Soros’ Alchemy – Chapter 4

Seth Klarman of Baupost wrote in a 1996 Letter that one should always be cognizant of whether seemingly different investments are actually the same bet in order to avoid risk of concentrated exposures. In other words, the task of risk management involves identifying (and if necessary, neutralizing) common risks underlying different portfolio holdings. One such "common denominator" risk that comes to mind (in today's yield-hungry environment) is the availability of credit and its impact on asset and collateral values, which in turn greatly influences returns available to investors holding different securities across the capital structure. Below are some musing on the topic of credit reflexivity / boom and bust cycles from George Soros, derived from his book Alchemy of Finance – Chapter 4: The Credit and Regulatory Cycle.

Macro, Intrinsic Value, Psychology, Risk

“…special affinity between reflexivity and credit. That is hardly surprising: credit depends on expectations; expectations involve bias; hence credit is one of the main avenues that permit bias to play a causal role in the course of events…Credit seems to be associated with a particular kind of reflexive pattern that is known as boom and bust. The pattern is asymmetrical: the boom is drawn out and accelerates gradually; the bust is sudden and often catastrophic…

I believe the asymmetry arises out of a reflexive connection between loan and collateral. In this context I give collateral a very broad definition: it will denote whatever determines the creditworthiness of a debtor, whether it is actually pledged or not. It may mean a piece of property or an expected future stream of income; in either case, it is something on which the lender is willing to place a value. Valuation is supposed to be a passive relationship in which the value reflects the underlying asset; but in this case it involves a positive act: a loan is made. The act of lending may affect the collateral value: that is the connection that gives rise to a reflexive process.”

“The act of lending usually stimulates economic activity. It enables the borrower to consume more than he would otherwise, or to invest in productive assets...By the same token, debt service has a depressing impact. Resources that would otherwise be devoted to consumption or the creation of a future stream of income are withdrawn. As the total amount of debt outstanding accumulates, the portion that has to be utilized for debt service increases."

“In the early stages of a reflexive process of credit expansion the amount of credit involved is relatively small so that its impact on collateral values is negligible. That is why the expansionary phase is slow to start with and credit remains soundly based at first. But as the amount of debt accumulates, total lending increases in importance and begins to have an appreciable effect on collateral values. The process continues until a point is reached where total credit cannot increase fast enough to continue stimulating the economy. By that time, collateral values have become greatly dependent on the stimulative effect of new lending and, as new lending fails to accelerate, collateral values begin to decline. The erosion of collateral values has a depressing effect on economic activity, which in turn reinforces the erosion of collateral values. Since the collateral has been pretty fully utilized at that point, a decline may precipitate the liquidation of loans, which in turn may make the decline more precipitous. That is the anatomy of a typical boom and bust.

Booms and busts are not symmetrical because, at the inception of a boom, both the volume of credit and the value of the collateral are at a minimum; at the time of the bust, both are at a maximum. But there is another factor at play. The liquidation of loans takes time; the faster it has to be accomplished, the greater the effect on the value of the collateral. In a bust, the reflexive interaction between loans and collateral becomes compressed within a very short time frame and the consequences can be catastrophic. It is the sudden liquidation of accumulated positions that gives a bust such a different shape from the preceding boom.

It can be seen that the boom/bust sequence is a particular variant of reflexivity. Booms can arise whenever there is a two-way connection between values and the act of valuation. The act of valuation takes many forms. In the stock market, it is equity that is valued; in banking, it is collateral.”

“Busts can be very disruptive, especially if the liquidation of collateral causes a sudden compression of credit. The consequences are so unpleasant that strenuous efforts are made to avoid them. The institution of central banking has evolved in a continuing attempt to prevent sudden, catastrophic contractions in credit. Since a panic is hard to arrest once it has started, prevention is best practiced in the expansionary phase. That is why the role of central banks has gradually expanded to include the regulation of the money supply. That is also why organized financial markets regulate the ratio of collateral to credit.”

“Financial history is best interpreted as a reflexive process in which there are two sets of participants instead of one: competitors and regulators…It is important to realize that the regulators are also participants. There is a natural tendency to regard them as superhuman beings who somehow stand outside and above the economic process and intervene only when the participants have made a mess of it. That is not the case. They also are human, all too human. They operate with imperfect understanding and their activities have unintended consequences.”

