Tag Archives: marketplace

You Could Short China At This Point, But It’s Not For The Fainthearted

Chinese stock markets could be set to fall by 50 percent. Given concerns of a stock market bubble in China, I take a bearish view on Chinese equities at this point in time. The ProShares Short FTSE China 50 ETF could potentially provide an opportunity to take advantage of a downturn. However, this strategy carries high risk given the degree of volatility inherent in Chinese stock markets. Once a booming economy at which a growth rate of below 8 percent annually was unheard of, things have certainly been changing for China in the past five years. Stock markets in China have certainly seen periods of abnormally high returns. However, such returns have come with significant volatility and sustained growth has remained elusive. For instance, the Shanghai Composite Index (000001.SS) has seen significantly high returns in the past year, up over 100 percent from the beginning of 2014 to May of this year. However, the trend now appears to be reversing, with the index having lost as much as 12 percent since the beginning of June, along with various experts predicting that the index could in fact fall by 50 percent. While I had previously commended China’s rise in stock prices and was optimistic on its continuation, I am less so in light of the recent volatility. Firstly, high stock market returns have not been matched by correspondingly high growth. China’s stock markets appear to have been taking a similar course as that of Europe, where quantitative easing and lower interest rates have forced investors to seek higher returns in the stock market. Moreover, this situation is being exacerbated in China given that returns from the property sector have been significantly lower than in previous years. In this context, I take a bearish view on China at this point in time. Given the historical nature of volatility across Chinese stock markets, the market appears to be at a significant risk of correction. This is especially possible given that stock returns are increasingly being driven by margin; i.e. investors are now borrowing to fund their positions. Should contagion develop in China and investors pull out their funds, then it is quite conceivable that a 50 percent drop would be possible under such circumstances. While a 50 percent drop seems rather drastic, it would not be that unusual when taking into account that the Shanghai Composite has already appreciated by over 100 percent in the past year. Moreover, China’s stock markets have precedent for demonstrating that they are not immune to contagion, with the Shanghai Composite having dropped almost 60 percent between 2007-08 in spite of higher economic growth rates above 8 percent at the time. Additionally, with China trading at a cyclically-adjusted price-earnings ratio of 20.5, this is significantly higher than the overall emerging markets ratio of 16.5. In this regard, China’s stock markets are likely overvalued and could be due for a pullback. While China’s quantitative easing has spurred increased investment in the stock market due to lower borrowing costs, this is unsustainable and there is always a risk of a sharp pullback in response to a rise in US interest rates, as investors seek more stable returns elsewhere. For investors wishing to take advantage of a specific short position on Chinese stock markets, one way of doing so is through the ProShares Short FTSE China 50 (NYSEARCA: YXI ), which has returned over 7 percent since the beginning of May. This ETF corresponds to the inverse of the FTSE/Xinhua China 50 Index and has succeeded in capturing a broad downturn in the Chinese market over the past two months. However, a significant risk remains in that investors would likely have to time the trade very well; returns on the ETF as a whole have been negative. Moreover, 5 of the 10 largest companies on the index originate from the financial sector. In this regard, it is likely that stock performance would move down in response to a broader economic downturn in China. However, with Chinese banks gaining traction internationally, it could be the case that this in fact lifts stock market performance higher. To conclude, I take an overall bearish view on the Chinese stock market at this point and a short opportunity likely exists. However, investors would likely endure significant volatility in doing so which would make this quite a risky trade. Disclaimer: Investing in emerging markets carries a high degree of volatility and as such, the above strategy is not recommended for conservative investors. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) 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.

Left Smarting – Smart Beta Products May Not Make Bad Decisions But They Do Facilitate Them

