Amateur Athletics

This post spans two topics I love - finance and sports- and what triggered it was the hullabaloo over Cam Newton, Auburn's quarterback, and the purported attempts by his father to extract money from Auburn. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) will be the ultimate arbiter on whether rules were broken and the penalties that will follow, but this entire debate about college sports strikes me as hypocrisy of the highest order.

Let us start with basic facts. College sports in the United States is big business and big money, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues for the big name colleges, the television networks and bookmakers. I got my MBA and Phd at UCLA and I know that no faculty member at UCLA brought in a fraction of the revenues that the UCLA basketball coach did and none was as widely recognized in campus. In college football, Auburn is ranked second in the country and could very well be playing for a national championship this year. The New York Times has an article on the impact that Cam Newton at quarterback has had on Auburn's economics:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/weekinreview/14belson.html


Here comes the hypocrisy. The NCAA likes to maintain the illusion that college sports is not  business and that college players are amateurs. While this may in fact be true for most athletes at second and third tier schools, playing lower profile sports, it is certainly not true for college football and basketball at Division I schools. The NCAA then has rigid rules on what college players can receive in return for playing their sports: not only can they not get monetary gifts from the school but the ban extends to cover the most trivial of gifts. From an economic standpoint, this strikes me as a modern version of indentured servitude. If you are a superb basketball or football player, you have to play for a college of your choice (that is the NCAA's concession to free choice) for nothing, before you can play professional football or basketball. The colleges and the networks make millions but the players (who are the stars of the system) get scholarships, worth a few thousands and risk career ending injuries while doing so.

As I watch the "amateur" label debated in college athletics, I am reminded of similar debates that occurred in tennis and the Olympics. For decades, we kept our best tennis players out of the big tournaments in the interests of maintaining the illusion that these tournaments were just for amateurs; I can only imagine how many Wimbledons that Rod Laver would have won, if he had been allowed to play in his prime. For decades, the Olympics forced great sprinters and athletes to pick between being champions and making a living, before bowing to the reality that you cannot win the 100M by practicing just on weekends.
Don't get me wrong. I love college sports, but I think it is time to strip the hypocrisy out. My proposal is that we create two classes of college athletes: The first would be "student athletes", who get scholarships, but focus on taking classes (regular classes, not Mickey Mouse ones) like other students and get college degrees. Some of them may find that they are good enough to become professional, but most of them will play college sports and then move on to bigger and better things in life. The second would be "semi-pro" athletes, who will be allowed to earn an income (we can put caps on the income and restrict what colleges can pay, if need be) while they played and earn money from advertisements and sponsorships. They would be required to be visible on campuses and allowed to take classes, if they choose to.  Colleges would also be required to set aside a portion of their revenues to cover the health and personal costs incurred by college athletes. I think I would still enjoy watching UCLA play basketball... while knowing that the Bruins on the court are making a reasonable living while playing the game.

Read More

The secret to investment success: Self Awareness?

I know that there are many who claim to have found the secret ingredient to investment success, though few actually deliver. However, I want to present an unconventional ingredient that I think most academics and practitioners miss when they talk about investment strategies: your personal make-up as an individual.

In one of my books, Investment Philosophies, I start with a puzzle. There are many different investment philosophies out there and they range the spectrum both in the tools they use (charts for some, fundamental analysis for others..) and their views on markets (markets learn too slowly, markets over react). In fact, some of these philosophies directly contradict others. But there are two puzzles. The first is that there are a few investors within each philosophy who have succeeded in using that philosophy to great effect over their lifetimes: there have been successful technical analysis, value investors, growth investors and market timers over the last few decades. The second is that within each philosophy, success seems to be elusive for most of those who try to imitate the Warren Buffets and Peter Lynchs of the world.

My explanation for the puzzle. Every investment philosophy works but only for some investors and not all of the time, even for them. Each investment philosophy requires a perfect storm to succeed: not only do the times and circumstances have to be right for the philosophy but the investors using it have to be psychologically attuned to the philosophy.

