in my vision. My fear was related to my judgment being so incorrect – not in terms of market direction (you can get that wrong all the time), but in terms of drastically misjudging the liquidity. I had let myself get into a situation in which I had no control. That had never happened before.”

“Q: Let’s say that the dollar started to go up – that is, in favor of the direction of your trade – but the fundamentals that provided your original premise for the trade has changed. Do you still hold the position because the market is moving in your favor, or do you get out because your fundamental analysis has changed?

A: I would definitely get out. If my perception that the fundamentals have changed is not the market’s perception, then there’s something going on that I don’t understand. You don’t want to hold a position when you don’t understand what’s going on. That doesn’t make any sense.”

Liquidity is your friend when it comes to dealing with mistakes.

Mistakes, Psychology, Sizing, When To Buy, When To Sell, Exposure, Expected Return

“When you’re in a losing streak, your ability to properly assimilate and analyze information starts to become distorted because of the impairment of the confidence factor, which is a by-product of a losing streak. You have to work very hard to restore that confidence, and cutting back trading size helps achieve that goal.”

“Q: For argument’s sake, let’s say that the fundamentals ostensibly don’t change but the dollar starts going down. How would you decide that you’re wrong? What would prevent you from taking an open-ended loss?

A: …if the price action fails to confirm my expectations will I be hugely long? No, I’m going to be flat and buying a little bit on the dips. You have to trade at a size such that if you’re not exactly right in your timing, you won’t be blown out of your position. My approach is to build to a larger size as the market is going my way. I don’t put on a trade by saying, “My God, this is the level; the market is taking off right from here.” I am definitely a scale-in type of trader.

Q: Do you believe your scaling type of approach in entering and exiting positions is an essential element in your overall trading success?

A: I think it has enabled me to stay with long-term winners much longer than I’ve seen most traders stay with their positions. I don’t have a problem letting my profits run, which many traders do. You have to be able to let your profits run. I don’t think you can consistently be a winning trader if you’re banking on being right more than 50% of the time. You have to figure out how to make money being right only 20 to 30 percent of the time.”

Very interesting way to think about overall expected return of a portfolio – how to make profits if you are right only 20-30% of the time. This highlights the concept that in investing, it doesn’t matter how often you are right or wrong, what ultimately matters is how much you make when you are right and how much you lose when you are wrong.

Volatility, Exposure, Correlation

“…playing out scenarios is something that I do all the time. That is a process a fundamental trader goes through constantly. What if this happens? What if this doesn’t happen? How will the market respond? What level will the market move to…

…Generally speaking, I don’t think good traders make gut or snap decisions – certainly not traders who last very long. For myself, any trade idea must be well thought out and grounded in reason before I take the position. There are a host of reasons that preclude a trader from making a trade on a gut decision. For example, before I put on a trade, I always ask myself, ‘If this trade does wrong, how do I get out?’ That type of question becomes much more germane when you’re trading large position sizes. Another important consideration is the evaluation of the best way to express a trade idea. Since I usually tend not to put on a straight long or short position, I have to give a lot of thought as to what particular option combination will provide the most attractive return/risk profile, given my market expectations. All of these considerations, by definition, preclude gut decisions.”

Is not “playing out scenarios” within one’s mind a form of attempting to anticipate possible scenarios of expected volatility?

Trade structuring is an under-discussed topic. Many people buy or short things without understanding/considering the true exposure – standalone and/or when interacting with existing portfolio positions. In the words of Andy Redleaf of Whitebox, “The really bad place to be is where all too many investors find themselves much of the time, owning the wrong things by accident. They do want to own something in particular; often they want to own something quite sensible. They end up owning something else instead.”

Sizing, Psychology

“Q: Beside intelligence and extreme commitment, are there any other qualities that you believe are important to excel as a trader?”

