Author Archives: Scalper1

The #1 Secret Behind George Soros’s Investment Success

Although now long retired, the octogenarian George Soros is widely considered the greatest speculator of all time. Other investors such as Ray Dalio may have made more money for their investors than Soros. Activists such as Carl Icahn may have briefly exceeded Soros’s net worth. But Soros will always remain the man who “broke the Bank of England” in 1992, thereby exemplifying a gunslinging style of trading that has been largely confined to the history books. Back in 1987, he wrote a book about his investment philosophy called The Alchemy of Finance , outlining his “Theory of Reflexivity.” Soros admitted he gave his theory such a grand-sounding name so that it would sound like Einstein’s “General Theory of Relativity.” He thought it was that important. Wall Street strategist Barton Biggs called it: “a seminal investment book… it should be read, thought about, underlined page by page, concept-by-idea… (Soros) is the best pure investor ever… probably the finest analyst of our world in our time.” Because of Soros’s stature, The Alchemy of Finance turned out to be one of those books that every Wall Street investor said they had read. But I doubt any of them got through it, let alone understood it. George Soros’s #1 Investment Secret: Tackling ‘The Alchemy Of Finance’ When I was managing my first investment fund over 20 years ago, I decided that I really wanted to get inside Soros’s head. So I took Barton Biggs’s advice and read The Alchemy of Finance . I read it once… I didn’t get it… I read it again… I still didn’t get it… Now, keep in mind that I had been through law school… … So I was used to stirring concrete with my eyelashes… … And getting through more poorly written, turgid prose than most humans should have to endure… But Soros’s writing style made judicial opinions seem like Ernest Hemingway’s lucid prose. Then one day, I ran across a quote from Soros’s own son. It made everything crystal clear, but not in the way that I expected. “My father will sit down and give you theories to explain why he does this or that. But I remember seeing it as a kid and thinking, Jesus Christ, at least half of this is bulls**t, I mean, you know the reason he changes his position in the market or whatever is because his back starts killing him. It has nothing to do with reason. He literally goes into a spasm, and it’s his early warning sign.” – George Soros’s son, Robert, on his father’s Theory of Reflexivity. Soros himself went on to criticize his own theory in the next edition of the book, admitting that it was essentially incomprehensible. And he was right. George Soros’s #1 Investment Secret: Correcting False Predictions So, if no one has a grand theory to explain the market – not even George Soros – what chance do you have to be a successful trader? It turns out there is a secret to George Soros’s success. But it’s not one that you will find in The Alchemy of Finance . But once you understand and apply this secret, it will make your trading life much easier – and certainly less stressful. The “secret” to Soros’s success is not the ability of his “Theory of Reflexivity” to explain or predict the market. In fact, the secret to his success is quite the opposite. I found it buried in a Soros interview in John Train’s The New Money Masters , in what was almost a throwaway comment: “My approach works not by making valid predictions but by allowing me to correct false ones.” Now, I could get into how this all has to do with Soros’s admiration for the philosopher Karl Popper and the limits of human understanding. But comments from traders who have worked with Soros are more relevant. From James Marquez, a former Soros chief investment officer (CIO): “Soros would be the first one to tell you that sometimes his actions… look like the most rookie, odd-lot, wrong-way kind of thing, selling at the lows, and buying at the highs. But it’s much easier to understand in light of his avowed mission: to be able to come and fight another day. He says: “I don’t want to wake up broke.” And then, Alan Raphael, yet another Soros CIO: “When George is wrong, he gets the hell out. He doesn’t say, ‘I’m right, they’re wrong.’ He says, ‘I’m wrong,’ and he gets out, because if you have a bad position on, it eats you away. All you do is think about it – at night, at your home. It consumes you. Your eye is off the ball completely. This is a tough business. If it were easy, meter maids would be doing it.” Now, contrast that philosophy with how most other people think of trading or investing: We develop an opinion on a stock. We take a position. We convince ourselves that we made the right decision. This is when a bad investment turns into a “long-term investment.” And the “smarter” we are, the worse it is. We “know” we’re right. We “know” our investments will eventually “come back.” Now, let’s examine how Soros would look at the same situation. Here’s my take on what Soros believes: “The secret to my success is that I know that I will be wrong. I consider it a strength to admit my mistakes. That allows me to stay in the game and fight another day.” George Soros’s #1 Investment Secret: How To Apply It In Your Own Trading So, how can you apply this approach in your own trading? Understand that successful trading in the markets has much more to do with having proper exits and position sizing (bet size) than it does the “Theory of Reflexivity” or any other explanation of the market. So the next time you come across a “can’t fail” investment idea, here’s what you should do: Listen carefully and see if it makes sense to you. If you agree with it, then consider taking a position in it. But no matter how terrific-sounding the idea, make sure that you have your exits and position sizing strategies in place. If the position goes against you – which some inevitably will – reframe in your mind the idea that taking a loss is a strength. Make sure you cut your losses. This, I believe, is the key that will keep you from “waking up broke.”