Consider, for instance, the investment philosophy that many argue is the best (or at least the most virtuous) investment philosophy for all investors. Good investors, they claim, invest long term in companies that are fundamentally under valued, usually in the face of market selling. Here is the problem. The strategy sounds good and makes money on paper but requires three ingredients from investors for success: a long time horizon, a strong stomach and a willingness to go against the grain. If you are an impatient investor, who has a worry gene and care about peer pressure, adopting this strategy will be a recipe for disaster. Not only will you end up abandon your investments well before they pay off, you will make yourself miserable (and physically sick) in the meantime. For this investor, a short term momentum strategy makes a lot more sense.

As you think about what investment philosophy is right for you, here are some things about yourself that you may want to think about:
1. Are you a patient or impatient person?
2. How do you respond to peer pressure?
3. Are you a "worrier"?
4. Are you a details person or a big picture person?
A little self introspection will pay off much more than investing your money in another "get rich quickly" book or investnebt  idek, 

Ultimately, what I am arguing is that there is no one best investment philosophy that works for all investors. The right investment philosophy for you will depend upon your time horizon as an individual and what you believe about how markets make mistakes. In the table below, I list the investment philosophy that fits best given your time horizon and views on the market:

	Momentum	Contrarian	Opportunisitic
Short term (days to a few weeks)	·      Technical momentum indicators – Buy stocks based upon trend lines and high trading volume. ·      Information trading: Buying after positive news (earnings and dividend announcements, acquisition announcements)	·      Technical contrarian indicators – mutual fund holdings, short interest. These can be for individual stocks or for overall market.	·      Pure arbitrage in derivatives and fixed income markets. ·      Tehnical demand indicators – Patterns in prices such as head and shoulders.
Medium term (few months to a couple of years)	·      Relative strength: Buy stocks that have gone up in the last few months. ·      Information trading: Buy small cap stocks with substantial insider buying.	·      Market timing, based upon normal PE or normal range of interest rates. ·      Information trading: Buying after bad news (buying a week after bad earnings reports and holding for a few months)	·      Near arbitrage opportunities: Buying discounted closed end funds ·      Speculative arbitrage opportunities: Buying paired stocks and merger arbitrage.
Long Term (several years)	·      Passive growth investing: Buying stocks where growth trades at a reasonable price (PEG ratios).	·      Passive value investing: Buy stocks with low PE, PBV or PS ratios. ·      Contrarian value investing: Buying losers or stocks with lots of bad news.	·      Active growth investing: Take stakes in small, growth companies (private equity and venture capital investing) ·      Activist value investing: Buy stocks in poorly managed companies and push for change.

Read More

QE2 or the Titanic?

The big news of the moment (other than the election) is the Fed's decision to inject $ 600 billion into the economy, as a monetary stimulus to get the US out of a recession. Here is Bernanke's rationale:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR2010110307372.html

Will it work? For a monetary stimulus to actually stimulate the economy, it has to change how consumers behave. Since consumers do not get any of the cash directly, the only instrument that the Fed can hope to affect is interest rates. In theory, the monetary stimulus will push down interest rates and thus unleash more borrowing by consumers and companies. I see four problems:

1. Level of interest rates: If short term rates were 5% and long term rates were 7%, I can see the potential for lower interest rates inducing more borrowing and higher consumption. But short term rates are already close to zero and long term rates are at historic lows. If people are not borrowing money at 4% (long term mortgage rates are down to that), what makes the Fed think that a 3.5% rate will induce them to do so? As for companies borrowing money, why should they when they are sitting on huge cash balances?

2. Existing leverage: The average US household already has too much debt, some of it reflecting a hang over from excessive credit card and other borrowing in the good times and a great deal of it a result of the housing boom and bust. Assuming QE2 works, is it a good idea to induce consumers to borrow more? It may create some short term growth, but are we not setting ourselves up for the next bubble bursting?