A: Courage. It’s not enough to simply have the insight to see something apart from the rest of the crowd, you also need to have the courage to act on it and to stay with it. It’s very difficult to be different from the rest of the crowd the majority of the time, which by definition is what you’re doing if you’re a successful trader.”

Also true for fundamental investors.

Risk, Diversification, Exposure

“Q: How did the sudden demise of your personal account change you as a trader?

A: I probably became more risk-control oriented. I was never particularly risk averse…There are a lot of elements to risk control: Always know exactly where you stand. Don’t concentrate too much of your money on one big trade or group of highly correlated trades. Always understand the risk/reward of the trade as it now stands, not as it existed when you put the position on. Some people say, ‘I was only playing with the market’s money.’ That’s the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.”

Team Management

“…John [Gutfreund of Salomon Brothers] could smell death at a hundred paces. He didn’t need to know what your position was to know…how it was going. He could tell the state of your equity by the amount of anxiety he saw in your face.”

Time Management

“By the way, when I talk about working hard, I meant commitment and focus; it has nothing to do with how many hours you spend in the office.”

Wisdom from Whitebox's Andy Redleaf

Ever experience those humbling moments when you read something and think: “Wow, this person is way smarter than me” – happens to me every single day, most recently while reading a Feb 2013 Whitebox client letter during which Andy Redleaf & Jonathan Wood devoted a refreshing amount of text to the discussion of portfolio management considerations (excerpts below). Enjoy!

Hedging, Exposure, Mistakes

“The job of the arbitrageur, as we see it, is to isolate the desired element, the desired asset claim, which in turn is usually desirable because it trades at a different price from a similar claim appearing under some other form. The purpose of a hedge in this view is not to lay off the bet but to sharpen it by isolating the desired element in a security from all the other elements in that security.

If we think about it this way, then alternative investing can be defined as owning precisely what the investor wants to own, in the purest possible form. Sadly, owning just what one wants to own is no guarantee that one will own good things rather than bad. But at least a true alternative investor has eliminated one whole set of mistakes – owning stupid things by accident. If the alternative investor owns stupid things at least he owns them on purpose.

The really bad place to be is where all too many investors find themselves much of the time, owning the wrong things by accident. They do want to own something in particular; often they want to own something quite sensible. They end up owning something else instead.”

Volatility

“Consider, for instance, the stocks of consumer staples companies. Because no one can do without staples, these stocks are often assumed to be insensitive to the economy. And because they are, on the whole, boring companies without much of a story they generally fall on the value side of the great glamour/value divide. Precisely these characteristics, however, recently have caused them to be heavily bought by safety-conscious investors so that as a group they are now priced to perfection…

Throughout markets today the most powerful recurrent theme is the inversion of risk and stability; almost universally securities traditionally regarded as safe and stable are neither. We are less confident in opining that securities traditionally regarded as speculative have now become safe. Still the thought is worth following out… Tech is traditionally thought of as speculative, but Big Tech today is not the Tech of the go-go years. These days Big Tech is mostly just another sub-sector of industrials.”

A great example for why historical volatility is not indicative of future volatility (as so many models across the finance world assume).

Volatility is driven by fundamentals and the behavioral actions of market participants – all subject to the ebb and flow of changing seasons. If fundamentals and the reasons driving behavioral actions change, then the volatility profile of securities will also change.

Diversification, Risk

“Speaking of looking for safety in all the wrong places, diversification is widely regarded as a defensive measure. This is a misunderstanding. Diversification in itself is neither defensive nor aggressive. It is a substitute for knowledge; the less one knows the more one diversifies…In our credit strategies, diversification was the watchword for 2009. We bought essentially every performing bond priced below 40 cents (an extraordinary number of such being available in that extraordinary time). We did this because collective the expected payoff on such bonds was enormous…It made no sense to pick and choose. Making fine distinctions about value in an inherently irrational situation more likely would have led us astray. In that situation diversification, rather than blunting the investment thesis, actually helped us focus on the best on the interesting factor: the market-wide loss of faith in the bankruptcy process.”

