Pricing Power (pt. 3) – Government Collaboration

21+ I feel like Tim the Enchanter a lot, especially when I spend much time on
You have reached the maximum number of free, long-form articles for the month.

Please join here to read the rest of this content.

Paid Members can log in here.
Notify of
11 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ike
ike
1 year ago

I wonder if a similar value performance analysis has been done for corporate bonds over the past decade. I suspect that a ‘value’ based approach to bond investing may have been similarly disappointing as central bank largess has made debt access and service easier for the weakest of borrowers. It certainly compressed risk premiums. Inquiring minds…

Rob H.
Rob H.
1 year ago
Reply to  ike

Ike— a Morningstar study from 2017 (https://www.morningstar.com/blog/2018/05/23/bond-fund-fees.html ) showed that in all sub-categories the median bond fund failed to beat the respective index and, in fact, high yield and EM bond funds had the lowest likelihood of managers beating the index. The alpha simply can’t outpace the fees.

ike
ike
1 year ago
Reply to  Rob H.

Thank you Robert. I found the next to last paragraph interesting in that they note that in the high yield market active management was superior because passive strategies focused on the most liquid (higher quality?) issuers. I guess where I’m going is that if you had structured a bond portfolio over the past decade you may have outperformed if you were overweight the poorest ‘quality’ debt in this central bank dominated environment. And if so, it begs the question ‘does it offer the same opportunity going forward’?

Demonetized
Demonetized
1 year ago
Reply to  ike

This is an interesting and important question. I think it’s difficult to generalize an answer but it MIGHT if you are cognizant of the risks and able to manage them effectively. This low-rate, policy-controlled environment incentivizes yield-chasing behavior. We see this very clearly in the explosion in private credit and leveraged loan strategies, as well as various permutations of “yieldy” short volatility strategies (whether explicitly shorting VIX instruments or by selling options, etc). Of course, the weakness of all “yieldy” strategies is that the risk/return profile is often very asymmetrical, in return for your fat yield you assume the risk of catastrophic losses (Feb 18 was a perfect example in the volatility space). My personal view is that if someone makes the decision to overweight super low quality debt it should be in the context of an actively managed strategy mindful of risk. In general I think what you see in the debt space is a fractal of the overall picture–risk has increasingly migrated from the “body” of the distribution of outcomes to the “tails.” Not sure whether this is helpful or just word vomit but maybe the added color is helpful in some way.

Mike S
Mike S
1 year ago

Those who regularly preach doom because of government budget deficits (as I regularly did myself for many years) might note that our country’s national debt has increased roughly 400-fold during the last of my 77-year periods. That’s 40,000%! Suppose you had foreseen this increase and panicked at the prospect of runaway deficits and a worthless currency. To “protect” yourself, you might have eschewed stocks and opted instead to buy 31⁄4 ounces of gold with your $114.75. And what would that supposed protection have delivered? You would now have an asset worth about $4,200, less than 1% of what would have been realized from a simple unmanaged investment in American business. The magical metal was no match for the American mettle.  —Warren Buffet recently commented “Until the plumbing breaks, and then suddenly, you can have a problem, because people have these mental models of how the world works and they’re actually wrong. And it matters, because you’re making policy decisions based on a false model.” —Peter Stella https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/podcasts/02182019/peter-stella-debt-safe-assets-and-central-bank-operations *Things to Think About: If one extreme of the numbers/narrative spectrum is inhabited by those who are slaves to the numbers, at the other extreme are those who not only don’t trust numbers but don’t use them. Instead, they rely entirely on narrative to justify investments and valuations. Their motivations for doing so are simple. 1. Story telling is a powerful attention getter/keeper: Research in both psychology and business point to an undeniable fact. Human beings respond better to stories than to abstractions or… Read more »

BobK71
BobK71
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike S

Regarding Aswath Damodaran, you need both. You need narrative to decide which direction to go, and you need numbers to determine how far and how fast. They’re not mutually exclusive. But, true, you absolutely don’t want to worship one of them exclusively.

At the risk of appearing to pick on an old man, you would never expect Buffet, a poster-child beneficiary of imperial asset inflation and a recipient of the Medal of Freedom to say good things about gold, at least not after the imperial elites have officially abandoned the gold standard. Gold shouldn’t be compared against stocks since the money you bet on the ‘prosperity’ scenario should never be used to buy gold anyway. Gold should be compared to debt-free, risk-free assets, and the best candidate among these is dollars under the mattress. In this comparison, cash has lost 97% of its value, over the 77 year span.

KC BBQ Guy
KC BBQ Guy
1 year ago

If NLP is the answer for active to recapture alpha what does that do for traditional style box investments? Or a better way to ask, if you’re using NLP to capture alpha the portfolio manager will need the flexibility to “go anywhere” correct?

Sam Rook
1 year ago
Reply to  KC BBQ Guy

This was a thought I had as I read this too. The value factor investors have taken it on the chin since the GFC and if that continues, at what point do we lose value factors as an investment style because no one wants to beat their heads against that wall anymore.?

BobK71
BobK71
1 year ago

We have to admit, this is progress. When banks failed in 1931, the Fed did nothing, and basically allowed the worst of the Great Depression to unfold. So, deflation was much more of the policy response than in recent times. (Only in 1933 was some inflation allowed, via devaluing against gold by 50%, over the objection of top bankers.) The elites used deflation post-crisis, because they could. It was better than inflation for protecting the reputation of the money they issued. Democracy (and, I hate to say it, trade unions) made it impossible, later on, to make the public shoulder that much of the pain. (That was the true essence of Ben Bernanke’s ‘apology’ for the 1931 Fed policy!) The failure of the gold standard, which had become total by 1971, was a *good* thing for holding gold, since the true nature of it was the open suppression of gold to a fixed currency price to help prop up the money and debt issued by the elites. (If you want a good dose of Common Knowledge or Narrative, how about the orthodoxy among economists of the time that the gold standard was superior and essential, on economic grounds?) True, inflation has some features of theft or redistribution. It’s also the best of the bad alternatives after a bust. The wealth was never there in the first place, as soon as elite-driven Narrative had blown an asset bubble, so you could argue you’re only taking away from those foolish enough to… Read more »

Howard Aschwald
1 year ago

Totally see it same way with additional supporting comments. It’s probably not a coincidence that after REG D and the mark to market risk in public securities that the trend to invest in the private markets has continued to accelerate. The sixty forty mix over this time has seen the 60% equity go to around 42% public and 18% private from virtually zero private. This is where research can still add value and with new money flowing in, that rising tide of private security investing has turned into a flood. When Uber IPO’s at 50 Billion, the smart institutional money will sell their private shares to the institutional buyers who are mandated to stay in public markets and the indexers. The easier money will have been made (it’s still hard no matter what). Probably also helps that private markets are much more SEC friendly for every player. Of course, I suspect the Regulators will turn on that some day in order to increase their reach. They follow the money, too. The last area where active research in public markets can be effective is microcap stocks. It’s too small for sell side research to cover and not big enough for asset managers to sustain a fee paying business model. However, microcaps are semi-publicly traded. They are more like publicly listed private equity. Caveat emptor unless you have better information than other players in the space. I miss the old Mandarin Oriental days. In the 90’s, our local CFA chapter would have… Read more »

Johnsoad
Johnsoad
10 months ago

Ben, did you ever get around to writing pt. 4……”pricing power of real assets”

The Latest From Epsilon Theory

DISCLOSURES

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.