3. Inflation fears: The power of monetary stimulus rests on the credibility of the central bank. If investors trust the central bank to keep inflation in check in the long term, they will respond to the stimulus by lowering interest rates. If, on the other hand, that trust is lost, a stimulus can actually be counter productive. The pumping of money into a system that is already flush with cash and facing potential deficits down the road will raise the inflation bogeyman, which in turn will push up interest rates. I am not convinced by Bernanke's twin rejoinders: that existing inflation is very low and that the last stimulus did not create inflation. That was because the last stimulus did not work. If this one does, then what?

4. Currency devaluation: Related to inflation fears is the effect on the US dollar, which has been under selling pressure for a while. A dollar devaluation will also make imported goods more expensive in the US, and given the trade deficit, that has to feed into price increases in the future.

Having listed these concerns, I must confess I am not a macro economist (and have no desire to be part of that crew). The Fed presumably has access to "experts", who have thought through all of these issues and decided that the benefits overwhelm the costs. At least, I hope so...

I don't know about you, but I am starting to wonder about these multiple stimuli. Using the analogy of the emergency room,  those electric paddles used to shock a faltering heart back into a rhythm are a godsend for someone with cardiac arrhythmia, but I also know that they sometimes do not work. That is when the cardiac surgeon is called in for more radical remedies or worse. To stimulate the US economy, we tried QE1 and it did not work, we tried FS1 (Fiscal Stimulus 1) and it did not work either. Now we are trying QE2  and if we listen to Paul Krugman (who must be having seances with Keynes every night), we should try mega FS2 next...Perhaps, it is time to accept the reality that there is something fundamentally wrong with the economy that stimuli will not fix. And perhaps, it is time to call in the surgeons! (Let's not even think about the other alternative)

And for those of you who may be wondering about the title of this post, here is the original QE2.

Read More

Nassim Taleb and the Nobel Committee

I just read this article, where Nassim Taleb, who seems to have taken on the mantle of the "anti-theorist" in finance, argues that the Nobel committee should be sued for giving the prize to Harry Markowitz, Bill Sharpe and Merton Miller.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-08/taleb-says-crisis-makes-nobel-panel-liable-for-legitimizing-economists.html
Taleb has written a few books, "Fooled by Randomness" and "The Black Swan", which have brought him acclaim and his warnings seem to have been borne out by the recent crises. (I have put down my thoughts about these books in an earlier blog post.) I think he badly misplays his hand by arguing that Markowitz, Sharpe and Miller are to blame for the excesses in financial markets. In fact, let's take each of their contributions to finance and put them to the test:

a. Let's start with Merton Miller, who was the oddest target of all. (Perhaps, the story got the name wrong and Taleb really blamed Bob Merton, not Merton Miller...) Miller and Modigliani argued that great firms acquire that status by taking good investments (that generate higher returns than it costs them to raise capital), and that finessing capital structure or messing with dividend or buyback policy adds little or no value at the margin. Since much of the advice and deal making in Wall Street is directed towards capital structure solutions (recaps, leveraged transactions) and dividend policy (buybacks, special dividends), it would seem to me that what corporate finance departments at investment banks do is in direct violation of what Miller would have propounded.

b. How about Markowitz? The singular contribution to finance that Markowitz made to finance was his recognition that the risk in the investment has to be measured as the risk it adds to a portfolio rather than the risk of it standing alone. In effect, his work is a statistical proof that diversification eliminates a significant portion of risk in investments. It is true that he worked in a simplified world where an investment's worth is measured on only two dimension - the expected return (which is good) and standard deviation (which is bad), but his conclusion that diversification reduces risk would hold with any of the distributions that Taleb claims are more realistic descriptions of investment behavior. The mean-variance framework has been critiqued and adapted from within and without the discipline for forty years, starting with Mandelbrot in the 1960s and continuing through to the behavioral economists today. Perhaps, you can indirectly critique the dependence on the normal distribution for the failure of risk management systems such as VaR, but that is na stretch.

c. Bill Sharpe is targeted for his role in the development of the CAPM. Let's face it. Betas and the CAPM have become the whipping boys for everything that goes wrong on Wall Street! That's right. It was beta that drove the creation of those mortgage backed securities. And those homeowners who were borrowing up to the hilt and buying houses they could not afford.. The fault lay in their "betas" and not in them...

