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.”

Embracing Chaos & Randomness

Investing is hard on the psyche. Events don’t always make sense, yet external pressures often demand that you make sense of everything seemingly random. This can lead to frustration stemming from cognitive dissonance -- the discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions. Perhaps this is why I enjoyed reading this speech that a man named Dean Williams gave almost exactly 32 years ago, advocating the value of simplicity and keeping an open mind to new possibilities, even if they don’t always make sense at first. Many thanks to my friend Dhawal Nagpal for sending this across. Psychology, Creativity

“The foundation of Newtonian physics was that physical events are governed by physical laws. Laws that we could understand rationally. And if we learned enough about those laws, we could extend our knowledge and influence over our environment. That was also the foundation of most of the security analysis, technical analysis…methods you and I learned about when we first began in this business…if we just tried hard enough…If we learned every detail about a company…If we discovered just the right variables…Earnings and prices and interest rates would all behave in rational and predictable ways. If we just tried hard enough.

In the last fifty years a new physics came along. Quantum, or sub-atomic physics. The clues it left along its trail frustrated the best scientific minds in the world. Evidence began to mount that our knowledge of what governed events on the subatomic level wasn’t nearly what we thought it would be. Those events just didn’t seem subject to rational behavior or prediction…the investment world I think I know anything about is a lot more like quantum physics than it is like Newtonian physics.”

“…we should be more content with probabilities and admit that we really know very little.”

Williams highlights three tenets of successful investing:

1. Respect the virtues of a simple investment plans

“Albert Einstein said that ‘…more of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simply and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone.’” 

“The reason for dwelling on the virtue of simple investment approaches is that complicated ones, which can’t be explained simply, may be disguising a more basic defect. They may not make any sense. Mastery often expresses itself in simplicity.”

2. Consistent approaches – good discipline and the sense to carry them out consistently

3. Exercise the “Beginner’s Mind” – opens your mind to more possibilities, avoids cognitive dissonance, and the possibility of confirmation bias

“A very special tolerance for the concept of ‘nonsense’…Expertise is great, but has a bad side effect. It tends to create an inability to accept new ideas.”

“In general, physicists don’t deal in nonsense. Most of them spend their professional lives thinking along well-established lines of thought. The ones who establish the established lines of thought, however, are the ones who aren’t afraid to venture into what any fool could have told them is pure nonsense…‘In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert’s mind there are few.’”

AUM's Impact On Performance

People often remark that “AUM is the enemy of performance.” But is this truly always the case? Here’s another thought-provoking excerpt from Stephen Duneier of Bija Capital Management that explores the nuances of the AUM-Performance relationship. AUM, Expected Return, Sizing, Selectivity, Liquidity

“Since becoming a portfolio manager more than ten years ago, I have managed as little as $8 million and as much as $910 million. What did I do differently at each extreme? Nothing. On average, I had the same number of trades in the portfolio, structured the positions the same, analyzed the markets the same, generated trade write-ups the same, and in proportion to the overall portfolio, I sized the positions the same. Those are the relevant factors that investors should be asking about when it comes to AuM and here is why. With a minimal amount in AuM, you are clearly not confronted with capacity constraints, therefore you can be highly selective when choosing among opportunities, allowing for optimal portfolio composition. While operating below your capacity constraint, the portfolio composition runs within a fairly steady range. So how do you identify the limits of a PM's capacity? 

Well there are two determinants of capacity. One is internal (mental) and the other is external (market). For those trained as prop traders and PMs within large organizations, you are typically allocated risk rather than capital, which means you think of gains and losses in notional terms. That makes for a difficult adjustment to the world of proportional returns, and particularly shifts in AuM, thereby prematurely capping either AuM growth, or the risk and returns on it. The external constraint is market liquidity per trade or structure. So long as I can maintain the same proportional exposure to a given position, I remain under my capacity limit. Once I have to increase the number of trades in order to maintain the same overall proportional risk exposure, I have breached max capacity for my style. You see, before you reach capacity, you are selecting only the best ideas and expressing them via the optimal structures. You could do more, but you choose not to. When your overall risk budget gets to a point where you cannot maintain the same overall exposure with the same number of trades, you must begin adding less optimal structures and even ideas of lesser conviction. That is the true signal of having breached your maximum capacity.”

