Baupost Letters: 2000-2001

This concludes 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 those of you wishing to read the actual letters, they are available on the internet. We are not posting them here because we don’t want to tango with the Baupost legal machine.

Volatility, Psychology

Even giants are not immune to volatility. Klarman relays the story of how Julian Robertson’s Tiger Fund closed its doors largely as a result of losses attributed to its tech positions. As consolation, Klarman offers some advice on dealing with market volatility: investors should act on the assumption that any stock or bond can trade, for a time, at any price, and never enable Mr. Market’s mood swings to lead to forced selling. Since it is impossible to predict the timing, direction and degree of price swings, investors would do well to always brace themselves for mark to market losses.

Does mentally preparing for bad outcomes help investors “do the right thing” when bad outcomes occur? 

When To Buy, When To Sell, Selectivity

Klarman outlines a few criteria that must be met in order for undervalued stocks to be of interest to him:

• Undervaluation is substantial
• There’s a catalyst to assist in the realization of that value
• Business value is stable and growing, not eroding
• Management is able and properly incentivized

Have you reviewed your selectivity standards lately? How do they compare with three years ago? For more on this topic, see our previous article on selectivity. 

Psychology, When To Buy, When To Sell

Because investing is a highly competitive activity, Klarman writes that it is not enough to simply buy securities that one considers undervalued – one must seek the reason for why something is undervalued, and why the seller is willing to part with a security/asset at a “bargain” price.

Here’s the rub: since we are human and prone to psychological biases (such as confirmation bias), we can conjure up any number of explanations for why we believe something is undervalued and convince ourselves that we have located the reason for undervaluation. It takes a great degree of cognitive discipline & self awareness to recognize and concede when you are (or could be) the patsy, and to walk away from those situations.

Risk, Expected Return, Cash

Klarman’s risk management process was not after-the-fact, it was woven into the security selection and portfolio construction process.

He sought to reduce risk on a situation by situation basis via

• in-depth fundamental analysis
• strict assessment of risk versus return
• demand for margin of safety in each holding
• event-driven focus
• ongoing monitoring of positions to enable him to react to changing market conditions or fundamental developments
• appropriate diversification by asset class, geography and security type, market hedges & out of the money put options
• willingness to hold cash when there are no compelling opportunities.

Klarman also provides a nice explanation of why undervaluation is so crucial to successful investing, as it relates to risk & expected return: “…undervaluation creates a compelling imbalance between risk and return.”

Benchmark

The investment objective of this particular Baupost Fund was capital appreciation with income was a secondary goal. It sought to achieve its objective by profiting from market inefficiencies and focusing on generating good risk-adjusted investment results over time – not by keeping up with any particular market index or benchmark. Klarman writes, “The point of investing…is not to have a great story to tell; the point of investing is to make money with limited risk.”

Investors should consider their goal or objective for a variety of reasons. Warren Buffett in the early Partnership days dedicated a good portion of one letter to the “yardstick” discussion. Howard Marks has referenced the importance of having a goal because it provides “an idea of what’s enough.”

Cash, Turnover

Klarman presents his portfolio breakdown via “buckets” not individual securities. See our article on Klarman's 1999 letter for more on the importance of this nuance. 

The portfolio allocations changed drastically between April 1999 and April 2001. High turnover is not something that we generally associate with value-oriented or fundamental investors. In fact, turnover has quite a negative connotation. But is turnover truly such a bad thing?

Munger once said that “a majority of life’s errors are caused by forgetting what one is really trying to do.”

Yes, turnover can lead to higher transaction fees and realized tax consequences. On taxes, we defer to Buffett’s wonderfully crafted treatise on his investment tax philosophy from 1964, while the onset of electronic trading has significantly decreased transaction fees (specifically for equities) in recent days.

Which leads us back to our original question: is portfolio turnover truly such a bad thing? We don’t believe so. Turnover is merely the consequence of portfolio movements triggered by any number of reasons, good (such as correcting an investment mistake, or noticing a better opportunity elsewhere) and bad (purposeful churn of the portfolio without reason). We should judge the reason for turnover, not the act of turnover itself.

Hedging, Expected Return

The Fund’s returns in one period were reduced by hedging costs of approximately 2.4%. A portfolio’s expected return is equal to the % sizing weighted average expected return of the sum of its parts (holdings or allocations). Something to keep in mind as you incur the often negative carry cost of hedging, especially in today’s low rate environment.

The Illusion That Returns Are Enough

"I believed if we delivered high double-digit returns at relatively low volatility, the rest of the business would take care of itself. I have been cured of that illusion." --Andy Redleaf, Whitebox Anyone who believes that investment acumen alone is enough to build a successful investment management business should read the article below. Excerpts are derived from Andy Redleaf's April 2014 Commentary.

“Back in 1999 when I launched Whitebox, I was determined to build an investment organization full of intellectually passionate, creative money managers who by working together would perform better than as individuals—with the side benefit of an enormously fun and stimulating place to work. We would be organized around a shared investment philosophy, driven by unconventional investment ideas, and settle disagreements by reasoned argument and persuasion, not reversion to status and testosterone wars. If we had a cult it would be a cult of ideas, not of personality.

When I left Deephaven Capital Management I was in a position financially to do pretty much what I liked, including going back to what I had done for most of my career: make a nice living trading on my own account. I knew I didn’t want to do that. I liked coming up with investment ideas; figuring out what the market was thinking and how to respond, but I didn’t like doing those things alone. I wanted camaraderie. I wanted the stimulation of debate and discussion with other smart people who shared my interests but who knew things I didn’t or had skills I lacked.

So I launched Whitebox as a collaborative, intellectually dynamic organization. It was always intended not as a fund but as a fund family. And it was never my intention to manage any Whitebox fund directly…I wanted to work with people who would be better fund managers than I. My job would be to articulate our investment philosophy, foster collaboration, and propose or critique investment ideas and strategies in a way that would not discourage the flow of ideas but promote it."

"That was always the Whitebox idea. Gather together outstanding managers like Rob, Jason, Paul and our about three dozen investment professionals and talk to each other for fun and business. Twenty of those professionals—myself, the three Global Strategy Heads, and 16 “Senior Portfolio Managers”—are authorized, at need, to trade on their own authority without asking anyone’s permission. Of course they rarely do except in routine matters, because discussion and collaboration is at the core of what we do...I have no data, but I’d guess the average age of senior investment people at Whitebox is on the high side for any hedge fund that has more than a handful. People stay here.

Of those 16 Senior Portfolio Managers, by the way, none of them has an independent P&L. There are firms, even successful firms, that handle talent by giving the talent a little capital, waiting a quarter to see if they lose money or make money and then firing them or giving them more capital accordingly. It’s supposed to be a ruthlessly rational way of evaluating talent, just as the market is supposed to be ruthlessly efficient. I think it is a great way to court disaster. The Hedge Fund as Band of Quasi-Independent Gun Slingers goes against everything we set out to accomplish at Whitebox. It encourages secrecy and all the bad things that come with that. It also wastes people’s brains.

Maybe Einstein orNewton needed to work in splendid solitude, but most pretty-smart people benefit from some intellectual back and forth and the mutual support of a team. Solitude especially makes no sense for an organization focused primarily on arbitraging relative value relationships often across markets or even geographies. Metcalfe’s Law says the value of the network is the square of the nodes. Whitebox is a network of professionals. Their outbound focus may be on a particular strategy or asset class—in that sense we get the benefits of specialization. But looking in or across the network, their job is to share information so that collectively the organization has a broad view of multiple market relationships.

In any case, the fact that 16 SPMs have independent trading authority gives some sense of their stature in the firm and to what extent we have succeeded in building the collaborative, non-hierarchical, principle-based and idea-driven organization we set out to build almost 15 years ago. Our approach to the Investment Committee is another example. Ninety percent of our work is done outside of our weekly meeting in daily ongoing discussion. Even in meetings we don’t vote and no one has a veto—we discuss until we reach consensus."

"When I launched Whitebox I believed if we delivered high double-digit returns at relatively low volatility, the rest of the business would take care of itself. I have been cured of that illusion.

Over the past year or so we’ve been engaged in a monumental effort—still ongoing—to strengthen everything else about the business. Doubling the size of the Marketing Group to improve the customer experience has been part of that. I think it is beginning to show. Certainly we know many of our investors better than we did a year ago, and have more frequent contact. More recently we have expanded the responsibilities of our Communication Group to work more closely with Marketing in refining the tools we use to communicate with investors and prospective investors so that they begin to know us better as well….