I have been with and around traders and investment bankers for much of the last three decades and most of them are too busy to obsess about financial theory. There are a few rogue bankers who think that they are smarter than everyone else, have contempt for the average individual and believe that they can create wealth out of nothing. They are not believers in efficient markets (how can they, if their success depends on claiming to find market inefficiencies?) and have little time for betas or mean-variance theory (in their view, these are abstractions, when deals and trades make money). In short, they are nothing like Miller, Markowitz and Sharpe, who in spite of all of the faults you can find with their work, were open to honest intellectual debate. In fact, in their arrogance and self-righteousness, these "investment bankers" remind me of someone else! Mr. Taleb, do you happen to own a mirror?

Read More

Inflation, deflation and investing

I must confess that I have never seen such dissension and disagreement among economists about whether we are going into a period of inflation or one of deflation. On the one side, there are those who are alarmed at the easy money, low interest rate policies that have been adopted by most central banks in developed markets. The surge in the money supply, they argue, will inevitably cheapen the currency and lead to inflation. On the other side, there are many who point to the Japanese experience where a stagnating economy and weak demand lead to price deflation. I have given up on trying to make sense of what macro economists say but you probably have a point of view on inflation and are wondering how inflation or deflation will affect your portfolio.

To understand how inflation affects the value of a company, let's get down to basics. The value of a company can be written as a function of its expected cash flows over time and the discount rate appropriate for these cash flows. In its simplest form, the value of a stable growth firm can be written as:
Value = (Revenues - Operating Expenses - Depreciation) (1- tax rate) / (Cost of capital - Stable growth rate)
Assume now that inflation jumps from 1% to 5%. For value to be unaffected, everything has to increase proportionately. Thus, revenues, operating expenses and depreciation all have to increase at the inflation rate, the tax rate has to remain unchanged and the discount rate will have to increase by that same percentage. So, what might cause this to break down?
a. Lack of pricing power: Even though the overall inflation rate may be 5%, not all firms may be able to raise prices by that magnitude. Put simply, firms with loyal customers, a strong brand name and significant competitive advantages will be able pass inflation through better than firms without those benefits.
b. Input costs: By the same token, not all input costs will increase at the same rate as inflation. If oil prices increase at a rate higher than inflation, an airline that lacks pricing power may find itself squeezed by higher costs on one side and stagnant revenues on the other.
c. Tax rate: The tax code is written to tax nominal income, with little attention paid to how much of the increase in income comes from real growth and how much from inflation. Thus, the effective tax rate you pay may increase as inflation increases.
d. Cost of capital: The effect on higher inflation will be felt most directly in the risk free rate, which will rise as inflation rises. However, equity risk premiums (which determine cost of equity) and default spreads (for cost of debt) may also change.

Historically, higher inflation has not been a neutral factor for stocks. Stocks have done worse during periods of high and increasing inflation and much better in periods of lower inflation. This graph, which I borrowed from a Wall Street Journal article, illustrates the stark divide:

That may seem puzzling because we are often told that it is bonds that are hurt by inflation and that stocks are good inflation hedges. Here is why I think the logic breaks down. When inflation increases, equity investors are hurt for two reasons. The first is that the discount rate (cost of equity and capital) increases more than proportionately, because risk premiums increase with inflation. For instance, the equity risk premium in the United States increased from 3.5% in 1970 to 6.5% in 1978 and default spreads also widened. The second is that the tax code is not inflation neutral. For companies that have substantial fixed assets, depreciation is based upon historical cost and not indexed to inflation. Consequently, the tax benefits from depreciation become less valuable as inflation increases; think of it as an implicit increase in your effective tax rate.