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).

The Managing vs. Marketing of Risk

There’s something in the Santa Barbara water (or wine) that produces some extremely thoughtful investors/writers. Some of you already know that I’m a fan of Eric Peters of Weekend Notes (who resides in Santa Barbara). A friend recently told me about Stephen Duneier of Bija Capital Management (another Santa Barbara resident) who also has been writing thought provoking letters. Below are excerpts from a piece written a few weeks ago on risk management, titled “The Managing vs. Marketing of Risk.” For those of you who appreciate differentiated opinions, it’s a worthwhile read. Risk

“ 'You can take risk. Just don't lose money.' - A Former Boss

Risk management seems like a simple endeavor. It’s not. It requires a deep understanding of what risk is and how it can be managed. Some think that simply being strong is the answer. It’s not. Many think of risk as something you deal with after the fact, and it shows in their pitch. “I will force positions to be shut down.” “I will step in and close positions myself.” “We will cut risk...” All of these statements reflect a reactive risk management process. While they sound tough and disciplined, they are really just impulsive behaviors attempting to clean up impulsive behaviors, after the damage has already been inflicted. Fact is, the biggest hedge fund disasters don’t occur when funds are doing poorly. They come about when they are doing well, and risk management has been sidelined. That’s why every loss and every gain attracts my interest in exactly the same way, for the most effective risk management is both proactive and consistent execution.”

“The speed bump is a generally accepted risk management tool. Essentially it serves as a line in the sand which triggers a specific reaction. As an example, if a portfolio manager is down 5% from the high water mark (HWM; peak profit), then her risk is halved. If it happens again, risk is halved again, and so on. It's one of those things that sound good in a marketing presentation, allowing a fund manager to masquerade as a disciplined risk manager. The problem is that its mere existence creates an impediment to thinking deeper about and implementing more effective, proactive risk management procedures. Worse yet, speed bumps ultimately serve two distinct purposes. They reduce the returns of a good investment manager and they extend the life of a poor one. The better the manager, the more dramatic the negative impact, and vice-versa…in every case where the PM is a positive performer, your returns will be better without a speed bump. What about the poor performer? Simply stated, you should fire him.”

PM Jar Exclusive Interview With Howard Marks – Part 5 of 5

Below is Part 5 of PM Jar’s interview with Howard Marks, the co-founder and chairman of Oaktree Capital Management, on portfolio management. Part 5: Creating Your Own Art

“You can glean insights from many places and then assemble them into your own formula. You can’t copy somebody else. Well you can – but that’s not very creative.”

PM Jar: Who are your investment intellectual influences?

Marks: Snippets here and there: John Kenneth Galbraith, Charlie Ellis, Nassim Taleb, Mike Milken, Ben Graham, and Warren Buffett more recently. You glean insights from many places and then assemble them into your own formula. You can’t copy somebody else. Well you can – but that’s not very creative. I’ve gleaned snippets from all of those and assembled them into my own philosophy.

PM Jar: Your approach to achieving return asymmetry has been to lose less in down markets, but you’re not going to outperform in up markets. Is that approach Oaktree-specific?      

Marks: It’s inherent in our strategy. It’s inherent in our personalities. It’s inherent in our origins as debt investors. In Security Analysis, Graham & Dodd defined bond investing as a “negative art.” You add to your portfolio results not by what you include, but by what you exclude.

For example, let’s say all high yield bonds pay 6%. If they all pay 6%, then it doesn’t matter which of the ones that pay you buy, since all the ones that pay will give you the same return. Let’s assume 90% will pay, 10% will not pay. On the ones that don’t pay, you’ll lose money. Since all the bonds that pay will have the same return, the critical thing is to exclude the ones that don’t pay.

