Posts tagged ‘traders’

Sports, Stocks, & the Magic Quadrants

Vegas Betting

Picking stocks is a tricky game and so is sports betting. With the NFL and NCAA football seasons only a few months away, we can analyze the professional sports-betting industry to better understand the complexities behind making money in the stock market. Anybody who has traveled to Las Vegas, and bet on a sporting event, understands that simply choosing a game winner is not enough for a casino to pay you winnings. You also need to forecast how many points you think a certain team will win or lose by (i.e., the so-called “spread”) – see also What Happens in Vegas, Stays on Wall Street. In the world of stocks, winning/losing is not measured by spreads but rather equities are measured by valuation (e.g., Price/Earnings or P/E ratios).

To make my point, here is a sports betting example from some years back:

Florida Gators vs. Charleston Southern Buccaneers: Without knowing a lot about the powerhouse Southern Buccaneers squad from South Carolina, 99% of respondents polled before the game are likely to unanimously select the winner as Florida – a consistently dominant, nationally ranked powerhouse program. The tougher question becomes trickier if football observers are asked, “Will the Florida Gators win by more than 63 points?”(see picture below). Needless to say, although the Buccs kept it close in the first half, and only trailed by 42-3 at halftime, the Gators still managed to squeak by with a 62-3 victory. Importantly, if you had bet on this game and placed money on the Florida Gators, the overwhelming pre-game favorite, the 59 point margin of victory would have resulted in a losing wager. In order for Gator fans to win money, they would have needed Florida to win by 64 points. 

Point Spread

If investing and sports betting were easy, everybody would do it. The reason sports betting is so challenging is due to very intelligent statisticians and odds-makers that create very accurate point spreads. In the investing world, a broad swath of traders, market makers, speculators, investment bankers, and institutional/individual investors set equally efficient valuations over the long-term.

The goal in investing is very similar to sports betting. Successful professionals in both industries are able to consistently identify inefficiencies and then exploit them. Inefficiencies occur for a bettor when point spreads are too high or low, while investors identify inefficient prices in the marketplace by shorting expensive stocks and buying cheap stocks (i.e., undervalued or overvalued).

To illustrate my point, let’s take a look at Sidoxia’sMagic Quadrant“:

Magic Quadrants A-B-Cs & 1-2-3s

What Sidoxia’s “Magic Quadrant” demonstrates is a framework for evaluating stocks. By devoting a short period of time reviewing the quadrants, it becomes apparent fairly quickly that Stock A is preferred over Stock B, which is preferred over Stock C, which is preferred over Stock D. In each comparison, the former is preferred over the latter because the earlier letters all have higher growth, and lower (cheaper) valuations. The same relative attractive relationships cannot be applied to stocks #1, #2, #3, and #4. Each successive numbered stock has higher growth, but in order to obtain that higher growth, investors must pay a higher valuation. In other words, Stock #1 has an extremely low valuation with low growth, while Stock #4 has high growth, but an investor must pay an extremely high valuation to own it.

While debating the efficiency of the stock market can escalate into a religious argument, I would argue the majority of stocks fall in the camp of #1, #2, #3, or #4. Or stated differently, you get what you pay for. For example, investors are paying a much higher valuation (high P/E) for Tesla Motors, Inc (TSLA) for its rapid electric car growth vs. paying a much lower valuation (low P/E) for Pitney Bowes Inc (PBI) for its more mature mail equipment business.

The real opportunities occur for those investors capable of identifying companies in the upper-left quadrant (i.e., Stock A) and lower-right quadrant (i.e., Stock D). If the analysis is done correctly, investors will load up on the undervalued Stock A and aggressively short the expensive Stock D. Sidoxia has its own proprietary valuation model (Sidoxia Holy Grail Ranking – SHGR or a.k.a. “SUGAR”) designed specifically to identify these profitable opportunities.

The professions of investing and sports betting are extremely challenging, however establishing a framework like Sidoxia’s “Magic Quadrants” can help guide you to find inefficient and profitable investment opportunities.

www.Sidoxia.com

Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®

Plan. Invest. Prosper.

DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients hold positions in certain exchange traded funds (ETFs) and TSLA, but at the time of publishing, SCM had no direct position in PBI, or 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 the information to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC Contact page.

