Posts tagged ‘Jeremy Siegel’

Managing the Chaos – Investing vs. Gambling

How does one invest amid the slew of palm sweating, teeth grinding headlines of Syria, North Korea, Brexit, expanding populism, Trumpcare, French candidate Marine Le Pen, and a potential government shutdown? Facing a persistent mountain of worries can seem daunting to many. With so many seemingly uncontrollable factors impacting short-term interest rates, foreign exchange rates, and equity markets, it begs the question of whether investing is a game of luck (gambling) or a game of skill?

The short answer is…it depends. Professional gambler Alvin “Titanic” Thompson captured the essence when someone asked him whether poker was a game of chance. Thompson responded by stating, “Not the way I play it.”

If you go to Las Vegas and gamble, most games are generally a zero sum-game, meaning there are an equal number of winners and losers with the house (casino) locking in a guaranteed spread (profit). For example, consider a game like roulette – there are 18 red slots, 18 black slots, and 2 green slots (0 & 00), so if you are betting on red vs. black, then the casino has a 5.26% advantage. If you bet long enough, the casino will get all your money – there’s a reason Lost Wages Las Vegas can build those extravagantly large casinos.

The same principles of money-losing bets apply to speculative short-term trading. Sure, there are examples of speculators hitting it big in the short-run, but most day traders lose money (see Day Trading Your House) because the odds are stacked against them. In order to make an accretive, profitable trade, not only does the trader have to be right on the security they’re selling (i.e. that security must underperform in the future), but they also have to be right on the security they are buying (i.e. that security must outperform in the future). But the odds for the speculator get worse once you also account for the trading fees, taxes, bid-ask spreads, impact costs (i.e., liquidity), and informational costs (i.e., front running, high frequency traders, algorithms, etc.).

The key to winning at investing is to have an edge, and the easiest way to have an investing edge is to invest for the long-run – renowned Professor Jeremy Siegel agrees (see Stocks for the Long Run). It’s common knowledge the stock market is up about two-thirds of the time, meaning the odds and wind are behind the backs of long-term investors. Short-term trading is the equivalent of going fishing, and then continually pulling your fishing line out of the water (you’re never going to catch anything). The fisherman is better off by researching a good location and then maintaining the lure in the water for a longer period until success is achieved.

Although most casino games are based on pure luck, there are some games of skill, like poker, that can produce consistent long-term positive results, if you are a patient professional with an advantage or edge (see Dan Harrington article ).  Having an edge in investing is crucial, but an edge is not the only aspect of successful investing. How you structure a portfolio to control risk (i.e., money management), and reducing your personal behavioral biases are additional components to a winning investment strategy. Professional poker player Walter Clyde “Puggy” Pearson summed it up best when he described the three critical components to winning:

“Knowing the 60-40 end of a proposition, money management, and knowing yourself.”

 

At Sidoxia Capital Management, we have also achieved long-term success by following a systematic, disciplined process. A large portion of our investment strategy is focused on identifying market leading franchises with a long runway of growth, and combining those dynamics with positions trading at attractive or fair values. As part of this process, we rank our stocks based on multiple factors, primarily using data from our proprietary SHGR ranking (see Investing Holy Grail) and free cash flow yield analysis, among other important considerations. Based on the risk-reward profiles of our existing holdings and the pool of targeted investments, we can appropriately size our positions accordingly (i.e., money management). As valuations rise, or risk profiles deteriorate, we can make the corresponding portfolio positions cuts, especially if we find more attractive alternative investments. Having a proven, systematic, unbiased process has helped us tremendously in minimizing behavioral pitfalls (i.e., knowing yourself) when we construct client portfolios.

The world is under assault…but that has always been the case. Throughout investment history, there have been wars, assassinations, unexpected election outcomes, banking crises, currency crises, natural disasters, health epidemics, and more. Unfortunately, millions have gambled and bet their money away based on these frivolous, ever-changing, short-term headlines. On the other hand, those investors who understand the 60-40 end of a proposition, coupled with the importance of money management and controlling personal biases, will be the skillful winners to prosper over the long-run.

Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®

Plan. Invest. Prosper.

www.Sidoxia.com

DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position in any other security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC “Contact” page.

April 23, 2017 at 10:53 am Leave a comment

Siegel & Co. See “Bubblicious” Bonds

Source: Wall Street Journal - March 14, 2000

Siegel compares 1999 stock prices with 2010 bonds

Unlike a lot of economists, Jeremy Siegel, Professor at the Wharton School of Business, is not bashful about making contrarian calls (see other Siegel article). Just days after the Nasdaq index peaked 10 years ago at a level above 5,000 (below 2,200 today), Siegel called the large capitalization technology market a “Sucker’s Bet” in a Wall Street Journal article dated March 14, 2000. Investors were smitten with large-cap technology stocks at the time, paying balloon-like P/E (Price-Earnings) ratios in excess of 100 times trailing earnings (see table above).