Obviously, what I’m describing is an extreme formulation. But in general, if you’re a bond investor, there aren’t different degrees of success, only different degrees of failure. The main way to increment your portfolio performance returns (versus your competition and the benchmark) is by avoiding the losers. That’s us. Our great contribution comes through not doing badly in bad times.

But that would not be an effective business model for a venture capitalist. A venture capitalist will be successful if out of every ten investments, seven turn out to be worthless, two break even, and one is Google. So they couldn’t possibly use our approach. We couldn’t possibly be venture capitalists, and they couldn’t possibly be bond investors.

My favorite fortune cookie says, “The cautious seldom err or write great poetry.” We know we’re not going to write that great poetry. We’re not going to have the 20x winner. We are most effective by avoiding mistakes.

Our model, our securities, and our strategies all go together. You have to do the thing that fits you. Different strokes for different folks. There are many ways to skin the cat. Investing is an art form. Take the hundred greatest painters, their paintings look nothing alike. The definition of great is not uniform.

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

PM Jar Exclusive Interview With Howard Marks - Part 3 of 5

Below is Part 3 of PM Jar’s interview with Howard Marks, the co-founder and chairman of Oaktree Capital Management, on portfolio management. Part 3: The Intertwining Debate of Diversification and Concentration

“Diversification in itself does not add or subtract value, it only affects the probabilities.”

PM Jar: During times when you are overwhelmed by opportunities, such as in late 2008, do you diversify your portfolio and buy everything that looks attractive, or do you concentrate and buy the one or two most compelling things?

Marks: We’re diversifiers because we’re conservative investors, and one of the hallmarks of conservatism is diversification. The more you bet in each situation, the more you make if you’re right, and the more you lose if you’re wrong. For the diversifier, his highs are less high and his lows are less low. We tend to diversify.

As you describe, in late 2008, when there were a million bargains around, we tended to have a very diverse portfolio. In another period, like 2006, when there aren’t too many bargains around, we may have a more concentrated portfolio (because we can’t find that many attractive things). But our preference is to have a diversified portfolio.

PM Jar: Does your diversification-concentration preference change depending on where you think the pendulum is located across market cycles?

Marks: Our preference doesn’t change. Our preference is to be diversified. However, the ability to have a highly diversified portfolio of attractive securities changes from time to time, and we have to change with it. If you insist on having a highly diversified portfolio in periods when there aren’t many bargains around, then by definition, you have to buy non-bargains, or very risky things.

PM Jar: In 2008, a number of fund managers kept concentrated portfolios of “cheap” names, but concentration did not protect them during the crisis.

Marks: You can’t make any generalizations from 2008. It was an extreme outlier in terms of how bad things got. I wrote a memo in that period, in which I used the section heading “How Bad Is Bad?” People often say, “We want to be prepared for the worst case.” But how bad is the worst case?

2008 was worse than anybody’s worst case. Diversification didn’t work. It didn’t matter whether you were diversified between stocks or bonds, among stocks, or among bonds – everything got hurt. The only things that worked were Treasurys, gold and cash.

You have to learn lessons from history, but you have to learn the right lessons. The lesson can’t be that we are only going to have a portfolio that can withstand a re-run of 2008, because then you could not have much of a portfolio.

Correlation is a funny thing. In theory, every security has a risk and a return. Even if you’re a genius and can quantify the risk and return for every security, you wouldn’t necessarily form a portfolio composed of all the securities that had the best ratio of return to risk, because you have to consider correlation. If something happens in the economy, do they all perform the same or do they perform differently? If you buy 100 securities and they all respond the same way to a given change in the environment, then you don’t have any diversification. But if you have 50 securities which perform differently in response to a given change in the environment, then you do have diversification. It’s not the number of things you own, it’s whether they perform differently. A skillful investor anticipates, understands, and senses correlation.