Since launching Whitebox nearly 15 years ago, I believe we have built a durable organization, rooted in a set of beliefs, even an ethic, that is the real source of our ongoing success. Whitebox is not just an investment company, it is an investment culture. Helping to build that is what I’d like to be known for."

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.

Elementary Worldly Wisdom - Part 3

The following is Part 3 of portfolio management highlighted extracted from a gem of a Munger speech given at USC nearly a decade ago. It’s long, but contains insights collected over many years by one of the greatest investment minds in this century. Caustically humorous (purely Munger), it is absolutely worth 20 minutes of your day between browsing ESPN and TMZ. Psychology

“…the nature of human psychology is such that you'll torture reality so that it fits your models, or at least you'll think it does…‘To the man with only a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.’”

“…the great useful model, after compound interest, is the elementary math of permutations and combinations…people can't naturally and automatically do this. If you understand elementary psychology, the reason they can't is really quite simple: The basic neural network of the brain is there through broad genetic and cultural evolution. And it's not Fermat/Pascal. It uses a very crude, shortcut-type of approximation. It's got elements of Fermat/Pascal in it. However, it's not good.

So you have to learn in a very usable way this very elementary math and use it routinely in life—just the way if you want to become a golfer, you can't use the natural swing that broad evolution gave you. You have to learn—to have a certain grip and swing in a different way to realize your full potential as a golfer.

If you don't get this elementary, but mildly unnatural, mathematics of elementary probability into your repertoire, then you go through a long life like a one-legged man in an asskicking contest. You're giving a huge advantage to everybody else.

One of the advantages of a fellow like Buffett, whom I've worked with all these years, is that he automatically thinks in terms of decision trees and the elementary math of permutations and combinations...”

“There's not a person in this room viewing the work of a very ordinary professional magician who doesn't see a lot of things happening that aren't happening and not see a lot of things happening that are happening. And the reason why is that the perceptual apparatus of man has shortcuts in it.

The brain cannot have unlimited circuitry. So someone who knows how to take advantage of those shortcuts and cause the brain to miscalculate in certain ways can cause you to see things that aren't there…your brain has a shortage of circuitry and so forth—and it's taking all kinds of little automatic shortcuts… just as a man working with a tool has to know its limitations, a man working with his cognitive apparatus has to know its limitations.”

“We are all influenced—subconsciously and to some extent consciously—by what we see others do and approve. Therefore, if everybody's buying something, we think it's better. We don't like to be the one guy who's out of step. Again, some of this is at a subconscious level and some of it isn't. Sometimes, we consciously and rationally think, "Gee, I don't know much about this. They know more than I do. Therefore, why shouldn't I follow them?"

Team Management, Psychology

“…this knowledge, by the way, can be used to control and motivate other people...”

“Personally, I've gotten so that I now use a kind of two-track analysis. First, what are the factors that really govern the interests involved, rationally considered? And second, what are the subconscious influences where the brain at a subconscious level is automatically doing these things—which by and large are useful, but which often misfunction.

One approach is rationality—the way you'd work out a bridge problem: by evaluating the real interests, the real probabilities and so forth. And the other is to evaluate the psychological factors that cause subconscious conclusions—many of which are wrong.”

“If people tell you what you really don't want to hear what's unpleasant—there's an almost automatic reaction of antipathy. You have to train yourself out of it. It isn't foredestined that you have to be this way. But you will tend to be this way if you don't think about it.

Television was dominated by one network—CBS in its early days. And Paley was a god. But he didn't like to hear what he didn't like to hear. And people soon learned that. So they told Paley only what he liked to hear. Therefore, he was soon living in a little cocoon of unreality and everything else was corrupt…You get a lot of dysfunction in a big fat, powerful place where no one will bring unwelcome reality to the boss.”

Team Management

“Carl Braun…His rule for all the Braun Company's communications was called the five W's—you had to tell who was going to do what, where, when and why. And if you wrote a letter or directive in the Braun Company telling somebody to do something, and you didn't tell him why, you could get fired. In fact, you would get fired if you did it twice.

You might ask why that is so important? Well, again that's a rule of psychology. Just as you think better if you array knowledge on a bunch of models that are basically answers to the question, why, why, why, if you always tell people why, they'll understand it better, they'll consider it more important, and they'll be more likely to comply. Even if they don't understand your reason, they'll be more likely to comply.

So there's an iron rule that just as you want to start getting worldly wisdom by asking why, why, why, in communicating with other people about everything, you want to include why, why, why. Even if it's obvious, it's wise to stick in the why.”

“The great defect of scale, of course, which makes the game interesting—so that the big people don't always win—is that as you get big, you get the bureaucracy. And with the bureaucracy comes the territoriality—which is again grounded in human nature.

And the incentives are perverse. For example, if you worked for AT&T in my day, it was a great bureaucracy. Who in the hell was really thinking about the shareholder or anything else? And in a bureaucracy, you think the work is done when it goes out of your in-basket into somebody else's in-basket. But, of course, it isn't. It's not done until AT&T delivers what it's supposed to deliver. So you get big, fat, dumb, unmotivated bureaucracies.

They also tend to become somewhat corrupt. In other words, if I've got a department and you've got a department and we kind of share power running this thing, there's sort of an unwritten rule: ‘If you won't bother me, I won't bother you and we're both happy.’ So you get layers of management and associated costs that nobody needs. Then, while people are justifying all these layers, it takes forever to get anything done. They're too slow to make decisions and nimbler people run circles around them.

The constant curse of scale is that it leads to big, dumb bureaucracy—which, of course, reaches its highest and worst form in government where the incentives are really awful. That doesn't mean we don't need governments—because we do. But it's a terrible problem to get big bureaucracies to behave. So people go to stratagems. They create little decentralized units and fancy motivation and training programs…But bureaucracy is terrible.... And as things get very powerful and very big, you can get some really dysfunctional behavior.”

Elementary Worldly Wisdom – Part 2

The following is Part 2 of portfolio management highlights extracted from a gem of a Munger speech given at USC 20 years ago in 1994. It’s long, but contains insights collected over many years by one of the world’s greatest investment minds. Caustically humorous, purely Munger, it is absolutely worth 20 minutes of your day between browsing ESPN and TMZ. Expected Return, Selectivity, Sizing, When To Buy

“…the one thing that all those winning betters in the whole history of people who've beaten the pari-mutuel system have is quite simple: they bet very seldom… the wise ones bet heavily when the world offers them that opportunity. They bet big when they have the odds. And the rest of the time, they don't. It's just that simple.

…yet, in investment management, practically nobody operates that way…a huge majority of people have some other crazy construct in their heads. And instead of waiting for a near cinch and loading up, they apparently ascribe to the theory that if they work a little harder or hire more business school students, they'll come to know everything about everything all the time.”

“How many insights do you need? Well, I'd argue: that you don't need many in a lifetime. If you look at Berkshire Hathaway and all of its accumulated billions, the top ten insights account for most of it. And that's with a very brilliant man—Warren's a lot more able than I am and very disciplined—devoting his lifetime to it. I don't mean to say that he's only had ten insights. I'm just saying, that most of the money came from ten insights.

So you can get very remarkable investment results if you think more like a winning pari-mutuel player. Just think of it as a heavy odds-against game full of craziness with an occasional mispriced something or other. And you're probably not going to be smart enough to find thousands in a lifetime. And when you get a few, you really load up. It's just that simple…

Again, this is a concept that seems perfectly obvious to me. And to Warren it seems perfectly obvious. But this is one of the very few business classes in the U.S. where anybody will be saying so. It just isn't the conventional wisdom.

To me, it's obvious that the winner has to bet very selectively. It's been obvious to me since very early in life. I don't know why it's not obvious to very many other people.”

“…investment management…is a funny business because on a net basis, the whole investment management business together gives no value added to all buyers combined. That's the way it has to work…I think a select few—a small percentage of the investment managers—can deliver value added. But I don't think brilliance alone is enough to do it. I think that you have to have a little of this discipline of calling your shots and loading up—you want to maximize your chances of becoming one who provides above average real returns for clients over the long pull.”

“…huge advantages for an individual to get into a position where you make a few great investments and just sit back and wait: You're paying less to brokers. You're listening to less nonsense. And if it works, the governmental tax system gives you an extra 1, 2 or 3 percentage points per annum compounded.”

Tax, Compounding, When To Sell

“Another very simple effect I very seldom see discussed either by investment managers or anybody else is the effect of taxes. If you're going to buy something which compounds for 30 years at 15% per annum and you pay one 35% tax at the very end, the way that works out is that after taxes, you keep 13.3% per annum.

