Ray Dalio on Mistakes

A long time ago, I stumbled upon this gem/manifesto by Ray Dalio, the billionaire founder of hedge fund giant Bridgewater ($154Bn AUM). It doesn’t contain his investment principles or Bridgewater’s secret sauce (which is likely constantly evolving anyway, powered by talented and creative minds). Instead, it offers a wealth of general advice on life, collected by Dalio over a lifetime of observation and reflection. The excerpts below on mistakes are merely the tip of the 106-page iceberg. Enjoy! Mistakes

“Since I started Bridgewater, I have gained a lot more experience...mostly by making mistakes and learning from them. Most importantly:

I learned that failure is by and large due to not accepting and successfully dealing with the realities of life, and that achieving success is simply a matter of accepting and successfully dealing with all my realities.

I learned that finding out what is true, regardless of what that is, including all the stuff most people think is bad—like mistakes and personal weaknesses—is good because I can then deal with these things so that they don’t stand in my way.

I learned that there is nothing to fear from truth. While some truths can be scary—for example, finding out that you have a deadly disease—knowing them allows us to deal with them better. Being truthful, and letting others be completely truthful, allows me and others to fully explore our thoughts and exposes us to the feedback that is essential for our learning.

I learned that being truthful was an extension of my freedom to be me. I believe that people who are one way on the inside and believe that they need to be another way outside to please others become conflicted and often lose touch with what they really think and feel. It’s difficult for them to be happy and almost impossible for them to be at their best. I know that’s true for me.

I learned that I want the people I deal with to say what they really believe and to listen to what others say in reply, in order to find out what is true. I learned that one of the greatest sources of problems in our society arises from people having loads of wrong theories in their heads—often theories that are critical of others—that they won’t test by speaking to the relevant people about them.

I learned that everyone makes mistakes and has weaknesses and that one of the most important things that differentiates people is their approach to handling them. I learned that there is an incredible beauty to mistakes, because embedded in each mistake is a puzzle, and a gem that I could get if I solved it, i.e., a principle that I could use to reduce my mistakes in the future. I learned that each mistake was probably a reflection of something that I was (or others were) doing wrong, so if I could figure out what that was, I could learn how to be more effective. I learned that wrestling with my problems, mistakes, and weaknesses was the training that strengthened me. Also, I learned that it was the pain of this wrestling that made me and those around me appreciate our successes.”

“I believe that our society's ‘mistakephobia’ is crippling, a problem that begins in most elementary schools, where we learn to learn what we are taught rather than to form our own goals and to figure out how to achieve them. We are fed with facts and tested and those who make the fewest mistakes are considered to be the smart ones, so we learn that it is embarrassing to not know and to make mistakes. Our education system spends virtually no time on how to learn from mistakes, yet this is critical to real learning. As a result, school typically doesn’t prepare young people for real life—unless their lives are spent following instructions and pleasing others. In my opinion, that’s why so many students who succeed in school fail in life.”

“I met a number of great people and learned that none of them were born great—they all made lots of mistakes and had lots weaknesses—and that great people become great by looking at their mistakes and weaknesses and figuring out how to get around them. So I learned that the people who make the most of the process of encountering reality, especially the painful obstacles, learn the most and get what they want faster than people who do not. In short, I learned that being totally truthful, especially about mistakes and weaknesses, led to a rapid rate of improvement and movement toward what I wanted.”

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.

My New Crush: Stanley Druckenmiller

I have a new (intellectual) crush: Stanley Druckenmiller. If you don’t share my feelings, you will after you read his Jan 2015 speech at the Lost Tree Club. Portfolio management related excerpts below: Diversification, Sizing

“I think diversification and all the stuff they're teaching at business school today is probably the most misguided concept...And if you look at all the great investors that are as different as Warren Buffett, Carl Icahn, Ken Langone, they tend to be very, very concentrated bets. They see something, they bet it, and they bet the ranch on it. And that's kind of the way my philosophy evolved, which was if you see - only maybe one or two times a year do you see something that really, really excites you. And if you look at what excites you and then you look down the road, your record on those particular transactions is far superior to everything else, but the mistake I'd say 98 percent of money managers and individuals make is they feel like they got to be playing in a bunch of stuff. And if you really see it, put all your eggs in one basket and then watch the basket very carefully.”

“…you don't need like 15 stocks or this currency or that. If you see it, you got to go for it because that's a better bet than 90 percent of the other stuff you would add onto it.” “So, how did I meet George Soros? I was developing a philosophy that if I can look at all these different buckets and I'm going to make concentrated bets, I'd rather have a menu of assets to choose from to make my big bets and particularly since a lot of these assets go up when equities go down, and that's how it was moving.

And then I read The Alchemy of Finance because I'd heard about this guy, Soros. And when I read The Alchemy of Finance, I understood very quickly that he was already employing an advanced version of the philosophy I was developing in my fund. So, when I went over to work for George, my idea was I was going to get my PhD in macro portfolio manager and then leave in a couple years or get fired like the nine predecessors had. But it's funny because I went over there, I thought what I would learn would be like what makes the yen goes up, what makes the deutsche mark move, what makes this, and to my really big surprise, I was as proficient as he was, maybe more so, in predicting trends.

That's not what I learned from George Soros, but I learned something incredibly valuable, and that is when you see it, to bet big. So what I had told you was already evolving, he totally cemented. I know we got a bunch of golfers in the room. For those who follow baseball, I had a higher batting average; Soros had a much bigger slugging percentage. When I took over Quantum, I was running Quantum and Duquesne. He was running his personal account, which was about the size of an institution back then, by the way, and he was focusing 90 percent of his time on philanthropy and not really working day to day. In fact a lot of the time he wasn't even around.

And I'd say 90 percent of the ideas he were [ph.] using came from me, and it was very insightful and I'm a competitive person, frankly embarrassing, that in his personal account working about 10 percent of the time he continued to beat Duquesne and Quantum while I was managing the money. And again it's because he was taking my ideas and he just had more guts. He was betting more money with my ideas than I was.

Probably nothing explains our relationship and what I've learned from him more than the British pound. So, in 1992 in August of that year my housing analyst in Britain called me up and basically said that Britain looked like they were going into a recession because the interest rate increases they were experiencing were causing a downturn in housing. At the same time, if you remember, Germany, the wall had fallen in '89 and they had reunited with East Germany, and because they'd had this disastrous experience with inflation back in the '20s, they were obsessed when the deutsche mark and the [unint.] combined, that they would not have another inflationary experience. So, the Bundesbank, which was getting growth from the [unint.] and had a history of worrying about inflation, was raising rates like crazy. That all sounds normal except the deutsche mark and the British pound were linked. And you cannot have two currencies where one economic outlook is going like this way and the other outlook is going that way.

So, in August of 1 92 there was 7 billion in Quantum. I put a billion and a half, short the British pound based on the thesis I just gave you. So, fast-forward September, next month. I wake up one morning and the head of the Bundesbank, Helmut Schlesinger, has given an editorial in the Financial Times, and I'll skip all the flowers. It basically said the British pound is crap and we don't want to be united with this currency. So, I thought well, this is my opportunity. So, I decided I'm going to bet like Soros bets on the British pound against the deutsche mark.

It just so happens he's in the office. He's usually in Eastern Europe at this time doing his thing. So, I go in at 4:00 and I said, ‘George, I'm going to sell $5.5 billion worth of British pounds tonight and buy deutsche marks. Here's why I'm doing it, that means we'll have 100 percent of the fund in this one trade.’ And as I'm talking, he starts wincing like what is wrong with this kid, and I think he's about to blow away my thesis and he says, ‘That is the most ridiculous use of money management I ever heard. What you described is an incredible one-way bet. We should have 200 percent of our net worth in this trade, not 100 percent. Do you know how often something like this comes around? Like one or 20 years. What is wrong with you?’ So, we started shorting the British pound that night. We didn't get the whole 15 billion on, but we got enough that I'm sure some people in the room have read about it in the financial press.”