These managers you mentioned knew their securities, but they obviously did not accurately estimate how bad things could get in the crisis. As you know from reading my book, one of my favorite adages is: “Never forget the six-foot tall man who drowned crossing the stream that was 5-feet deep on average.” So those guys may have been tall but they didn’t make it across. And if not, then was there anything that they should have done to enable them to get across? But it’s very, very hard to second guess behavior in 2008 because it’s very hard to have a portfolio that would do okay in 2008.

PM Jar: The second to last chapter of your book is titled “Adding Value,” and in it you describe that in order to add value, an investor has to build a portfolio that has asymmetry on the upside versus downside. If you run a concentrated portfolio in a more expensive environment, is that a way to lower downside exposure?

Marks: Concentration is a source of safety only if you have superior insight into what you are doing. If you have no insight, or inferior insight, then concentration is a source of risk. Diversification in itself does not add or subtract value, it only affects the probabilities. Concentration is better if you have superior insight, and diversification is better if you have limited insight. Neither one is better than the other per se. These things are intertwined.

Continue Reading — Part 4 of 5: The Art of Transforming Symmetry into Asymmetry

PM Jar Exclusive Interview With Howard Marks - Part 2 of 5

Below is Part 2 of PM Jar's interview with Howard Marks, the co-founder and chairman of Oaktree Capital Management. In the excerpts below, Marks discusses his approach to the art of investing: transforming symmetrical inputs into asymmetric returns. Be sure to read Part 1: An Idea of What Is Enough. Part 2: Real World Considerations

“You shouldn’t care about volatility intellectually, but there are real world considerations.”

Marks: Client selection is important for professional money managers. You should tell them before they sign on what you’re going to do, what you’re not going to do, what you can do, what you can’t do. For example, we tell our clients, “When the markets boom, we’re not likely to beat the market. If that’s what you want, don’t come to us.” You can influence your probability of success with clients by putting effort into educating them. This way, they are ready for you to take contrarian actions (to buy aggressively when the world is collapsing and to sell aggressively when the world is soaring). I tell them what they can and can’t expect. The ones who don’t want what we can offer turn themselves away. Saying to every client “I can give you whatever you want” is not the foundation for a successful business.

PM Jar: Would you advocate diversification versus concentration of one’s client base?

Marks: I think it’s preferable that you don't have all your money from one client. That’s not a good business model.

PM Jar: In your book, you discuss volatility. When markets are good, people say they don’t care about short-term fluctuations. When things get bad, volatility becomes dangerous because of the impact it has on the human mind, causing people to do the wrong things like selling securities or redeeming from funds at the wrong time. Do you think fund managers have an obligation to keep clients from being their own worst enemy, such as trying to keep volatility lower in the portfolio so as not to cause clients to make irrational decisions? 

Marks: You shouldn’t care about volatility intellectually, but there are real world considerations. It’s very hard to predict volatility. You should only have an amount of risk in the portfolio that your clients can tolerate. It really comes down to the six-foot tall man crossing the river. If you stick your nose in the air and say, “I don’t care about how bad things might get in the interim,” you can subject your clients to risks they can’t afford, which can lead them to sell out at the bottom. On the other hand, what you’re describing is sub-optimizing, and doing clients a disservice by not pursuing the best returns. In a way, you have to do both.

If you have open-ended funds, one way to help your clients would be to hold their hands and keep them in the market so that they will not turn a downward fluctuation into a permanent loss by selling out at the bottom, and thus failing to participate in the recovery. If you have locked-in money, you don’t have to be worried.

No investment vehicle should promise its clients more liquidity than is afforded by the underlying assets. But a lot do. Each manager has to figure out, to his own satisfaction, what he should give the client that would represent doing a good job. One of things that we’ve always thought important is when operating in illiquid markets subject to bouts of chaos, it’s better to have locked-in money. Because then, you can do the right thing. We want to be able to do the right thing. And we want to help our clients do the right thing. 

