Posts tagged ‘regulations’

You Can’t Kiss All the Beauties

When I was in high school and college, kissing all the pretty girls was not a realistic goal. The same principle applies to stock picking – you can’t buy all the outperforming stocks. As far as I’m concerned, there will always be some people who are smarter, better looking, and wealthier than I am, but that has little to do with whether I can continue to outperform, if I stick to my systematic, disciplined process. In fact, many smart people are horrible investors because they overthink the investing process or suffer from “paralysis by analysis.” When it comes to investing, the behavioral ability to maintain independence is more important than being a genius. If you don’t believe me, just listen to arguably the smartest investor of all-time, Warren Buffett:

“Success in investing doesn’t correlate with I.Q. once you’re above the level of 125. Once you have ordinary intelligence, what you need is the temperament to control the urges that get other people into trouble in investing.”

 

Even the best investors and stock pickers of all-time are consistently wrong. When selecting stocks, a worthy objective is to correctly pick three outperforming stocks out of five stocks. And out of the three winning stocks, the rationale behind the outperformance should be correct in two out of those three stocks. In other words, you can be right for the wrong reason in one out of three outperforming stocks. The legendary investor Peter Lynch summed it up when he stated, “If you’re terrific in this business you’re right six times out of 10.”

Yes, it’s true, luck does play a role in stock selection. You just don’t want luck being the major driving force behind your success because luck cannot be replicated consistently over the long-run. There are so many unpredictable variables that in the short-run can work for or against the performance of your stock. Consider factors like politics, monetary policy, weather, interest rates, terrorist attacks, regulations, tax policy, and many other influences that are challenging or impossible to forecast. Over the long-run, these uncontrollable and unpredictable factors should balance out, thereby allowing your investing edge to shine.

Although I have missed some supermodel stocks, I have kissed some pretty stocks in my career too. I wish I could have invested in more stocks like Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN) that have increased more than 10x-fold, but other beauties like Apple Inc. (AAPL), Alphabet Inc. (GOOG), and Facebook Inc. (FB), haven’t hurt my long-term performance either. As is the case for most successful long-term investors, winning stocks generally more than compensate for the stinkers, if you can have the wherewithal to hold onto the multi-baggers (i.e., stocks that more than double), which admittedly is much easier said than done. Peter Lynch emphasized this point by stressing a focus on the long-term:

“You don’t need a lot of good hits every day. All you need is two to three goods stocks a decade.”

 

Sticking to a process of identifying and investing in well-managed companies at attractive valuations is a much better approach to investing than chasing every beauty you see or read about. If you stick to this simple formula, you can experience lovely, long-term results.

Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®

Plan. Invest. Prosper.

www.Sidoxia.com

DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients hold positions in AAPL, FB, GOOG, AMZN, and certain exchange traded funds (ETFs), but at the time of publishing 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 9, 2017 at 9:49 am Leave a comment

Fiscal Cliff: Will a 1937 Repeat = 2013 Dead Meat?

Source: StockCharts.com

The presidential election is upon us and markets around the globe are beginning to factor in the results. More importantly, in my view, will be the post-election results of the “fiscal cliff” discussions, which will determine whether $600 billion in automated spending cuts and tax increases will be triggered. Similar dynamics in 1937 existed when President FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) felt pressure to balance the budget after his 1933 New Deal stimulus package began to rack up deficits and lose steam.

What’s Similar Today

Just as there is pressure to cut spending today by Republicans and “Tea-Party” Congressmen, so too there was pressure for FDR and the Federal Reserve in 1937 to unwind fiscal and monetary stimulus. At the time, FDR thought self-sustaining growth had been restored and there was a belief that the deficits would become a drag on expansion and a source of future inflation. What’s more, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, believed that continued economic growth was dependent on business confidence, which in turn was dependent on creating a balanced budget. History has a way of repeating itself, which explains why the issues faced in 1937 are eerily similar to today’s discussions.

The Results

FDR was successful in dramatically reducing spending and significantly increasing taxes. Specifically, federal spending was reduced by -17% over two years and FDR’s introduction of a Social Security payroll tax contributed to federal revenues increasing by a whopping +72% over a similar timeframe. The good news was the federal deficit fell from -5.5% of GDP to -0.5%. The bad news was the economy went into a tail-spinning recession; the Dow crashed approximately -50%; and the unemployment rate burst higher by about +3.3% to +12.5%.