Mistakes

“I've thought a lot of things when I'm managing money with great, great conviction, and a lot of times I'm wrong. And when you're betting the ranch and the circumstances change, you have to change, and that's how I've always managed money.”                “I made a lot of mistakes, but I made one real doozy. So, this is kind of a funny story, at least it is 15 years later because the pain has subsided a little. But in 1999 after Yahoo and America Online had already gone up like tenfold, I got the bright idea at Soros to short internet stocks. And I put 200 million in them in about February and by mid-march the 200 million short I had lost $600 million on, gotten completely beat up and was down like 15 percent on the year. And I was very proud of the fact that I never had a down year, and I thought well, I'm finished.

So, the next thing that happens is I can't remember whether I went to Silicon Valley or I talked to some 22-year-old with Asperger's. But whoever it was, they convinced me about this new tech boom that was going to take place. So I went and hired a couple of gun slingers because we only knew about IBM and Hewlett-Packard. I needed Veritas and Verisign. I wanted the six. So, we hired this guy and we end up on the year - we had been down 15 and we ended up like 35 percent on the year. And the Nasdaq's gone up 400 percent.

So, I'll never forget it. January of 2000 I go into Soros's office and I say I'm selling all the tech stocks, selling everything. This is crazy. [unint.] at 104 times earnings. This is nuts. Just kind of as I explained earlier, we're going to step aside, wait for the net fat pitch. I didn't fire the two gun slingers. They didn't have enough money to really hurt the fund, but they started making 3 percent a day and I'm out. It is driving me nuts. I mean their little account is like up 50 percent on the year. I think Quantum was up seven. It's just sitting there.

So like around March I could feel it coming. I just - I had to play. I couldn't help myself. And three times during the same week I pick up a - don't do it. Don't do it. Anyway, I pick up the phone finally. I think I missed the top by an hour. I bought $6 billion worth of tech stocks, and in six weeks I had left Soros and I had lost $3 billion in that one play. You asked me what I learned. I didn't learn anything. I already knew that I wasn't supposed to do that. I was just an emotional basket case and couldn't help myself. So, maybe I learned not to do it again, but I already knew that.”

Probably one of the few people in this world who knows what it feels like to lose $3 billion dollars in a single day. For additional reading, please see our previous article titled Mistakes of Boredom.

Psychology

When asked what qualities he looks for in money managers:

“Number one, passion. I mentioned earlier I was passionate about the business. The problem with this business if you're not passionate, it is so invigorating to certain individuals, they're going to work 24/7, and you're competing against them. So, every time you buy something, one of them is selling it. So, if you're with one of the lazy people or one of the people that are just doing it for the money, you're going to get run over by those people.

The other characteristic I like to look for in a money manager is when I look at their record, I immediately go to the bear markets and see how they did. Particularly given sort of the five-year outlook I've given, I want to make sure I've got a money manager who knows how to make money and manage money in turbulent times, not just in bull markets.

The other thing I look for…is open-mindedness and humility. I have never interviewed a money manager who told you he'd never made a mistake, and a lot of them do, who didn't stink. Every great money manager I've ever met, all they want to talk about is their mistakes. There's a great humility there. But and then obviously integrity because passion without integrity leads to jail. So, if you want someone who's absolutely obsessed with the business and obsessed with winning, they're not in it for the money, they're in it for winning, you better have somebody with integrity.”

“If you're early on in your career and they give you a choice between a great mentor or higher pay, take the mentor every time. It's not even close. And don't even think about leaving that mentor until your learning curve peaks. There's just nothing to me so invaluable in my business, but in many businesses, as great mentors. And a lot of kids are just too short-sighted in terms of going for the short-term money instead of preparing themselves for the longer term.”

Liquidity

“…earnings don't move the overall market…focus on the central banks and focus on the movement of liquidity… most people in the market are looking for earnings and conventional measures. It's liquidity that moves markets.”

However, to borrow from Soros’ reasoning within the Alchemy of Finance, one could argue that anticipated earnings influence market participant behavior and therefore influence liquidity.

Other

“…never, ever invest in the present. It doesn't matter what a company's earning, what they have earned. He taught me that you have to visualize the situation 18 months from now, and whatever that is, that's where the price will be, not where it is today…you have to look to the future. If you invest in the present, you're going to get run over.”

Mistakes of Boredom

Flying back to Los Angeles after Christmas, somewhere over New Mexico, I rediscovered an article written by Ted Lucas of Lattice Strategies in 2011, quoting mathematician and logician Blaise Pascal’s Pensées on the psychological propensity of humans to seek out diversion and action, and the boredom caused by inaction:

“Sometimes, when I set to thinking about the various activities of men, the dangers and troubles which they face in court, or in war, giving rise to so many quarrels and passions…I have often said that the sole cause of man’s unhappiness is that he does not know how to stay quietly in his room…

Imagine any situation you like, add up all the blessings with which you could be endowed, to be king is still the finest thing in the world; yet if you imagine one with all the advantages to his rank, but no means of diversion, left to ponder and reflect on what he is, this limp felicity will not keep him going…with the result that if he is deprived of so-called diversion he is unhappy, indeed more unhappy than the humblest of subjects who can enjoy sport and diversion.

The only good thing for men therefore is to be diverted from thinking of what they are, either by some occupation which takes their mind off it, or by some novel and agreeable passion which keeps them busy . . . in short it is called diversion.”

If true, as asset prices move ever higher, this psychological tendency has immense implications on investment decisions. Avoiding overvalued assets/securities and holding cash may be easier said than done, for psychological reasons beyond whether or not your mandate/investors allow you to hold cash.

Perhaps it’s time to convince your boss that a paid vacation / sabbatical to pursue distractions (other than investing) during expensive market environments may actually help improve performance returns by avoiding mistakes born of boredom.

Howard Marks' Book: Chapter 18

Continuation of portfolio management highlights from Howard Marks’ book, The Most Important Thing: Uncommon Sense for the Thoughtful Investor, Chapter 18 “The Most Important Thing Is…Avoiding Pitfalls” Risk, Volatility

“…trying to avoid losses is more important than striving or great investment successes. The latter can be achieved some of the time, but the occasional failures may be crippling. The former can be done more often and more dependably…and with consequences when it fails that are more tolerable…A portfolio that contains too little risk can make you underperform in a bull market, but no one ever went bust from that; there are far worse fates.”

“You could require your portfolio to do well in a rerun of 2008, but then you’d hold only Treasurys, cash and gold. Is that a viable strategy? Probably not. So the general rule is that it’s important to avoid pitfalls, but there must be a limit. And the limit is different for each investor.”

Volatility, Psychology, Trackrecord, When To Buy, When To Sell, Clients

“…almost nothing performed well in the meltdown of 2008…While it was nigh onto impossible to avoid declines completely, relative outperformance in the form of smaller losses was enough to let you do better in the decline and take grater advantage of the rebound.”

“In periods that are relatively loss free, people tend to think of risk as volatility and become convinced they can live with it. If that were true, they would experience markdowns, invest more at the lows and go on to enjoy the recovery, coming out ahead in the long run. But if the ability to live with volatility and maintain one’s composure has been overestimated—and usually it has—that error tends to come to light when the market is a its nadir. Loss of confidence and resolve can cause investors to sell at the bottom, converting downward fluctuations into permanent losses and preventing them from participating fully in the subsequent recovery. This is the great error in investing—the most unfortunate aspect of pro-cyclical behavior—because of its permanence and because it tends to affect large portions of portfolios.”