Continue Reading — Part 3 of 5: The Intertwining Debate of Diversification and Concentration

PM Jar Exclusive Interview With Howard Marks - Part 1 of 5

“Investing is an art form. Take the hundred greatest painters, their paintings look nothing alike. The definition of great is not uniform.” When asked about the art on the walls, he answers he is not a collector, merely an admirer. There’s no corner office with custom or museum-quality furniture. There’s no glaring display of power or wealth. Yet the scent of importance and influence is most definitely present, only subtly so. Accepted and balanced, not flaunted.

Here is a thoughtful and reflective man who is acutely aware of himself and his environment. Here is a man who has been called ‘Guru to the Stars’ by Barron’s, whose admirers include Chris Davis, Warren Buffett, and Jeremy Grantham, and whose firm oversees nearly $80 billion in assets.

Ever gracious and generous with his time, Howard Marks, the co-founder and chairman of Oaktree Capital Management, sat down with PM Jar to discuss his approach to the art of investing: transforming symmetrical inputs into asymmetric returns. What follows are excerpts from that conversation.

Part 1: An Idea of What Is Enough

“I think that having an idea of a goal is something to work for, but it's also important to have an idea of what is enough.”

Marks: The goal of investing is to have your capital be productive. It's to make money on your money. Certain investment organizations – pension funds, insurance companies, endowments – have specific goals and requirements to make a certain amount of money that will permit them to accomplish their objectives. Everybody has a goal, and some are different from others. Some people don’t have a specific goal – they just want to make money.

In 2007, people said: “I need 8%. It would be nice to make 10%. It would terrific to make 12%. It would be wonderful to make 15%. It would be absolutely fabulous to make 18%. 20% would be fantastic.” Whereas they should have said: “I need 8%. If I get 10%, that would be great. 12% would be wonderful. I’m not going to try for 15% because to try for 15%, I’d have to take risks that I don’t want to take.” I think that having an idea of a goal is something to work for, but it’s also important to have an idea of what is enough.

PM Jar: In your book, The Most Important Thing, you wrote that it’s difficult to find returns if they’re not available, and chasing returns is one of the dumbest things that an investor can do. Does an investor’s return goal change with the market cycle or where the pendulum is located?

Marks: You should be cognizant of where you are buying because where you buy says a lot about the return which is implied in your investment. Every time we organize a fund, we talk about the return we can make, which is informed by where we expect to buy things. Consequently, sometimes we think we will get very high returns because we have the opportunity to buy stuff cheap. Sometimes we think we’ll get lower returns because we can’t buy that much stuff cheap. So clearly, different points in time and different positions of the pendulum imply different kinds of returns – not with any certainty, but you should have a concept of whether you are getting great bargains, so-so bargains, or paying excessive prices (in which case, you should be a seller not a buyer).

But we’re dangerously close to confusing two topics. A return goal is what you want, what you need to be successful, or what you aspire to. An expected return is what you think you can make on the things you can buy today – sometimes you should be able to make 5% and sometimes you should be able to make 15% – which may have nothing to do with your desired return or required return. 

Continue Reading -- Part 2 of 5: Real World Considerations  

How To Motivate Your Analysts

I've always found it curious why talent turns over so frequently at investment firms (at least in hedge fund land). Investing is a judgment-oriented business, and team turnover can be highly disruptive to the investment process. To retain talent, most people throw money at the problem. The video below will show you why that doesn't always work, and some interesting revelations about what truly motivates people. For those of you short on time, skip straight to 4:45  

http://youtu.be/u6XAPnuFjJc

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.”

More Than You Know: Chapter 1

Below are numerous psychological gems extracted from Chapter 1 of More Than You Know by Michael Mauboussin. Also be sure to check out his thoughts on Process Over Outcome. Psychology, Sizing

“The behavioral issue of overconfidence comes into play here. Research suggests that people are too confident in their own abilities and predictions. As a result, they tend to project outcome ranges that are too narrow. Numerous crash-and-burn hedge fund stories boil down to committing too much capital to an investment that the manager overconfidently assessed. When allocating capital, portfolio managers need to consider that unexpected events do occur.”