Soros' Alchemy - Preface & Intro

Dear Readers, apologies for the length of time since our last article. It’s been a busy year – got married, growing the business, grappling with a large position ruining otherwise healthy year-to-date performance – you know, all the usual life items. We have all experienced situations when the fundamentals of a business are moving in an expected direction, yet the price does not respond in kind. Many moons ago, we highlighted an interview with Stanley Druckenmiller in which he stated:

“…I focus my analysis on seeking to identify the factors that were strongly correlated to a stock’s price movement as opposed to looking at all the fundamentals. Frankly, even today, many analysts still don’t know what makes their particular stocks go up and down.”

“I never use valuation to time the market…Valuation only tells me how far the market can go once a catalyst enters the picture to change the market direction…The catalyst is liquidity…”

Very interesting indeed, but also incredibly vague. Thankfully, Druckenmiller’s zen master George Soros has written multiple books. And that’s where we went searching for more detailed explanations on how to gauge supply and demand, the driving forces behind market liquidity and price movement. Without further ado, portfolio management highlights from George Soros’ Alchemy of Finance – Preface & Introduction:

Psychology, Catalyst, Liquidity, Intrinsic Value

“The phenomena studied by social sciences, which include the financial markets, have thinking participants and this complicates matters…the participants views are inherently bias. Instead of a direct line leading from one set of conditions to the next one, there is a constant criss-crossing between the objective, observable conditions and the participant’s observations and vice versa: participants base their decisions not on objective conditions but on their interpretation of those conditions. This is an important point and it has far-reaching consequences. It introduces an element of indeterminacy which renders the subject matter less amendable to…generalizations, predictions, and explanations…”

“It is only in certain…special circumstances that the indeterminacy becomes significant. It comes into play when expectations about the future have a bearing on present behavior – which is the case in financial markets. But even there, some mechanism must be triggered for the participants’ bias to affect not only market prices but the so-called fundamentals which are supposed to determine market prices…My point is that there are occasions when the bias affects not only market prices but also the so-called fundamentals. This is when reflexivity becomes important. It does not happen all the time but when it does, market prices follow a different pattern…they do not merely reflect the so-called fundamentals; they themselves become one of the fundamentals which shape the evolution of prices. This recursive relationship renders the evolution of prices indeterminate and the so-called equilibrium price irrelevant.”

“Natural science studies events that consist of a sequence of facts. When events have thinking participants, the subject matter is no longer confined to facts but also includes the participants' perceptions. The chain of causation does not lead directly from fact to fact but from fact to perception and from perception to fact.”

“Economic theory tries to sidestep the issue by introducing the assumption of rational behavior. People are assumed to act by choosing the best of the available alternatives, but somehow the distinction between perceived alternatives and facts is assumed away. The result is a theoretical construction of great elegance that resembles natural science but does not resemble reality…It has little relevance to the real world in which people act on the basis of imperfect understanding…”

“The generally accepted view is that markets are always right – that is, market prices tend to discount future developments accurately even when it is unclear what those developments are. I start with the opposite point of view. I believe that market prices are always wrong in the sense that they present a biased view of the future. But distortion works in both directions: not only do market participants operate with a bias, but their bias can also influence the course of events. This may create the impression that markets anticipate future developments accurately, but in fact it is not present expectations that correspond to future events but future events that are shaped by present expectations. The participants' perceptions are inherently flawed, and there is a two-way connection between flawed perceptions and the actual course of events, which results in a lack of correspondence between the two. I call this two-way connection ‘reflexivity.’”

“Making an investment decision is like formulating a scientific hypothesis and submitting it to a practical test. The main difference is that the hypothesis that underlies an investment decision is intended to make money and not to establish a universally valid generalization. Both activities involve significant risk, and success brings a corresponding reward-monetary in one case and scientific in the other. Taking this view, it is possible to see financial markets as a laboratory for testing hypotheses, albeit not strictly scientific ones. The truth is, successful investing is a kind of alchemy. Most market participants do not view markets in this light. That means that they do not know what hypotheses are being tested…”

“…I did not play the financial markets according to a particular set of rules; I was always more interested in understanding the changes that occur in the rules of the game. I started with hypotheses relating to individual companies; with the passage of time my interests veered increasingly toward macroeconomic themes. This was due partly to the growth of the fund and partly to the growing instability of the macroeconomic environment.”