I think it's an interesting nuance that diversification itself doesn't necessarily "blunt" the potency of ideas. In certain instances, such as the one outlined above, diversification lends courage to investors to size up ideas without committing to one or two specific firms or assets.

In his 1996 letter, Seth Klarman has discussed something similar, using diversification to mitigate unfamiliarity risk by purchasing a basket of securities exposed to the same underlying thesis and opportunity set.

Diversification, Volatility, Expected Return

“The downside of a concentrated portfolio is that returns tend to be lumpy and dependent on events.”

Low Net Exposure Won’t Save You

I’ve been noticing quite a few 2009-vintage long/short equity hedge funds (the 137% gross, 42% net exposure variety) with steadily expanding capital bases, via both portfolio compounding and capital inflows. The latter is understandable given the spectacular return trackrecords of these funds. Yet, ever the skeptic anytime I observe capital chasing performance, I’d like to share an anecdote with my Readers. A few weeks ago, I met someone who relayed the following Stanley Druckenmiller story (for more on Stanley Druckenmiller, be sure to check out these articles):

In 2007, a list of hedge funds was shown to Stanley Druckenmiller and his opinion of those managers requested. Glancing at the list, Druckenmiller pointed to a few and said, “These guys will blow up. They don’t understand that when things get bad, they need to take down gross, not just net.” Lo and behold, the predictions of Druckenmiller once again proved true – those funds blew up in 2008.

Regardless of whether the story is actually true or false, I think it still conveys a valuable point. In extreme environments, the leverage associated with high gross exposure is dangerous, even if you carry a low level of net exposure, because the underlying assets will behave erratically as historical correlations breakdown.

How many of these newly minted 2009-vintage long/short, high gross low net, equity funds, with swollen egos after years of outperformance, will know/remember this when the storms approach? Only time will tell.

An Interview with Bruce Berkowitz - Part 2

Part 2 of portfolio management highlights extracted from an August 2010 WealthTrack interview with Consuelo Mack (in my opinion, WealthTrack really is an underrated treasure trove of investment wisdom). Be sure to check out Part 1.

AUM, Compounding, Subscription, Redemptions

“MACK: There’s a saying on Wall Street...that size is the enemy of performance…

BERKOWITZ: …we think about this every day. And, the important point is that, as the economy still is at the beginning of a recovery, and there's still much to do…we can put the money to work. The danger's going to be when times get better, and there's nothing to do, and the money keeps flocking in. That obviously is going to be a point we're going to have to close down the fund...But of course, it's more than that. Because if we continue to perform, which I hope we do, 16 billion's going to become 32, and 32's going to become 64.”

Berkowitz makes a great point. It’s not just subscriptions and redemptions that impact assets under management. Natural portfolio (upward or downward) compounding will impact AUM as well.

We’ve discussed before: there’s no such thing as a “right” AUM, statically speaking. The “right” number is completely dependent upon opportunities available and market environment.

AUM, Sourcing

"CONSUELO MACK: …as you approached 20 billion under management, has the size affected the way you can do business yet?

BRUCE BERKOWITZ: Yes. It's made a real contribution. How else could we have committed almost $3 billion to GGP, or to have done an American Credit securitization on our own, or help on a transformation transaction with Hertz, or offer other companies to be of help in their capital structure, or invest in CIT, or be able to go in with reasonable size? It's helped, and we think it will continue to help…”

In some instance, contrary to conventional Wall Street wisdom, larger AUM – and the ability to write an extremely large equity check – actually helps source proprietary deals and potentially boost returns.

Diversification, Correlation, Risk

“MACK: Just under 60% of his stock holdings are in companies such as AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, CIT Group and bond insurer, MBIA…your top 10 holdings…represent two-thirds of your fund, currently?