Source: New York Times

Source: Blue Mass Group

What’s Different This Time?

For starters, one difference between 1937 and 2012 is the level of unemployment. In 1937, unemployment was +14.3%, and today it is +8.1%. Objectively, today there could be higher percentage of the population “under-employed,” but nonetheless the job market was in worse shape back then and labor unions had much more power.

Another major difference is the stance carried by the Fed. Today, Ben Bernanke and the Fed have made it crystal clear they are in no hurry to take away any of the monetary stimulus (see Hekicopter Ben QE3 article), until we have experienced a long-lasting, sustainable recovery. Back in early 1937, the Fed increased banks’ reserve requirements twice, doubling the requirement in less than a year, thereby contracting monetary supply drastically.

Furthermore, we live in a much more globalized world. Today, central banks and governments around the world are doing their part to keep growth alive. Emerging markets are large enough now to move the needle and impact the growth of developed markets. For example, China, the #2 global superpower, continues to cut interest rates and has recently implemented a $158 billion infrastructure spending program.

Net-Net

Whether you’re a Republican or Democrat, everyone generally agrees that job creation is an important common objective, which is consistent with growing our economy. The disagreement between parties stems from the differing opinions on what are the best ways of creating jobs. From my perch, the frame of the debate should be premised on what policies and incentives should be structured to increase competitiveness. Without competitiveness there are no jobs. At the end of the day, money and capital are agnostic. Cold hard cash migrates to the countries in which it is treated best. And where the money goes is where the jobs go.

There is no single silver bullet to solve the competiveness concerns of the United States. Like baseball (since playoffs are quickly approaching), winning is not based solely on hitting, pitching, defense, or base-running. All of these facets and others are required to win. The same principles apply to our country’s competitiveness.

In order to be a competitive leader in the 21st century, here are few necessary areas in which we must excel:

Education: Chicago school unions have been in the news, and I have no problems with unions, if accountability can be structured in. Unfortunately, however, it is clear to me that for now our system is broken (a must see: Waiting for Superman). We cannot compete in the 21st century with an illiterate, uneducated workforce. Our colleges and universities are still top-notch, but as Bill Gates has stated, our elementary schools and high schools are “obsolete”.

Entitlements: Social safety nets like Social Security and Medicare are critical, but unsustainable promises that explode our debt and deficits will not make us more competitive. Politicians may gain votes by making promises in the short-run, but when those promises can’t be delivered in the medium-run or long-run, then those votes will disappear quickly. The sworn guarantees made to the 76 million Baby Boomers now entering retirement are a disaster waiting to happen. Benefits need to be reduced and or criteria need to be adjusted (i.e., means-testing, increase age requirements). The problems are clear as day, so Americans cannot walk away from this sobering reality.

Strategic Government Investment: – Government played a role in building our country’s railways, highways, and our military – a few strategic areas of our economy that have made our nation great. Thoughtful investments into areas like energy infrastructure (e.g., smart grid), internet infrastructure (e.g., higher speed super highway), and healthcare (e.g., human genome research) are a few examples of how jobs can be created while simultaneously increasing our global competitiveness. The great thing about strategic government investments is that government does NOT have to do all the heavy lifting. Rather than write all the checks and do all the job creation from Washington, government can implement these investments and create these jobs by providing incentives for the private sector. Strategic public-private partnerships can generate win-win results for government, businesses, and job seekers. If, however, you’re convinced that our government is more efficient than the private sector, then I highly encourage you to go visit your local DMV, post office, or VA to better appreciate the growth-sucking bureaucracy and inefficiency.

Taxes / Regulations / Laws: Taxes come from profits, and businesses create profits. In order to have a strong and competitive government, we need strong and competitive businesses. Higher taxes, excessive regulations, and burdensome laws will not create stronger and more competitive businesses. I acknowledge that reckless neglect and consumer exploitation will not work either, but reasonable protections for consumers and businesses can be instituted without multi-thousand page regulations. Reducing ridiculous subsidies and loopholes, while tightening tax collection processes and punishing tax dodgers makes perfect sense…so why not do it?