“Most of what I know is in the book, at least in theoretical form. I have not kept anything deliberately hidden. But the chain of reasoning operates in the opposite direction: I am not trying to explain how to use my approach to make money; rather, I am using my experiences in the financial markets to develop an approach to the study of historical processes in general and the present historical moment…If I did not believe that my investment activities can serve that purpose, I would not want to write about them. As long as I am actively engaged in business, I would be better off to keep them a trade secret. But I would value it much more highly than any business success if I could contribute to an understanding of the world in which we live or, better yet, if I could help to preserve the economic and political system that has allowed me to flourish as a participant.”

Macro

“Monetary and real phenomena are connected in a reflexive fashion; that is, they influence each other mutually. The reflexive relationship manifests itself most clearly in the use and abuse of credit. Loans are based on the lender's estimation of the borrower's ability to service his debt. The valuation of the collateral is supposed to be independent of the act of lending; but in actual fact the act of lending can affect the value of the collateral. This is true of the individual case and of the economy as a whole. Credit expansion stimulates the economy and enhances collateral values; the repayment or contraction of credit has a depressing influence both on the economy and on the valuation of the collateral.”

“Periodic busts have been so devastating that strenuous efforts have been made to prevent them. These efforts have led to the evolution of central banking and of other mechanisms for controlling credit and regulating economic activity. To understand the role of the regulators it must be realized that they are also participants: their understanding is inherently imperfect and their actions have unintended consequences.”

Howard Marks' Book: Chapter 14

Continuation of portfolio management highlights from Howard Marks’ book, The Most Important Thing: Uncommon Sense for the Thoughtful Investor, Chapter 14 “The Most Important Thing Is…Knowing What You Don't Know” Mistakes, Sizing, Diversification, Leverage, Opportunity Cost

“…the biggest problems tend to arise when investors forget about the difference between probability and outcome – that is, when they forget about the limits on foreknowledge:

• when they believe the shape of the probability distribution is knowable with certainty (and that they know it),
• when they assume the most likely outcome is the one that will happen,
• when they assume the expected result accurately represents the actual result, or
• perhaps most important, when they ignore the possibility of improbable outcomes.”

“Investors who feel they know what the future holds will act assertively: making directional bets, concentrating positions, levering holdings, and counting on future growth – in other words, doing things that in the absence of foreknowledge would increase risk. On the other hand, those who feel they don’t know what the future holds will act quite differently: diversifying, hedging, levering less (or not at all), emphasizing value today over growth tomorrow, staying high in the capital structure, and generally girding for a variety of possible outcomes.”

“If you know the future, it’s silly to play defense. You should behave aggressively and target the greatest winners; there can be no loss to fear. Diversification is unnecessary, and maximum leverage can be employed. In fact, being unduly modest about what you know can result in opportunity costs (foregone profits). On the other hand…Mark Twain put it best: ‘It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.’”

A few months ago, we wrote about Michael Mauboussin’s discussion on utilizing the Kelly Formula for portfolio sizing decisions. The Kelly Formula is based upon an investor’s estimation of the probability and amount of payoff. However, if the estimation of probability and payoff amount is incorrect, the mistake will impact portfolio performance through position sizing. It’s a symmetrical relationship: if you are right, the larger position size will help performance; if you are wrong, the larger position size will hurt performance.

Marks’ words echo a similar message. They remind us that an investor’s perception of future risk/reward drives sizing, leverage, and a variety of other portfolio construction and management decisions. If that perception of future risk/reward is correct/incorrect, it will lead to a positive/negative impact on performance, because “tactical decisions like concentration, diversification, and leverage are symmetrical two-way swords.” In order to add value, or generate alpha, an investor must create asymmetry which comes from “superior personal skill.” One interpretation of superior personal skill is correct perception of future risk/reward (and structuring the portfolio accordingly).

Psychology

“Awareness of the limited extent of our foreknowledge is an essential component of my approach to investing.”

“Acknowledging the boundaries of what you can know – and working within those limits rather than venturing beyond – can give you a great advantage.”

“No one likes having to invest for the future under the assumption that the future is largely unknowable. On the other hand, if it is, we’d better face up to it and find other ways to cope…Whatever limitations are imposed on us in the investment world, it’s a heck of a lot better to acknowledge them and accommodate them than to deny them and forge ahead.”

Investors must embrace uncertainty and the possibility of unpredictable events. Acknowledgement of “the boundaries of what you can know” won’t make you immune from the possible dangers lurking in the unknown future, but at least you won’t be shocked psychologically if/when they occur.