“While it’s true that you can’t spend relative outperformance, human nature causes defensive investors and their less traumatized clients to derive comfort in down markets when they lose less than others. This has two very important effects. First, it enables them to maintain their equanimity and resist the psychological pressures that often make people sell at lows. Second, being in a better frame of mind and better financial condition, they are more able to profit from the carnage by buying at lows. Thus, they generally do better in recoveries.”

Volatility is not the true risk; the true risk lies in what investors do / how they behave during volatile periods.

Mistakes, Creativity, Psychology

“One type of analytical error…is what I call ‘failure of imagination’…being unable to conceive of the full range of possible outcomes or not fully understanding the consequences of the more extreme occurrences.”

“Another important pitfall…is the failure to recognize market cycles and manias and move in the opposite direction. Extremes in cycles and trends don’t occur often, and thus they’re not a frequent source of error, but they give rise to the largest errors.”

“…when the future stops being like the past, extrapolation fails and large amounts of money are either lost or not made…the success of your investment actions shouldn’t be highly dependent on normal outcomes prevailing; instead, you must allow for outliers…"

“…the third form of error doesn’t consist of doing the wrong thing, but rather of failing to do the right thing. Average investors are fortunate if they can avoid pitfalls, whereas superior investors look to take advantage of them…a different kind of mistake, an error of omission, but probably one most investors would be willing to live with.”

“The essential first step in avoiding pitfalls consists of being on the lookout for them…learning about pitfalls through painful experience is of only limited help. The key is to try to anticipate them…The markets are a classroom where lesson are taught every day. The keys to investment success lie in observing and learning.”

“The fascinating and challenging thing is that the error moves around. Sometimes prices are too high and sometimes they’re too low. Sometimes the divergence of prices from value affects individual securities or assets and sometimes whole markets – sometimes one market and sometimes another. Sometimes the error lies in doing something and sometimes in not doing it, sometimes in being bullish and sometimes in being bearish…avoiding pitfalls and identifying and acting on error aren’t susceptible to rules, algorithms, or roadmaps. What I would urge is awareness, flexibility, adaptability and a mind-set that is focused on taking cues from the environment.”

Correlation, Diversification, Risk

“There’s another important aspect of failure of imagination. Everyone knows assets have prospective returns and risks, and they’re possible to guess at. But few people understand asset correlation: how one asset will react to a change in another, or that two assets will react similarly to a change in a third. Understanding and anticipating the power of correlation – and thus the limitations of diversification – is a principal aspect of risk control and portfolio management, but it’s very hard to accomplish…Investors often fail to appreciate the common threads that run through portfolios.”

“Hidden fault lines running through portfolios can make the prices of seemingly unrelated assets move in tandem. It’s easier to assess the return and risk of an investment than to understand how it will move relative to others. Correlation is often underestimated, especially because of the degree to which it increases in crisis. A portfolio may appear to be diversified as to asset class, industry and geography, but in tough times, non-fundamental factors such as margin calls, frozen markets and a general risk in risk aversion can become dominant, affecting everything similarly.”

Hedging, Expected Return, Opportunity Cost, Fat Tail

“…a dilemma we have to navigate. How much time and capital should an investor devote to protecting against the improbable disaster? We can insure against every extreme outcome…But doing so will be costly, and the cost will detract form investment returns when that protection turns out not to have been needed…and that’ll be most of the time.”

Cliff Asness on Volatility, Risk & Loss

The debate on the relationship between volatility, risk, and permanent impairment of capital rages on. Below are some thoughts on the subject from Cliff Asness of AQR Capital Management, extracted from an article titled "My Top 10 Peeves" published earlier this year in the Financial Analysts Journal. “Volatility” Is for Misguided Geeks; Risk Is Really the Chance of a “Permanent Loss of Capital”

There are many who say that such “quant” measures as volatility are flawed and that the real definition of risk is the chance of losing money that you won’t get back (a permanent loss of capital). This comment bugs me.

Now, although it causes me grief, the people who say it are often quite smart and successful, and I respect many of them. Furthermore, they are not directly wrong. One fair way to think of risk is indeed the chance of a permanent loss of capital. But there are other fair methods too, and the volatility measures being impugned are often misunderstood, with those attacking them setting up an easy-to-knock-down “straw geek.”

The critics are usually envisioning an overvalued security (which, of course, they assume they know is overvalued with certainty) that possesses a low volatility. They think quants are naive for calling a security like this “low risk” because it’s likely to fall over time. And how can something that is expected to fall over time—and not bounce back—be low risk?

What we have here is a failure to communicate.A quant calling something “low risk” is very different from a quant saying, “You can’t lose much money owning this thing.” Even the simplest quant framework allows for not just volatility but also expected return. And volatility isn’t how much the security is likely to move; it’s how much it’s likely to move versus the forecast of expected return. In other words, after making a forecast, it’s a reflection of the amount you can be wrong on the upside or downside around that forecast. Assuming the quant and non-quant agree that the security is overvalued (if they don’t agree, then that is an issue separate from the definition of risk), the quant has likely assigned it a negative expected return. In other words, both the quant and the non-quant dislike this security. The quant just expresses his dislike with the words “negative expected return” and not the words “very risky.”

A clean example is how both types of analysts would respond to a rise in price unaccompanied by any change in fundamentals now or in the future. On the one hand, those who view risk as “the chance of permanent loss” think this stock just got riskier. Viewed in their framework, they are right. On the other hand, quants tend to say this stock’s long-term expected return just got lower (same future cash flows, higher price today) rather than its risk/volatility went up, and they too are right!

It is also edifying to go the other way: Think about a super-cheap security, with a low risk of permanent loss of capital to a long-term holder, that gets a lot cheaper after being purchased. I—and everyone else who has invested for a living for long enough—have experienced this fun event. If the fundamentals have not changed and you believe risk is just the chance of a permanent loss of capital, all that happened was your super-cheap security got superduper cheap, and if you just hold it long enough, you will be fine. Perhaps this is true. However, I do not think you are allowed to report “unchanged” to your clients in this situation. For one thing, even if you are right, someone else now has the opportunity to buy it at an even lower price than you did. In a very real sense, you lost money; you just expect to make it back, as can anyone who buys the same stock now without suffering your losses to date.

If you can hold the position, you may be correct (a chance that can approach a certainty in some instances if not ruined by those pesky “limits of arbitrage”). For example, when my firm lost money in 1999 by shorting tech stocks about a year too early (don’t worry; it turned out OK), we didn’t get to report to our clients,“We have not lost any of your money. It’s in a bank we call ‘short NASDAQ.’” Rather, we said something like, “Here are the losses, and here’s why it’s a great bet going forward.” This admission and reasoning is more in the spirit of “risk as volatility” than “risk as the chance of a permanent loss of capital,” and I argue it is more accurate. Putting it yet one more way, risk is the chance you are wrong. Saying that your risk control is to buy cheap stocks and hold them, as many who make the original criticism do, is another way of saying that your risk control is not being wrong. That’s nice work if you can get it. Trying not to be wrong is great and something we all strive for, but it’s not risk control. Risk control is limiting how bad it could be if you are wrong. In other words, it’s about how widely reality may differ from your forecast. That sounds a lot like the quants’ “volatility” to me.

Although I clearly favor the quant approach of considering expected return and risk separately, I still think this argument is mostly a case of smart people talking in different languages and not disagreeing as much as it sometimes seems.

