Tag Archives: premium-authors

Building The Ultimate Bank Basket

Summary Building a basket is like creating a custom-made ETF. Simple strategies work better than complex systems. The nuts and bolts of building a custom bank basket explained. Investors like to act like art collectors. They spend years hunting for a specific Monet (or a rare investment holding) and are willing to spend anything to prevent it from slipping through their fingers. On the surface this behavior makes sense, good companies supposedly only come along rarely, and investors are rewarded for taking advantage of opportunity. Where the analogy breaks down is that art is supply constrained, there is a limited set of outstanding Monet paintings and no new paintings. There are thousands of traded companies, and tens of thousands of companies are being started every week. If an investor misses one opportunity another comes along quickly. In the world of bank investing, there are over 1,200 banks with tickers that are in theory tradable. Many of these banks are very small and illiquid and only appropriate for experienced and patient investors. But even if one eliminates all non-SEC filing banks from their pool of investments, there are still over 500 SEC filing traded banks. The question becomes: “How does one find bank investments with so many options?” I’ve made a mistake many investors do when faced with finding the best companies in a pile of potential opportunities. I’ve spent far too much time looking at inconsequential details trying to find the absolute best idea. I’ve come to the conclusion that this is a waste of time. Let me explain. Back in 2011 and 2012, I started to look at Japanese net-net stocks. These are stocks trading for 2/3 of net current assets (current assets – all liabilities). Through screening, I identified hundreds of Japanese companies trading as net-nets. The problem was there were more companies than my portfolio had room to buy, so I needed to narrow down the list. Keep in mind that every single company on the list was cheap, the market was valuing all of these companies for less than their liquidation value. What I ended up doing was spending a lot of time comparing companies against each other with metrics that had no predictive value for investment success. I ended up selecting a handful of what I thought were the best companies on my list. My companies did well, but I could have done just as well picking blindly from the initial pool of undervalued companies. As investors we fool ourselves into thinking we’re smarter than we are, and that we can identify the best performing stock from a pool of very cheap stocks ahead of time. There might be a few super-genius investors who can do such a thing, but for the rest of us mere mortals, our best bet to outperformance is by fishing in a very small pond loaded with fish. In the world of bank investing, there are plenty of companies selling at discounts to intrinsic value no matter how you define intrinsic value. For example, I ran a simple screen on CompleteBankData.com looking for banks trading below 1x TBV with a 7% or higher ROE and low non-performing assets and my search returned 10 banks. This might not seem like stringent criteria, but this search finds banks with an above average ROE at less than book value. If I drop my ROE requirement to greater than 4%, more than 30 banks match my criteria. If one were to look for banks earning an above average ROE at less than 1.5x TBV, which is the median TBV value, they’d have 96 banks to analyze. The point is that one can hunt through that list of 10 banks, or 30 banks, or 96 banks and try to identify the top one or two banks to add to a portfolio. Or an investor can take a simpler approach. In the aggregate, these banks are likely to outperform. They are all undervalued, and all have quality assets. It’s far easier to build a basket of banks and gain exposure to an area of the market not covered by ETFs rather than find the best. The second advantage to building a basket of bank stocks is that you don’t need to be an expert on bank investing to gain exposure to a segment of the market. Building your own basket is akin to buying a custom ETF. How to Build a Bank Basket? It’s easy to agree with the concept of building a basket of banking stocks, but sometimes the actual execution is difficult. “What stocks do I buy?” “How long do I hold them?” “How many should I own?” are some of the questions you might be asking about this. Let’s break down how to build an actual basket of bank stocks. Identify an investment criteria The first step is to identify the criteria you’ll use to select an investment. My advice is to keep it simple, simple criteria is better than complex criteria. For example, look for profitable banks selling below TBV with good assets. A screen for this might be: P/TBV < 1, ROE > 1%, NPA/Assets < 3%. Once you have a criteria you're satisfied with run the screen on your preferred screening platform. Sifting for investment candidates I don't recommend buying every company that matches the screen blindly. I put in the bare minimum amount of effort validating data and criteria matches. Sometimes a bank will report a high ROE as a result of a onetime gain. Or a bank might have quality assets in one or two recent quarters but struggled with significant issues in the past. Or sometimes a bank will match a screen but is in the middle of a merger or another transformative transaction. I quickly go through my matches and remove these companies. Buying and holding Once you've identified your basket candidates, it's time to buy them. If you like a clean separation of basket holdings versus non-basket holdings, I'd recommend opening a new brokerage account for these banks. Buy them as you would any stock, use limit orders and be patient in getting your trades filled. The hardest part of owning a basket of banks is holding them. I recommend at least a one-year holding period if not a three-year holding period for each name in the basket. As some banks are merged or sell, recycle those funds into new names that match the strategy. The hardest part of owning a basket of bank stocks is simply staying still and resisting the urge to tinker with the basket. Best of luck!