Macro, Luck, Process Over Outcome

“…the future is unknowable. You can’t prove a negative, and that certainly includes this one. However, I have yet to meet anyone who consistently knows what lies ahead macro-wise. Of all the economists and strategists you follow, are any correct most of the time?”

“…if the forecasters were sometimes right – and right so dramatically – then why do I remain so negative on forecasts? Because the important thing in forecasting isn’t getting it right once. The important thing is getting it right consistently.”

“One way to get to be right sometimes is to always be bullish or always be bearish; if you hold a fixed view long enough, you may be right sooner or later. And if you’re always an outlier, you’re likely to eventually be applauded for an extremely unconventional forecast that correctly foresaw what no one else did. But that doesn’t mean your forecasts are regularly of any value…It’s possible to be right about the macro-future once in a while, but not on a regular basis. It doesn’t do any good to possess a survey of sixty-four forecasts that includes a few that are accurate; you have to know which ones they are. And if the accurate forecasts each six months are made by different economists, it’s hard to believe there’s much value in the collective forecasts.”

“Those who got 2007-2008 right probably did so at least in part because of a tendency toward negative views. As such, they probably stayed negative for 2009.”

Observations on Correlation

I recently found an old letter sitting at the bottom of an unread pile of papers. A friend had passed it along with a note commenting “pretty cool…quant/technical work that makes intuitive sense.” Feeling guilty for having forgotten about this for so long, I read through the old letter, and thought the following observation on correlation worthwhile sharing:  “Interestingly we have found that high correlations happen in the most extreme way when macro events dominate (recession, depression or other)… In fact, extreme levels of correlation are reached towards the end of a bear market, most of all. Also…this phenomenon does not occur at the end of bull markets. Things are quite different at that point, as bull markets have strong tendency to become more and more narrow, thus resulting in low – and not high! – correlation between stocks.” 

Something to file away into the mental model archives...

Mauboussin on Portfolio Management

Michael Mauboussin, author & former Chief Investment Strategist at Legg Mason, recently joined Consuelo Mack for an interview on WealthTrack (one of my favorite resources for interesting conversations with interesting people; the transcripts are economically priced at $4.99 per episode). Their conversation touched upon a number of relevant portfolio management topics. For those of you with more time, I highly recommend listening/watching/reading the episode in its entirety. Luck, Process Over Outcome, Portfolio Management, Psychology

“MAUBOUSSIN: …luck is very important, especially for short-term results...everyone’s gotten better, and as everyone’s gotten better, skills become more uniform. There’s less variance or difference between the best and the worst. So even if luck plays the same role, lesser variance in skill means batting averages come down…So I call it the paradox of skill, because it says more skill actually leads to more luck in results…

MACK: So what are the kind of skills that we look at that would differentiate an investor from the pack, from the rest of the Street?

MAUBOUSSIN: …when you get to worlds that are probabilistic like money management where what you do, you don’t really know what the outcome is going to be, then it becomes a process and, to me, successful investing has three components to the process. The first would be analytical, and analytical to me means finding stocks for less than what they’re worth, or in the jargon means getting an investment edge, and second and related to that is putting them into the portfolio at the proper weight. So it’s not just finding good investment ideas, but it’s how you build a portfolio with those investment ideas. And by the way, a lot of people in the financial community focus on buying attractive stocks, but the structure is actually really important as well…the portfolio positioning, I think there’s room for improvement there.”           

When dealing with probabilistic predictions, such as in investing, one must focus on process, not outcome. (For more on this, be sure to check out Howard Marks’ discussion on “many futures are possible, but only one future occurs.”)

As our Readers know, PMJar seeks to emphasize the importance of portfolio management within the investment process. We are glad to see validation of this view from a premier investor such as Michael Mauboussin – that successful investing requires “not just finding good investment ideas, but how you build a portfolio with those investment ideas.”

One other corollary from the quote above – investing is a zero sum game. In order to make profits, you need to be better than the “average” market participant. But over time, ripe investment profits have lured the brightest talent from all corners of world professions and consequently, the “average” intelligence of investors has increased. This means that the qualifications necessary to reach “average” status has inconveniently increased as well.

Here’s an exercise in self-awareness: where do you fit in – below, at, or above average – versus other fellow investors?