Klarman's Margin of Safety: Ch.13 - Part 1

Many years ago, Seth Klarman wrote a book titled “Margin of Safety: Risk-Averse Value Investing Strategies for the Thoughtful Investor.” It is now out of print, and copies sell for thousands on eBay, etc. This marks our first installment of portfolio construction & management highlights extracted from this book. We begin this series not with Chapter 1, but more appropriately with Chapter 13 which discusses “Portfolio Management and Trading.” In Part 1 below, Klarman offers some differentiated insights on portfolio liquidity and cash flow.

Portfolio Management, Liquidity, Cash, Catalyst, Duration, Mistakes, Expected Return, Opportunity Cost

“All investors must come to terms with the relentless continuity of the investment process. Although specific investments have a beginning and an end, portfolio management goes on forever.”

“Portfolio management encompasses trading activity as well as the regular review of one’s holdings. In addition, an investor’s portfolio management responsibilities include maintaining appropriate diversification, making hedging decisions, and managing portfolio cash flow and liquidity.”

“Investing is in some ways an endless process of managing liquidity. Typically an investor begins with liquidity, that is, with cash that he or she is looking to put to work. This initial liquidity is converted into less liquid investments in order to earn an incremental return. As investments come to fruition, liquidity is restored. Then the process begins anew.

This portfolio liquidity cycle serves two important purposes. First…portfolio cash flow – the cash flowing into a portfolio – can reduce an investor’s opportunity cost. Second, the periodic liquidation of parts of a portfolio has a cathartic effect. For many investors who prefer to remain fully invested at all times, it is easy to become complacent, sinking or swimming with current holdings. ‘Dead wood’ can accumulate and be neglected while losses build. By contrast, when the securities in a portfolio frequently turn into cash, the investor is constantly challenged to put that cash to work, seeking out the best values available.”

Cash flow and liquidity management is not what usually comes to mind when one thinks about the components of portfolio management. “Investing is in some ways an endless process of managing liquidity.” It’s actually quite an elegant interpretation.

Diversification (when implemented effectively) assures that certain assets in the portfolio do not decline (relative to other assets) and are therefore able to be sold at attractive prices (if/when desired) with proceeds available for reinvestment. Hedges provide liquidity at the “right” time to redeploy when assets are attractively priced. Catalysts ensure duration (and cash flow) for an otherwise theoretically infinite duration equity portfolio. Duration also forces an investor to remain vigilant and alert, constantly comparing and contrasting between potential opportunities, existing holdings, and hoarding cash.

The spectrum of liquidity of different holdings within a portfolio is determined by the ability to transition between investments with minimal friction (transaction costs, wide bid-ask spread, time, etc).

“Since no investor is infallible and no investment is perfect, there is considerable merit in being able to change one’s mind…An investor who buys a nontransferable limited partnership interest or stock in a nonpublic company, by contrast, is unable to change his mind at any price; he is effectively locked in. When investors do no demand compensation for bearing illiquidity, they almost always come to regret it.

Most of the time liquidity is not of great importance in managing a long-term-oriented investment portfolio. Few investors require a completely liquid portfolio that could be turned rapidly into cash. However, unexpected liquidity needs do occur. Because the opportunity cost of illiquidity is high, no investment portfolio should be completely illiquid either. Most portfolios should maintain a balance, opting for great illiquidity when the market compensates investors well for bearing it.

A mitigating factor in the tradeoff between return and liquidity is duration. While you must always be well paid to sacrifice liquidity, the required compensation depends on how long you will be illiquid. Ten or twenty years of illiquidity is far riskier than one or two months; in effect, the short duration of an investment itself serves as source of liquidity.”

People often discuss the risk-adjusted return. However you define “risk,” it may make sense to consider a liquidity-adjusted return.

Liquidity affords you the luxury to change your mind. This not only applies to instances when you realize that you have made a mistake (preventing potential capital loss), but also helps minimize opportunity cost from not being able to invest in something “better” that materializes at a later date.

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.”

Michael Price & Portfolio Management

Summaries below are extracted from a speech Michael Price gave at the 2013 (June) London Value Investor Conference. If you have read our previous article based on an interview Peter J. Tanous conducted with Michael Price many years ago, you’ll find that Price’s portfolio management philosophy has not changed much since then. Many thanks to my friend John Huber of BaseHitInvesting for sharing this me with me. The complete video can be found here (Market Folly). Cash, Volatility, Patience, Hurdle Rate

2/3 of his portfolio consists of “value” securities (those trading at a discount to intrinsic value), and remaining 1/3 are special situations (activism, liquidation, etc). When he can’t find opportunities for either category, he holds cash.

The expected downside volatility of this type of portfolio in a bear market (excluding extreme events like 2008) is benign because when the overall market declines, cash won’t move at all and securities trading at 60% of intrinsic value won’t move down very much.

The key to constructing a portfolio like this is patience, because you must be willing to wait for assets to trade to 1/2 or 1/3 discount to intrinsic value, or sit with cash and wait when you can’t find them right away.

Price says he does not have any preconceived notions of what amount of cash to hold within the portfolio (aside from a 3-5% minimum because he likes “having the ammunition”). Instead, the portfolio cash balance is a function of what he is buying or selling. Cash increases when markets go up because he is selling securities/assets, and cash decreases when markets go down because he is buying securities/assets. He also mentions that he doesn’t care what he’s earning on cash, which is interesting because does this imply that Price’s hurdle rate for investments is likely always higher than what he can earn on cash?

Sizing, Diversification

Price prefers to hold a more diversified portfolio of cheap names, spreading his risk across 30-70 positions, “not 13 holdings.” Over time, as he does more work, good ideas float to the top, and he sizes up the good ideas as he builds more conviction, whereas names that are merely “interesting” stay at 1% of NAV.

The resulting portfolio may have 40 securities, with the top 5 names @ 5% NAV each, the next 5-10 names @ 3% NAV each, and the next 20-30 names @ 1% NAV each.

Price likes constructing his portfolio this way because he is then able to compare and contrast across more companies/securities, to help drive conviction, making him smarter over time. It’s a style decision, and may not work for everyone, but it works for him.

When To Sell, Mistakes, Tax

Price calls it the “art of when to sell things” because it’s not always straightforward, and especially tricky when a security you purchased at a discount to intrinsic value appreciates to 90-100% of intrinsic value. For example, he bought into the Ruth's Chris rights offering at $2.50/share, and the stock is now trading at $11/share. He sold a quarter of his stake because “it’s getting there” and “you don’t know when to unwind the whole thing so you dribble it out.”

Other rules for selling: when you make a mistake, or lose conviction. Especially important before it becomes long-term gains because it will then offset other short-term gains dollar-for-dollar (anyone investing in special situations / event-driven equities will likely generate a good portion of short-term gains).

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.”

Consequences of Contrarian Actions

Below are excerpts from a speech Bob Rodriguez of First Pacific Advisors gave in May 2009. Quite a few interesting lessons derived from his previous trials and tribulations in dealing with clients and redemptions during periods of contrarian actions and underperformance. Psychology

“I believe I have found success because I have been deeply aware of the need to balance the human emotions of greed and fear. In a word, DISCIPLINE…is a key attribute to becoming a successful investor. I stress that, without a strong set of fundamental rules or a core philosophy, they will be sailing a course through the treacherous investment seas without a compass or a rudder.”

AUM, Clients, Redemptions, Patience

“It seems as though it was a lifetime ago in 1986, when I had few assets under management, and the consultant to my largest account insisted that, if I wanted to continue the relationship, I had to pay to play. I was shocked, dismayed and speechless. Though this would probably have never become public, if I had agreed, how would I have ever lived with myself? By not agreeing, it meant that I would lose nearly 40% of my business. When I was fired shortly thereafter, this termination compromised my efforts in the raising of new money for nearly six years because I could not say why. Despite pain and humiliation, there was no price high enough for me to compromise my integrity. With the subsequent disclosure of improprieties at this municipal pension plan, the cloud of suspicion over me ultimately lifted. I not only survived, I prospered.”