Low Volatility Funds Outperform In 2016

In July and August of 2015, I wrote an expansive series of fourteen articles on the Low Volatility Anomaly, or why lower risk investments have outperformed higher risk investments over time. This Anomaly seems paradoxical; investors should be paid through higher returns for securities with a greater risk of loss. Across different markets, geographies, and time intervals, the series shows that higher beta investments have not delivered higher realized returns and offers suggestions backed by academic research to suggest why this might be the case. We are in another period where lower volatility stocks are dramatically outperforming higher beta stocks, and this article will demonstrate the relative performance of these strategies year-to-date. I will demonstrate the relative performance across capitalization sizes (large cap, mid-cap, and small cap equity) and other geographies (international developed and emerging markets). Readers may counter that, of course, lower risk stocks are outperforming in a down market, so I will show relative performance of the indices underpinning these strategies back to the March 2009 cyclical lows. If lower volatility strategies capture less upside in bull markets, then perhaps their value in corrections is overstated. Let’s look at the evidence. Year-to-Date Performance: Large-Cap Thus far in 2016, the two most popular low volatility exchange-traded funds, the iShares MSCI USA Minimum Volatility ETF (NYSEARCA: USMV ) and the S&P 500 Low Volatility Portfolio (NYSEARCA: SPLV ) are handily beating the S&P 500 (NYSEARCA: SPY ), the broad domestic equity market gauge. Through Friday’s close, the S&P 500 has generated a -8.46% total return while the most popular low volatility funds have lost just over three percent. Relative performance is graphed below: Click to enlarge Source: Bloomberg; Standard and Poor’s Year-to-Date Performance: Mid-Cap Mid-cap stocks have further underperformed large cap stocks thus far in 2016 with the SPDR S&P MidCap 400 ETF (NYSEARCA: MDY ) producing a -9.57% return. The low volatility subset of this index, replicated through the PowerShares S&P MidCap Low Volatility Portfolio (NYSEARCA: XMLV ) has also meaningfully outperformed in 2016, besting the mid-cap and large cap indices. For a historical examination of the risk-adjusted returns of this index, see my article on ” The Low Volatility Anomaly: Mid Caps “. Click to enlarge Source: Bloomberg; Standard and Poor’s Year-to-Date Performance: Small Cap Like both large and mid-cap stocks, the PowerShares S&P SmallCap Low Volatility Portfolio (NYSEARCA: XSLV ) has meaningfully outperformed the S&P 600 SmallCap Index ETF (NYSEARCA: IJR ). While the exchange-traded fund has a limited history (February 2013 inception date), the underlying index has data back for twenty years, demonstrating a return profile that would have bested the S&P 500 by nearly four percentage points per annum with lower variability of returns. This fund may deliver both the “size premia” and the “low volatility anomaly” in one vehicle, and has acquitted itself decently (543bp outperformance versus small caps and 307bp outperformance versus the S&P 500) in a rough market start to 2016. For a historical examination of the risk-adjusted returns of this index, see my article on ” The Low Volatility Anomaly: Small Caps “. Click to enlarge Source: Bloomberg; Standard and Poor’s Year-to-Date Performance: International Developed Negative equity market performance has obviously not been unique to the United States amidst a global sell-off. The PowerShares S&P International Developed Low Volatility Portfolio (NYSEARCA: IDLV ) has outperformed non-US developed markets, besting the Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US ETF (NYSEARCA: VEU ) by 450bp in 2016. Click to enlarge Source: Bloomberg; Standard and Poor’s Year-to-Date Performance: Emerging Markets Pressured by the spillover from decelerating Chinese growth, commodity market sensitivity, and increased market and currency volatility, emerging markets have been a focal point for stress in 2016, but the PowerShares S&P Emerging Markets Low Volatility Portfolio (NYSEARCA: EELV ) has meaningfully outperformed the two largest emerging market exchange traded funds – the Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF (NYSEARCA: VWO ) and the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (NYSEARCA: EEM ). Click to enlarge Source: Bloomberg; Standard and Poor’s In past articles, I have often demonstrated the efficacy of Low Volatility strategies by showing the relative outperformance of the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index (NYSEARCA: SPLV ) versus the S&P 500 and S&P 500 High Beta Index (NYSEARCA: SPHB ). The Low Volatility bent produces both higher absolute returns and much higher risk-adjusted returns. Click to enlarge Readers might look at these cumulative total return graphs and believe they can time the points at which high beta stocks outperform. From the close of the week at the cyclical lows in March 2009 to Friday’s close, the Low Volatility Index has also outperformed on an absolute basis. Click to enlarge In a long bull market that saw 16%+ annualized returns, you have not conceded performance when including the recent correction. In addition to less variable returns over time, low volatility strategies also afford more downside protection – an important feature that has been valuable in early 2016. Disclaimer: My articles may contain statements and projections that are forward-looking in nature, and therefore inherently subject to numerous risks, uncertainties and assumptions. While my articles focus on generating long-term risk-adjusted returns, investment decisions necessarily involve the risk of loss of principal. Individual investor circumstances vary significantly, and information gleaned from my articles should be applied to your own unique investment situation, objectives, risk tolerance, and investment horizon. Disclosure: I am/we are long SPY, SPLV, USMV, VWO, IDLV, XSLV, IJR. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