Quant Investing: Improving The Value Of Shareholder Yield

Part of quant investing is always being on the look out for better metrics and systems that enhance performance. Today I want to look at a simple improvement to the value metric shareholder yield. I’ll look at this in the context of the quant index replication strategy I posted on here . First, lets look at shareholder yield in more detail. Recently there has been some interesting discussion on the level of buybacks, as a percentage of market cap, and how strong a conviction by management that represents. The idea being that the higher percentage of shares a company is buying back, the more conviction management has on the value of the company, and thus leading to better stock performance. The best analysis of the topic is here . The analysis going back to 1987 shows two key things; the largest buybacks (greater than 5% of market cap) are done at cheaper valuations and this leads to better performance over the following year. The large stock shareholder yield quant value strategy is a big improvement on the traditional indices. But maybe we can do better armed with this new information on the level of buybacks. I’ll take the original large stock SHY value strategy and compare it to a new version which only buys the large cap stocks sorted by SHY if the buyback yield is greater than 5%. We’ll go back to Jan 1999 and run the backtest through yesterday’s market close. First, the performance for the original large stock SHY strategy. Pretty darn good, 16.44% per year since 1999 with a Sharpe of 0.75 and Sortino of 1.06. Now lets add the filter that only buys stocks with a buyback yield greater than 5%. Even better as the research suggested. 17.59% per year since 1999 with a Sharpe of 0.80 and a Sortino of 1.17. That a 1.1% per year return enhancement with an improvement in risk adjusted returns as well for a very simple addition to an already powerful strategy. In short, screening for high conviction buybacks is a powerful addition to a large cap shareholder yield value strategy.

Goal-Oriented Investing

By Seth J. Masters How should investors assess the asset-allocation decisions they or their advisors make? In our view, the key benchmark is the investor’s own goals. The display below assesses the success of three plausible asset allocations for meeting the risk and return goals of three different hypothetical investors. Investor A wanted annualized returns greater than 5%, with no peak-to-trough drawdown deeper than 20%. Investor B targeted annualized returns greater than 7%, with no drawdown deeper than 30%. Investor C cared only about achieving a return greater than 7%, with no drawdown constraint at all. The display shows the share of all rolling 10-year periods from January 1976 to June 2015 in which each investor would have achieved his goals through each of three different mixes of global stocks and municipal bonds. The conservative (30% stock/70% bond) allocation would have most often achieved Investor A’s conservative goals, with his lower return objective and tighter drawdown limit. The moderate and growth-oriented portfolios, by contrast, would have repeatedly exceeded his drawdown constraint. The moderate (60/40) portfolio would have most often met Investor B’s goals. And the growth-oriented (80/20) portfolio would have had the greatest success rate in meeting Investor C’s goals. When risk isn’t an issue, stocks are the asset of choice. This display underscores the importance of matching a portfolio’s asset allocation to the investor’s return and risk objectives. Investors who don’t select an asset allocation that fits their objectives are likely to be disappointed. Of course, this illustration covers only simple return and drawdown goals. In most real-world situations, investors also need to take into account their expected cash flows, their tax situation, prevailing market conditions, and a host of other factors. And real-world investors can choose between more than two asset classes. But no matter how complex the objectives an investor seeks, or how diverse his or her asset allocation, we think one simple standard should apply: The asset allocation has to be designed around the investor’s objectives. If not, the investor is unlikely to be satisfied with the plan and unlikely to stick with it. The views expressed herein do not constitute research, investment advice or trade recommendations and do not necessarily represent the views of all AB portfolio-management teams. Seth Masters, Chief Investment Officer – Bernstein