“While technology and growth stock investing hysteria were running wild, we did not participate in this madness. Instead, we sold most of our technology stocks. Our ‘reward’ for this discipline was to watch FPA Capital Fund’s assets decline from over $700 million to just above $300 million, through net redemptions, while not losing any money for this period. We were willing to pay this price of asset outflow because we knew that, no matter what, our investment discipline would eventually be recognized. With our reputation intact, we then had a solid foundation on which we could rebuild our business. This cannot be said for many growth managers, or firms, who violated their clients’ trust.”

“Having the courage to be different comes at a steep price, but I believe it can result in deep satisfaction and personal reward. As an example, FPA Capital Fund has experienced heavy net redemptions since the beginning of 2007, totaling more than $700 million on a base of $2.1 billion. My strong conviction that an elevated level of liquidity was necessary, at one point reaching 45%, placed me at odds with many of our shareholders. I estimate that approximately 60% left because of this strategy…We have been penalized for taking precautionary measures leading up to and during a period of extraordinary risk. Though frustrating, in our hearts, we know that our long-term investment focus serves our clients well. I believe the words of John Maynard Keynes…‘Investment based on genuine long-term expectations is so difficult today as to be scarcely practicable,’ and ‘It is the long-term investor, he who most promotes the public interest, who will in practice come in for the most criticism wherever investment funds are managed by committees or boards or banks. For it is the essence of his behavior that he should be eccentric, unconventional, and rash in the eyes of average opinion.’”

“I believe superior long-term performance is a function of a manager’s willingness to accept periods of short-term underperformance. This requires the fortitude and willingness to allow one’s business to shrink while deploying an unpopular strategy.”

As I write this, the world’s smallest violin is playing in the background, yet it must be said: what about clients violating a fund’s trust by redeeming capital at inopportune times to chase performance elsewhere? The trust concept flows both ways.

There will be times in every fund manager’s career when doing what you believe is right will trigger negative consequences. The key is anticipation, preparation, and patience.

Historical Performance Analysis, Luck, Process Over Outcome, Mistakes

“Let’s be frank about last year’s performance, it was a terrible one for the market averages as well as for mutual fund active portfolio managers. It did not matter the style, asset class or geographic region. In a word, we stunk. We managers did not deliver the goods and we must explain why. In upcoming shareholder letters, will this failure be chalked up to bad luck, an inability to identify a changing governmental environment or to some other excuse? We owe our shareholders more than simple platitudes, if we expect to regain their confidence.”

“If they do not reflect upon what they have done wrong in this cycle and attempt to correct their errors, why should their investors expect a different outcome the next time?”

Examine your historical performance not only to provide an explanation to your clients, but also to yourself. For example, was there anything that you could have done to avoid the “stink”?

Rodriquez mentions “bad luck.” During this reflective process (which ideally should occur during times of good and bad performance) it’s important to understand whether the returns resulted due to luck or to skill. See Michael Mauboussin & James Montier’s commentary on Process Over Outcome & Luck.

Psychology, When To Sell, When To Buy

“Investors have long memories, especially when they lose money. As an example, prior to FPA’s acquisition of FPA Capital Fund in July 1984, the predecessor fund was a poster child for bad performance from the 1960s era. Each time the fund hit a $10 NAV, it would get a raft of redemptions since this was its original issue price and investors thought they were now finally even and just wanted out.”

Anchoring is a powerful psychological bias that can compel investors to buy and sell for the wrong reasons, as well as to allow those who recognize the phenomenon to take advantage of the bad decisions of others.

Is the opposite true: investors have short memories when they’re make money?

Mind of an Achiever

In the competitive world of investing, each of us should constantly be seeking out competitive advantages. Personally, I believe that a certain degree of competitive advantage can be found in the cross-pollination of different schools of investment thought. Many in the value school often deride trading strategies, but they cannot deny the existence of those who practice the trading style of investing and have generated fantastical trackrecords over time, even if the disbelievers cannot understand the basis of how they have done so.

The following excerpts derived from Jack Schwager’s interview with Charles Faulkner in The New Market Wizards relate to trading strategies, but I think many of the psychological and process-focused aspects are also applicable to fundamental investors.

Psychology, Portfolio Management

“Natural Learning Processes [NPL]…the study of human excellence…studies great achievers to pinpoint their mental programs – that is, to learn how great achievers use their brains to product results…The key was to identify…the essence of their skills – so it could be taught to others. In NPL we call that essence a model.”

“If one person can do it, anyone else can learn to do it…Excellence and achievement have a structure that can be copied. By modeling successful people, we can learn from the experience of those who have already succeeded. If we can learn to use our brains in the same way as the exceptionally talented person, we can possess the essence of that talent.”

This is the goal of Portfolio Management Jar: to study the rationale behind portfolio management decisions of great investors, and perhaps one day generate returns the way they do. Notice, there’s a distinction between observing the actions and decisions vs. analyzing the rationale behind those actions & decisions. The true treasure trove is the latter – the way they use their brains.

Process Over Outcome, Psychology, Portfolio Management

On characteristics of successful traders:

“Another important element is that they have a perceptual filter that they know well and that they use. By perceptual filter I mean a methodology, an approach, or a system to understanding market behavior…In our research, we found that the type of perceptual filter doesn’t really make much of a difference…all these methods appear to work, provided the person knows the perceptual filter thoroughly and follows it.”

“People need to have a perceptual filter that matches the way they think. The appropriate perceptual filter for a trader has more to do with how well it fits a trader’s mental strategy, his mode of thinking and decision making, than how well it accounts for market activity. When a person gets to know any perceptual filter deeply, it helps develop his or her intuition. There’s no substitution for experience.”

Interestingly, this is very applicable to portfolio management. Because the portfolio management process has so many inputs and differs depending on the person and situation, in order to master the art of portfolio management, investors need to figure out what works for them depending on “mental strategy, his mode of thinking and decision making.” It helps to observe and analyze the thought processes of the greats who came before you, but there’s “no substitute for experience.”

Process Over Outcome, Luck, Psychology

“…if a trader does very well in one period and only average in the next, he might feel like he failed. On the other hand, if the trader does very poorly in one period, but average in the next, he’ll probably feel like he’s doing dramatically better. In either case, the trader is very likely to attribute the change of results to his system…rather than to a natural statistical tendency. The failure to appreciate this concept will lead the trader to create an inaccurate mental map of his trading ability. For example, if the trader switches from one system to another when he’s doing particularly poorly, the odds are that he’ll do better at that point in time even if the new system is only of equal merit, or possibly even if it is inferior. Yet the trader will attribute his improvement to his new system…Incidentally, the same phenomenon also explains why so many people say they do better after they have gone to a motivational seminar. When are they going to go to a motivational seminar? When they’re feeling particularly low…statistically, on average, these people will do better in the period afterwards anyway – whether or not they attended the seminar. But since they did, they’ll attribute the change to the seminar.”

“Medical science researchers take the view that the placebo effect is something bad…However, Bandler and Grinder [founders of NPL] looked at it differently. They saw the placebo effect as a natural human ability – the ability of the brain to heal the rest of the body.”

Mistakes, Process Over Outcome, Psychology

Traders seem to place a lot of value on “emotional objectivity,” a term I found interesting since it’s definitely something that’s applicable to fundamental investors especially in situations involving mistakes.

“We’ve all been in trading situations where the market moved dramatically against our position. The question is: How unsettling or disconcerting was it? What happens when you’re in a similar situation a couple of weeks or even a couple months later? If you begin to experience some of the same unsettling feelings just thinking about it, you’ve conditioned yourself just like Pavlov’s dogs.”