In contrast, if you bought the same investment, but had to pay taxes every year of 35% out of the 15% that you earned, then your return would be 15% minus 35% of 15%—or only 9.75% per year compounded. So the difference there is over 3.5%. And what 3.5% does to the numbers over long holding periods like 30 years is truly eye-opening. If you sit back for long, long stretches in great companies, you can get a huge edge from nothing but the way that income taxes work.

Even with a 10% per annum investment, paying a 35% tax at the end gives you 8.3% after taxes as an annual compounded result after 30 years. In contrast, if you pay the 35% each year instead of at the end, your annual result goes down to 6.5%. So you add nearly 2% of after-tax return per annum if you only achieve an average return by historical standards from common stock investments in companies with tiny dividend payout ratios.

…business mistakes that I've seen over a long lifetime, I would say that trying to minimize taxes too much is one of the great standard causes of really dumb mistakes. I see terrible mistakes from people being overly motivated by tax considerations.”

Diversification, Hedging

“…one of the greatest economists of the world is a substantial shareholder in Berkshire Hathaway and has been for a long time. His textbook always taught that the stock market was perfectly efficient and that nobody could beat it. But his own money went into Berkshire and made him wealthy…he hedged his bet.”

If you can hedge without negative consequences, do it. It's likely that the economist's investment in Berkshire was not public knowledge.

Elementary Worldly Wisdom - Part 1

The following are portfolio management highlights extracted from a gem of a Munger speech given at USC 20 years ago in 1994. It’s long, but contains insights collected over many years by one of the world's greatest investment minds. Caustically humorous, purely Munger, it is absolutely worth 20 minutes of your day between browsing ESPN and TMZ. Creativity

“…the first rule is that you can't really know anything if you just remember isolated facts and try and bang 'em back. If the facts don't hang together on a latticework of theory, you don't have them in a usable form.”

“The…basic approach…that Ben Graham used—much admired by Warren and me…this concept of value to a private owner...if you could take the stock price and multiply it by the number of shares and get something that was one third or less of sellout value, he would say that you've got a lot of edge going for you...

You had a huge margin of safety—as he put it—by having this big excess value going for you. But he was, by and large, operating when the world was in shell shock from the 1930s—which was the worst contraction in the English-speaking world in about 600 years...People were so shell-shocked for a long time thereafter that Ben Graham could run his Geiger counter over this detritus from the collapse of the 1930s and find things selling below their working capital per share and so on… 

…the trouble with what I call the classic Ben Graham concept is that gradually the world wised up and those real obvious bargains disappeared. You could run your Geiger counter over the rubble and it wouldn't click.

But such is the nature of people who have a hammer—to whom, as I mentioned, every problem looks like a nail that the Ben Graham followers responded by changing the calibration on their Geiger counters. In effect, they started defining a bargain in a different way. And they kept changing the definition so that they could keep doing what they'd always done. And it still worked pretty well. So the Ben Graham intellectual system was a very good one…

However, if we'd stayed with classic Graham the way Ben Graham did it, we would never have had the record we have. And that's because Graham wasn't trying to do what we did…having started out as Grahamites which, by the way, worked fine—we gradually got what I would call better insights. And we realized that some company that was selling at 2 or 3 times book value could still be a hell of a bargain because of momentums implicit in its position, sometimes combined with an unusual managerial skill plainly present in some individual or other, or some system or other.

And once we'd gotten over the hurdle of recognizing that a thing could be a bargain based on quantitative measures that would have horrified Graham, we started thinking about better businesses…Much of the first $200 or $300 million came from scrambling around with our Geiger counter. But the great bulk of the money has come from the great businesses.”

“…Berkshire Hathaway's system is adapting to the nature of the investment problem as it really is.”

So much of life consists of identifying problems and finding creative solutions. This is also true for the investment business. Yet, our industry sometimes focuses so much on complying with the rules, chasing that institutional $ allocation, that we fail to consider the rationale and why the rules came into existence in the first place. Conventionality does not equate the best approach. 

The content and knowledge featured on PM Jar is far more useful to Readers when digested and synthesized into your own mental latticeworks. Liberal interpretations are encouraged. Great and unique ideas are usually the craziest (at first).

Clients

“…the reason why we got into such idiocy in investment management is best illustrated by a story that I tell about the guy who sold fishing tackle. I asked him, ‘My God, they're purple and green. Do fish really take these lures?’ And he said, ‘Mister, I don't sell to fish.’

Investment managers are in the position of that fishing tackle salesman. They're like the guy who was selling salt to the guy who already had too much salt. And as long as the guy will buy salt, why they'll sell salt. But that isn't what ordinarily works for the buyer of investment advice.

If you invested Berkshire Hathaway-style, it would be hard to get paid as an investment manager as well as they're currently paid—because you'd be holding a block of Wal-Mart and a block of Coca-Cola and a block of something else. You'd just sit there. And the client would be getting rich. And, after a while, the client would think, ‘Why am I paying this guy half a percent a year on my wonderful passive holdings?’

So what makes sense for the investor is different from what makes sense for the manager. And, as usual in human affairs, what determines the behavior are incentives for the decision maker.”

“Most investment managers are in a game where the clients expect them to know a lot about a lot of things. We didn't have any clients who could fire us at Berkshire Hathaway. So we didn't have to be governed by any such construct.”

Clients, Volatility, Trackrecord, Benchmark

“…if you're investing for 40 years in some pension fund, what difference does it make if the path from start to finish is a little more bumpy or a little different than everybody else's so long as it's all going to work out well in the end? So what if there's a little extra volatility.

In investment management today, everybody wants not only to win, but to have a yearly outcome path that never diverges very much from a standard path except on the upside. Well, that is a very artificial, crazy construct…It's the equivalent of what Nietzsche meant when he criticized the man who had a lame leg and was proud of it. That is really hobbling yourself. Now, investment managers would say, ‘We have to be that way. That's how we're measured.’ And they may be right in terms of the way the business is now constructed. But from the viewpoint of a rational consumer, the whole system's ‘bonkers’ and draws a lot of talented people into socially useless activity.”

Mauboussin: Frequency vs. Magnitude

Our last article on the uncontrollable nature of luck was just downright depressing. To lift spirits & morale, this article showcases more comforting content on factors that are within an investor’s control. The following excerpts are extracted from a piece by Michael Mauboussin written in 2002 titled The Babe Ruth Effect - Frequency versus Magnitude. Expected Return, Sizing

Quoting Buffett from the 1989 Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting: “Take the probability of loss times the amount of possible loss from the probability of gain times the amount of possible gain. That is what we’re trying to do. It’s imperfect, but that’s what it’s all about.”

“…coming up with likely outcomes and appropriate probabilities is not an easy task…the discipline of the process compels an investor to think through how various changes in expectations for value triggers—sales, costs, and investments—affect shareholder value, as well as the likelihood of various outcomes.”

“Building a portfolio that can deliver superior performance requires that you evaluate each investment using expected value analysis. What is striking is that the leading thinkers across varied fields—including horse betting, casino gambling, and investing—all emphasize the same point.”

“…a lesson inherent in any probabilistic exercise: the frequency of correctness does not matter; it is the magnitude of correctness that matters.”

“Constantly thinking in expected value terms requires discipline and is somewhat unnatural. But the leading thinkers and practitioners from somewhat varied fields have converged on the same formula: focus not on the frequency of correctness, but on the magnitude of correctness.”

Bill Lipschutz, a currency trader featured in Jack Schwager’s book New Market Wizards advised readers that, “You have to figure out how to make money being right only 20 to 30 percent of the time.” 

Strange as this advice may seem, it is congruent with Mauboussin’s words above that “the frequency of correctness does not matter; it is the magnitude of correctness that matters.” Depending on how you translate expected return estimations into portfolio sizing decisions, it is possible to make $ profits by being “right” less than 50% of the time (by upsizing your winners), just as it is possible to lose $ capital by being “right” more than 50% of the time (by upsizing your losers).

Psychology, Expected Return, Sizing

“The reason that the lesson about expected value is universal is that all probabilistic exercises have similar features. Internalizing this lesson, on the other hand, is difficult because it runs against human nature in a very fundamental way.”

“…economic behaviors that are inconsistent with rational decision-making… people exhibit significant aversion to losses when making choices between risky outcomes, no matter how small the stakes…a loss has about two and a half times the impact of a gain of the same size. In other words, people feel a lot worse about losses of a given size than they feel good about a gain of a similar magnitude.”

“This behavioral fact means that people are a lot happier when they are right frequently. What’s interesting is that being right frequently is not necessarily consistent with an investment portfolio that outperforms its benchmark…The percentage of stocks that go up in a portfolio does not determine its performance, it is the dollar change in the portfolio. A few stocks going up or down dramatically will often have a much greater impact on portfolio performance than the batting average.”