“…we often believe more information provides a clearer picture of the future and improves our decision making. But in reality, additional information often only confuses the decision-making process. Researchers illustrated this point with a study of horse-race handicappers. They first asked the handicappers to make race predictions with five pieces of information. The researchers then asked the handicappers to make the same predictions with ten, twenty, and forty pieces of information for each horse in the race…even though the handicappers gained little accuracy by using the additional information, their confidence in their predictive ability rose with the supplementary data.”

Too much incremental information can lead to a false sense of comfort, overconfidence bias, and too narrow outcome ranges.

Given our psychological propensity for overconfidence and too narrow outcome predictions, does this mean portfolio sizing decisions should be based not only on what we know, but also on what we don’t know? As if investing wasn’t hard enough already…

Psychology, Expected Return

“Probabilities alone are insufficient when payoffs are skewed…another concept from behavioral finance: loss aversion. For good evolutionary reasons, humans are averse to loss when they make choices between risky outcomes. More specifically, a loss has about two and a half times the impact of a gain of the same size. So we like to be right and hence often seek high-probability events. A focus on probability is sound when outcomes are symmetrical, but completely inappropriate when payoffs are skewed…So some high-probability propositions are unattractive, and some low-probability propositions are very attractive on an expected-value basis.”

Certainty and being “right,” does not always equate to profits. Paraphrasing the great Stan Druckenmiller, being right or wrong doesn’t matter, it’s how much you make when you’re right and how much you lose when you’re wrong that ultimately matters in investing.

Team Management, Psychology

“…the way decisions are evaluated affects the way decisions are made.”

“One of my former students, a very successful hedge fund manager, called to tell me that he is abolishing the use of target prices in his firm for two reasons. First, he wants all of the analysts to express their opinions in expected value terms, an exercise that compels discussion about payoffs and probabilities. Entertaining various outcomes also mitigates the risk of excessive focus on a particular scenario -- a behavioral pitfall called “anchoring.”

Second, expected-value thinking provides the analysts with psychological cover when they are wrong. Say you’re an analyst who recommends purchase of a stock with a target price above today’s price. You’re likely to succumb to the confirmation trap, where you will seek confirming evidence and dismiss or discount disconfirming evidence.

If, in contrast, your recommendation is based on an expected-value analysis, it will include a downside scenario with an associated probability. You will go into the investment knowing that the outcome will be unfavorable some percentage of the time. This prior acknowledgement, if shared by the organization, allows analysts to be wrong periodically without the stigma of failure.”

Risk

“The only certainty is that there is no certainty. This principle is especially true for the investment industry, which deals largely with uncertainty…With both uncertainty and risk, outcomes are unknown. But with uncertainty, the underlying distribution of outcomes is undefined, while with risk we know what that distribution looks like. Corporate undulation is uncertain; roulette is risky…"

How interesting, some people associated risk with uncertainty, but Mauboussin highlights an interesting nuance between the two.

Baupost Letters: 1998

Continuation in our series on portfolio management and Seth Klarman, with ideas extracted from old Baupost Group letters. Our Readers know that we generally provide excerpts along with commentary for each topic. However, at the request of Baupost, we will not be providing any excerpts, only our interpretive summaries, for this series.

Hedging, Opportunity Cost, Correlation

Mid-fiscal year through 4/30/98, Klarman substantially increased exposure to disaster insurance (mainly out of the money U.S. equity put options + hedges against rising interest rates and currency fluctuations) because of his fear of a severe market correction and economic weakness. To maintain these hedges, Klarman stated he was willing to give up a portion of portfolio upside in return for protection against downside exposure. For fiscal year ended 10/31/98, these hedges accounted for a -2.8% performance drag.

The performance drag and mistake occurred as a result of expensive & imperfect hedges:

• cheapest areas of the market (small-cap) became cheaper (Baupost’s portfolio long positions were mainly small cap)
• most expensive areas of the market (large-cap) went to the moon (Baupost’s portfolio hedges were mostly large cap)

In assessing the performance results, Klarman stated that he did not believe he was wrong to hedge market exposures, his mistake was to use imperfect hedges, which resulted in him losing money on both his long positions and his hedges at the same time. Going forward, he would be searching for more closely correlated hedges.

