The Investment Scientist

Author Archive

 

1000x-1.jpgIn my last article, I wrote that the Fed’s actions were necessary to backstop the economy from sliding into another Great Depression. Now let’s talk about a few of the negative long-term consequences.

Hyperinflation
With so much liquidity sloshing around in the economy that is only half-opened, the only outlet is the financial market. That’s why we’ve seen a divergence of the financial market and the real economy. These two will have to converge at some point. When this happens, will we see hyperinflation? That is, the prices of goods and services are rising fast like they do for assets. In its communication, the Fed has signaled to the world that they don’t foresee any inflation in the next two years. If you read between the lines, it appears that the Fed does not see the economy returning to normal in the next two years, and during this time, they may print still more money.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

40397946-close-up-view-of-cash-money-dollars-bills-in-amount.jpg“Since the beginning of March, the Fed’s balance sheet has expanded by just over $3 trillion, with the bulk of it from central bank purchases of Treasuries and agency mortgage-backed securities.” This is a quote from a MarketWatch news piece titled “Fed’s Daly Defends $3 trillion in Asset Purchases …”

After my last newsletter article, you should understand that balance sheet expansion is just an economic jargon of money creation. Today I am going to give you three reasons why the Fed needed to “print” money to prevent a Great Depression scenario.

Read the rest of this entry »

Investor-Optimism-Fueling-Corporate-Bond-GainsThree days ago, the Fed announced that they will go directly to the corporate bond market to purchase $250 billion worth of investment-grade corporate bonds. A few of my newsletter readers asked me to comment on this, so here I am.

Basically, the Fed buying $250 billion of any securities can be seen as the Fed creating $250 billion of new money and injecting it into the economy. It really doesn’t matter whether these securities are treasury bonds, munis or corporate bonds. Munis are bonds issued by states.

So how does the Fed create new money?
The classical monetary theory posits that paper money must be backed by something valuable. Since 1974, the US dollar has no longer been backed by gold. For a long time (until 2008) it was backed by US treasuries. The Fed has a balance sheet. Let’s say by 2008, the economy needed $3 trillion to function. The Fed would create $3 trillion out of thin air and use the money to buy $3 trillion worth of treasuries. The Fed balance sheet would look like this : on the assets side, it shows $3 trillion of US treasuries, on the liabilities side, $3 trillion issued. Now the money is no longer considered to be out of thin air, since it is backed by treasuries that carry the explicit guarantee of the US federal government.

Read the rest of this entry »

Berkeley professor Terry Odean published an interesting paper in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in 2001 about how men and women invest differently. It was an empirical study based on stock transaction data in tens of thousands of accounts over a seven year period provided by a brokerage firm.

These investment accounts were either opened by a man or a woman, and were single or joint accounts. Thus there were four account types. An interesting phenomenon emerged from the study: the more a man is in control of an account, the worse the performance. (See net return vs benchmark.)

Here the benchmark is not any composite index, it is simply the return that resulted from no trades being made throughout the whole year. 

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tax-Loss-Harvesting-Should-Investors-Believe-the-HypeOver the last few weeks, I have been busy 1) rebalancing – including increasing exposure to the digital platform economy I discussed in my past post, 2) migrating from mutual funds to ETFs because of the latter’s tax benefit, and 3) tax loss harvesting.

Today I am gonna discuss tax loss harvesting. So what exactly is tax loss harvesting? It’s basically realizing a capital loss while maintaining the same exposure. For instance, if in your portfolio, there is a US equity fund with a $30k loss, you can sell the fund to realize the loss and buy a substantially similar US equity fund to take its place. This way you maintain the same exposure but book an accounting loss of $30k. This maneuver is called tax loss harvesting.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

images (3)In my economics class at Oxford, I learned a very important concept: technology by and large manifests diminishing returns to scale.

When economists use the term “technology”, they usually mean the method of production, that is, taking labor and capital as inputs, and outputting something valuable. For instance, there is a method by which I deliver my financial advisory service, economists would call that technology. It’s a catch-all term.