If I believed that high inflation was around the corner, I would first shift more of my portfolio from financial assets to real assets. Within my equity allocation, I would invest more of my money in companies that have pricing power (allowing them to pass inflation through to their customers), inputs that are not very sensitive to inflation (so that costs don't keep up with inflation) and few fixed assets (to prevent the depreciation tax impact). I can think of several technology, consumer product and entertainment companies that fit the bill. As a bonus, I would like the companies to have long term debt obligations at fixed rates; inflation is likely to dilute the value of the debt. These companies are likely to see their cash inflows increase at a rate faster than inflation and will be able to buffer the impact of inflation on discount rates. In my bond portfolio, I would steer my money to short term government securities, inflation indexed treasury bonds (TIPs) and floating rate corporate notes; they are least likely to be devastated by higher inflation.

If deflation was my concern, I would invest more of my portfolio in financial assets; bonds, even with 2.5% interest rates, would be a bargain. Within my equity allocation, I would steer away from cyclical companies. At least in recent decades, deflation has gone hand-in-hand with low or negative economic growth. Consequently, I would invest in companies that sell non-discretionary products and necessities.  In my bond portfolio, my holdings will be in more credit worthy entities, since default is a very real possibility in poor economic conditions.

Read More

Jerome Kerviel is sentenced: Ruminations on risk and trading scandals

A French court has sentenced Jerome Kerviel, the SocGen trader who caused the company to lose 5 billion Euros, to five years in prison and a fine of 4.9 billion Euros.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/oct/05/jerome-kerviel-jail-sentence
I think we can safely assume that Mr. Kerviel is now bankrupt for life. Reading about the case did raise a question in my mind. How can one person cause this much damage and how did the damage remain undetected until too late? I know that people have pointed to the asymmetric reward structure (where huge bonuses are paid if you make large profits and you really don't share in the losses) at banks as a culprit, but I think there are three "behavioral" factors that contribute to disasters such as this one.

1. Selection bias: Experimental economists have been exploring differences in risk aversion across sub-groups of people and their conclusions are fairly strong. For the most part, their studies find that younger people tend to be less risk averse than older people, single people are less risk averse than married folks and men are less risk averse than women (especially young). Now think about your typical trading room in any investment bank. It is over populated with 25-35 year old males, selected primarily because they had the right "trading" instincts. In fact, I think you can safely assume that if you were picking the least risk averse group in a population, it would look a lot like that trading room.

2. House money effect: You tend to be much less careful when taking risks with "house" money than with your own. Traders almost always are playing with house money, especially when they are doing proprietary trading, and not surprisingly are more cavalier about taking risk than they would be with their own money.

3. Break even effect: Here is a phenomenon that every casino owner knows. When a gambler loses money, he tries to make it back, and the deeper he gets in the hole, the rasher he becomes in his risk taking. So, a trader who loses $ 100 million will try to win it back with big bets (even if those bets don't make much economic sense); the more he loses, the wilder his risk taking will become.

One of the problems with the risk management systems that we have is that they deal with the symptoms and not the causes of erratic and bad risk taking. If we want to reduce the likelihood of more Jerome Kerviels in the future, here are some things we should do:

a. Create more diverse trading rooms: I am not a fan of diversity for the sake of diversity, but I think that opening up trading rooms to a wider range of people will dampen some of the excess risk taking. Maybe we should hire every trader's mother or grandmother to trade side by side with him; in fact, I would give her the next desk. Seriously, though, this will require investment banks to revamp their hiring processes and look more kindly on those "not cool" kids on campus who right now would not make the cut.

b. Restrict or eliminate proprietary trading: I know that proprietary trading is viewed as too lucrative to let go by banks, but I have my doubts as to whether it actually generates long term profits for any of its architects. One side cost of the increase in proprietary trading at banks has been the increase in house money that traders have to play with.

c. Information systems: To stop the "break even" effect from kicking in, we have to intervene much earlier when traders start losing money to prevent them from accelerating the cycle. To intervene, we need to know how much traders are making or losing in real time and have automated or computerized systems step in and stop trading at a defined loss point. Traders will try to devise ways around the system, but the system has to be responsive enough to adapt.