“…we are risk adverse and avoid losses compounds the challenge for stock investors, because we shun situations where the probability of upside may be low but the expected value is attractive.”

Selectivity, When To Buy, Patience

“In the casino, you must bet every time to play. Ideally, you can bet a small amount when the odds are poor and a large sum when the odds are favorable, but you must ante to play the game. In investing, on the other hand, you need not participate when you perceive the expected value as unattractive, and you can bet aggressively when a situation appears attractive (within the constraints of an investment policy, naturally). In this way, investing is much more favorable than other games of probability.”

“Players of probabilistic games must examine lots of situations, because the “market” price is usually pretty accurate. Investors, too, must evaluate lots of situations and gather lots of information. For example, the very successful president and CEO of Geico’s capital operations, Lou Simpson, tries to read 5-8 hours a day, and trades very infrequently.”

In a June 2013 speech, Michael Price shared with an audience his approach to portfolio construction and sizing. His portfolio consists of as many as 30-70 positions (his latest 13F shows 89 positions).  Price then compares and contrasts across positions, giving him a more refined palette to discern the wheat from the chaff, and eventually sizes up the ones in which he has greater conviction. 

When To Sell, Psychology, Expected Return

“Investors must constantly look past frequencies and consider expected value. As it turns out, this is how the best performers think in all probabilistic fields. Yet in many ways it is unnatural: investors want their stocks to go up, not down. Indeed, the main practical result of prospect theory is that investors tend to sell their winners too early (satisfying the desire to be right) and hold their losers too long (in the hope that they don’t have to take a loss).”

Howard Marks' Book: Chapter 16

Continuation of portfolio management highlights from Howard Marks’ book, The Most Important Thing: Uncommon Sense for the Thoughtful Investor, Chapter 16 “The Most Important Thing Is…Appreciating the Role of Luck.” Luck, Capital Preservation

“We have to practice defensive investing, since many of the outcomes are likely to go against us. It’s more important to ensure survival under negative outcomes than it is to guarantee maximum returns under favorable ones.”

Luck, Process Over Outcome

“The investment world is not an orderly and logical place where the future can be predicted and specific actions always produce specific results. The truth is, much in investing is ruled by luck. Some may prefer to call it chance or randomness, and those words do sound more sophisticated than luck. But it comes down to the same thing: a great deal of the success of everything we do as investors will be heavily influenced by the roll of the dice.”

“Randomness (or luck) plays a huge part in life’s results, and outcomes that hinge on random events should be viewed as different from those that do not. Thus, when considering whether an investment record is likely to be repeated, it is essential to think about the role of randomness in the manager’s results, and whether the performance resulted from skill or simply being lucky.”

“Every once in a while, someone makes a risky bet on an improbable or uncertain outcome and ends up looking like a genius. But we should recognize that it happened because of luck and boldness, not skill…In the short run, a great deal of investment success can result from just being in the right place at the right time…the keys to profit are aggressiveness, timing and skill, and someone who has enough aggressiveness at the right time doesn’t need much skill.”

“…randomness contributes to (or wrecks) investment records to a degree that few people appreciate fully…We all know that when things go right, luck looks like skill. Coincidence looks like causality. A ‘lucky idiot’ looks like a skilled investor. Of course, knowing that randomness can have this effect doesn’t make it easy to distinguish between lucky investors and skillful investors.”

“Investors are right (and wrong) all the time for the ‘wrong reason’…The correctness of a decision can’t be judged from the outcome. Nevertheless, that’s how people assess it. A good decision is one that’s optimal at the time that it’s made, when the future is by definition unknown. Thus, correct decisions are often unsuccessful, and vice versa.”

“[Nassim] Taleb’s idea of ‘alternative histories’ – the other things that reasonably could have happened – is a fascinating concept, and one that is particularly relevant to investing.

Most people acknowledge the uncertainty that surrounds the future, but they feel that at least the past is known and fixed. After all, the past is history, absolute and unchanging. But Taleb points out that the things that happened are only a small subset of the things that could have happened. Thus, the fact that a stratagem or action worked – under the circumstances that unfolded – doesn’t necessarily prove the decision behind it was wise.

Maybe what ultimately made the decision a success was a completely unlikely event, something that was just at matter of luck. In that case that decision – as successful as it turned out to be – may have been unwise, and the many other histories that could have happened would have shown the error of the decision.”

“What is a good decision?…A good decision is one that a logical, intelligent and informed person would have made under the circumstance as they appeared at the time, before the outcome was known.”

“Even after the fact, it can be hard to be sure who made a good decision based on solid analysis but was penalized by a freak occurrence, and who benefited from taking a flier…past returns are easily assessed, making it easy to know who made the most profitable decision. It’s easy to confuse the two, but insightful investors must be highly conscious of the difference.

In the long run, there’s no reasonable alternative to believing that good decisions will lead to investor profits. In the short run, however, we must be stoic when they don’t.”

Luck, Historical Performance Analysis, Expected Return, Volatility

“Investment performance is what happens to a portfolio when events unfold. People pay great heed to the resulting performance, but the questions they should ask are: were the events that unfolded (and the other possibilities that didn’t unfold) truly within the ken of the portfolio manager? And what would the performance have been if other events had occurred instead? Those…are Taleb’s ‘alternative histories.’”

“…investors of the ‘I know’ school…feel it’s possible to know the future, they decide what it will look like, build portfolios designed to maximize returns under that one scenario, and largely disregard the other possibilities. The sub-optimizers of the ‘I don’t know’ school, on the other hand, put their emphasis on constructing portfolios that will do well in the scenarios they consider likely and not too poorly in the rest…

Because their approach is probabilistic, investors of the ‘I don’t know’ school understand that the outcome is largely up to the gods, and thus that the credit or blame accorded the investors – especially in the short run – should be appropriately limited.”

“Randomness alone can produce just about any outcome in the short run…market movements can easily swamp the skillfulness of the manager (or lack thereof).”

For further reading on luck and process over outcome: Howard Marks wrote an entire memo on the topic in Jan 2014 titled Getting Lucky. One of my favorite articles on this topic is from Michael Mauboussin & James Montier on Process Over Outcome. Michael Mauboussin recently wrote an entire book, The Success Equation, dedicated to untangling skill and luck. 

A Chapter from Swensen's Book

Given his reputation and the title of the book, we would be remiss not to feature excerpts from David Swensen’s Pioneering Portfolio Management. Below are portfolio construction & management highlights from Chapter 6: Portfolio Management. The manager anecdotes in this chapter are fairly interesting too, providing readers a window into how an institution (Yale/Swensen) evaluates its external managers. Portfolio Management, Risk, Expected Return

“In a world where risk correlates with return, investors hold risky assets in pursuit of returns exceeding the risk-free rate. By determining which risky assets are held and in what proportions, the asset allocation decision resides at the center of portfolio management discussions.”

“…the complexities of real-world investing drives a wedge between the easily articulated ideal and the messy reality of implementing an investment program.”

Putting aside whether you agree that risk is correlated with return, it is safe to postulate that markets are (usually) efficient enough to require investors bear some degree of risk, in the pursuit of any rate of return above the risk-free-rate. The portfolio management process involves determining which returns are worthwhile pursuing given the associated risks, and relative to the risk-free rate. However, sh*t happens (“a wedge between the easily articulated ideal and the messy reality”). So how does one navigate through the “complexities” and “messy reality” of implementation? Read on…

“Some investors pursue active management programs by cobbling together a variety of specialist managers, without understanding the sector, size, or style bets created by the more or less random portfolio construction process…Recognizing biases created in the portfolio management process allows managers to accept only those risks with expected rewards.”

“Disciplined implementation of asset allocation policies avoids altering the risk and return profile of an investment portfolio, allowing investors to accept only those active management risks expected to add value.”

“Concern about risk represents an integral part of the portfolio management process, requiring careful monitoring at the overall portfolio, asset class, and manager levels. Understanding investment and implementation risks increases the chances that an investment program will achieve its goals.”

“Unintended portfolio bets often come to light only after being directly implicated as a cause for substandard asset class performance.”

Awareness of what you own (the risks, expected return, how the holdings interact with one another, etc.) is an absolutely necessity. This concept has surfaced many times before on PM Jar, likely indicating that it is an important commonality across different investment styles and strategies.

Leverage, Expected Return, Risk, Volatility

“By magnifying investment outcomes, both good and bad, leverage fundamentally alters the risk and return characteristics of investment portfolios…leverage may expose funds to unanticipated outcomes. Inherent in certain derivatives positions, leverage lurks hidden in many portfolio, coming to the light only when investment disaster strikes.”