Diminishing returns to scale simply mean the bigger you are, the harder it is to make money at the same rate. Take my little practice as an example. It’s just me and my assistant. It can’t be smaller, but it’s super efficient. If we were a 20 person firm, I can’t imagine how I would manage all these people who all have their different agendas and motivations. The firm may make more money in the absolute term, but on a per head basis, it wouldn’t  be as profitable as my little practice. That’s the essence of diminishing returns to scale.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Premium
The small cap value premium is a Nobel Prize-winning discovery about the stock market by Eugene Fama and Kenneth French. (Only Fama was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2013.) The original paper “The Cross-Section of Stock Returns” was published in the Journal of Finance in 1992. Using stock market data from 1963 to 1990, Fama and French found that small cap stocks outperform large cap stocks (small cap premium) and value stocks outperform growth stocks (large cap premium). Collectively, they are referred to as the small cap value premium.

Since the paper was published, many researchers have done out-of-sample studies and they found that this market feature persists in the data from 1928 to 1963, in the data from 1990 to as late as 2010, and even in foreign stock markets. So in academic jargon, this is a very robust feature of the market. (See chart below.)

Read the rest of this entry »

 

3__L3__001.pngToday the Oxford University Business School arranged a webinar in which my  macro-economics professor, Oren Sussman, explained to us the economic impact of the Coronavirus. I will summarize the key takeaways below. 

The capitalist system is characterized by periodic crises. The last one was the 2007 housing crisis. Even without the Coronavirus outbreak, we were on borrowed time. The long expansion since the last crisis was very much fueled by easy money from the Fed and imprudent fiscal policy from the federal government. As a result, the whole economy is overly leveraged (that is to say,  having too much debt.) An economy without too much debt is like a pond of water. A stone thrown at it will create ripples that will eventually dissipate. An economy with too much debt is like a pane of glass. A stone thrown at it can break the whole thing. Prior to the Coronavirus outbreak, our economy was already like a pane of glass. Read the rest of this entry »

 

240_F_119564777_rEkf9eOoPwdUrMeRlzSKmO6eKokHwbvd.jpgLet me start with my usual disclaimer that I can not predict the market. Like the similar article I wrote four weeks ago, this article is simply an exercise in which I think through possible scenarios for the market. 

When I wrote “Will The Stock Market Give Us a 30% Discount?” the market had already fallen 19%, and I was thinking through the scenarios under which it would fall through 30%. One of the scenarios unfortunately came true: some US states have lost control of the Coronavirus situation, and the market did drop all the way to 36% before recovering to 23% down as it stands now.

Now with Europe finally turning the corner and the rapid spread in the US beginning to decelerate, will the market discount disappear quickly or will there be more shoes to drop that could  cause the market to give us even deeper discounts? Could it hit 40% or more?

Read the rest of this entry »

 

envelopes.jpgAllow me to indulge in a bit of fancy. I would love to be remembered as the person who invented the oxymoron “Intelligent Ignorance.” By the end of this essay, I hope to convince you that intelligent ignorance can make you a better investor.

Like the other oxymorons “jumbo shrimp”, “pet peeve”, “bloody awesome” etc., this one needs a story as well. It all started with Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman’s discovery that we humans experience joy when making money and pain when losing money – Duh!  Hold on, keep on reading, there’s more. The pain is usually twice as intense as the joy even if the amount of money lost or gained is the same. This means that if you pay too close attention to a volatile market, it could be a hell of bad experience. Bad experiences lead to bad judgments and before long you are making bad trades.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

28_base-rate-neglect.jpgAllow me to ask you a seemingly unrelated question: what do you think the most common hair color in Ireland is? If you answered red, you are like the majority of people, but you are also wrong. The most common hair color in Ireland is dark brown (80%.) 

As you answered that question, what went through your mind? What mechanism caused you to arrive at the wrong answer? How is it relevant to stock market investing? I will answer these questions one by one in the space below.