BERKOWITZ: Yes…we always have focused. And we're very aware of correlations…When times get tough, everything's correlated. So, we're wary. But we've always had the focus. Our top four, five positions have always been the major part of our equity holdings, and that will continue.”

“…the biggest risk would be the correlation risk, that they all don't do well.”

Weirdly, or perhaps appropriately, for someone with such a concentrated portfolio, Berkowitz is acutely aware of correlation risk. Better this than some investors who think they have “diversified” portfolios of many names only to discover that the names are actually quite correlated even in benign market environments.

As Jim Leitner would say, “diversification only works when you have assets which are valued differently…”

Making Mistakes, Sizing

“What worries me is knowing that it's usually a person's last investment idea that kills them…as you get bigger, you put more into your investments. And, that last idea, which may be bad, will end up losing more than what you've made over decades.”

For more on this, be sure to see a WealthTrack interview with Michael Mauboussin in which he discusses overconfidence, and how it can contribute to portfolio management errors such as bad sizing decisions.

Creativity, Team Management, Time Management

“…once we come up with a thesis about an idea, we then try and find as many knowledgeable professionals in that industry, and pay them to destroy our idea…We're not interested in talking to anyone who’ll tell us why we're right. We want to talk to people to tell us why we're wrong, and we're always interested to hear why we're wrong…We want our ideas to be disproven.”

According to a 2010 Fortune Magazine article, there are “20 or so full-time employees to handle compliance, investor relations, and trading. But there are no teams of research analysts.” Instead, “Berkowitz hires experts to challenge his ideas. When researching defense stocks a few years ago, he hired a retired two-star general and a retired admiral to advise him. More recently he's used a Washington lobbyist to help him track changes in financial-reform legislation.”       

This arrangement probably simplifies Berkowitz’s daily firm/people management responsibilities. Afterall, the skills necessary for successful investment management may not be the same as those required for successful team management.

When To Sell, Expected Return, Intrinsic Value, Exposure

“MACK: So, Bruce, what would convince you to sell?

BERKOWITZ: It's going to be a price decision…eventually…at what point our investments start to equate to T-bill type returns.”

As the prices of securities within your portfolio change, so too do the future expected returns of those securities. As Berkowitz points out, if the prices of his holdings climbed high enough, they could “start to equate to T-bill type returns.”

So with each movement in price, the risk vs. reward shifts accordingly. But the main question is what actions you take, if any, between the moment of purchase to when the future expected return of the asset becomes miniscule.

For more on his, check out Steve Romick's thoughts on this same topic. 

UPDATE:

Here’s a 2012 Fortune Magazine interview with Bruce Berkowitz, as he looks back and reflects upon the events that took place in the past 3 years:

Cash, Redemptions, Liquidity, When To Sell

“I always knew we'd have our day of negative performance. I'd be foolish not to think that day would arrive. So we had billions in cash, and the fund was chastised somewhat for keeping so much cash. But that cash was used to pay the outflows, and then when the cash started to get to a certain level, I began to liquidate other positions.”

“The down year was definitely not outside of what I thought possible. I was not as surprised by the reaction and the money going out as I was by the money coming in. When you tally it all up, we attracted $5.4 billion in 2009 and 2010 into the fund and $7 billion went out in 2011. It moves fast.”

Although Berkowitz was cognizant of the potential devastating impact of redemptions and having to liquidate positions to raise cash (as demonstrated by the 2010 interview, see Part 1), he still failed to anticipate the actual magnitude of the waves of redemptions that ultimately hit Fairholme.

I think this should serve as food for thought to all investors who manage funds with liquid redemption terms.

Stanley Druckenmiller Wisdom - Part 1

Druckenmiller is a legendary investor, and protégé of George Soros, who compounded capital ~30% annualized since 1986 before announcing in 2010 that his Duquesne fund would return all outside investor capital, and morph into a family office. Many of our Readers reside in the House of Value, but I believe that value investors can learn from those with more trading-oriented or macro philosophies – especially in terms of volatility considerations, trade structuring, and capital preservation.