In many instances, hedging is a return detractor. The trick is determining how much return you are willing to forego (premium spent and opportunity cost of that capital) in order to maintain the hedge, and how well that hedge will actually protect (or provide uncorrelated performance) when you expect it to work.

The only thing worse than foregoing return via premium spent and opportunity cost, is finding out in times of need that your hedges don’t work due to incorrect anticipation of correlation between your hedges and the exposure you are trying to hedge. That’s exactly what happened to Baupost in 1998.

Catalyst, Volatility, Expected Return, Duration

Attempting to reduce Baupost’s dependence on the equity market for future results, and the impact of equity market movement on Baupost’s results, Klarman discusses the increase of catalyst/event-driven positions (liquidations, reorganizations) within the portfolio, which are usually less dependent on the vicissitudes of the stock market for return realization.

Catalysts are a way to control volatility and better predict the expected return of portfolio holdings. Catalysts also create duration for the equity investor, such that once the catalyst occurs and returns are achieved, investors generally must find another place to redeploy the capital (or sit in cash).

Cash

Klarman called cash balances in rising markets “cement overshoes.” At mid-year 4/30/98, Baupost held ~17% of the portfolio in cash because Klarman remained confident that cash becomes more valuable as fewer and fewer investors choose to hold cash. By mid-December 1998, Baupost’s cash balance swelled to ~35% of NAV.

Risk, Opportunity Cost, Clients, Benchmark

In the face a strong bull market, Klarman cites the phenomenon of formerly risk-averse fund managers adopting the Massachusetts State Lottery slogan (“You gotta play to win”) for their investment guidelines because the biggest risk is now client firing the manager, instead of potential loss of capital.

Klarman observes the psychological reason behind this behavior: “Very few professional investors are willing to give up the joy ride of a roaring U.S. bull market to stand virtually alone against the crowd…the comfort of consensus serving as the ultimate life preserver for anyone inclined to worry about the downside. As small comfort as it may be, the fact that almost everyone will get clobbered in a market reversal makes remaining fully invested an easy relative performance decision.”

The moral of the story here: it’s not easy to stand alone against waves of public sentiment. For more on this, see Bob Rodriguez experience on the consequences of contrarian actions & behavior.

When the world is soaring, to hold large amounts of cash and spending performance units on hedges could lead to serious client-rebellion and business risk. I do not mean to imply that it’s wrong to hold cash or hedge the portfolio, merely that fund managers should be aware of possible consequences, and makes decisions accordingly.

Expected Return, Intrinsic Value

Klarman discusses how given today’s high equity market levels, future long-term returns will likely be disappointing because future returns have been accelerated into the present and recent past.

Future returns are a function of asset price vs. intrinsic value. The higher prices rise (even if you already own the asset), the lower future returns will be (assuming price is rising faster than asset intrinsic value growth). For a far more eloquent explanation, see Howard Mark’s discussion of this concept. 

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?

Mauboussin on Position Sizing

Below are excerpts from an article written by Michael Mauboussin in 2006 on the importance of position sizing (Size Matters). For fans of the Kelly formula, this is a must-read. Mauboussin highlights a few very important flaws of the Kelly formula when applied to our imperfect, non-normally distributed world of investing. Sizing, Diversification

“To suppose that safety-first consists in having a small gamble in a large number of different [companies] where I have no information to reach a good judgment, as compared with a substantial stake in a company where one’s information is adequate, strikes me as a travesty of investment policy. -- John Maynard Keynes, Letter to F.C. Scott, February 6, 1942”

“As an investor, maximizing wealth over time requires you to do two things: find situations where you have an analytical edge; and allocate the appropriate amount of capital when you do have an edge. While Wall Street dedicates a substantial percentage of time and effort trying to gain an edge, very few portfolio managers understand how to size their positions to maximize long-term wealth.”