“Leverage appears in portfolios explicitly and implicitly. Explicit leverage involves use of borrowed funds for pursuit of investment opportunities, magnifying portfolio results, good and bad. When investment returns exceed borrowing costs, portfolios benefit from leverage. If investment returns match borrowing costs, no impact results. In cases where investment returns fail to meet borrowing costs, portfolios suffer.”

“…portfolio returns should exceed leverage costs represented by cash, the lowest expected return asset class.”

“Sensible investors employ leverage with great care, guarding against introducing materials excess risk into portfolio characteristics.”

Traditional academic leverage discussions focuses on the theoretical spread between cost of borrowed capital and what is earned through reinvestment of borrowed capital. While this spread is important to keep in mind, the actual utilization and implementation of leverage in a portfolio context is far messier that this elegant algebraic formula. There are many other articles on PM Jar discussing leverage in a portfolio context.

Leverage, Risk, Volatility, Derivatives

“Simply holding riskier-than-market equity securities leverages the portfolio…the portfolio either becomes leveraged from holding riskier assets or deleveraged from holding less risky assets. For example, the common practice of holding cash in portfolios of common stocks causes the domestic equity portfolio to be less risky than the market, effectively deleveraging returns.”

“Derivatives provide a common source of implicit leverage. Suppose an S&P 500 futures contract requires a margin deposit of 10 percent of the value of the position. If an investor holds a futures position in the domestic equity portfolio, complementing every one dollar of futures with nine dollars of cash creates a position equivalent to holding the underlying equities securities directly. If, however, the investor holds five dollars of futures and five dollars of cash, leverage causes the position to be five times as sensitive to market fluctuations.

Derivatives do not create risk per se, as they can be used to reduce risk, replicate positions, or increase risk. To continue with the S&P 500 futures example, selling futures against a portfolio of equity securities reduces risks associated with equity market exposure. Alternatively, using appropriate combinations of cash and futures creates a risk-neutral replication of the underlying securities. Finally, holding futures without adequate balancing cash positions increases market exposure and risk.”

One must tread carefully when utilizing derivatives not because they are derivatives, but because of the implicit leverage that comes with derivatives.

Liquidity

“Less liquid asset types introduce the likelihood that inability to vary exposure causes actual allocations to deviate from target levels…Since by their very nature private holdings take substantial amounts of time to buy or sell efficiently, actual portfolios usually exhibit some functional misallocation. Dealing with the over- or under-allocation resulting from illiquid positions creates a tough challenge for the thoughtful investor.”

“…rebalancing requires sale of assets experiencing relative price strength and purchase of assets experiencing relative price weakness, the immediacy of continuous rebalancing causes managers to provide liquidity to the market.”

Expected Return, Risk

“Returns from security lending activity exhibit patterns characteristic of negatively skewed distributions, along with their undesirable investment attributes. Like other types of lending activity, upside represents a fixed rate of return and repayment of principal, while downside represents a substantial or total loss. Unless offset by handsome expected rates of return, sensible investors avoid return distributions with a negative skew…negatively skewed return pattern exhibits limited upside (make a little) with substantial downside (lose a lot), representing an unattractive distribution of outcomes for investors.”

Wisdom From James Montier

I have a confession to make: I have a huge crush on James Montier. I think the feeling might be mutual (see picture below, from a signed copy of his book Value Investing: Tools and Techniques for Intelligent Investment.) Jokes aside, below are some fantastic bits from his recent essay titled “No Silver Bullets.”

Risk, Correlation

“…private equity looks very much like public equity plus leverage minus a shed load of costs…hedge funds as an ‘asset class’ look like they are doing little more than put selling! In fact, I’d even go as far as to say if you can’t work that out, you probably shouldn’t be investing; you are a danger to yourself and to others!

The trick to understanding risk factors is to realize they are nothing more than a transformation of assets. For instance, what is the ‘equity risk?’ It is defined as long equities/short cash. The ‘value’ risk factor is defined as long cheap stocks/short expensive stocks. Similarly, the ‘momentum’ risk factor is defined as long stocks that have gone up, and short stocks that have done badly. ‘Carry’ is simply long high interest rate currencies/short low rate currencies. Hopefully you have spotted the pattern here: they are all long/short combinations.”

Proper investing requires an understanding of the exact bet(s) that you are making, and correct anticipation of the inherent risks and correlated interactivity of your holdings. This means going beyond the usual asset class categorizations, and historical correlations. For example, is a public REIT investment real estate, equity, or interest rate exposure?

For further reading on this, check out this article by Andy Redleaf of Whitebox in which he discusses the importance of isolating bets so that one does not end up owning stupid things on accident. (Ironic fact: Redleaf and Montier have butted heads in the recent past on the future direction of corporate margins.)

Leverage

“…when dealing with risk factors you are implicitly letting leverage into your investment process (i.e., the long/short nature of the risk factor). This is one of the dangers of modern portfolio theory – in the classic unconstrained mean variance optimisation, leverage is seen as costless (both in implementation and in its impact upon investors)…

…leverage is far from costless from an investor’s point of view. Leverage can never turn a bad investment into a good one, but it can turn a good investment into a bad one by transforming the temporary impairment of capital (price volatility) into the permanent impairment of capital by forcing you to sell at just the wrong time. Effectively, the most dangerous feature of leverage is that it introduces path dependency into your portfolio.

Ben Graham used to talk about two different approaches to investing: the way of pricing and the way of timing. ‘By pricing we mean the endeavour to buy stocks when they are quoted below their fair value and to sell them when they rise above such value… By timing we mean the endeavour to anticipate the action of the stock market…to sell…when the course is downward.’

Of course, when following a long-only approach with a long time horizon you have to worry only about the way of pricing. That is to say, if you buy a cheap asset and it gets cheaper, assuming you have spare capital you can always buy more, and if you don’t have more capital you can simply hold the asset. However, when you start using leverage you have to worry about the way of pricing and the way of timing. You are forced to say something about the path returns will take over time, i.e., can you survive a long/short portfolio that goes against you?”

Volatility, Leverage

“As usual, Keynes was right when he noted ‘An investor who proposes to ignore near-term market fluctuations needs greater resources for safety and must not operate on so large a scale, if at all, with borrowed money.’”

Expected Return, Intrinsic Value

“...the golden rule of investing holds: ‘no asset (or strategy) is so good that it can it be purchased irrespective of the price paid.’”

“Proponents of risk parity often say one of the benefits of their approach is to be indifferent to expected returns, as if this was something to be proud of…From our perspective, nothing could be more irresponsible for an investor to say he knows nothing about expected returns. This is akin to meeting a neurosurgeon who confesses he knows nothing about the way the brain works. Actually, I’m wrong. There is something more irresponsible than not paying attention to expected returns, and that is not paying attention to expected returns and using leverage!”

Hedging, Expected Return

“…whenever you consider insurance I’ve argued you need to ask yourself the five questions below:

1. What risk are you trying to hedge?
2. Why are you hedging?
3. How will you hedge?
• Which instruments will work?
• How much will it cost?
4. From whom will you hedge?
5. How much will you hedge?”

“This is a point I have made before with respect to insurance – it is as much a value proposition as anything else you do in investment. You want insurance when it is cheap, and you don’t want it when it is expensive.”

Trackrecord, Compounding

“…one of the myths perpetuated by our industry is that there are lots of ways to generate good long-run real returns, but we believe there is really only one: buying cheap assets.”

Klarman’s Margin of Safety: Ch.13 – Part 3

This is a continuation in our series of portfolio construction & management highlights extracted from Seth Klarman’s Margin of Safety. In Chapter 13 (Portfolio Management and Trading) - Part 3 below, Klarman shares his thoughts on a number of portfolio construction and management topics such as risk management, hedging, and correlation.

Portfolio Management, Risk

“The challenge of successfully managing an investment portfolio goes beyond making a series of good individual investment decisions. Portfolio management requires paying attention to the portfolio as a whole, taking into account diversification, possible hedging strategies, and the management of portfolio cash flow. In effect, while individual investment decisions should take risk into account, portfolio management is a further means of risk reduction for investors.”

“….good portfolio management and trading are of no use when pursuing an inappropriate investment philosophy; they are of maximum value when employed in conjunction with a value-investment approach.”

Portfolio management is a “further means” of risk management.

Cash, Liquidity, Risk, Expected Return, Opportunity Cost

“When your portfolio is completely in cash, there is no risk of loss. There is also, however, no possibility of earning a high return. The tension between earning a high return, on the one hand, and avoiding risk, on the other, can run high. The appropriate balance between illiquidity and liquidity, between seeking return and limiting risk, is never easy to determine.”