The following portfolio management highlights were extracted from an interview with Stanley Druckenmmiller in Jack D. Schwager’s book The New Market Wizards. Be sure to check out Part 2 & Part 3.

Trackrecord, Capital Preservation, Compounding, Exposure

“Q: Your long-term performance has far surpassed the industry average. To what do you attribute your superior track record?

A: George Soros has a philosophy that I have also adopted: he way to build long-term returns is through preservation of capital and home runs. You can be far more aggressive when you’re making good profits. Many managers, once they’re up 30 or 40 percents, will book their year [i.e., trade very cautiously for the remainder of the year so as not to jeopardize the very good return that has already been realized]. The way to attain truly superior long-term returns is to grind it out until you’re up 30 or 40 percent, and then if you have the convictions, go for a 100 percent year. If you can put together a few near-100 percent years and avoid down years, then you can achieve really outstanding long-term returns.”

“Many managers will book their profits when they’re up a lot early in the year. It’s my philosophy, which has been reinforced by Mr. Soros, that when you earn the right to be aggressive, you should be aggressive. The years that you start off with a large gain are the times that you should go for it. Since I was well ahead for the year, I felt that I could afford to fight the market for a while. I knew the bull market had to end, I just didn’t know when. Also, because of the market’s severe overvaluation, I thought that when the bull market did end, it was going to be dramatic.”

We’ve discussed the importance of capital preservation, and its complementary relationship to long-term compounding. Here is Drunkenmiller’s well-articulated version of the same concept…plus a fascinating twist.

As dictated by the Rules of the Game, the scorecard in the investment management world is your trackrecord in the form of calendar year returns. The concept of earning the “right to be aggressive” in certain calendar years echoes in my mind like a siren song, so dangerous yet utterly irresistible.

Most traditional value investors would not dare dream of enacting such a brazen act. But, if you keep an open mind to ponder and digest, it makes a lot of sense.

UPDATE: One Reader (and friend who is very very bright) suggested that the genius behind the "right to be aggressive" derives from its utter contradiction of traditional value doctrine.  Buffett and Munger would say wait for an opportunity and then be aggressive.  Druckenmiller's effectively saying that he doesn't think you can ever truly know when it's a great time....so you wait until you know something for a fact: that you are having a good year.

Expected Return, Opportunity Cost

“…an attractive yield should be the last reason for buying bonds. In 1981 the public sold bonds heavily giving up a 15 percent return for thirty years because they couldn’t resist 21 percent short-term yields. They weren’t thinking about the long term. Now, because money market rates are only 4.5 percent, the same poor public is back buying bonds, effectively lending money at 7.5 percent for thirty years…”

Sadly the situation has deteriorated further. Today, money markets yield ~0% and thirty year bonds pay ~3%.

It’s important to remember that portfolio expected return should not be determined solely based upon returns available today, but also opportunities around the corner, not yet visible. This is what makes opportunity cost so difficult to determine – it's often a gut judgment call that involves predicting the availability of future expected returns.

Team Management

On working with George Soros:

“The first six months of the relationship were fairly rocky. While we had similar trading philosophies, our strategies never meshed. When I started out, he was going to be the coach – and he was an aggressive coach. In my opinion, Gorge Soros is the greatest investor that ever lived. But even being coached by the worlds greatest investor is a hindrance rather than help if he’s engaging you actively enough to break your trading rhythm. You just can’t have two cooks in the kitchen; it doesn’t work. Part of it was my fault because he would make recommendations and I would be intimidated. After all, how do you disagree with a man with a track record like his?

Events came to a head in August 1989 when Soros old out a bond position that I had put on. He had never done that before. To make matters worse, I really had a strong conviction on the trade. Needless to say, I was fairly upset. At that point, we had our first let-it-all-out discussion…Basically, Soros decided that he was going to stay out of m hair for six months.”