“Manage of one’s emotional state is critical. The truly exceptional traders can stand up to anything. Instead of getting emotional when things don’t go their way, they remain clam and act in accordance with their approach. This state of mind may come naturally. Or some people may have ways of controlling or dissipating their emotions. In either case, they know they want to be emotionally detached from feelings regarding their positions.”

Is important question is how to un-condition oneself, to remain emotionally objective when mistakes have been made. Of course, since each of us is mentally programmed differently, the answer to this question likely differs from person to person.

Psychology, Capital Preservation, Risk

“There are two different types of motivation…either toward what we want or away from what we don’t want. For example, consider how people respond to waking up in the morning…The person who wouldn’t get up until he saw images like his boss yelling at him has an ‘Away From’ motivational direction. His motivation is to get away from pain, discomfort, and negative consequences…He moves away from what he doesn’t want. The person who can’t wait to get out of bed has a ‘Toward’ motivational direction. He moves toward pleasure, rewards, goals…he moves toward what he wants. People can have both types of motivation…but most people specialize in one or the other. They are very different ways to getting motivated, and both are useful in different situations.”

“People who move toward goals are greatly valued in our society…However, the Away From direction of motivation has gotten a bad rap…The Toward motivation may be enshrined in success magazines, but the less appreciated Away From motivation individuals can also be very successful…Many outstanding traders reveal an Away From motivation when they talk about ‘protecting themselves’ or ‘playing a great defense.’ They’re only willing to take so much pain in the market before they get out. As Paul Tudor Jones said in your interview, ‘I have a short-term horizon for pain.’”

“Very often they come in with a developed Toward motivation – toward success, toward money – that’s why they got into the markets in the first place. However, those that are primarily Toward motivated must spend the time and energy to develop the Away From motivation required for proper money management. In my studies of traders I’ve found that it’s nearly impossible to be a really successful trader without the motivation to get away from excessive risk.”

Some people are more genetically inclined to focus on capital preservation. Some people are less genetically inclined to control “risk.”

Montier & Mauboussin: Process Over Outcome

James Montier’s Value Investing: Tools and Techniques for Intelligent Investment is a book I often recommend to others - Montier does a wonderful job of pulling together a range of topics related value investing. Below are excerpts from Chapter 16 titled “Process not Outcomes: Gambling, Sport and Investment.” Montier derived much of the content below (story & matrix) from Michael Mauboussin's book More Than You Know - Chapter 1. Process Over Outcome, Mistakes, Psychology, Luck

“We have no control over outcomes, but we can control the process. Of course, outcomes matter, but by focusing our attention on process we maximize our chances of good outcomes.”

“Psychologists have long documented a tendency known as outcome bias. That is the habit of judging a decision differently depending upon its outcome.”

“Paul DePodesta of the San Diego Padres and Moneyball fame relates the following story on playing blackjack:

'On one particular hand the player was dealt 17 with his first two cards. The dealer was set to deal the next set of cards and passed right over the player until he stopped her, saying: ‘Dealer, I want to hit!’ She paused, almost feeling sorry for him, and said, ‘Sir, are you sure?’ He said yes, and the dealer dealt the card. Sure enough, it was a four.

The place went crazy, high fives all around, everybody hootin’ and hollerin’, and you know what the dealer said? The dealer looked at the player, and with total sincerity, said: ‘Nice hit.’ I thought, ‘Nice hit? Maybe it was a nice hit for the casino, but it was a horrible hit for the player! The decision isn’t justified just because it worked…’

The fact of the matter is that all casino games have a winning process – the odds are stacked in the favour of the house. That doesn’t mean they win every single hand or every roll of the dice, but they do win more often than not. Don’t misunderstand me – the casino is absolutely concerned about outcomes. However, their approach to securing a good outcome is a laser like focus on process…

Here’s the rub: it’s incredibly difficult to look in the mirror after a victory, any victory, and admit that you were lucky. If you fail to make that admission, however, the bad process will continue and the good outcome that occurred once will elude you in the future. Quite frankly, this is one of the things that makes Billy Beane as good as he is. He’s quick to notice good luck embedded in a good outcome, and he refuses to pat himself on the back for it…'

To me the similarities with investment are blindingly obvious. We are an industry that is obsessed with outcomes over which we have no direct control. However, we can and do control the process by which we invest. This is what we should focus upon. The management of return is impossible, the management of risk is illusory, but process is the one thing that we can exert influence over.”

“Outcomes are highly unstable in our world because they involve an integral of time. Effectively, it is perfectly possible to be ‘right’ over a five-year view and ‘wrong’ on a six-month view, and vice versa...During periods of poor performance, the pressure always builds to change your process. However, a sound process can generate poor results, just as a bad process can generate good results.”

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.”

The Importance of Knowing Thyself

Readers know that I’m a fan of Mariko Gordon of Daruma Capital. Below is an excerpt from her recent March 2013 Letter. Although she is referring specifically to equities, I think her comments are applicable to all portfolio assets. Lao Tzu wrote that “He who knows others is wise; he who knows himself is enlightened.” This letter perfectly showcases why I’m a fan of Gordon. She is already a successful investor running a successful investment management firm. Yet she never stops searching for incremental knowledge – of herself, her results, her surrounding environment – striving for improvement. She is aware of the competitive nature of this business, and how she fits into that landscape. There are no illusions here…or at least that’s the goal. All that we are, as it pertains to investing (and sometimes even personal tendencies), is stripped bare and evaluated for the good and the unpleasant. The willingness to withstand such scrutiny, and reexamination year after year, is the mark of great investors.

Mistakes, Process Over Outcome, Psychology, When To Sell, When To Buy

“The investment case must be made in a completely detached way. A stock doesn't care whether you own it or not, or whether you had a good or bad "relationship" with it during the course of your ownership. A stock is not your friend. It doesn't give a crap about you, and you should reciprocate that indifference.

All of my investment process mistakes (as opposed to all my bad outcomes - this is an important distinction, as one can have bad outcomes despite a good process) have always come from a place of emotion. Every single one, whether it was a purchase or a sale.

By contrast, my best decisions in fraught times have been when I have accessed that place of flow and clarity by being entirely detached emotionally. It turns out that for someone who tends to be very expressive and prone to hyperbolic language, I can be quite cold blooded and calculating when I need to be, for the good of the portfolio.”

Howard Marks' Book: Chapter 11

Continuation of portfolio management highlights from Howard Marks’ book, The Most Important Thing: Uncommon Sense for the Thoughtful Investor, Chapter 11 “The Most Important Thing Is…Contrarianism” Trackrecord, Clients, Mistakes, Redemptions, Patience

“‘Once-in-a-lifetime’ market extremes seem to occur once every decade or so – not often enough for an investor to build a career around capitalizing on them. But attempting to do so should be an important component of any investor’s approach. Just don’t think it’ll be easy. You need the ability to detect instances in which prices have diverged significantly from intrinsic value. You have to have a strong-enough stomach to defy conventional wisdom…And you must have the support of understanding, patient constituents. Without enough time to ride out the extremes while waiting for reason to prevail, you’ll become that most typical of market victims: the six-foot-tall man who drowned crossing the stream that was five feet deep on average.”

I wonder, if an investor was able to find a firm or client base with patient & long-term focus, could not profiting from “market extremes” be the basis of a very long-term & successful, albeit not headline-grabbing, wealth creation vehicle?

Marks also highlights a very costly mistake – one that has nothing to do with investing, and everything to do with operational structure and business planning. The “most typical” market victim of Marks’ description is one who has misjudged the nature of his/her liabilities vs. portfolio assets. Your patience is not enough. The level of patience of your capital base matters.