Everything in investing is a double-edged sword. See Howard Marks’ words on this same topic. 

Risk, Diversification

“Even relatively safe investments entail some probability, however small, of downside risk. The deleterious effects of such improbably events can best be mitigated through prudent diversification. The number of securities that should be owned to reduce portfolio risk to an acceptable lever is not great; as few as ten to fifteen different holdings usually suffice.”

“Diversification is potentially a Trojan horse. Junk-bond-market experts have argued vociferously that a diversified portfolio of junk bonds carries little risk. Investors who believed them substituted diversity for analysis and, what’s worse, for judgment…Diversification, after all, is not how many different things you own, but how different the things you do own are in the risks they entail.”

Awhile back, we posed an interesting question to our Readers, would you ever have a 100% NAV position (assuming you cannot lever to buy/sell anything else)? And if not, what is the cutoff amount for “excessive” concentration? 

Risk, Hedging, Expected Return

“An investor’s choice among many possible hedging strategies depends on the nature of his or her underlying holdings.”

“It is not always smart to hedge. When the available return is sufficient, for example, investors should be willing to incur risk and remain unhedged. Hedges can be expensive to buy and time-consuming to maintain, and overpaying for a hedge is as poor an idea as overpaying for an investment. When the cost is reasonable, however, a hedging strategy may allow investors to take advantage of an opportunity that otherwise would be excessively risky. In the best of all worlds, an investment that has valuable hedging properties may also be an attractive investment on its own merits.”

Correlation, Volatility

“Investors in marketable securities will not have predictable annual results, however, even if they possess shares representing fractional ownership of the same company. Moreover, attractive returns earned by Heinz may not correlate with the returns achieved by investors in Heinz; the price paid for the stock, and not just business results, determines their return.”

Different types of correlation:

• portfolio returns to indices/benchmarks
• portfolio assets/securities with each other
• price performance of assets/securities with the actual underlying operating performance

Klarman’s Margin of Safety: Ch.13 – Part 2

This is a continuation in our series of portfolio construction & management highlights extracted from Seth Klarman's Margin of Safety. In Chapter 13 (Portfolio Management and Trading) - Part 2 below, Klarman shares his thoughts on the illusory nature of liquidity, and the tricky task of knowing when to sell. Liquidity, Catalyst, When To Buy, When To Sell

Liquidity can be illusory. As Louis Lowenstein has stated, ‘In the stock market, there is liquidity for the individual but not for the whole community. The distributable profits of a company are the only rewards for the community.’ In other words, while any one investor can achieve liquidity by selling to another investor, all investors taken together can only be made liquid by generally unpredictable external events such as takeover bids and corporate-share repurchases. Except for such extraordinary transactions, there must be a buyer for every seller of a security."

Liquidity is possible not only through sale of securities, but also through other events & catalysts that result in cash flowing into the portfolio. 

“In times of general market stability the liquidity of a security or class of securities can appear high. In truth liquidity is closely correlated with investment fashion. During a market panic the liquidity that seemed miles wide in the course of an upswing may turn out only to have been inches deep. Some securities that traded in high volume when they were in favor may hardly trade at all when they go out of vogue.”

“For many securities the depth of the market as well as the quoted price is an important consideration. You cannot sell, after all, in the absence of a willing buyer; the likely presence of a buyer must therefore be a factor in the decision to sell. As the president of a small firm specializing in trading illiquid over-the-counter (pink-sheet) stocks once told me: ‘You have to feed the birdies when they are hungry.’”

Historical liquidity does not equal future liquidity. Miscalculation on this front has contributed to a phenomenon eloquently described as “up the stairs, out the window” syndrome.

When To Sell, Expected Return, Risk, Opportunity Cost

“Many investors are able to spot a bargain but have a harder time knowing when to sell. One reason is the difficulty of knowing precisely what an investment is worth. An investor buys with a range of value in mind at a price that provides a considerable margin of safety. As the market price appreciates, however, that safety margin decreases; the potential return diminishes and the downside risk increases. Not knowing the exact value of the investment, it is understandable that an investor cannot be confident in the sell decision as he or she was in the purchase decision.

To deal with the difficulty of knowing when to sell, some investors create results for selling…none of these rules make good sense. Indeed, there is only one valid rule for selling: all investments are for sale at the right price…Decisions to sell, like to buy, must be based upon underlying business value. Exactly when to sell – or buy – depends on the alternative opportunities that are available…It would be foolish to hold out for an extra fraction of a point of gain in a stock selling just below underlying value when the market offers many bargains.”

Awhile ago, we featured an interview with Steve Romick of FPA discussing the sizing & dilemma of whether to sell as price moves closer, though not quite yet, to intrinsic value. Here, Klarman's comment advises investors to also take into consideration "alternative opportunities that are available" during this decision making process.

When To Buy

“In my view, investors should usually refrain from purchasing a ‘full position’ (the maximum dollar commitment they intend to make) in a given security all at once…Buying a partial position leaves reserves that permit investors to ‘average down’ lowering their average cost per share, if prices decline.

Evaluating your own willingness to average down can help you distinguish prospective investments from speculations. If the security you are considering is truly a good investment, not a speculation, you would certainly want to own more at lower prices.”

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.

Waiting For The Next Train

Following up our recent article on selectivity standards in an upward moving market, below are some comforting words (and/or coping advice) from Mariko Gordon of Daruma Capital derived from her October 2013 Newsletter. “My ruminations on regret are of the bull market variety. Whereas bear markets make me regret owning every single stock in the portfolio, bull markets make me regret every stock we flirted with but didn't buy.

Why? Because it feels like everything we looked at and passed on is up way more than what we own or bought instead. And whether we passed for stupid, the-dog-ate-my-homework reasons or because we thought the price wasn't right, this is what happens in bull markets:

...the stock gets bought out at a ridiculous premium, or ...activist shareholders announce their position the day AFTER we shut the file for good, or ...the stock simply skyrockets, just out of spite.

As the markets rise, great ideas are harder and harder to find. Everything cheap has so much "hair" on it that it makes Chewbacca look as sparse as Kojak (look him up, youngster). Sorting through the "hair" that makes the stock cheap - and therefore unattractive to other investors - is not only time-consuming, it requires the investment equivalent of a hazmat suit.

On the other hand, if a new idea has a timely and compelling investment case, it will be anything but cheap. Even if other investors haven't discovered ALL of its charms, it will be 30% higher just because of the rising tide of the market. We then hesitate to pay up - because we all know what happens when the tide goes out.

Most days, therefore, you're faced with either loading down the portfolio with broken down junk that, while cheap, doesn't represent real value and will sink further or, chasing stocks that have gone parabolic, leading to multiple compression when the inevitable market melt-down happens.

In short, bull markets make you want to grab the nearest bottle of whiskey and listen to Edith Piaf songs until the market rolls over and dies.

Here is how I keep the hounds of bull-market frustration at bay:

• I work on what look to be great businesses, regardless of valuation, figuring that one day we may get our chance.
• I look to see which insiders are buying their stocks, because most of them are now selling faster than you can say hot potato.
• I look to see where there's a management change, because maybe the force will be strong with them, and a piece-of-junk of a business will start to deliver and the stock will levitate.

And, most important of all, every day, without fail, as sacred to me as a bedtime prayer, I think of the following advice: One morning, years ago, I scrambled down the subway steps, only to find the train leaving the station, a pissed off woman cursing up a storm and a homeless guy sitting on a bench. After watching the temper tantrum unfold for a minute, the guy finally said: "Lady, relax. Trains are like men. Another one will come along."

So whenever I think of Piaf songs and of the frustration of the hot stock that got away in this bull market, I remember that patience is needed to get over those heartbreaks. Because another new idea, like trains and men, will come along soon.”

How Selective Is Too Selective?

A very smart friend and I were trading emails recently (comparing notes on a particularly hairy investment) and our conversation veered toward the issue of selectivity in an increasingly expensive and upward moving market. We reminisced about the good ol’ days (2008-2010) when fairly good businesses would trade at 5x FCF, or banks with clean balance sheets and decent ROEs were trading at 50% of book value. Whereas today, the cheap names usually come with patches of ingrown hairs. So I asked him, “Does it bother you that the market is pushing you into hairy stuff like this? Selectivity standards have obviously come down since a few years ago, but how far down are you willing to let them go?”

His answer: “I've been thinking a lot about how the market is pushing us into crappier stuff. The problem is, I think this is closer to normal. 2008 and the following years were something we get only a few times during our careers. Downturns like the summer of 2011 probably happen with more frequency. So in between, we have to figure out how to scrape together money generating ideas. I think this makes your focus on portfolio management more valuable. Portfolio construction is going to be more important.”