“Position size is extremely important in determining equity portfolio returns. Two portfolio managers with the same list and number of stocks can generate meaningfully different results based on how they allocate the capital among the stocks. Great investors don’t stop with finding attractive investment opportunities; they know how to take maximum advantage of the opportunities. As Charlie Munger says, good investing combines patience and aggressive opportunism.”

This is consistent with my belief that investors can differentiate himself/herself from the pack by going beyond security selection, and applying superior portfolio management tactics.

Sizing, Expected Return, Fat Tails, Compounding, Correlation

“We can express the Kelly formula a number of ways. We’ll follow Poundstone’s exposition: Edge / Odds = F

Here, edge is the expected value of the financial proposition, odds reflect the market’s expectation for how much you win if you win, and F represents the percentage of your bankroll you should bet. Note that in an efficient market, there is no edge because the odds accurately represent the probabilities of success. Hence, bets based on the market’s information have zero expected value (this before the costs associated with betting) and an F of zero…if there is a probability of loss, even with a positive expected value economic proposition, betting too much reduces your expected wealth.”

"Though basic, this illustration draws out two crucial points for investors of all stripes: • An intelligent investor needs an edge (a view different than that of the market); and • An investor needs to properly allocate capital to maximize value when an investment idea does appear."

“In the stock market an investor faces many more outcomes than a gambler in a casino…Know the distribution. Long-term stock market investing differs from casino games, or even trading, because outcomes vary much more than a simple model suggests. Any practical money management system faces the challenge of correcting for more complicated real-world distributions. Substantial empirical evidence shows that stock price changes do not fall along a normal distribution. Actual distributions contain many more small change observations and many more large moves than the simple distribution predicts. These tails play a meaningful role in shaping total returns for assets, and can be a cause of substantial financial pain for investors who do not anticipate them.”

“…the central message for investors is that standard mean/variance analysis does not deal with the compounding of investments. If you seek to compound your wealth, then maximizing geometric returns should be front and center in your thinking…For a geometric mean maximization system to work, an investor has to participate in the markets over the long term. In addition, the portfolio manager must be able to systematically identify investment edges—points of view different than that of the market and with higher expected returns. Finally, since by definition not all market participants can have an edge, not all investors can use a Kelly system. In fact, most financial economists believe markets to be efficient. For them, a discussion of optimal betting strategy is moot because no one can systematically gain edges.”

Notice in order for the Kelly Formula to work effectively, the devil (as usual) lies in the details. Get the odds wrong, or get the edge wrong, the sizing allocation will be wrong, which can reduce your expected wealth.

Another question that I’ve been pondered is how the Kelly formula/criterion accounts for correlation between bets. Unlike casino gambling, probability outcomes in investing are often not independent events.

Psychology, Volatility

“The higher the percentage of your bankroll you bet (f from the Kelly formula) the larger your drawdowns.

Another important lesson from prospect theory—and a departure from standard utility theory—is individuals are loss averse. Specifically, people regret losses roughly two to two and a half times more than similar-sized gains. Naturally, the longer the holding period in the stock market the higher the probability of a positive return because stocks, in aggregate, have a positive expected value. Loss aversion can lead investors to suboptimal decisions, including the well-documented disposition effect.

Investors checking their portfolios frequently, especially volatile portfolios, are likely to suffer from myopic loss aversion. The key point is that a Kelly system, which requires a long-term perspective to be effective, is inherently very difficult for investors to deal with psychologically.”

“Applying the Kelly Criterion is hard psychologically. Assuming you do have an investment edge and a long-term horizon, applying the Kelly system is still hard because of loss aversion. Most investors face institutional and psychological constraints in applying a Kelly-type system.”

Monkeys & Team Management

The following video perfectly explains why (the perception of) fairness matters, and the degree to which fairness is built into our DNAs. Given the reaction of the monkey (compensated unfairly for task performed), this concept is pretty relevant to team management.  

http://youtu.be/-dMoK48QGL8

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.”