By Kevin Murphy ‘But guns don’t kill people, people do’ is a line less likely to settle an argument than provoke further discussion and yet it is not impossible to imagine an advocate of so-called ‘smart beta’ investments – strategies that try to build on simple index-tracking products by focusing in on a specific factor, such as growth, momentum or value – using a similar refrain. “But smart beta products don’t make bad investment decisions, investors do,” they might tell a doubter. To which we would reply – as we would to anyone trying the gun line – “OK, but they do make the job a lot easier.” We touched on this idea of smart beta products exacerbating investors’ well-documented inability to judge when to buy into and sell out of markets in, among other articles, Smart thinking . That piece was inspired by some fascinating work by our friends at Empirical Research Partners and, since they have recently returned to the subject, we shall too. What Empirical has done is to look at two relationships – first, between past performance and where investors put their money and, second, between where investors put their money and subsequent performance. As you can see from the chart below, for eight out of the 11 categories of smart beta strategies analysed, there is a very strong positive correlation between past performance and future fund flows, with those directing money towards yield-type exchange traded funds (ETFs) apparently the most prone to invest with at least one eye on the rear view mirror. Source: Strategic Insight Simfund, Empirical Research Partners Analysis, June 2015 Here on The Value Perspective, we have no major philosophical issue with investors putting money into areas that have performed well, if – and it is a big if – they continue to perform well. So did Empirical identify any sort of positive relationship between performance in consecutive quarters? Did funds that performed well continue to do so? The answer, as you can see from the following chart, is ‘not really’. Source: Strategic Insight Simfund, Empirical Research Partners Analysis, June 2015 Indeed, returns to yield ETFs are so mean-reverting that, as Empirical observes: “If anything, investors should be buying them after down-quarters rather than up-quarters.” As value investors, we also cannot resist pointing out how momentum ETFs have a negative correlation here too – after all, the one quality investors might think they could count on from such a strategy would be, well, momentum. One final aspect of Empirical’s research we would highlight is the finding that, on average, smart beta strategies turn over about a third of their total capitalisation every month. This would of course imply the average holding period for a smart beta investor is three months – in other words, the average holding period mirrors the time frames of fund flows and performance discussed above. The picture being painted here is of a dispiriting and, to our minds, frankly nonsensical investment routine, where your average smart beta investor sees good performance, buys it, sells up after a quarter of likely disappointing performance, buys something else that has performed well, sells up after a quarter of likely disappointing performance and on and on until, presumably, they have no money left. No doubt, the groups that run smart beta strategies would argue they are intended to allow investors to tilt their exposure to factors they believe will deliver strong performance over the longer term. The reality seems to be, however, that that is not how many people use them – choosing instead to churn smart beta ETFs in the hope of squeezing the best possible performance from quarter to quarter. As we never tire of pointing out here on The Value Perspective, nothing in life is certain but, if anything came close, it would be that such a hope is destined to end in disappointment. Ultimately, one of the supposed selling points of smart beta ETFs – the ease with which investors can pick out and trade a particular strategy – is working against them. Instead of tangible companies, complete with management teams, business models and financial statements, ETF investors are buying into ethereal concepts that are based on other people’s definitions of value or momentum, say – and, if one does not work, it is significantly easier to give up and buy an alternative. That of course is the antithesis of what value investors look to do, preferring instead to play the patient, long-term game, with an average holding period of three or five years.