When To Buy, When To Sell, Catalyst

“Bull markets occur because more people want to buy than sell, or the buyers are more highly motivated than the sellers…If buyers didn’t predominate, the market wouldn’t be rising…figuratively speaking, a top occurs when the last person who will become a buyer does so. Since every buyer has joined the bullish herd by the time the top is reached, bullishness can go no further and the market is as high as it can go. Buying or holding is dangerous.”

“The ultimately most profitable investment actions are by definition contrarian: you’re buying when everyone else is selling (and the price is thus low) or you’re selling when everyone else is buying (and the price is high).”

“Accepting contrarianism is one thing; putting it into practice is another. On one hand, we never know how far the pendulum will swing, when it will reverse, and how far it will then go in the opposite direction. On the other hand, we can be sure that, once it reaches an extreme position, the market eventually will swing back toward the midpoint (or beyond)…Even when an excess does develop, it’s important to understand that ‘overpriced’ is incredibly different from ‘going down tomorrow.’ Markets can be over- or underpriced and stay that way – or become more so – for year.”

Tricky part is determining the timing when “the top is reached.” As Stanley Druckenmiller astutely points out: “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…” Unfortunately, neither Druckenmiller nor Marks offers additional insight as to how one should identify the catalyst(s) signaling reversals of the pendulum.

I have also heard many value investors bemoan that they often sell too soon (because they base sell decisions on intrinsic value estimates), and miss out on the corresponding momentum effect. (See Chris Mittleman discussion). The solution involves adjusting sell decision triggers to include psychological tendency. But this solution is a delicate balance because you don’t want to stick around too long and get caught with the hot potato at the end when ‘the last person who will become a buyer does so” and “bullishness can go no further.”

When To Buy

“…one thing I’m sure of is that by the time the knife has stopped falling, the dust has settled and the uncertainty has been resolved, there’ll be no great bargains left.”

Gumption is rewarded during periods of uncertainty.

Mistakes

“You must do things…because you know why the crowd is wrong. Only then will you be able to hold firmly to your views and perhaps buy more as your positions take on the appearance of mistakes and as losses accrue rather than gains.”

In this business, mistake & profit are exact and opposite mirror images between buyer and seller. Frankly, at times, it’s difficult to distinguish between temporary impairments vs. actual mistakes.

Expected Return

“…in dealing with the future, we must think about two things: (a) what might happen and (b) the probability that it will happen.”

For Marks, future expected return is a probably-adjusted figure.

Howard Marks' Book: Chapter 10

Continuation of portfolio management highlights from Howard Marks’ book, The Most Important Thing: Uncommon Sense for the Thoughtful Investor, Chapter 10 “The Most Important Thing Is…Combating Negative Influences” Mistakes, Portfolio Management, Psychology

“Why do mistakes occur? Because investing is an action undertaken by human beings, most of whom are at the mercy of their psyches and emotions. Many people possess the intellect needed to analyze data, but far fewer are able to look more deeply into things and withstand the powerful influence of psychology. To say this another way, many people will reach similar cognitive conclusions from their analysis, but what they do with those conclusions varies all over the lot because psychology influences them differently. The biggest investing errors come not from factors that are informational or analytical, but from those that are psychological.”

Marks’ comments perfectly describe why portfolio management is so difficult. The portfolio management decisions that occur after idea diligence & analysis are more art than science – intangible, manifesting differently for each person depending on his/her mental makeup. This also makes it particularly susceptible to the infiltration of psychological behavioral biases.

This underlies my assertion that merely having good ideas is not enough. In order to differentiate from the competition and to drive superior performance, investors also need to focus on portfolio management, and face the associated (and uniquely tailored) psychological obstacles.

Mistakes, Psychology

“The desire for more, the fear of missing out, the tendency to compare against others, the influence of the crowd and the dream of the sure thing – these factors are near universal. Thus they have a profound collective impact on most investors and most markets. The result is mistakes, and those mistakes are frequent, widespread and recurring.”

Howard Marks provides a few psychological factors that lead to mistakes: 

1. Greed – “Money may not be everyone’s goal for its own sake, but it is everyone’s unit of account…Greed is an extremely powerful force. It’s strong enough to overcome common sense, risk aversion, prudence, caution, logic, memory of painful past lessons, resolve, trepidation and all the other elements that might otherwise keep investors out of trouble.” 

2. Fear – “The counterpart of greed…the term doesn’t mean logical, sensible risk aversion. Rather, fear – like greed – connotes excess…more like panic. Fear is overdone concern that prevents investors from taking constructive action when they should.” 

3. Willing Suspension of Disbelief – “…people’s tendency to dismiss logic, history, and time-honored norms…Charlie Munger gave me a great quotation…from Demosthenes: ‘Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true’…the process of investing requires a strong dose of disbelief…Inadequate skepticism contributes to investment losses.” I wonder, is denial then just a more extreme form of confirmation bias? 

4. Conformity/Herding Behavior – “…even when the herd’s view is clearly cockeyed…Time and time again, the combination of pressure to conform and the desire to get rich causes people to drop their independence and skepticism, overcome their innate risk aversion and believe things that don’t make sense.” 

5. Envy – “However negative the force of greed might be…the impact is even strong when they compare themselves to others…People who might be perfectly happy with their lot in isolation become miserable when they see others do better. In the world of investing, most people find it terribly hard to sit by and watch while others make more money than they do.” 

6. Ego – To a certain extent this is self-explanatory, but I will further explore this topic in another article in relation to Buffett’s concept of the “inner” vs. “outer-scorecard.” 

7. Capitulation – “…a regular feature of investor behavior late in cycles. Investors hold on to their conviction as long as they can, but when the economic and psychological pressure become irresistible, they surrender and jump on the bandwagon.” 

Psychology, When To Buy, When To Sell

“What, in the end, are investors to do about these psychological urges that push them toward doing foolish things? Learn to see them for what they are; that’s the first step toward gaining the courage to resist. And be realistic. Investors who believe they’re immune to the forces describes in this chapter do so at their own peril…Believe me, it’s hard to resist buying at the top (and harder still to sell) when everyone else is buying…it’s also hard to resist selling (and very though to buy) when the opposite is true at the bottom and holding or buying appears to entail the risk of total loss.”

Mistakes

“In general, people who go into the investment business are intelligent, educated, informed and numerate. They master the nuances of business and economics and understand complex theories. Many are able to reach reasonable confusion about value and prospects. But then psychology and crowd influences move in…The tendency toward self-doubt combines with news of other people’s successes to form a powerful force that makes investors do the wrong thing, and it gains additional strength as these trends go on longer.”

“Inefficiencies – mispricings, and misperceptions, mistakes that other people make – provide potential opportunities for superior performance. Exploiting them is, in fact, the only road to consistent outperformance. To distinguish yourself from others, you need to be on the right side of those mistakes.”

Investing is a selfish zero-sum game. Mistakes, on the part of some, must occur in order for others to generate profits. Mistakes of others = your opportunity 

Luck, Process Over Outcome

During the Tech Bubble,“Tech stock investors were lauded by the media for their brilliance. The ones least restrained by experience and skepticism – and thus making the most money – were often in their thirties, even their twenties. Never was it pointed out that they might be beneficiaries of an irrational market rather than incredible astuteness.”

Buffett Partnership Letters: 1967 Part 1

Continuation of our series on portfolio management and the Buffett Partnership Letters, please see our previous articles for more details. Creativity, Trackrecord

“…although I consider myself to be primarily in the quantitative school…the really sensational ideas I have had over the years have been heavily weighted toward the qualitative side where I have had a ‘high-probability insight.’ This is what causes the cash register to really sing. However, it is an infrequent occurrence, as insights usually are, and of course, no insight is required on the quantitative side…So the really big money tends to be made by investors who are right on the qualitative decisions but, at least in my opinion, the more sure money tends to be made on the obvious quantitative decisions.