Lisa Rapuano Interview Highlights - Part 2

Part 2 of highlights from an insightful interview with Lisa Rapuano, who worked with Bill Miller for many years, and currently runs Lane Five Capital Management. The interview touches upon a number of relevant portfolio management topics. Rapuano has obviously spent hours reflecting and contemplating these topics. A worthwhile read!

Fee Structure

“…I launched my fund [November 2006] with an innovative fee structure – wait three years and then charge only on the positive return over the market…three-year lock up…given the changes in the marketplace we simply did not think a three-year lock-up was a tenable proposition under any circumstances. So…we had to abandon our three-year free structure as well…What I was extraordinary surprised by however, was how little this mattered to many potential investors. There is an institutional imperative that has evolved in hedge funds that is very similar to that which has evolved in long-only funds. Being different, no matter how right it may be, doesn’t help.”

Given my family office background, the fee structure topic has come up frequently especially as it relates to fundraising. One would think that fee discounts should garner more investor interest. Unfortunately, my advice is the same as Rapuano’s: “being different, no matter how right it may be, doesn’t help.”

The average retail investor is usually not sophisticated enough to care about the difference between 1% (management fee) & 15% (incentive fee) versus 2% & 20%. The average institutional investor is merely going through the motions of checking boxes with a “cover your behind” mentality before presenting to committee. So with the exception of sophisticated investors (fewer in number than the unsophisticated), the fee discount really doesn’t make much difference.

In fact, it could potentially hurt fundraising because it begs the additional question: why are you different? With only 60 minutes or so per meeting, it’s likely best to not waste time having to answer this additional question.

Shorting, Team Management, Exposure

“On the short side, we only short for alpha – we do not use shorts to control exposure explicitly or to hedge or control monthly volatility…This model has been chosen very specifically to suit the skills of me and my team. We think being able to short makes us better analysts, it keeps us more honest.”

“We also like the flexibility to hold a lot of cash or be a bit more short when we think there are no great values lying around…we think eliminating the pressure to stay low-exposure (and to therefore often put on very poor shorts) is a good match for our style…”

Rapuano highlights a very important distinction: shorting for alpha vs. shorting to control exposure. I would add a third category: shorting to justify the incentive fee.

Also, it’s an interesting idea to build an investment process that works with the behavioral tendencies of the investment team. I guess the flip-side is to recruit for talent that fits a specific type of investment process.

Making Mistakes, Process Over Outcome

“Then there are the mistake where you just misjudged the situation in your analysis…I thought something was low probability but then it happens…we analyze these types of mistakes, but it’s not a focus on what happened, but simply to make sure we did all the work we could have been expected to do, our judgments were based on sound analysis, and well, sometimes you’re just wrong. There are other mistakes, however, that you can try to eliminate, or at least not repeat.”

“For me, my worst ones have been when I strayed from either my core values or my process. So, when we’ve done something as a ‘trade’ (it just seemed too easy) and not subjected it to the rigors of the process it usually doesn’t work out.”

Mistakes are not just situations when the outcomes are bad (i.e., ideas don’t work out). Do we make a mistake each time we stray from our investment process?

Wisdom from Steve Romick: Part 2

Continuation of content extracted from an interview with Steve Romick of First Pacific Advisors (Newsletter Fall 2010) published by Columbia Business School. Please see Part 1 for more details on this series.  

Capital Preservation, Conservatism

“Most of our financial exposure is on the debt side. We were able to buy loans with very strong collateral, which we thought we understood reasonably well, and we stress tested the portfolios to determine what our asset coverage would be in a worst case scenario. We ended up buying things like Ford Credit of Europe, CIT, American General Finance, and International Lease Finance. We discounted the underlying assets tremendously, and in every case we didn‘t think we could lose money so we just kept buying.”

“The biggest lesson I ever learned from Bob is to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.”