Bubblicious Boom

 

Today, Siegel has now switched his focus from overpriced tech-stock bubbles to “Bubblicious” bonds, which may burst at any moment. Bolstering his view of the current “Great American Bond Bubble” is the fact that average investors are wheelbarrowing money into bond funds. Siegel highlights recent Investment Company Institute data to make his point:

“From January 2008 through June 2010, outflows from equity funds totaled $232 billion while bond funds have seen a massive $559 billion of inflows.”

 

The professor goes on to make the stretch that some government bonds (i.e., 10-year Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities or TIPS) are priced so egregiously that the 1% TIPS yield (or 100 times the payout ratio) equates to the crazy tech stock valuations 10 years earlier. Conceptually the comparison of old stock and new bond bubbles may make some sense, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that tech stocks virtually had a 0% payout (no dividends). The risk of permanent investment loss is much lower with a bond as compared to a 100-plus multiple tech stock.

Making Rate History No Mystery

What makes Siegel so nervous about bonds? Well for one thing, take a look at what interest rates have done over the last 30 years, with the Federal Funds rate cresting over 20%+ in 1981 (View RED LINE & BLUE LINE or click to enlarge):

Source: dshort.com

As I have commented before, there is only one real direction for interest rates to go, since we currently sit watching rates at a generational low. Rates have a minute amount of wiggle room, but Siegel rightfully understands there is very little wiggle room for rates to go lower. How bad could the pain be? Siegel outlines the following scenario:

“If over the next year, 10-year interest rates, which are now 2.8%, rise to 3.15%, bondholders will suffer a capital loss equal to the current yield. If rates rise to 4% as they did last spring, the capital loss will be more than three times the current yield.”

 

Siegel is not the only observer who sees relatively less value in bonds (especially government bonds) versus stocks. Scott Grannis, author of the Calafia Report artfully shows the comparisons of the 10-Year Treasury Note yield relative to the earnings yield on the S&P 500 index:

Source: Calafia Report (Scott Grannis)

As you can see, rarely have there been periods over the last five decades where bonds were so poorly attractive relative to equities.

Grannis mirrors Siegel’s view on government bond prices through his chart on TIPS pricing:

Source: Calafia Report (Scott Grannis)

Pricey Treasuries is not a new unearthed theme, however, Siegel and Grannis make compelling points to highlight bond risks. Certainly, the economy could soften further, and trying to time the bottom to a multi-decade bond bubble can be hazardous to your investing health. Having said that, effectively everyone should desire some exposure to fixed income securities, depending on their objectives and constraints (retirees obviously more). The key is managing duration and the risk of inflation in a prudent fashion. If you believe Siegel is correct about an impending bond bubble bursting, you may consider lightening your Treasury bond load. Otherwise, don’t be surprised if you do not collect on another “sucker’s bet.”

Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®  

Plan. Invest. Prosper.  

www.Sidoxia.com 

*DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds (including TIP and other fixed income ETFs), but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position in any security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC “Contact” page.

August 20, 2010 at 2:02 am 10 comments

Siegel Digs in Heels on Stocks

42-15470190

Jeremy Siegel, Wharton University Professor and author of Stocks for the Long Run, is defending his long-term thesis that stocks will outperform bonds over the long-run. Mr. Siegel in his latest Financial Times article vigorously defends his optimistic equity belief despite recent questions regarding the validity and accuracy of his long-term data (see my earlier article).

He acknowledges the -3.15% return of U.S. stock performance over the last decade (the fourth worst period since 1871), so what gives him confidence in stocks now? Let’s take a peek on why Siegel is digging in his heels:

Since 1871, the three worst ten-year returns for stocks have ended in the years 1974, 1920, and 1978. These were followed, respectively, by real, after-inflation stock returns of more than 8 per cent, 13 per cent, and 9 per cent over next ten years. In fact for the 13 ten-year periods of negative returns stocks have suffered since 1871, the next ten years gave investors real returns that averaged over 10 per cent per year. This return has far exceeded the average 6.66 per cent real return in all ten years periods, and is twice the return offered by long-term government bonds.

 

Siegel’s bullish stock stance has also been attacked by Robert Arnott, Chairman of Research Affiliates, when he noted a certain bond strategy bested stocks over the last 40 years. Here’s what Mr. Siegel has to say about stock versus bond performance:

Even with the recent bear market factored in, stocks have always done better than Treasury bonds over every 30-year period since 1871. And over 20-year periods, stocks bested Treasuries in all but about 5 per cent of the cases… In fact, with the recent stock market recovery and bond market decline, stock returns now handily outpace bond returns over the past 30 and 40 years.