All too often we hear cautionary tales of selectivity & patient opportunism, but the actual implementation is far trickier. Howard Marks summed this up nicely a few months ago: “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.” 

Perhaps the take-away here is that greed can lead to sub-optimal results in both directions. Greed in keeping your selectivity standards too high can lead to the risk of returns foregone. Greed in letting your selectivity standards slip as markets & prices move higher can lead to the risk of overloading your portfolio with unmanifested-risk and future losses.

Once again, investing forces us to delicately balance two opposing forces, which brings to mind Charlie Munger's quote: "It’s not supposed to be easy. Anyone who finds it easy is stupid."

Asymmetry Revisited

Return asymmetry is a topic that emerges over and over again on PM Jar. It’s a topic that spans across investments strategies and philosophies (see the end of this article for links to previous PM Jar articles on return asymmetry). This is no coincidence – creating (positive) return asymmetry over time is the hallmark of great investors. So why is it so important to achieve positive return asymmetry (through decreasing the number of left tail / negative return occurrences)? Because positive return asymmetry saves investors from wasting valuable time and effort digging out of the negative return hole (compounding math is not symmetric: losing 50% in one period requires gaining 100% in the next period just to breakeven). This holds true for all investors, regardless of investment strategy and philosophy, hence why the theme of return asymmetry comes up so often.

Our last article on Howard Marks discussing the ability of a fund manager to outperform and add-value by reducing risk reminded me of article that a kind Reader sent me earlier this summer (Comgest Commentary 2013 July) in which the author describes with refreshing clarity the importance of creating positive return asymmetry and the interplay between compounding, capital preservation, and risk management. Compounding, Capital Preservation, Trackrecord

“The Asymmetry of Returns Dictates the Compounding of Returns:

Berkshire Hathaway CEO and legendary investor Warren Buffett is often quoted as saying, “Rule No.1: Never lose money. Rule No. 2: Never forget rule No. 1.” But why are these the most important two (well, one) rules of investing? The answer lies in the inherent asymmetry of returns, which is the basis for how returns compound over time.

If you start with $100 and subsequently gain 10% and then lose 10%, it may be surprising that you don’t end up back with the same $100 you had at the beginning. The reason is that your 10% loss hurt more, because it came off the larger asset base you had after your 10% gain. In sequence: $100 → gain 10% ($10) → $110 → lose 10% ($11) → $99. You can reverse the order of the gain and loss and the end result is still the same: $100 → $90 → $99, where your percentage loss is still based on a higher amount of capital than is your percentage gain. The end result is a net loss of 1%, hence the asymmetry – gains and losses of equal percentages have different impacts. As your returns swings get larger, this effect becomes more pronounced. For instance, starting with $100 and then gaining/losing 20% leaves you with a net loss of 4%, while gaining/losing 50% leaves you with a net loss of 25%. At the extreme, gaining/losing 100% leaves you with a net loss of 100% – all your capital, resulting on complete ruin. It doesn’t matter what any of the other payoffs are for someone who at any one point loses his or her entire bankroll.

Another way to look at this is to see what kind of return is necessary to get back to even after a loss. If you lose 10%, you need an 11% gain to get back to even. If you lose 20%, you need a 25% gain to close the gap. Losing 50% requires a doubling of your money, while losing 90% means you need a 900% return (!) to compensate. While 100% losses are rare in equity portfolios and thus true ruin is unlikely, this exercise shows how large losses cripple the long-term returns of a portfolio.”

“...the goal is to avoid an 'extinction' event, which I’ve put in quotes because extinction for an investment portfolio doesn’t only mean complete disappearance. It can also be seen as irreparable damage to a long-term track record.”

Risk

“Risk Management and Higher Math Are Not Natural Partners:

…The prevailing view of risk management in today’s investment world seems to be that it must be done with a lot of math and only a set of numbers, preferably from a complicated model, can describe an approach to risk. That’s just not how we see it. Instead, we think understanding the companies’ profitability characteristics is a far more effective way to understand the risk embedded in a portfolio. We side with James Montier, who wrote, “The obsession with the quantification of risk (beta, standard deviation, VaR) has replaced a more fundamental, intuitive, and important approach to the subject. Risk clearly isn’t a number. It is a multifaceted concept, and it is foolhardy to try to reduce it to a single figure.” Even the revered father of modern security analysis, Benjamin Graham, tips his cap to a more fundamental and less market-price-driven approach to risk: “Real investment risk is measured… by the danger of a loss of quality and earnings power through economic changes or deterioration in management.” It’s important to realize that our view of risk is at the fundamental security level, while standard industry risk models start from price volatility and covariance matrices, which are market-level inputs. In other words, we focus on what’s happening in the business, not what’s going on in the market, to understand risk. We think that our approach to risk management, that of decreasing the left tail of the distribution of potential outcomes by buying quality stocks is a more time-tested approach that runs a far lower risk of model specification error.”

In case you'd like some related reading, here is what Howard Marks, Stanley Druckenmiller, Warren Buffett, and others have said about return asymmetry.

Howard Marks' Book: Chapter 15

Continuation of portfolio management highlights from Howard Marks’ book, The Most Important Thing: Uncommon Sense for the Thoughtful Investor, Chapter 15 “The Most Important Thing Is…Having a Sense for Where We Stand.” Cash, Risk, Opportunity Cost

“The period from 2004 through the middle of 2007 presented investors with one of the greatest opportunities to outperform by reducing their risk, if only they were perceptive enough to recognize what was going on and confident enough to act…Contrarian investors who had cut their risk and otherwise prepared during the lead-up to the crisis lost less in the 2008 meltdown and were best positioned to take advantage of the vast bargains it created.”

The quote above highlights a concept not given enough attention within the investment management industry – a fund manager’s ability to generate outperformance (versus a benchmark or on an absolute basis) derives not only from his/her ability to capture upside return, but also by avoiding downside loss!

Marks’ comment that some investors were “best positioned to take advantage” of newly available bargains reminds us of an interesting theoretical discussion on the value of cash, which it is based on not only what you can earn or purchase with it today, but also on what you can potentially purchase with it in the future. Jim Leitner, a former Yale Endowment Committee Member summarizes this concept best: “…we tend to ignore the inherent opportunity costs associated with a lack of cash…cash affords you flexibility…allocate that cash when attractive opportunities arise…When other assets have negative return forecast…there is no reason to not hold a low return cash portfolio…The correct way to measure the return on cash is more dynamic: cash is bound on the lower side by its actual return, whereas, the upper side possesses an additional element of positive return received from having the ability to take advantage of unique opportunities…Holding cash when markets are cheap is expensive, and holding cash when markets are expensive is cheap.”

Expected Return

“The seven scariest words in the world for the thoughtful investor – too much money chasing too few deals…You can tell when too much money is competing to be deployed…

…It helps to think of money as a commodity…Everyone’s money is pretty much the same. Yet institutions seeking to add to loan volume, and private equity funds and hedge funds seeking to increase their fees, all want to move more of it. So if you want to place more money – that is, get people to go to you instead of your competitors for their financing – you have to make your money cheaper.

One way to lower the price for your money is by reducing the interest rate you charge on loans. A slightly more subtle way is to agree to a higher price for the thing you’re buying, such as by paying a higher price/earnings ratio for a common stock or a higher total transaction price when you’re buying a company. Any way you slice it, you’re settling for a lower prospective return.”

The future expected return of any asset is a direct function of the price that you pay combined with the economic return potential of that asset.

Psychology, Risk, When To Buy, When To Sell

“…even if we can’t predict the timing and extent of cyclical fluctuations, it’s essential that we strive to ascertain where we stand in cyclical terms and act accordingly.”

“If we are alert and perceptive, we can gauge the behavior of those around us and from that judge what we should do. The essential ingredient here is inference, one of my favorite words. Everyone sees what happens each day, as reported in the media, But how many people make an effort to understand what those everyday events say about the psyches of market participants, the investment climate, and thus what we should do in response? Simply put, we must strive to understand the implications of what’s going on around us. When others are recklessly confident and buying aggressively, we should be highly cautious; when others are frightened into inaction or panic selling, we should become aggressive.”

“There are few fields in which decisions as to strategies and tactics aren’t influenced by what we see in the environment. Our pressure on the gas pedal varies depending on whether the road is empty or crowded. The golfer’s choice of club depends on the wind. Our decisions regarding outerwear certainly varies with the weather. Shouldn’t our investment actions be equally affected by the investing climate?”