If you answered red, you were using a mental shortcut called the representative heuristic to answer the question. What is the representative heuristic, exactly? It essentially says we humans tend to erroneously equate what is representative to what is likely. Indeed, red hair is representative of Irish people. Just under 10% of the Irish are redheads, compared to 1% of the rest of Europe. So the typical Irish in your head is a redhead, probably wearing green clothes and holding a pint of Guinness. Since you can easily recall a redhead Irish in your mind, you think therefore that the Irish are more likely to be redheads.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

crowdsource.jpgYesterday I wrote about this little mental quirk called the “availability bias” that could cost you a lot. I gave you an example, based on my conversations with clients and their propensities that I had to suppress. If an investor sold his portfolio four days ago at the bottom of the market based on his experience the prior week, and bought back yesterday because he was inspired by the 3-day 20% rally, he would have owned 20% less productive assets.  This is even though the total dollar amount is the same, since what he bought was 20% more expensive than when he sold it.

But most likely, this person won’t sense any loss, since after all, he owns the same dollar amount of stocks. How cool is that? He loses 20% of his wealth, his future income will be 20% less, and yet he barely notices it. It turns out there is another mental quirk that is playing games with him. It is called the “saliency bias.”

Read the rest of this entry »

 

drawing-chart-going-up.jpgAfter three days of the stock market rallying, I have noticed a change of tune among my clients who have been calling me. Three days ago, a few of them were asking if they should get out of the market altogether and wait until things turned the corner. Three days and 20% higher in the Dow, they want to increase their investment in stocks. But why? Why are stocks so bad when they are 20% cheaper and so good now that they are 20% more expensive!?

There is a little mental quirk that has been playing games with us. This quirk was discovered by Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman, together with his trusted collaborator Amos Tversky who died too young to share the Nobel Prize. This quirk is called “availability bias.” That is when we assess the probability of a future event, we try to recall that event from our memory. If the event can be easily recalled, we subjectively judge it to be more likely. Read the rest of this entry »

 

Now that the panic has abated a little, many financial advisors (FAs) are advising their clients to buy strong stocks on sale. None other than Jim Cramer made the same proclamation, he even mentioned ten stocks by name. (Just FYI, he did the same in 2008 – and I did a study afterward – 8 out of the 10 underperformed the S&P 500 index that year.)

So what are the strong stocks to own? Are they industrial titans like Boeing or GE? They were strong stocks but are they still? Are they Wall Street banks too big to fail like JP Morgan or Citibank? But how do we know they’re not just another Lehman Brothers? Is it a consumer tech giant like Apple? How can we be sure it won’t go the way of Sony, which was the previous consumer tech giant. How about Netflix? When we are stuck at home social distancing, you’ve got to watch Netflix right? But what if Amazon, Apple and the other big boys jumping in the streaming market eat its lunch?

Read the rest of this entry »

 

1.jpgPrior to the market’s open yesterday, the Fed announced unlimited asset purchases that also include corporate bonds, municipal bonds and securities backed by consumer loans.

Wow!

There is a long-term downside of taking this measure. I am not going to write about it until the market calms down. Today I am going to write about the short-term upside for the economy, for the market and for investors like us.

Whether it is called QE (quantitative easing), asset purchases, or balance sheet expansion, it means the same thing: the Fed is creating new money. Just ten days ago, the Fed announced they would create $1.5T new money, but the market pretty much ignored that. Now the Fed is essentially saying that they will create as much money as possible to back-stop this financial crisis.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

018443422de7644a788fd5f9daa27e3a.jpgOver the weekend, a client of mine sent me a news report about how Senator Richard Burr, head of the Senate intelligence committee, sold his stocks before the coronavirus market crash. This maneuver is called front-running the market. Simply explained, if you possess superior information that the market does not have yet, you can massively profit from this superior information by positioning your portfolio ahead of the anticipated impact the information will have on the market once it becomes public.

There is a whole body of academic studies on who has superior information. They are the usual suspects: lawmakers and company executives. Regarding company executives, research shows that CEOs and COOs have the best inside information, followed by CFOs. After that, information superiority drops off quickly. The information possessed by company directors is rarely superior. Research also shows that legislators are able to position their portfolios as they make laws. The difference between lawmakers and company executives is that the latter’s actions are heavily regulated and the former’s are not.

Read the rest of this entry »


Author

Michael Zhuang is principal of MZ Capital, a fee-only independent advisory firm based in Washington, DC.

Twitter: @mzhuang

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

Archives

%d bloggers like this: