SharperDingaan

Couple of suggestions: A Standard Investment Policy outlining objectives, risk tolerance, max/min portfolio weightings, permissible instruments, leverage, strategies (long-short), etc. Addendum outlining administration mechanics, selection procedures, fees, etc. Make the whole thing a charity foundation & select a manager to run it. Fund through one of the crowd sourcing sights, & make all contributions donations. Allow the foundation to issue medium term debs to raise seed capital & achieve the scale to cover its costs. 4-10 patrones with multi $M injections. Commercial terms. Set a minimum foundation payout/yr from day 1 & fully index to inflation. Fund a lump-sum investment 'X' Prize with the medium term growth, & make it a game-changer. Recognize that this is all new frontier. It could not exist without the internet, crowd sourcing technology ($, capacity, communication, competitive co-operation), the modern approach to charity (results measured by business metrics), & a large enough group of wealthy like minded patrones schooled in value investment. It is a modern version of the old masonic guilds, a successful result will set the template for others, & it is highly likely that the industry will go out of its way to see it succeed. It is generally accepted that X prizes spur break-through innovation, & that it is better suited to NA personalities. This is not a time for the kaizen approaches of Asia, & is too early for the precision or miniaturization genius of Germany & Japan. Micro-financing used to be an 'impossible' idea - as it was just not 'done'; now millions around the world benefit from it. So why is it that supposedly this cannot be done with the investment industry? A little rebellion is great for the soul! SD

For simplicity, assume that future fines negate all earnings over the next year, & there are no capital raises. BIS requires all banks to hold a minimum 10.5% of RWA as regulatory capital, effective Q1 2014. The current official minimum (in Canada) is 8.5% of RWA. To get that extra regulatory capital, you would have to rank your various LOB by RAROC, & reduce business in the lowest ranking LOB until you get to the 10.5% RWA. All you need know is average asset quality by LOB, which LOB are capital heavy, how much of that LOB the bank does, & what the new regulatory capital requirement is. All published quarterly. The more asset quality improves (& the better the bank is run) the less need for capital raises &/or exits from higher risk LOB. The lack box becomes far easier to assess. Wells beats Goldman Sacs because outcomes are less uncertain. SD

Keep in mind that P/B, & P/E is secondary to your investment knowledge - & your industry circle of competence. Re investment knowledge: B is the last reported BV - but if you are expecting a significant gain this quarter; the BV is really lower than it should be & the current P/B is higher than it should be. Passing simply because the P/B (or P/E) ratio was too high, is to miss the opportunity entirely. And if you consistently seem to miss the upswings ... this may well be the reason why. Re bank industry competence: If you do not fully understand the dynamics of regulatory capital - & a banks ability to lend, you are materially handicapped. There is zero spread income if the bank cannot lend, & that ability is driven by BIS - & the central banker/global regulator/political bargaining behind it. Most would argue that current BV, or future 1 year E , is not a useful metric when the underlying regulation is undergoing such massive change. And if you were not fully aware of that (industry competence), you were really just placing a bet on either red/black. Back of the envelope works great - but it works because it forces you to think. SD

JBird you may want to revisit the Shape Ratio. The purpose of using EV is to systematically increase your portfolio return through active management. As you could have simply put your $ into a T-Bill, the benefit of your management is whatever you make above the T-Bill rate. Probabilities are estimates, not actuals; the difference between the portfolio actuals & estimates is expressed as the portfolios standard deviation of return. If too many of your choices are poor; over a 12 month period your portfolio return will we be lower than what you could have made if you simply put your money into a T-Bill. By actively managing, you have become in effect, your own worst enemy. If you are better at diversification than you are at probability estimation; you may actually benefit from active management, but your portfolio standard deviation will be high - & your Shape Ratio will be low. As you get better at estimation your Sharpe Ratio will rise. The more data points you take within the 12 month period, the more accurate your calculation will be. A PM will have infrastructure that calculates return and standard deviation each day, a retail investor might calculate once a month – if at all. SD

The withdrawal is a highly anticipated event It has already been going on for quite some time .... Most yield curves are now relatively normal, & no longer flat or inverted; ie: re-established risk premiums. Most 1 Yr T-Bill/Gilt/Canada rates less inflation are now either on the bubble, or only mildly negative. Most major banks now have materially better capital ratios than they once had.... & they are getting better still Most would argue that you do not start withdrawing support until you have actually have an economic take-off, & the infra-structure to support it. That infra-structure has been getting rebuilt for quite some time, & it has been designed for resiliency. It has also been getting repeated real-time tests (Cyprus, Greece, Portugal, Spain), & each test has resulted in smaller shock waves. Yes there will be the unintended goofs ... but the waves are now more likely to be moderate/heavy swells versus the all out tsunamis.

Since when have central bankers ever nailed the turn in an economic cycle? They have undershot growth for the last four years - why would they be right now? Let people fumble around long enough in a dark room, & eventually they are going to find the exit. And when they do find that exit, they are all going to rush out within a very short time of one another. Most would argue that the US is turning, same thing with the UK, & even Greece (absent the noise). At some point the greater risk will be in not participating. It does not mean suddenly going all-in, but it does warrant at least a partial roll-in. If you are right you will have an unrealized gain cutting your risk; if you are wrong, it is only a small exposure. SD

We hold a similar view to Uccmal, & cite the on-going discussion on tapering - it would not be occurring at all unless central bankers were confident they were near the end of the global recession. There are compelling values, but in the growth stocks.... And keep in mind that the refinanced cigar butts are going to act very like growth stocks when the global economy comes back, but with much less risk. ie: If they have not failed yet then they are probably not going to.

There are only 3 ways one can get zero change on the equity hedges .... (1) They were lifted, & therefore do not exist anymore (2) They have been re-designated out of AFS, & therefore do not mark to market anymore (3) There is a new & effective offsetting cross hedge between equity & FI, that essentially designates the equity leg as AFS & the FI leg as HTM. Most would expect (3) & (2), plus a little of (1). If there have been re-designations, it is highly likely that there has also been a fundamental reassessment of the entire equity portfolio. A slick solution & not unreasonable given the controversy these hedges have generated. SD

What do you mean by long term bonds? ... Just has to be high quality & liquid, there is no intent to hold to maturity. The longer term is just to get a better rate than T-Bills, balanced against the uncertain possibility of an intervening rate rise.

.... take the kids to Caribana & be AWESOME http://www.caribanatoronto.com/ .... then chill out the next day at one of the festivals https://www.halton.ca/cms/one.aspx?portalId=8310&pageId=9954

Great thread. As we run our portfolio on a conventional business basis (not that different from Gio's), a few crumbs. Cash. 1-5% to pay the bills & that's it. Cash for an investment is actually margin. Rack it up when you buy, pay it down when you sell. Holding 30% of a portfolio in cash is actually self-destructive; why are you not holding it in a long term bond paying interest - that you subsequently borrow against. Supply/Demand. It is a grocery store - when it's hot everybody wants gelato, when it's cold they want coffee; nothing to do with the merits of gelato or coffee themselves. Sentiment is the supply/demand impact on your stock. Could just be the season, interest by new kinds of investor (momentum, investment guru, etc.), or a pretty skirt in the bull pen. IV. It's nothing but a yardstick, & your best guess; everyone around you will have a different number. We're simply trying to buy cheap & sell at something a little less cheap. The more of the price discount we try to realize on, the more risk we take. For most folk, buying at 65c on the $, & selling at 85c on the $ - is more than adequate - especially when it is a rubber yardstick. Quality. Selling fresh bananas is more profitable & less risky than selling old ones 3 days from the garbage can. Value investing is biased to old bananas. We just call the fresh bananas growth stocks & the old ones cigar butts! SD

You have to wonder what kind of deal was cut for the kind words. Then add in that Goldman may well be SAC's dominant (or only?) counterparty right now, & they cannot be thrilled at the possible regime change should SAC go under. Yet we still get this announcement, that this alleged criminal organization is a great counterparty? But if you had had a conversation with the fed, & reached an understanding ... wouldn't this then be a reasonable outcome? And if this conversation did take place - how long can it be before SAC topples ? SD

Obviously, the spiral is accelerating ..... Now a true bastard would also be short the public shares of any others in the same industry - as the ripples from a fail here, would be highly likely to swamp them as well. .... And given what we know about the alleged attitude to inside trading, one has to wonder who is probably holding the majority of the long puts & short calls on those companies. They must have redemption requests well above their capacity to pay, & there are only 5 options; repay from asset sales, repay from margin borrowing, repay from refinancing roll-overs, trade your way out, or declare a temporary moratorium. How long can it really be before the moratorium shows up - & as soon as it does; it will trigger the AM Best downgrade. Then keep in mind that if you have a large redemption order which is not being settled - you can also sue for non-payment. And you WILL sue - as your intent is to push the debtor into Chapter 11 as rapidly as possible, to retain as much collateral as possible. The cure is to pay out the redemption immediately, & in T-Bills. Except where do they get the money..... One has to think that in the climate of tapering; one of the most effective & efficient tapers would be a Fed assumption after they are in Chapter 11. Pay out the redemption orders in longer dated treasuries, & hold back that owed to the principals against future fines; very little actual cash involved, & no better position from which to impose a new industry regime going forward. If you want to make your name ........ SD

Keep in mind: In the major grid-locked cities it makes no sense to own a car. Subways & cabs move you around the city far easier, you don't have to find parking, put up with the stress of driving, or bear the ownership & operational cost, etc. If you want to travel outside the city, you rent a car - when you need it - & often from a point outside the city. Young people, no kids, & both working in the city. Retired folks, moving into the city to be close to the action. Favourable demographics & concentrated in the richer cities. It is not just convenience. For many years my spouse & I used to rent a car every weekend - picking it up Friday night & dropping it off Monday morning on the way to work. Every 3rd week was free, most times there were free automatic upgrades (frequent customer), insurance was covered by Visa, & the points generated from Visa & the rental company were enough to fly the two of us to Europe (return) for free - every 2 years. All our friends thought we were nuts, & we quite agreed with them - every time we went to the airport! The market for the Zipcars of the world, & why Zipcar is now owned by car rental company. SD

You should be looking at the Sharpe ratio ;) ... & aim for around 1.75-2.00 http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sharperatio.asp http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/sharpe_ratio.asp The ratio is sensitive to measurement period; calculating quarterly produces a different result than if done annually. Seasonal hedging tends to drive up the ratio, adding a new position in quantity (concentrated portfolio) reduces it. As results are based on actuals, your best results are in down markets, & because you successfully hedged. SD

You have to wonder why SAC thought they had to give a 46 page explanation to their staff - from their lawyers. They have to be worried about immunity/bounty driven leaks taking Cohen down, as well as their cash burn. Kind of like the piñata at a Mexican festival; everyone lining up to take a hit - for the fame & notoriety of being the guy/gal who brought SAC down. Soros broke the Bank of England .... but for you Lenny ... the only honest one in the pack ... way, way better! Nice touch from Overstock.

It is sarcasm, but keep in mind that the 6B is just window dressing; no different to the old time banking trick of putting a stack of gold bars behind the window for all to see (when there is a crisis), & surrounding it with security guards. With all that gold on show the bank must be safe! .... or is it more likely to be the get your demands in quick boys, before the money is all gone - they've only got 6B! If SAC is your counterparty you're going to demand DAP delivery on every trade, you're not going to do net settlements, & you're not going to grant any intra-day margin. A financial institution is prohibited from doing business (extending credit) with alleged criminal organizations. & it cannot be sure that it will be repaid any credit that it may have to extend against collateral. You cant do this business if you cant get credit, & no one comes back from a liquidity run. If you suspect SAC is on the other side of your bloc trade you're going to want a liquidity discount for your bid. In the option & future markets you would punt against, & push them. As the carney barker says ..... come one, come all, 2 bucks a ball - winner takes the prize! SAC is a lot more brittle that it makes out.

It took under 5 days to put Bear Sterns under, & it was because nobody had any confidence that Bear could make good on its short term paper as it came due (counterparty risk) - starting a liquidity run. SAC is not going to be able to roll all its short-term paper, it is going to rapidly suck the liquidity out of them & their satellites, & they are going to have to sell what they can for whatever they can get. You have to think that the only real bulk buyer for a lot of their illiquid holdings is the Fed ... & it is going to come with legal strings attached. Mother of a bear raid! SD

More likely is that the reputational risk from the bribes necessary to conduct basic business outweighed the potential return.

At any given time there are around 20 conflicts going on in the globe. They result because a political solution is impossible, they continue until one of the opponents dies (age, assassination, etc.), & they are systemic promotion for business of types; from weapons through to charities. Most of these are proxy wars, result in relatively few deaths (more die from everyday disease - obesity, smoking, flu, etc.) , & occur in regions where there is not much global business activity. The relatively benign drip of death versus the periodic 77 year wipe-out. Not great if you are one of those affected, but not bad for everyone else either. Then there is always the Black Swan, & if you wait long enough - you will eventually see one. SD

The argument really comes down to whether you expect Mr Market to assign significantly higher valuations to FFH over the forseeable future (5 yrs). The assesment determines whether you buy and hold, or trade. Increasing a position using house money from seasonal trading, has the same effect as buy and hold. We just use the industry & market volatility to get there - versus growth in IV. Lots of ways to skin the cat. SD

Keep in mind that the P&C industry is not an oligopoly. There are enough new entrants underpricing to get the business & obtain the float to wreck the model. Yes the existing new entrants go out of business on the first big loss event, but the next round spring up as soon as the markets hardens. The P&C industry is very much like the airline industry; for most, a sub-standard return on equity. You are looking at only the better companies, & after survivor bias. Quasi-nationalization is also common - nuclear power stations, natural disasters (flood relief, state of emergency, etc). If we had to pay the 'true' cost for the nuke & flood plain risk, the power stations would not be built & there would be no new housing built. Hence the government offers insurance at a loss to achieve a higher standard of living, & insurers accept a lower return. SD

Keep in mind that it is not just the Toronto flooding, there will also be losses from Calgary & High River as well. And if you want to do business with these folks again - you are not going to be breaking heads. We have been saying for a very long time that you do not get paid enough to hold FFH through the high risk summer weather events, the magnitude of the risks are getting bigger, & that you need to hedge the risk. Not popular, but unfortunately it is proving to be bang on. Good luck to all. SD

NBG - just 'cause we like the whiff of tear gas - & have hedge proceeds that we need to deploy. There is still some room to run, but it is event driven - not a buy and hold. Re disclosure. We added a significant weighting at < $3.00, so today was a very good day ;) http://www.independent.ie/business/world/greece-given-68bn-lifeline-but-warned-to-push-through-controversial-reforms-29404259.html SD

Gio, it is easiest if we use a numerical example. Let’s say that for 20 years; UW performance has averaged an annual CR of 96 on a moderately growing book of business. The extremes were 2 years of CR at 108 (ie: Katrina) & 3 years of CR at 87 (ie: Hard Markets). At its simplest - over the 20 year period (ignoring DCF & the timing of UW gains & losses ), the company has made a total UW gain of 15 years of average CR gain (100-96)+3 years of extraordinary CR gain (96-87)+2 years of extraordinary CR loss (96-108); or a total UW gain of roughly 63% of the average annual premium. Business is great. But we know that weather event payouts are getting higher, more frequent, & that UW market under-pricing is occurring for longer periods ... Lets say average CR is now 97.5 (lower pricing), there are 3 years of bad CR at 110, & 2 yrs of good CR at 90. The UW gain is now 15 years of average CR gain (100-97.5)+2 years of extraordinary CR gain (97.5-90)+3 years of extraordinary CR loss (97.5-110); or a total 20 year UW gain of roughly 15% of the average annual premium. Business sucks. Same skill but suddenly you are short 48% of average annual premium, or about 2.4% of annual premium – every year. Those worsening weather events really mean that you need either more investment income, or significant realized gains - every year; just to track to historic performance. We all know that if you can continually roll short-term debt - it will act like long term debt. But the effect also applies to any other liability – & turns P&C short tail UW risk into long tail risk. And we all see the long tail Life Co’s getting crippled because of the low rate environment. It is the same thing here, but with weather as the trigger. Given that 1 bad year at 110,could wipe out 4 yrs of average performance at 97.5; you are really betting that bad weather events are going to happen no more than twice every decade –& that it will only be after that, before we truly start making money. A great 8 yr track record could get wiped out by 2 years of back-to-back UW losses, that were nothing more than poor timing (ie: noise). SD