June 24, 2017 at 8:09 am Leave a comment

Sports, Stocks, & the Magic Quadrants

Vegas Betting

 

Picking stocks is a tricky game and so is sports betting. With the NFL and NCAA football seasons swinging into full gear, understanding the complexity of making money in the stock market can be explained in terms of professional sports-betting. Anybody who has traveled to Las Vegas and bet on a sporting event, understands that choosing a winner of a game simply is not enough…you also need to forecast how many points you think a certain team will win by (see also What Happens in Vegas, Stays on Wall Street). In the world of sports, winning/losing is measured by point spreads. In the world of stocks, winning/losing is measured by valuation (e.g., Price/Earnings ratios).

To make my point, here is a sports betting example from a handful years back:

Florida Gators vs. Charleston Southern Buccaneers (September 2009): Without knowing a lot about the powerhouse Southern Buccaneers squad from South Carolina, 99% of respondents, when asked before the game who would win, would unanimously select Florida – a consistently dominant, national franchise, powerhouse program. The question becomes a little trickier when participants are asked, “Will the Florida Gators win by more than 63 points?” Needless to say, although the Buccs kept it close in the first half, and only trailed by 42-3 at halftime, the Gators still managed to squeak by with a 62-3 victory. Worth noting, had you selected Florida, the overwhelming favorite, the 59 point margin of victory would have resulted in a losing wager (see picture below).

Point Spread

If investing and sports betting were easy, everybody would do it. The reason sports betting is so challenging is due to very intelligent statisticians and odds-makers that create very accurate point spreads. In the investing world, a broad swath of traders, market makers, speculators, investment bankers, and institutional/individual investors set equally efficient valuations.

The goal in investing is very similar to sports betting. Successful professionals in both industries are able to consistently identify inefficiencies and then exploit them. Inefficiencies occur for a bettor when point spreads are too high or low, while investors identify inefficient prices in the marketplace (undervalued or overvalued).

To illustrate my point, let’s take a look at Sidoxia’sMagic Quadrant“:

Magic Quadrants A-B-Cs & 1-2-3s

What Sidoxia’s “Magic Quadrant” demonstrates is a framework for evaluating stocks. By devoting a short period of time reviewing the quadrants, it becomes apparent fairly quickly that Stock A is preferred over Stock B, which is preferred over Stock C, which is preferred over Stock D. In each comparison, the former is preferred over the latter because the earlier letters all have higher growth, and lower (cheaper) valuations. The same relative attractive relationships cannot be applied to stocks #1, #2, #3, and #4. Each successive numbered stock has higher growth, but in order to obtain that higher growth, investors must pay a higher valuation. In other words, Stock #1 has an extremely low valuation with low growth, while Stock #4 has high growth, but an investor must pay an extremely high valuation to own it.

While debating the efficiency of the stock market can escalate into a religious argument, I would argue the majority of stocks fall in the camp of #1, #2, #3, or #4. Or stated differently, you get what you pay for. For example, investors are paying a much higher valuation (~100x 2014 P/E) for Tesla Motors, Inc (TSLA) for its rapid electric car growth vs. paying a much lower valuation (~10x 2014 P/E) for Pitney Bowes Inc (PBI) for its mature mail equipment business.

The real opportunities occur for those investors capable of identifying companies in the upper-left quadrant (i.e., Stock A) and lower-right quadrant (i.e., Stock D). If the analysis is done correctly, investors will load up on the undervalued Stock A and aggressively short the expensive Stock D. Sidoxia has its own proprietary valuation model (Sidoxia Holy Grail Ranking – SHGR or a.k.a. “SUGAR”) designed specifically to identify these profitable opportunities.

The professions of investing and sports betting are extremely challenging, however establishing a framework like Sidoxia’s “Magic Quadrants” can help guide you to find inefficient and profitable investment opportunities.

www.Sidoxia.com

Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®

Plan. Invest. Prosper.

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 position in TSLA, PBI, or 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 the information to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC Contact page.