Politics are sharply polarized at both ends of the spectrum, but no matter who wins, our problems are not going away. We may or may not have a new president of the United States this November, but perhaps more important than the elections themselves will be the outcome of the “fiscal cliff” legislation (or lack thereof). If we want to maintain our economic power as the strongest in the world, solving this “fiscal cliff” is the key to improving our competiveness. Avoiding a messy 1937 (and 2011) political repeat will prevent us from becoming dead meat.

Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®

Plan. Invest. Prosper.

www.Sidoxia.com

DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients hold positions in certain exchange traded funds (ETFs), but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct positions 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.

 

September 23, 2012 at 10:55 pm Leave a comment

Banking Surgery or Amputation?

Photo Source: (c)iStockphoto.com Artist: Powerofforever

Deciding whether to sever the proprietary trading arms of the commercial banks, rather than instituting regulation, seems a lot like deciding whether amputation is a healthier path for those suffering terrible frostbite cases. Even if this legislation is unlikely to pass, I find the recommendations severe in relation to other measured alternatives. I’m no right-wing conspiracy theorist, but I don’t think the timing of the Obama administration’s announcement is coincidental. Why is this proposal surfacing two years into the financial crisis and a whole year after the President entered office?

Politicians have always been masterful at introducing coincidental distractions at opportune times, in order to generate patriotic voter sympathies. Some examples include, Margaret Thatcher in the Falkand Islands; George Bush #41 in the Iraqi war; and President Obama’s current ant-banker populist brigade. Perhaps miserable and declining approval ratings and a healthcare bill on the verge of collapse may have something to do with the timing? I want President Obama to succeed, and he may have good intentions, but let’s not rush to an overzealous knee-jerk reactions before other less-draconian solutions are thoroughly explored.

Glass-Steagall Redux

Theoretically, the argument of forcing banks to adopt lower risk sounds great on paper. Overall, I think this initiative is a worthy one Americans could buy into. As a matter of fact, investment guru Jeremy Grantham makes the same argument in my Investing Caffeine article (“Too Big to Sink). However, I think a more relevant question is, “How do we implement more responsible risk taking by the banks, without a massive overhaul to the system?” Certainly there were some regulators asleep at the switch, and some financial institutions that pushed the envelope on risk assumption, but I’m not convinced a return to Glass-Steagall (or Glass-Steagall Lite) is going to bring miracles. If the regulators cannot adequately curb risk taking by the banks, then cross the more dangerous bridge later. The economy is presently in the midst of a fragile recovery and we do not want to change the airplane engine during mid-flight.

Political Pendulum Swings

This isn’t the first time Washington has reversed previous decisions. If the cries of voters reach a feverish pitch, and these wishes coincide with a politician’s re-election agenda, then the probabilities of sub-optimal, rushed legislation increases. Consider AT&T (T), which because of antitrust concerns was forced to split operations in 1982. Lo and behold, some twenty years later, we witnessed the re-consolidation of the “Baby Bells” back into AT&T. Now, Glass-Steagall is the topic of conversation and with an unambiguous scapegoat needed by politicians, Washington is targeting the banks with taxes and operations splitting.

Hasty legislation is nothing new with the populist flames fanning in the background. Sarbanes-Oxley is another example of less-than-ideal legislation introduced in the wake of  relatively low number of corporate scandals, such as Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco (TYC).

Regulation Reform Solution

Here are 3 constructive steps:

1)      Institute transparent trading of derivatives (i.e., Credit default Swaps) over exchanges with adequately capitalized clearing houses.

2)      Require higher capital requirements for banks conducting proprietary trading and mandate adequate disclosure.

3)      Consolidation of regulators, thereby creating a more simplified, accountable structure (see also Regulatory Web article). Savings from redundant costs could be used to hire additional regulatory oversight staff.

Blood is in the streets and with mid-term elections just around the corner, the Obama administration is looking to salvage anything they can bring back to the voters. Frost bite (and greedy bankers) is a painful and horrible predicament, however if healthy functioning limbs can be saved with targeted surgery rather than amputation, then I vote for this solution.

Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®

Plan. Invest. Prosper. 

DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds (including VFH), and at the time of publishing had no direct positions in T, TYC. 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.

January 22, 2010 at 1:30 am 2 comments


Receive Investing Caffeine blog posts by email.

Join 1,794 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