A Vanguard Buy And Hold Mutual Fund Strategy With 9% Growth And -6% Maximum Drawdown

All of my previous investing strategies have focused on tactical asset allocation to reduce risk in a portfolio while maintaining moderate growth. My objectives for a low risk, moderate growth tactical strategy have been: 1) 10% Compounded Annual Growth Rate [CAGR], 2) -5% Maximum Drawdown [MaxDD], and 3) all positive years of return. In my research, I have found a combination of five Vanguard mutual funds that can be bought and held (rebalanced annually) that nearly meet my objectives. A passive strategy holding these funds eliminates the need (and cost and risk) of updating every month in a tactical asset allocation strategy. This article will describe the components of this buy & hold strategy and present backtest results from 1988 to the present. As an overview, portfolio growth of this buy & hold strategy is presented below. (click to enlarge) Click to enlarge The five Vanguard funds are: 1. Vanguard GNMA Fund (MUTF: VFIIX ), 2. Vanguard High Yield Tax-Exempt Fund (MUTF: VWAHX ), 3. Vanguard Health Care Fund (MUTF: VGHCX ), 4. Vanguard Long-Term Treasury Fund (MUTF: VUSTX ), and 5. Vanguard Short-Term Treasury Fund (MUTF: VFISX ). Five different classes of funds are represented in the basket of funds: 1) a GNMA bond fund, 2) a high yield municipal bond fund, 3) a healthcare equity fund, 4) a long-term treasury bond fund, and 5) a short-term treasury bond fund. The correlations between these funds can be seen below (taken from Portfolio Visualizer [PV]). It can be seen that the funds do not correlate well with each other, as desired. (click to enlarge) Click to enlarge Backtesting was performed from 1988 – present using PV. In order to backtest to 1988, Fidelity Limited Term Government Fund (MUTF: FFXSX ) was substituted for VFISX. The backtest results are shown below. For comparison, results of an absolute momentum strategy and the Vanguard Total Bond Index Fund (MUTF: VBMFX ) are also presented. The absolute momentum strategy buys and holds all five funds unless any fund has a one-month total return that is less than a money market return. If that occurs, then the money from that fund is diverted into a money market fund until the one-month return is greater than the money market return. (click to enlarge) Click to enlarge (click to enlarge) Click to enlarge (click to enlarge) Click to enlarge (click to enlarge) Click to enlarge It can be seen that the buy & hold strategy has the highest total return with relatively low drawdown. The CAGR is 9.0% and the MaxDD is -6.0%. The worst year is -0.9% in 1994, and the only other year with negative return is 1999 (-0.4%). All other years have positive returns. The risk adjusted return numbers are: Sharpe Ratio = 1.2, Sortino Ratio = 2.2, and MAR (CAGR/MaxDD) = 1.5. The monthly win rate is ~73%. The buy & hold strategy has the highest annual return (over the other two investment vehicles) in 16 of the 28 years presented. Usually, an absolute momentum strategy such as the one presented here will help reduce drawdown at the expense of annual growth. And, indeed, we see that kind of result here. The absolute momentum tactical strategy has a CAGR of 7.4% and a MaxDD of -3.0%. So there is a tradeoff, higher CAGR for the buy & hold passive strategy (9.0% vs. 7.4%), or lower MaxDD for the absolute momentum active strategy (-3.0% vs. -6.0%). In this case, I would prefer the higher growth buy & hold strategy because of its simplicity and -6.0% MaxDD is still quite low. Disclosure: I am/we are long VFIIX, VWAHX, VGHCX, VUSTX, VFISX. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.