Underwriting to an extremely conservative, worst case scenario helps minimize loss while increasingly likelihood of upside. This is similar to advice given by Seth Klarman in a previous interview with Jason Zweig.

Exposure, Intrinsic Value

“A lot of that has been culled back. The yield on our debt book was 23% last year and now it‘s less than 8%.”

The relationship between exposure and intrinsic value has been something we’ve previous discussed, nevertheless it remains an intriguingly difficult topic. Even Buffett ruminated over this in 1958 without providing a clear answer to what he would do.

For example:

Day 1 Asset 1 purchase for $100 Asset 1 is sized at 10% of total portfolio NAV Expected Upside is $200 (+100% from Day 1 price) Expected Downside is $80 (-20% from Day 1 price) Everything else in the portfolio is held as Cash which returns 0%

Day 2 Asset 1’s price increases to $175 Asset 1 is now worth 16.2% of total portfolio NAV (remember, everything else is held as Cash) Expected Upside is now +14.2% ($175 vs. $200) Expected Downside is now -54.2% ($175 vs. $80)

What would you do?

Not only has the risk/reward on Asset 1 changed (+14.2% to -54.2% on Day 2 vs. +100% to -20% on Day 1), it is now also worth a larger percentage of portfolio NAV (16.2% on Day 2 vs. 10.0% on Day 1)

Do you trim the exposure despite the price of Asset 1 not having reached its full expected intrinsic value of $200?

Steve Romick’s words seem to imply that he trimmed his exposure as the positions increased in value.

Risk, Hedging

“You can protect against certain types of risk, not just by hedging your portfolio, but by choosing to buy certain types of companies versus others.”

Practice risk “prevention” by choosing not to buy certain exposures, versus neutralizing risks that have already leaked into the portfolio via hedges (which require additional attention, not to mention option premium).

Klarman-Zweig Banter: Part 1

Seth Klarman of Baupost is a great investor. Jason Zweig is a great writer. When combined, we get a great Klarman-Zweig Interview published Fall 2010 in the Financial Analyst Journal (Volume 66 Number 5) by the CFA Institute. Here is Part 1 of tidbits from that conversation. Part 2 is available here.

Volatility

Graham and Dodd’s works help Klarman “think about volatility in marks as being in your favor rather than as a problem.” Volatility is a good thing because it creates opportunities and bargains.

Intrinsic Value, Exposure

“A tremendous disservice is perpetrated by the idea that stocks are for the long run” because most people don’t have enough staying power or a long time horizon to actually implement this belief. “The prevailing view has been that the market will earn a high rate of return if the holding period is long enough, but entry point is what really matters.”

“If we buy a bond at 50 and think it’s worth par in three years but it goes to 90 the year we bought it, we will sell it because the upside/downside has totally changed. The remaining return is not attractive compared with the risk of continuing to hold.”

Shorting

Baupost does not sell short because the “market is biased upward over time…the street is biased toward the bullish side.” But this also means that there are more “low-hanging fruit on the short side.”

Leverage

“We do not borrow money. We don’t use margin.” However, it should be pointed out that Baupost has substantial private real estate investments, many of which would employ leverage or financing. Perhaps it’s the non-recourse nature of real estate financing that distinguishes whether Klarman is willing to employ leverage. In addition, Baupost does engage in derivative transactions (such as interest rate options) that are quasi forms of leverage (e.g., premiums in return for large notional exposure).

Cash

The “inability to hold cash and the pressure to be fully invested at all times meant that when the plug was pulled out of the tub, all boats dropped as the water rushed down the drain.”

“We are never fully invested if there is nothing great to do…we always have cash available to take advantage of bargains – we now have about 30 percent cash across our partnerships – and so if clients ever feel uncomfortable with our approach, they can just take their cash back.”

