Author: shyam

Weekly Recap: Purpose of Love

world equities 2014-02-28.2014-03-07

The Nifty clocked in +3.98% (+5.83% in USD terms) this week.

Major
DAX(DEU) -3.52%
CAC(FRA) -0.95%
UKX(GBR) -1.42%
NKY(JPN) +2.92%
SPX(USA) +0.58%
MINTs
JCI(IDN) +1.42%
INMEX(MEX) +0.53%
NGSEINDX(NGA) -1.53%
XU030(TUR) +0.95%
BRICS
IBOV(BRA) -1.80%
SHCOMP(CHN) +0.08%
NIFTY(IND) +3.98%
INDEXCF(RUS) -7.29%
TOP40(ZAF) +1.02%

Nifty Heatmap

NIFTY heatmap 2014-02-28.2014-03-07

Index Performance

index performance 2014-02-28.2014-03-07

Top Winners and Losers

DLF +18.24%
ADANIENT +19.21%
YESBANK +23.27%
GLAXO -13.03%
DRREDDY -5.88%
GODREJCP -5.62%
Dash for trash?

ETFs

BANKBEES +10.22%
PSUBNKBEES +7.31%
NIFTYBEES +4.07%
JUNIORBEES +3.97%
INFRABEES +2.87%
GOLDBEES -1.01%
Infrastructure finally caught a bid! Banks rallied.

Advancers and Decliners

advacers and decliners 2014-02-28.2014-03-07

Investment Theme Performance

High beta names caught a bid. IT stocks corrected towards the end of the week on a strong rupee.

Sector Performance

sector performance 2014-02-28.2014-03-07

Yield Curve

yield Curve 2014-02-28.2014-03-07

Thought for the weekend

Could one of the “purposes” of love be to make couples crazy enough to ditch their current partners first? The overwhelming evidence from our genes and from the history of human societies is that something is driving breakups just as powerfully as that same mechanism, or some related one, drives people to get together in the first place.

Source: What if the purpose of love is to get us out of relationships, not into them?

Stock Market ≠ Economy

Economic statistics hit your inbox almost on a daily basis. Markit has its “flash” numbers ready 15 days before the “final” numbers. Government/RBI press releases about the GDP, CAD, etc come out once a month. And then there are expert forecasts about how the numbers are going to look on an annual basis, etc. And then there are bloggers and commentators who slice-and-dice the data to read the tea leaves. But should equity market investors care?

“An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn’t happen today.” – Evan Esar

If you are not trading interest-rate or currency derivatives, and if you truly are a long-term equity market investor, then growth rates hardly matter. Data show that there is very little correlation between GDP growth and stock market returns. In a 2012 paper titled “Is Economic Growth Good for Investors?”, Jay R. Ritter from the University of Florida actually found a negative correlation between GDP growth per capita and inflation-adjusted stock returns. From the abstract:

Economic growth comes partly from increased inputs of capital and labor, which don’t necessarily benefit the stockholders of existing companies. Economic growth also comes from technological change, which does not necessarily lead to higher profits if competition between firms results in the benefits being passed to consumers and workers. Realized growth has both an expected and unexpected component. Apparently investors overpay for expected growth, and this over-payment more than offsets the benefits of unexpected growth.

“If you spend more than 13 minutes analyzing economic and market forecasts, you’ve wasted 10 minutes.” – Peter Lynch

In fact, seasoned investors have time and again advised us to keep economists away from the trading floor. Here’s a gem from TRB:

Stocks trade based on three things: sentiment, valuation and trend. Yes, economic data feeds into these things, but it is up to the trader or investor to determine their combined favorability, an economist does not do that sort of work. The reality is that there is no such positive correlation over various periods of time between economic data and stocks in any given country.

And recently from AWOC:

The economy and the stock market are two different animals. The economy matters much less to stock market returns than most professional investors would have you believe. Economic data lags, gets revised, has seasonality and is just generally hard to use when making investment decisions for all but a very small percentage of investment professionals.

I am all on board to keeping a 36,000 foot view on growth trends, credit cycles, bank balance-sheets etc. It allows you to develop an understanding of sector rotations and position your portfolio beta. But knowing the minutiae might actually be of negative value to your investment process.

Sources:

The Seersucker Theory

We have always been skeptical about forecasting experts. However, skepticism about forecasts is nothing new. Lao Tzu, a 6th century poet is quoted as saying: “Those who have knowledge don’t predict. Those who predict don’t have knowledge.” The Little Book of Behavioral Investing has an entire chapter dedicated to explaining why Forecasting is a Sham. And yet, people are willing to pay heavily for expert advice. They generally ignore available evidence and continue paying for forecasts.

sucker

As J. Scott Armstrong so eloquently put it: “No matter how much evidence exists that seers do not exist, suckers will pay for the existence of seers.” This is the Seersucker Theory.