Read More

High dividend stocks: Do they beat the market?

I was browsing through the Wall Street Journal this weekend and came across this story about "high dividend" stocks:
http://bit.ly/b0MrBt
Briefly summarizing, the author argues that investing in five high dividend paying stocks is a better strategy for an investor than investing in an index fund, and that the "loss of diversification" is made up for by the higher returns generated on the dividend paying stocks.

It may be surprise you, but I don't disagree with the core of this strategy, which is not a new one. In fact, in what is known as the "Dow dogs" strategy, you invest in the five highest dividend yield stocks in the Dow 30. A more detailed sales pitch for this strategy can be found here:
http://www.dogsofthedow.com/
Over time, its proponents argue that the strategy would have paid off richly for investors.

To add even more ammunition to dividend seekers, studies over the last three decades have also shown that stocks in the top decline in dividend yield generate about 2-3% higher returns, after adjusting for risk, than the rest of the market. This newsletter nicely summarizes the evidence:
www.tweedy.com/resources/library_docs/papers/highdiv_research.pdf

So, is this a winning strategy? In my book, "Investment Fables", I have a chapter on this strategy which you can download by clicking below:
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/pdfiles/invfables/ch2new.pdf
Briefly summarizing, I argue that as with all investment stories, there are caveats and these are the most significant ones for "dividend" heavy strategies:
1. Dividends are not legally binding: Unlike coupons on bonds, where failure to pay leads to default, companies can cut dividends without legal consequence. The fact that "dividends are sticky" and companies don't usually cut dividends does not take away from this point.
2. Higher tax liability: At least in the United States, for much of the last century, dividends have been taxed at a higher tax rate than capital gains. (Since 2003, the tax rates on the two have been the same, but that law is set to expire on December 31, 2010, returning us to the old tax laws).
3. May be "liquidating" dividends: When companies are in decline, they may pay large liquidating dividends, where assets are sold to fund the dividends. While these dividends are cash flows, they are not sustainable and will run out sooner rather than later.
4. Sector concentration: If you pick the highest dividend yield stocks across a market at any point in time, you may find yourself holding stocks in one or two sectors. In early 2008, for instance, you may have ended up with five banks in your portfolio. If there is a shock to that sector, your portfolio will collapse.
5. The market "knows" something you do not: Remember that the dividend yield for a stock shoots up almost always because the price drops, not because the dividend is increased. In other words, it is a sudden drop in the stock price that makes the stock look attractive. It is true that markets make mistakes, but it is also true that sometimes price drops of this magnitude occur because there is a serious problem looming on the horizon.

Here is how I would modify the strategy to protect myself against these three issues:
1. Look for companies with positive earnings, low debt burdens and high cash balances. They will be under less pressure to cut dividends.
2. Use this strategy for "tax protected" portions of your portfolio. Even in the US, investments made in pension plans are allowed to accumulate income, tax free. Even if you cannot pick individual stocks in your pension fund, you may be able to redirect the money to a high dividend yield mutual fund.
3. Steer away from companies with dividend payout ratios that exceed 80% and have negative revenue growth. That may help keep liquidating companies out of your portfolio.
4. Try for some sector diversification. In other words, classify companies at least broadly into sectors and look for the highest dividend yield stock in each sector, rather than across the whole market.
5. Check every news source that you can find for news stories or even rumors about the company. 

In short, buying high dividend yield stocks makes sense for a long-term, tax-advantaged investment. One point that I disagree on is that this strategy requires you to give up on diversification. I don't see why you cannot construct a reasonably diversified portfolio (of 30-40 stocks spread across sectors) of high dividend yield stocks.

Read More