Random Articles For The Day

Some articles...



  • US GDP growth comes in at -0.3% (Bloomberg): I'm playing around with a contrarian macro call for a better economic growth than the market is pricing in. I don't have a firm view yet but I'm thinking that economic growth is not going to be terrible (worse than 2000 or 1990 recessions but not probably not as bad as 1974.) The problem with a GDP call is inflation. I'm still not leaning one way or another when it comes to future inflation.
  • Critical thought about hedge funds in Canada (The Globe & Mail): Good thing the unsophisticated public--you and me--can't invest in what passes for hedge funds these days. At least when it comes to Canada, it's quite correct to say that many so-called hedge funds have nothing to do with hedging (most have high positive correlation to the index) and simply leveraged bets on resource companies.
  • Hartford Financial, an insurer, facing problems (MarketWatch): This just goes to show how overrated American executives are. Aren't insurance companies supposed to be conservative? Guess not. First we have the bond insurers. Then the big one, AIG. Now, it looks like Hartford, a once-not-so-tiny insurer, is facing potential capital shortfalls (it's actually so bad that management can't even tell how much capital it has.) One would have thought that insurers would build a business model that accounts for capital market disruptions. If there is any positive to the current crisis, I suspect it is the ridiculous compensation for executives and the tendency for many in North America to place management on pedestals.
  • Pension shortfalls starting to appear (The Globe & Mail): It looks like some Canadian pensions are facing minor problems now that the stock market has fallen. Warren Buffett rarely makes general long-term calls but one of his most powerful was his multiple warnings that pension obligations are not adequately accounted for. I think everyone realizes that government pension plans are totally messed up (I am expecting a big political clash between the old and the young within the next 20 years.) But my feeling is that the market and investors don't extend that view to corporate pensions. If you are a long-term investor in North America (or countries with sizeable pension obligations,) this will have a huge impact. The key point Buffett made was that pension administrators and executives were assuming too high of a return from their assets. Well, if their assets fall and don't rise (or don't rise as the project,) there will be shocks. I'm not a legal expert I believe pension obligation take higher precedence over shareholder or bondholder obligations so keep that in mind.
  • Some Government officials question the IRS tax rule promoting bank mergers (Bloomberg): I never really understood the merits of the tax rule change that promoted bank mergers and some politicians are questioning it as well. Recall that this was the change that let Wells Fargo buy Wachovia (Wells Fargo wouldn't have bought it without the tax benefit.) It's too late to change anything but I really don't know why such a change was made out of the blue. Let me also say that I am not a fan of the Bush-Paulson-Bernanke strategy of trying to save the system by creating 'super' banks. It seems very much like a short-sighted strategy to pass the problem to the future. Recall that one of the reasons a country like Iceland had problems was because the banks were much larger than the country. No one could take anything the Icelandic government or central bank said seriously. USA is nowhere near that but it at the rate that it is going, I wonder. I also question the wisdom of (implicitly) claiming that the larger you are, the stronger the system is. One of the reasons Morgan Stanley collapsed was because its balance sheet hit $1 trillion (due to leverage) and there was no way anyone could have a grasp of the inherent risk.
  • GMAC may convert to a bank (The Globe & Mail): I have nothing against GMAC but I'm sure this is not what the US government or its taxpayers had in mind with their bank aid plan.
  • Ambac wants to tap the Treasury bailout (Ambac): Not sure what to make of this. This will clearly help the bond insurers but it isn't what you would find in the 'Book of Capitalism'. One thing though about helping the bond insurers is that you get more bang for the buck with them than with banks (who may not lend the monetary benefit they receive.) Ambac and other bond insurers will likely post very poor numbers next week but the question is whether they have sorted out their collateral posting requirements, and manage the losses on the insured portfolio.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Thoughts on the stock market - March 2020

Image
Right now, DJIA has a P/E of 16.8 and forwand P/E of 15.1, whereas S&P 500 is at 20.1 with forward P/E of 15.8. Source: WSJ market Data If you ignore interest rates and inflation expectations--both of these influence valuations but depends on your macro call-- the market is not cheap. Long-term P/E is around 15. Trailing P/E is around 20% (Dow) to 40% (S&P500) higher than average. Forward P/E is in line with long term average but that assumes a strong V recovery. Consensus forecast is for profits to drop 1.2% in 2020. In 2008, it dropped 25.4% so current forecast is a very mild recession. Covid-19 coronavirus is not going to last more than a few months but these forecasts are still too rosy in my opinion. So I wouldn't rely on forward P/E. The richly valued (mostly tech or high quality) have not fallen much but the distressed ones have. So if you want to outperform in the long run, I think one’s choice right now is to: • Wait for market to fall another, say
✖ READ MORE >>>

Warren Buffett's Evolution and his Three Investment Styles

Image
A Young Warren Buffett In a comment to one of my posts , Mark Carter, who incidentally appears to have a  good blog worth checking out , asked: "Buffett Prime is 1970's to early 1990's" Could you elaborate? I have vaguely indicated how I view Warren Buffett in the past, but I thought I would detail my view of his investing behaviour. This is more of an opinion piece and many others would disagree with me (if you do, I'm curious to hear your thoughts). I don't follow Warren Buffett as closely as many value investors so I may get some facts wrong. My view is that Warren Buffett went through three different phases, with each consisting of different investment techniques. The overall investment theory remained the same—what people call value investing—but his execution, tactics, and strategy differs across the three phases. Some people may break up his career into additional periods but my feeling is that the three I will describe essentially capt
✖ READ MORE >>>

Hugh Hendry discussion at the Alternative Investment Conference

Thanks to Value Investing World for bringing this Hugh Hendry interview to my attention. I may not agree with all the things—short-term orientation of hedge funds is actually worse IMO; the sharp pencil effect doesn't always work—but Hendry is a true contrarian and worth listening. Like Marc Faber or Jim Rogers, you also can't take everything Hugh Hendry says seriously. I had always felt Hugh Hendry was firmly in the deflation camp but I get the feeling that he is now opening up to high-inflation possibilities. Otherwise, his stance appears to be similar to past opinions.
✖ READ MORE >>>