 

If you’re 50, 60, or older, then Siegel’s time horizons may not fit into your plans. Nonetheless, in any game one chooses to play (including the game of money), I, like many, prefer to have the odds stacked in my favor.

In addressing the skeptics, such as Bill Gross who believes the U.S. is entering a “New Normal” phase of sluggish growth, Mr. Siegel notes this commentary even if true does not account for the faster pace of international growth – Siegel goes on to explain that the S&P 500 corporations garner almost 50% of revenues from these faster growing areas outside the U.S.

On the subject of valuation, Mr. Siegel highlights the market is trading at roughly 14x’s 2010 estimates, well below the 18-20x multiples usually associated with low-interest rate periods like these.

In periods of extreme volatility (upwards or downwards), the prevailing beliefs fight reversion to the mean arguments because trend followers believe “this time is different.” Just think of the cab drivers who were buying tech stocks in the late 1990s, or of the neighbor buying rental real estate in 2006. Bill Gross with his “New Normal” doesn’t buy the reversion argument either. Time will tell if we have entered a new challenging era like Mr. Gross sees? Regardless, Professor Siegel will be digging in his heels as he invests in stocks for the long run.

Read the Whole Financial Times Article Written by Professor Siegel

Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®

Plan. Invest. Prosper.

October 14, 2009 at 2:00 am 2 comments

Howard Right on the Mark(s)

Legendary investor Howard Marks opines on the financial markets in his recently quarterly client memo. One should pay attention to these battle-tested veterans with scars to prove their survival skills.  Rather than neatly package a common theme from the long document I will highlight a few areas.

Marks is cautious but sees better buying opportunities ahead.

Marks is cautious but sees better buying opportunities ahead.

Recent Past vs. Long Past: For most of the 16 page memo Howard Marks reminisces on his 40+ years in the investment industry and contrasts the 2003-2007 period with the majority of his years. He states in the old days, “There were no swaps, index futures or listed options. Leverage wasn’t part of most institutional investors’ arsenal…or vocabulary. Private equity was unknown, and hedge funds were too few and outré to matter. Innovations like quantitative investing and structured products had yet to arrive, and few people had ever heard of ‘alpha.'”

Marks on Siegel: Marks targets Wharton Professor Jeremy Siegel as a contributor to the overly bullish mentality of 2003-2007, “Siegel’s research was encyclopedic and supported some dramatic conclusions, perhaps foremost among them his showing that there’s never been a 30-year period in which stocks didn’t outperform cash, bonds and inflation…but…30 years can be a long time to wait.”

Marks on Risk: “So yes, it’s true that investor’s can’t expect to make much money without taking risk. But that’s not the same as saying risk taking is sure to make you money…If risky investments always produced high returns, they wouldn’t be risky.” On the psychological impacts of risk, Marks goes on to say,  “When investors are unworried and risk-tolerant, they buy stocks at high p/e ratios and private companies at high EBITDA multiples, and they pile into bonds despite narrow yield spreads and into real estate at minimal “cap rates.'”

On Quant Models and Business Schools: Marks quotes Warren Buffet regarding the complexity of quantitative models, “If you need a computer or a calculator to make a calculation, you shouldn’t buy it.” Charlie Munger adds his two cents on why quantitative models exist: “They teach that in business schools because, well, they’ve got to do something.”

Investing as a Mixture of Art & ScienceIn my book I describe investing as a combination of “Art” and “Science.” Marks addresses a s similar insight through an Albert Einstein quote:

“Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.”

Views on the Credit Rating Agencies: To highlight the absurdity of the mortgage credit rating system, Marks compares the agencies’ ratings to hamburger:  “If it’s possible to start with 100 pounds of hamburger and end up selling ten pounds of dog food, 40 pounds of sirloin and 50 pounds of filet mignon, the truth-in-labeling rules can’t be working.”

If you would like to access the remainder of memo, click here to read the rest. Overall, Mr. Marks gives a balanced view of the markets and economy, but feels “better buying opportunities lie ahead.” Thankfully, I’m finding some myself.

Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®

Plan. Invest. Prosper.

July 30, 2009 at 4:00 am 1 comment


Receive Investing Caffeine blog posts by email.

Join 1,815 other followers

Meet Wade Slome, CFA, CFP®

More on Sidoxia Services

Recognition

Top Financial Advisor Blogs And Bloggers – Rankings From Nerd’s Eye View | Kitces.com

Wade on Twitter…

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

Share this blog

Bookmark and Share

Subscribe to Blog RSS

Monthly Archives