Luck, Process Over Outcome, Sizing, Psychology

“MAUBOUSSIN: This is such an interesting question, because if you look into the future and say to people, “Hey, future outcomes are a combination of skill and luck,” everybody gets that. Right? Everybody sort of understands that’s the case, but when looking at past results, we have a much more difficult time, and I think the answer to this comes from actually neuroscience. Brain scientists have determined that there’s part of your left hemisphere in your brain which they call the interpreter, and the interpreter’s job is when it sees an effect, it makes up a cause and, by the way, the interpreter doesn’t know about skill and luck, so if it sees an effect that’s good, let’s say good results, it says, “Hey, that must be because of skill,” and then your mind puts the whole issue to rest. It just sets it aside. So we have a natural sort of module in our brain that associates good results with skill. We know it’s not always the case for the future, but once it’s done, our minds want to think about it that way.

MACK: Therefore, do we repeat, when we’ve had a success that we attribute to our skill, do we constantly repeat those same moves in order to get the same result?

MAUBOUSSIN: I think it kind of gets to one of the biggest mistakes you see in the world of investing…this is a pattern we’ve seen not only with individuals but also institutions: buying what’s hot and inversely often getting rid of what’s cold, and that ultimately is very poor for investor results. It’s about a percentage point per year reduction in long-term results for individual investors because of this effect of buying high and selling low.

…one would be over confidence. We tend to be very over confident in our own capabilities. You can show this with simple little tests, and the way that tends to show up in investing is people, when they’re projecting out into the future, they’re much more confident about the range of outcomes, so they make a very narrow range of outcomes rather than a much broader range of outcomes. So there would be one example, over confidence, and its manifestation...

...try to weave into your process tools and techniques to manage and mitigate them. I don’t think you can ever fully eradicate them, but just be aware of them and learning about them. So for example, in the over confidence, you can start to use tools to better calibrate the future, for example, using past data or making sure you’re pushing out your ranges appropriately. So there are, in every case, some tools to help you manage that."

An interesting observation on our brain’s inability to distinguish between luck vs. skill in a historical context, which explains our natural tendency to chase performance return trends.

In addition to projecting a narrow range of outcomes, overconfidence is deadly in another way – overconfidence in sizing. For example, after hitting a couple winners (mostly due to luck), an investor says “Hey, I’m really good at this. I really should have made those previous investments bigger bets. Next time.” And so, the overconfident investor sizes up the next few investments. But luck fails to appear, and the damage hurts far more because these bets were sized greater.

But worry not, salvation does exist. If investors are able to identify and become aware of their behavioral biases, they can work to control and counter the associated negative effect.

Macro

CONSUELO MACK: What’s interesting is we’ve just come through a period where we’ve heard over and over again that macro matters...I’ve had a lot of value investors come on who have very good long-term track records, saying, ‘You know what? I didn’t used to pay attention to the macro. Now I really have to pay attention. It really matters.’

MICHAEL MAUBOUSSIN: The first thing I would say about this, is this is an area of prediction that’s been very well studied, and my favorite scientist on this is a psychologist named Phil Tetlock at University of Pennsylvania who did an exhaustive study of predictions in social, political, and economic outcomes, and what he found, I think, beyond a shadow of a doubt is that experts are very poor at predicting the future. So while I know people are worries about getting whipsawed by macro events, the evidence that anybody can anticipate exactly what’s going to happen next is very, very weak. So that’s the first thing, is just to be very reserved about your belief in your ability to anticipate what’s going to happen next…Obviously, you want to be mindful of macro. I don’t want to say you be dismissive of it. I would say macro aware, but in some ways macro agnostic.”

Risk Free Rate, Equity Risk Premium

“The most interesting anomaly that I see continues to be what is high equity risk premium. So in plain words, you think of a risk-free rate of return. In the United States, a 10-year Treasury note is a good proxy for that…about a 1.8% yield. An equity risk premium is the return above and beyond that you would expect for taking on additional risk on equities. Now, over the long haul, that equity risk premium has been about three or four percent, something like that, and today, by most reckoning, it’s a lot closer to six percent. It’s very, very high.”

Historically (depending on time period examined), equity risk premium is normally 3-4%, versus ~6% today. But does this mean that today’s equity risk premium is abnormally high? Or was the historical equity risk premium just abnormally low?

What is the qualitative explanation behind the figure for the “normal” equity risk premium? Must it hold true into perpetuity?