An Anecdotal Gem

The following anecdote comes from WkndNotes by Eric Peters (a treasure trove of humor and investment insight) and touches upon Tesla. Our readers know that PM Jar does not discuss ideas, and we have no intention of jumping into the Tesla debate or to declare ourselves Musk-lovers. The reason why we are showcasing this excerpt is because reading it, especially the last sentence, struck a chord. Enjoy. " 'Driverless electric Tesla’s, powered by Google, dispatched by Uber will shuttle people around continuously – the technology already exists, this future is inevitable,' explained the brilliant macro CIO, basking in California’s bright sunlight, whisking me 20yrs forward. Of course, regulations need to catch up. They will. 'And annual car sales will collapse from today’s 100mm pace to just 20mm.' You see automobiles are driven only 3% of the time, meaning the world needs far fewer once we harness technology to utilize them more efficiently, continuously. 'In that future, with Tesla as the world’s #2 auto company, it’ll be worth $100bln versus today’s $20bln market cap.' He’s owned Tesla for years, but is now nearly flat, waiting for a pull back. 'Most buyers today think it will be another BMW and with that rather modest ambition, it’s now aggressively priced.' Anyhow, the world is changing rapidly. Accelerating. So equity investors clamor to buy disruptive companies that’ll shape it, drive it. 'Maynard Keynes said in 100yrs, people will need to work 4hrs per week to meet their needs, and here we are.' Naturally, the growth in our 'needs' has far outpaced productivity gains. So we’re working harder than ever. But a radically new phase has begun, where robotics dominate production, services too. Thus the owners of capital and machines will accumulate vastly disproportionate wealth, while the middle class sinks. The poor drown. And governments race to redistribute or face riots, revolution. 'Viewed in this context, Obama-care was inevitable.' So I asked what theme most interests him. You see, he’s developed a series of simple rules to identify errors people make in their investment theses. 'I’m looking for opportunities in areas distorted by people who are afraid of change, yearning for things that are simply never coming back.' "

Baupost Letters: 1999

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.

Sizing, Catalyst, Expected Return, Hurdle Rate, Cash, Hedging, Correlation, Diversification

In the 1999 letter, Klarman breaks down the portfolio, which consists of the following components:

1. Cash (~42% of NAV) – dry powder, available to take advantage of bargains if/when available
2. Public & Private Investments (~25% of NAV) – investments with strong catalysts for partial or complete realization of underlying value (bankruptcies, restructurings, liquidations, breakups, asset sales, etc.), purchased with expected return of 15-20%+, likelihood of success dependent upon outcome of each situation and less on the general stock market movement. This category is generally uncorrelated with markets.
3. Deeply Undervalued Securities – investments with no strong catalyst for value realization, purchased at discounts of 30-50% or more below estimated asset value. “No strong catalyst” doesn’t mean “no catalyst.” Many of the investments in this category had ongoing share repurchase programs and/or insider buying, but these only offered modest protection from market volatility. Therefore this category is generally correlated with markets.
4. Hedges (~1% NAV)

Often, investments are moved between category 2 and 3, as catalyst(s) emerge or disappear.

This portfolio construction approach is similar to Buffett’s approach during the Partnership days (see our 1961 Part 3 article for portfolio construction parallels). Perhaps Klarman drew inspiration from the classic Buffett letters. Or perhaps Klarman arrived at this approach independently because the “bucket” method to portfolio construction is quite logical, allowing the portfolio manager to breakdown the attributes (volatility, correlation, catalysts, underlying risks, etc.) and return contribution of each bucket to the overall portfolio.

Klarman also writes that few positions in the portfolio exceed 5% of NAV in the “recent” years around 1999. This may imply that the portfolio is relatively diversified, but does lower sizing as % of NAV truly equate to diversification? (Regular readers know from previous articles that correlation significantly impacts the level of portfolio diversification vs. concentration of a portfolio.) One could make the case that the portfolio buckets outlined above are another form of sizing – a slight twist on the usual sizing of individual ideas and securities – because the investments in each bucket may contain correlated underlying characteristics. 

Duration, Catalyst

Klarman reminds his investors that stocks are perpetuities, and have no maturity dates. However, by investing in stocks with catalysts, he creates some degree of duration in a portfolio that would otherwise have infinite duration. In other words, catalysts change the duration of equity portfolios.

Momentum

Vicious Cycle = protracted underperformance causes disappointed holder to sell, which in turn produces illiquidity and price declines, prompting greater underperformance triggering a  new wave of selling. This was true for small-cap fund managers and their holdings during 1999 as small-cap underperformed, experienced outflows, which triggered more selling and consequent underperformance. The virtuous cycle is the exact opposite of this phenomenon, where capital flows into strongly performing names & sectors.

Klarman’s commentary indirectly hints at the hypothesis that momentum is a by-product of investors’ psychological tendency to chase performance.

Risk, Psychology

Klarman writes that financial markets have been so good for so long that fear of market risk has completely evaporated, and the risk tolerance of average investors has greatly increased. People who used to invest in CDs now hold a portfolio of growth stocks. The explanation of this phenomenon lies in human nature’s inability to comprehend that we may not know everything, and an unwillingness to believe that everything can change on a dime.

This dovetails nicely with Howard Mark’s notion of the ‘perversity of risk’:

“The ultimate irony lies in the fact that the reward for taking incremental risk shrinks as more people move to take it. Thus, the market is not a static arena in which investors operate. It is responsive, shaped by investors’ own behavior. Their increasing confidence creates more that they should worry about, just as their rising fear and risk aversion combine to widen risk premiums at the same time as they reduce risk. I call this the ‘perversity of risk.’”

When To Buy, Psychology

Klarman writes that one should never be “blindly contrarian” and simply buy whatever is out of favor believing it will be restored because often investments are disfavored for good reason. It is also important to gauge the psychology of other investors – e.g., how far along is the current trend, what are the forces driving it, how much further does it have to go? Being early is synonymous to being wrong. Contrarian investors should develop an understanding of the psychology of sellers. Sourcing

When sourcing ideas, Baupost employs no rigid formulas because Klarman believes that flexibility improves one’s prospectus for returns with limited risk.

Bob Rodriguez’s Diversification Experiment

Below are some portfolio management highlights from a recent interview (July 2013) with Bob Rodriguez and Dennis Bryan of First Pacific Advisors in Value Investor Insight. Especially intriguing is Bob’s description of his ongoing experiment related to the effects of diversification on portfolio returns.

Diversification, Sizing, Volatility

“Your portfolio today has fewer than 30 positions. Is that typical?

DB: Generally speaking, we have 20 to 40 positions, with 40-50% of the portfolio in the top ten. That level of concentration is simply a function of wanting every position to potentially be a difference maker. Philosophically we would have no problem with concentrating even more, but clients often have a problem with the volatility that comes with having fewer holdings.

RR: I actually have an experiment going on this front since June 30, 1984. I have an IRA account that was set up then and over that period has only been invested in stocks that the Capital Fund has owned, but with never more than five holdings at a time. I’ll buy a stock only after the fund buys it and sell only after the fund sells it. From June 30, 1984 to December 31, 2009, when I stepped down from lead management, the Capital Fund had compounded at approximately 15% per year. But this IRA account had a compound rate of return of 24%. I attribute that premium to the higher concentration and to the fact that at no point has this account been affected by the inflows and outflows resulting from others’ emotional decision making. I was the only investor.”

Turnover

“Does the effort to avoid emotional decision-making explain the Capital Fund’s relatively low turnover?

RR: The turnover ratio has averaged 20% since 1986. Part of that is a function of investing with a long time horizon in companies that don’t get better or realize hidden value overnight. Sticking with your conviction in such cases can certainly require patience and discipline that many investors might not have. Low turnover is also related to the fact that we’re slow to transition from companies we own and know intimately to those whose stocks we’re looking to buy and don’t know as well. There’s a transition risk there that we usually address by taking a long time to both scale into something as well as to scale out of it.”

Cash, Liquidity

“Right now we believe the stimulus of lower interest rates has propped up the economy, which props up profits, which props up stock prices. So in our modeling work we’re not taking today as “normal” and going from there. We’re building in the potential impact of interest rates rising, say, and the resulting lower level of economic activity. That type of conservatism in setting our intrinsic values explains why we have 30% of the portfolio today in cash.

RR: You don’t know the value of liquidity until you need it and don’t have it. That’s when people are selling what they can, not what they want to…People today say, “I can’t afford to earn zero return on my cash.” But if you’re a contrarian value investor, you should be used to deploying capital into an area that no one loves and where the consensus can’t understand why anyone in his or her right mind would invest. I would argue that is how people are thinking about holding cash today, which makes us glad we have it.”