Evaluating Managers During Market Extremes

Summary Investing is a probability-based exercise; therefore, having a good decision making process is vitally important. Emotions and investing do not play well together and often lead to poor decisions. Investors should ultimately evaluate investments/managers in a way that minimizes emotional corrosion. Capital markets have a rhythm over the long term. They ebb and flow, creating investor sentiment that fluctuates between euphoria and despair. This pattern is one of the key impediments to becoming a successful investor. In order to succeed, one must master not only investment knowledge, but also investor psychology. Deciphering and filtering large amounts of data in order to make a successful investment is not enough. Investors must also control their emotions which often lead them to poor decisions. Looking at the stock markets today, the S&P 500 and the MSCI All Country World (“ACWI”) continue to climb in spite of lukewarm economic data. Through May 31st, the S&P 500 and ACWI are up 3.2% and 5.4%, respectively. This is quite a return when considering the U.S. Gross Domestic Product was reported down 0.2% for the first quarter. The three-year returns for the S&P 500 and ACWI were also very robust as these markets gained 68.0% and 53.9%, respectively. This pattern has been in place since the bottom of the market was established in early 2009. While the stock market recovery has allowed investors to regain losses from the financial crisis, the euphoria caused by accelerating markets can create doubt in one’s investment philosophy. This can overwhelm an investor’s ability to achieve their investment objectives because it can cause them to “chase returns” or “reach for yield” at the exact time in which they should be exhibiting discipline in their investment philosophy/process. At Highland, our overarching investment philosophy is one rooted in risk management. We believe investors should prudently seek return in a manner which protects them during difficult markets (i.e. large market declines). This philosophy leads us to managers which exhibit certain characteristics: Downside protection: losing less than the overall market during large, protracted declines; emphasis on intrinsic value: the price of an investment does matter; lower long-term volatility: a more consistent return pattern than the overall market (i.e. shorter peaks and troughs); and long-term time horizon: longer holding periods allows for an investment thesis to properly play out. By investing in managers which exhibit these characteristics, we believe that our investors can outperform the overall market over longer periods of time. However, in order to properly execute this philosophy, an investor must remain focused on the long term and remain patient. The goal of this approach is to enhance one’s ability to stick with their investment strategies during very difficult markets. Ironically, this investment approach tends to be most difficult to stomach during periods of rapidly appreciating markets as it and these types of managers will tend to underperform. For this reason, we will focus on evaluating managers during euphoric markets and how to determine if your objectives are still being met. Traditional Evaluation Methodology The most commonly used method to evaluate managers is to simply compare their historical performance to that of a benchmark index. While many different methods can be used, the most common method is annualized time-weighted returns. Figure 1 illustrates time-weighted returns of a global equity manager utilized by Highland: Figure 1 (click to enlarge) In order to evaluate the success of a manager, an investor must first define/understand what they mean by success. Many investors simply define success as a manager outperforming their respective benchmark. Using this measure of success, it appears that the global manager has been struggling to achieve success over the past three and five years. Based upon this analysis, an investor might be tempted to terminate the manager in search of a manager that has provided above-benchmark returns. At Highland, we believe that success is defined by an investor’s ability to achieve their long-term investment objectives. Ultimately, it is not only the return, but also how you achieve the return that determines success. We believe success is determined by the following: Outperforming the benchmark over the long term (minimum of 5-year rolling periods). Protecting capital during difficult markets. Exhibiting an overall volatility lower than the benchmark. The traditional type of analysis ultimately fails to determine success for two reasons. First, only one aspect of success (return) is being examined. Second, it can lead to poor decisions. Figure 2 compares Manager A’s and Manager B’s time-weighted returns. This chart illustrates the value added/subtracted (manager return minus benchmark return) over several time periods. Which manager would you choose? Most would pick Manager B because the value add is much higher and consistent than Manager A. The problem is that A and B are the same manager (see Figure 1 ). The only difference is that A represents data through May 31st and B represents data through February 28, 2009. This illustrates one of the major flaws with utilizing only time-weighted returns in your analysis, which is endpoint sensitivity . Figure 2 (click to enlarge) Endpoint sensitivity is a phenomenon which occurs when the conclusions of an analysis can be significantly altered by changing the ending data point (the ending date in this example). Highland’s investment philosophy employs strategies which seek to protect capital during difficult equity markets. This means that the managers in the portfolio tend to have less downside risk and lower overall volatility. Conversely, they tend to perform less well, on a relative basis, in big up markets. Therefore, this type of strategy often suffers severe endpoint sensitivity during market extremes, which was illustrated in Figure 2 . Highland’s Evaluation Methodology In order to minimize potentially erroneous conclusions caused by endpoint sensitivity, Highland employs additional analyses to evaluate manager success. The first is to consider rolling periods of compound returns (i.e. how consistent are a manager’s returns over longer periods of time). This type of analysis examines the entirety of a manager’s return stream to determine their probability of success. In addition, we examine a manager’s rolling excess performance over the benchmark to ensure consistency. By combining these two methods, we believe that we have a more predictable method of assessing whether a manager has the ability to add value. Figure 3 illustrates the global manager’s results based on this methodology. The results show that the manager has the ability to consistently outperform the benchmark, especially when examining longer time horizons (i.e. outperforming 100% of ten-year periods). This also shows how the results in Figure 1 are more driven by the extreme market environment and less by the manager’s ability to outperform. Figure 3 (click to enlarge) While the results in Figure 3 better account for endpoint sensitivity, they still only capture one aspect of success (return). To evaluate the risk aspect, Highland examines volatility and risk-adjusted returns to ensure a manager is providing the return profile required by our investment philosophy. There are numerous methods that can be used to evaluate risk-adjusted returns, and Highland uses most of them to analyze success. Figure 4 is one example, which examines return per unit of volatility over rolling periods (to eliminate endpoint sensitivity). Figure 4 (click to enlarge) Each of the methods used to evaluate success have their own set of pros and cons; therefore, one method cannot be used in isolation to properly judge a manager. Instead, Highland utilizes all of the methods discussed in order to determine if objectives are being met. This allows us to temper our emotions at market extremes and maintain sound judgment when it is the most difficult. We are then able to focus on the long term and put our clients in a position to achieve their investment objectives. Conclusion Conservative investment strategies can be beneficial for investors. They allow investors to stay calm and stick to their investment philosophy when markets are experiencing large corrections, which place an investor in the position to achieve their investment objectives over the long term. On the other hand, these types of strategies struggle to keep up with markets during long, protracted upswings, which could cause an investor to question the validity of a conservative strategy. It is important to understand that traditional evaluation tools at market extremes (i.e. peaks and troughs) often skew the appearance of success or failure. For this reason, Highland utilizes evaluation metrics that limit endpoint sensitivity. Therefore, investors can limit their emotions and make decisions in a manner that is prudent and most beneficial for their portfolio. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) 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.