Such statistical bargains have tended to disappear over the years…Whatever the cause, the result has been the virtual disappearance of the bargain issue as determined quantitatively – and thereby of our bread and butter.”

Rome wasn’t built in one day. Neither was Warren Buffett’s investment philosophy. Here, he is debating the merits of quantitative vs. qualitative analysis. In the 1966 & 1967 letters, we see Buffett gradually shifting his investment philosophy, drawing closer to the qualitative analysis for which he’s now famous, under the influence of Charlie Munger.

The necessity of this debate grew as AUM increased and markets got more expensive (disappearance of the quantitative "bread and butter"), and as Buffett considered next steps in career progression. By the end of 1967, he had proven that he can compound capital in a treadmill, fund-style vehicle, but what next, especially as the market environment became difficult and opportunities rare? (More on this in Part 2)

Today, it’s difficult to imagine the Oracle’s investment philosophy ever requiring improvement or change, but here we see evidence that suggests it has indeed evolved over the years. The ability to adapt & improve is what separates the one-trick ponies from the great investors of today and tomorrow.

This brings us to a corollary that’s very much applicable to the asset allocation and investment management world. During the fund manager evaluation process, most clients and allocators focus intensely on historical performance trackrecords because they believe it’s an indicator of potential future performance.

But by focusing on historical figures, it’s possible to lose sight of a very important variable: change.

Our personalities and investment philosophies are products of circumstance, in life and in investing – sensitive to external influences, personal or otherwise. Examples include: emergence of new competition, availability of opportunity sets, increased personal wealth, marriage & family, purchase of baseball teams, drug habits, etc. Even great investors like Warren Buffett have evolved over the years to accommodate those influences.

It would be wise to pay attention to external influences and agents of change (the qualitative) during the fund manager evaluation process, and not rely solely on the historical trackrecord (the quantitative). 

Cash, Liquidity, Volatility

As of November 1^st 1967, “we have about $20 million invested in controlled companies, but we also have over $16 million in short-term governments. This makes a present total of over $36 million which clearly will not participate in any upward movement the stock market may have.”

Around this time, BPL had ~$70MM AUM. This means cash accounted for 23% of NAV, and control positions for 29% of NAV.

The control positions likely had very limited liquidity if Buffett needed to sell. This leads me to wonder if the high cash balance was kept for reasons other than dry powder for future opportunities, such as protection against possible investor redemptions. (Remember, at this juncture, Buffett did not yet have permanent capital).

Also, notice that Buffett’s is very much aware of the expected volatility of his portfolio vs. his benchmark – that over 50% ($36MM) of the portfolio will likely not participate in any upward market movement.

Expected Return, Volatility

“We normally enter each year with a few eggs relatively close to hatching; the nest is virtually empty at the moment. This situation could change very fast, or might persist for some time.”

Quoting Ben Graham: “‘Speculation is neither illegal, immoral nor fattening (financially).’ During the past year, it was possible to become fiscally flabby through a steady diet of speculative bon-bons. We continue to eat oatmeal but if indigestion should set in generally, it is unrealistic to expect that we won’t have some discomfort.”

Expected Return ≠ Expected Volatility

Making Mistakes

“Experience is what you find when you’re looking for something else.”

Probable Munger-ism.

Munger Wisdom: 2013 Daily Journal Meeting

Below are my personal notes (portfolio management highlights) from Charlie Munger’s Q&A Session during the 2013 Daily Journal Shareholders Meeting this Wednesday in Los Angeles. Opportunity Cost

After the meeting, I approached Munger to ask him about his thoughts on opportunity cost (a topic that he mentioned numerous times while answering questions, and in previous lectures and speeches).

His response: “Everyone should be thinking about opportunity cost all the time.”

During the Q&A session, Munger gave two investment examples in which he cites opportunity cost.

Bellridge Oil: During the the Wheeler-Munger partnership days, a broker called to offer him 300 shares of Bellridge Oil (trading at 20% of asset liquidation value). He purchased the shares. Soon after, the broker called again to offer him 1500 more shares. Munger didn’t readily have cash available to make the purchase and would have had to (1) sell another position to raise cash, or (2) use leverage. He didn’t want to do either and declined the shares. A year and a half later, Bellridge Oil sold for 35x the price at which the broker offered him the shares. This missed profit could have been rolled into Berkshire Hathaway.

Boston-based shoe supplier to JCPenney: One of the worst investments Berkshire made, for which they gave away 2% of Berkshire stock and received a worthless asset in return.

For both examples, opportunity cost was considered in the context of what "could have been" when combined with the capital compounding that transpired at Berkshire.

Making Mistakes, Liquidity

DRC (Diversified Retailing Company) was purchased by Munger & Buffett in the 1960s with a small bank loan and $6 million of equity. Munger owned 10% so contributed $600,000. But as soon as the ink dried on the contract, they realized that it wasn’t all that great a business due to “ghastly competition.” Their solution? Scrambled to get out as FAST as possible.

Related to this, be sure to read Stanley Druckenmiller’s thoughts on making mistakes and its relationship to trading liquidity (two separate articles).

Generally, humans are bad at admitting our mistakes, which then leads to delay and inaction, which is not ideal. Notice Druckenmiller and Munger come from completely different schools of investment philosophies, yet they deal with mistakes the exact same way – quickly – to allow them to fight another day. Liquidity just happens to make this process easier.

Another Munger quote related to mistakes: “People want hope.” Don’t ever let hope become your primary investment thesis.

“Treat success and failures just the same.” Be sure to “review stupidity,” but remember that it’s “perfectly normal to fail.”

Leverage

Munger told story about press expansion – newspapers paying huge sums for other newspapers – relying largely on leverage given the thesis of regional market-share monopolies. Unfortunately, with technology, the monopolies thesis disintegrated, and the leverage a deathblow.

Perhaps the lesson here is that leverage is most dangerous when coupled with a belief in the continuation of historical status quo.

Luck, Creativity

The masterplan doesn’t always work. Some of life’s success stories derive from situations of people reacting intelligently to opportunities, fixing problems as they emerge, or better yet:

“Playing the big bass tuba in an open field when it happened to rain gold.”

Turnover

Munger’s personal account had zero transactions in 2012.

Psychology

On the decline of the General Motors: “prosperity made them weak.”

This is a lesson in hubris, and associated behavioral biases, that's definitely applicable to investment management. Investing, perhaps even more so than most businesses, is fiercely competitive. In this zero sum game, the moment we rest on the laurels of past performance success, and become overconfident etc., is the moment future performance decline begins.

Always be aware, and resist behavior slithering in that dangerous direction.

Mandate

Berkshire had “two reasonable options” to deploy capital, into both public and private markets. Munger doesn’t understand why Berkshire’s model hasn’t been copied more often. It makes sense to have a flexible hybrid mandate (or structure) which allows for deployment of capital into wherever assets are most attractive or cheapest.

Clients, Time Management

Most people are too competitive – they want ALL business available, and sometimes end up doing things that are "morally beneath them," and/or abandon personal standards. Plus, general happiness should be a consideration as well.

The smartest people figure out what business they don’t want and avoid all together – which leads to foregoing some degree of business and profit – that’s absolutely okay. This is what he and Buffett have figured out and tried to do over time.

On doing what’s right: He and Buffett fulfill their fiduciary duty in that they “wanted people who we barely know who happen to buy the stock to do well.” Munger doesn’t think there are that many people in the corporate world who subscribe to this approach today.