One for the Road
To learn more about Epsilon Theory and be notified when we release new content sign up here. You’ll receive an email every week and your information will never be shared with anyone else.
The Latest From Epsilon Theory
This commentary is being provided to you as general information only and should not be taken as investment advice. The opinions expressed in these materials represent the personal views of the author(s). It is not investment research or a research recommendation, as it does not constitute substantive research or analysis. Any action that you take as a result of information contained in this document is ultimately your responsibility. Epsilon Theory will not accept liability for any loss or damage, including without limitation to any loss of profit, which may arise directly or indirectly from use of or reliance on such information. Consult your investment advisor before making any investment decisions. It must be noted, that no one can accurately predict the future of the market with certainty or guarantee future investment performance. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.Statements in this communication are forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements and other views expressed herein are as of the date of this publication. Actual future results or occurrences may differ significantly from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements, and there is no guarantee that any predictions will come to pass. The views expressed herein are subject to change at any time, due to numerous market and other factors. Epsilon Theory disclaims any obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements or views expressed herein. This information is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of any offer to buy any securities. This commentary has been prepared without regard to the individual financial circumstances and objectives of persons who receive it. Epsilon Theory recommends that investors independently evaluate particular investments and strategies, and encourages investors to seek the advice of a financial advisor. The appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor’s individual circumstances and objectives.
Peter Drucker once famously said, “the purpose of any business is to create customers.” Unfortunately, financialization of businesses thru share buybacks etc drives customers away and drives businesses more deeply into debt.
Companies that were once triple-A rated are rapidly dropping down to the very fringes of “investable.” Wall street applauds reductions in headcounts and phony EBITDA numbers. The question becomes at what point does a business drive off enough customers that it can’t pay its debts? Yay, efficiency!!
The entire ‘outsource to China’ was justified under this efficiency utilitarian drive - they just never realized that the ‘china price’ was cheap upfront, with the costs all backloaded ; now the real bill is being presented, the immense liquidity support and disrupted (& lost) lives and livelihoods…
I always break it down for my clients (and for my own portfolio) this way: I either know the future or I don’t. I don’t - period, full stop. If you want someone who does, please, please, please don’t hire me. Now, since I don’t know the future, what is the best way to invest your money?
From there, it’s about individual investment goals, risk profile, etc. Then it’s about diversification, re-balancing and tail risk - deflation or inflation spiraling.
We diversify (taking into account your goals, risk appetite, etc.) since we don’t know what will do well and not and we rebalance as, IMO, it is a real source of alpha over time. Then, we look at the portfolio for the two tail risks - a deflation spiral or inflation spiral. Medium duration US TSYs (and pre-refunded with US TSYs municipals) hedge a deflation spiral (to some extent) and gold and real estate (to some extent), an inflation one. I’m sure commodities do something, but the only thing they’ve ever done for me is cost me money other than the ten minutes they rally strongly which, long term, still doesn’t overcome all the costs of holding them for that rally.
My point. The fault is less “Yay, Efficiency!” than an unwillingness to accept the limitations of our abilities as investors / money managers. If you can predict the future - go for it and, if successful, you’ll do very well. Actively managed returns argue very few if anyone has a proven track record at doing that. But that is still what almost everyone wants. That, IMO, is the problem. Investors want the future accurately predicted and are mad when that doesn’t happen.
So, the clients don’t want the truth that we can’t predict the future and there are tail risks that will cost them returns for decades, but you still need to hedge for those risks, so your portfolio will almost always look bad versus whatever investment outperformed recently and/or an unhedged portfolio. And of course, someone would have had you invested in that outperforming asset if you had just invested with them.
So, since the clients don’t want the truth - and there are always many managers willing to tell the clients what they wants to hear - the industry doesn’t tell the clients the truth and we end up where we are: chasing returns, mouthing slogans like “Yay, Efficiency” or “diversification.”
I don’t see any new song that will result in clients accepting underperformance for years because you’ve built them a portfolio that diversifies their risks and hedges tail risks because there will always be a “smart” manager telling them how much better they could have done for them.
Tapping into the recent Minimax Regret discussion: What was the bigger regret of a pension fund? Achieving annual returns of 1% below target, or suffering a drawdown much larger than the fund can handle? Seems hard to believe that in an environment (2019) where Buffet’s Q was indicating negative returns over 10 years that removing a drawdown hedge was prudent for a manager with at least a 10 year time horizon.
Kyle Bass had a recent interview in which he criticized Calpers for hiring a Chinese national - a member of the Chinese Communist Party - to manage their assets:
Continue the discussion at the Epsilon Theory Forum