Its not that experts are useless. But expertise beyond a minimal level is of little value in forecasting change. This conclusion is both surprising and useful, and its implication is clear: Don’t hire the best expert, hire the cheapest expert.

However, we often fool ourselves into believing that the more we pay for advice, the better it is. Armstrong goes on to say: One explanation is that the client is not interested in accuracy, but only in avoiding responsibility. A client who calls in the best wizard available avoids blame if the forecasts are inaccurate. The evasion of responsibility is one possible explanation for why stock market investors continue to purchase expert advice in spite of overwhelming evidence that such advice is worthless.

The whole paper is worth a read and raises some important questions about our own beliefs.

Source: The seer-sucker theory: the value of experts inforecasting

Overcoming the 5 common mistakes that investors make

We are big fans of emotion control when it comes to investing. Most of us know this famous Jesse Livermore quote: “Money is made by sitting, not trading.” And yet, we can’t help ourselves.

Michael J. Mauboussin of Credit Suisse has an interesting report out on how to make better decisions:

improve-1

Know the outside view

The outside view imposes a fundamental question: “What happened when others were in this position before?” Research shows that the inside view often yields predictions that are too optimistic, revealing a form of overconfidence. The outside view generally tempers that overconfidence and provides a much stronger foundation for thinking about how the future might unfold.

Conduct a pre-mortem

Rather than using the past as a guide for the present, the pr-emortem goes from the future to the present. Before you actually make a decision, launch yourself into the future, say one year from now, and pretend that you made the decision. Now assume the decision turned out poorly, and you must document the reasons for the failure.

Seek out naysayers

It is common for investment firms to position their portfolios to reflect a particular point of view or theme. Mind-sets can be good, of course, when they get everyone on the same page. But mind-sets are a problem if the world changes. So seek out naysayers, or “red-teams.” Red-teaming is a technique to offset the rigidity of mind-sets.

A red team attacks and a blue team defends. In this case, the blue team would be assigned to defend the mind-set that underpins the portfolio. The red team would be a small number of people who would be charged with contesting the mind-set. Red-teaming allows for an explicit challenge to the prevailing mind-set, and at a minimum forces the team members to seriously consider an alternative point of view.

Maintain a decision-making journal

Sometimes good decisions turn out poorly and bad decisions turn out well. Since our minds are biased to assume that the outcome reflects the level of skill, keeping track of the quality of our decisions is difficult. The primary way to focus attention on the decision-making process is to keep a journal that documents your thinking. This is how you impose accountability on yourself.

Be mindful of your surroundings and work to improve them

When we observe the behavior of others, we attribute that behavior to the individual’s disposition and not to the situation. But there is substantial evidence that shows that the situation exerts a very powerful influence on the decisions that people make.

For example, some investors that claim to have a long-term orientation focus disproportionately on the short term following a spell of poor results. Others claim to use a fundamental approach yet use charts to time trades. The divergence between what you say and what you do might be result of the environmental cues around you.

And remember this awesome quote from Phil Birnbaum:

“You gain more by not being stupid than you do by being smart. Smart gets neutralized by other smart people. Stupid does not.”

Source: Methods to Improve Decisions

The Inflation Targeting Trojan Horse

Raghuram Rajan, after having said “If you do a Volcker, you kill the supply side, and then you are in a bad situation,” seems to be itching to do a mini-Volcker.

On his arrival at the RBI, Rajan established a Trojan horse in the shape of an expert committee tasked to advise whether the central bank’s somewhat elastic growth-inflation mandate should be changed to a narrow inflation target.

The Urjit Committee came back with a recommendation that the RBI should aim to reduce headline consumer price inflation to 8% within a year, 6% within two years and 4% (+/- 2pp) thereafter.

This chart from a recent Credit Suisse report show how ridiculously difficult this is going to be:

growth vs inflation

The problem is that India is a convoluted policy mess. Food & energy account for 57% of the total CPI. We have a Minimum Support Prices (MSP) for food that have a greater impact on food & energy inflation than repo rates.

msp vs inflation

More from the Credit Suisse report:

Supply-side shocks (e.g. unusual weather patterns) and government policies are often more important drivers to the extent they impact food prices in particular. According to our analysis, if, for example, the government were to lift minimum support prices for key foodstuffs by an average of 20% at the beginning of the 2014/15 fiscal year, rather than another 6% as in 2013/14, this would more than offset the disinflationary effect of a 100bp repo rate hike.

The brain-trust at Credit Suisse expect three more 25bps repo rate hikes by the end of the 2014/15 fiscal year. If this were to occur, what would become of the banks? From FT:

If one makes sane assumptions regarding what % of the currently stressed assets of the banking system will have to written off and if one factors in incremental Basel III capital requirements over and above that, Indian banks need around US$40bn to regain Balance Sheet strength. That amounts to 2% of GDP.

Inflation targeting, without fiscal reform, and without considering the fate of banks and lacking any progress on labor reforms will brew a potentially toxic stew. Good luck to whoever wins the elections.