September 14, 2013 at 10:17 am Leave a comment

Women & Bosoms on Wall Street According to Jones

Holiday Retail

Billionaire hedge fund manager of Tudor Investment Corporation, Paul Tudor Jones, recently suffered from a case of foot-in-mouth disease when he addressed a sensitive subject – the lack of female traders and investors on Wall Street. Rather than provide a diplomatic response to the mixed audience at a recent University of Virginia symposium, Tudor Jones went on an unambiguous rant. Here’s an excerpt:

“You will never see as many great women investors or traders as men. Period, end of story….As soon as that baby’s lips touch that girl’s bosom, forget it. Every single investment idea, every desire to understand what’s going to make this go up or gonna go down is going to be overwhelmed by the most beautiful experience, which a man will never share of that emotive connection between that mother and baby.”

 

A more complete review of his unfiltered response can be found in this video:

Clearly there is a massive minority of females on Wall Street, but why such an under-representation in this field relative to other female-heavy professional industries such as advertising, nursing, and teaching? I addressed this controversial subject in an earlier article (see Females in Finance)

If there are 155.8 million females in the United States and 151.8 million males (Census Bureau: October 2009), then how come only 6% of hedge fund managers (BusinessWeek), 8% of venture capitalists, and 15% of investment bankers are female (Harvard Magazine)? Is the finance field just an ol’ boys network of chauvinist pig-headed males who only hire their own? Maybe cultural factors such as upbringing and education are other factors that make math-related jobs more appealing to men? Or do the severe time-demands of the field force females to opt-out of the industry due to family priorities?

Although I’m sure family choices and quality of life are factors that play into the decision of entering the demanding finance industry, from my experience I would argue women are notoriously underrepresented even at younger ages. For example, anecdotal evidence coming from my investment management firm (Sidoxia Capital Management www.Sidoxia.com) clearly shows a preponderance of internship applications coming from males, even though it is premature for these students to fully contemplate family considerations at this young age.

If under-representation in the finance field is not caused by female choice, then perhaps the male dominated industry is merely a function of more men opting into the field (i.e., men are better suited for the industry)? More specifically, perhaps male brains are just wired differently? Some make the argument that all the testosterone permeating through male bodies leads them to positions involving more risk.  If you look at other risk related fields like gambling, women too are dramatic minorities, making up about 1/3 of total compulsive gamblers.

Women Better than Men?

The funny part about the under-representation of females in finance is that one study actually shows female hedge fund managers outperforming their male counterparts. Here’s what a BusinessWeek article had to say about female hedge fund managers:

A new study by Hedge Fund Research found that, from January 2000 through May 31, 2009, hedge funds run by women delivered nearly double the investment performance of those managed by men. Female managers produced average annual returns of 9%, versus 5.82% for men and, in 2008, when financial markets were cratering, funds run by women were down 9.6%, compared with a 19% decline for men.

 

The article goes onto to theorize that women may not be afraid of risk, but actually are better able to manage risk. A UC Davis study found that male managers traded 45% more than female managers, thereby reducing returns by -2.65% (about 1% more than females).

Regardless of the theories or studies used to explain gender risk appetite, the relative under-representation of females in finance is a fact. Many theories exist but further thought and research need to be conducted on the subject.

However, before Paul Tudor Jones is completely demonized or sent to the guillotine, let’s not forget Tudor Jones is obviously not your ordinary, heartless, cold-blooded Wall Street type, as evidenced by his recent philanthropic profile on 60 Minutes. Thanks to his generous efforts, Tudor Jones and his Robin Hood Foundation charity have raised more than $400 million for worthy causes since 1988.

While Paul Tudor Jones may not have harbored any malicious intent with regards to his comments, it may make sense for Tudor Jones to take a course on gender sensitivity. Bosoms and women may be an interesting subject for many, however he might consider filtering his commentary the next time he speaks to a large symposium recorded on the internet.

Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®

Plan. Invest. Prosper.

www.Sidoxia.com

See also:

Harvard Magazine article

BusinessWeek article on female fund managers

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 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.

 

 

May 25, 2013 at 1:25 pm Leave a comment


Receive Investing Caffeine blog posts by email.

Join 1,818 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…

Share this blog

Bookmark and Share

Subscribe to Blog RSS

Monthly Archives