AUM

“…probably number one in my mind most of the time – how to think about firm size and assets under management. Throughout my entire career, I have always thought size was a negative. Large size means small ideas can’t move the needle as much…As we entered the chaotic period of 2008…for the first time in eight years, we went to our wait list...We got a lot of interesting phone calls from people who needed to move merchandise in a hurry – some of it highly illiquid…So, to have a greater amount of capital available proved to be a good move.”

Returning Capital

“…I think returning cash is probably one of the keys to our future success in that it lets us calibrate our firm size so that we are managing the right amount of money, which isn’t necessarily the current amount of money.”

Redemptions

“Not only are actual redemptions a problem, but also the fear of redemptions, because the money manager’s behavior is the same in both situations.” In preparation for, or the mere threat of possible redemptions, may prompt a manager to start selling positions at exactly the wrong time in an effort to make the portfolio more liquid.

Clients

“Having great clients is the real key to investment success. It is probably more important than any other factor…We have emphasized establishing a client base of highly knowledgeable families and sophisticated institutions…”

Ideal clients have two characteristics:

1. “…when we think we’ve had a good year, they will agree.”
2. “…when we call to say there is an unprecedented opportunity set, we would like to know that they will at least consider adding capital rather than redeeming.”

“Having clients with that attitude allowed us to actively buy securities through the fall of 2008, when other money managers had redemptions and, in a sense, were forced not only to not buy but also to sell their favorite ideas when they knew they should be adding to them.”

Buffett Partnership Letters: 1958 Part 2

This post is a continuation in a series on portfolio management and the Buffett Partnership Letters. Please refer to the initial post in this series for more details. Selectivity, Hurdle Rate, Risk

“The higher level of the market, the fewer the undervalued securities and I am finding some difficulty in securing an adequate number of attractive investments. I would prefer to increase the percentage of our assets in work-outs, but these are very difficult to find on the right terms.”

All investors practice some degree of selectivity, since not all ideas/securities/assets we examine makes it into our portfolios. Selectivity implies that, for each of us, there exists some form of selection criteria (e.g., hurdle rate, risk measurement, good management, social responsibility, etc.).

In 1958, Buffett talks about finding it difficult to locate “attractive investments” on the “right terms” as the market got more expensive. Perhaps it’s a comfort to know that Buffett grappled with problems just like the rest of us mere mortals!

Jokes aside, as markets rise, what happens to our standards of selectivity? Do we change our usual parameters (whether consciously or subconsciously) – such as changing the hurdle rate or risk standards?

It’s a dynamic and difficult reality faced by all investors at some point in our careers, made more relevant today as markets continue to rally. I believe how each of us copes and adapts in the face of rising asset prices (and whether we change our selectivity criteria) separates the women from the girls.

Intrinsic Value, Exposure, Opportunity Cost

“Unfortunately we did run into some competition on buying, which railed the price to about $65 where we were neither buyer nor seller.”

“Late in the year we were successful in finding a special situation where we could become the largest holder at an attractive price, so we sold our block of Commonwealth obtaining $80 per share…It is obvious that we could still be sitting with $50 stock patiently buying in dribs and drags, and I would be quite happy with such a program…I might mention that the buyer of the stock at $80 can expect to do quite well over the years. However, the relative undervaluation at $80 with an intrinsic value of $135 is quite different from a price $50 with an intrinsic value of $125, and it seemed to me that our capital could better be employed in the situation which replaced it.”

Once a security has been purchased, the risk-reward shifts with each price movement. Any degree of appreciation naturally makes it a larger % of NAV, alters portfolio exposures, and changes the theoretical amount of opportunity cost (to Buffett’s point of his “capital could better be employed” in another situation).

So what actions does a portfolio manager take, if any, when a security appreciates but has not reached the target price, to a place where it’s neither too cheap nor too expensive, where we are “neither buyer nor seller”?

Unfortunately, Buffett offers no solutions in the 1958 letter. Any thoughts and suggestions from our Readers?