Fundamental Valuation: Is the Stock Market Cheap or Expensive? 

For me, and everyone else even if they don’t realize it, the price trend is the final arbiter.

For more than two decades, I’ve focused my efforts on developing systems to identify trends early in their stage to capitalize on trends as they continue and exit a trend if it reverses.

It all started in business school, where I earned a Bachelor of Applied Science degree in advanced accounting. It was “advanced” because I took the extra advanced classes above a typical accounting major required to sit for the CPA exam in Tennessee. It basically results in a master’s in accounting, but not really, but it’s just the same 150 credit hours.

I rarely speak of my formal college simply because I haven’t considered it a source of edge for investment management.

But maybe it has.

In some conversations recently, people have asked about my background and how I got started as an investment manager and founder of an investment firm. After further review, I’ve come to realize the knowledge I have of financial statements, and the vast details and fundamental information that make them up, is what drove me to observe very little of it really drives the market price in an auction market.

That’s something I’ve always believed, but it occurred to me during business school.

To be succinct; I very quickly discovered undervalued stocks are trading at a cheap multiple of earnings for a reason, and that’s more likely to continue than to reverse.

I didn’t have a lot of capital to play with, and it was hard earned capital. I worked as a Sheriffs’ Officer full time through college fully time, so it took me a few extra years to complete. I wasn’t about to lose too much of what I had in the stock market, so I aimed to cut my losses short early on.

I’ve focused on cutting my losses short ever since, so now I have about 25 years experience as a tactical trader with an emphasis on the one thing I believe I can best limit or control; the downside of my losers.

When I focus on limiting the downside of loss, I am left to enjoy the upside of gains.

But we can’t do that with fundamentals and valuation. Risk can only be directed, limited, managed, and controlled, by focusing on the price trend.

The price trend is more likely to continue than to reverse, as evidenced even by vast academic studies of momentum.

Because a price trend is more likely to continue than to reverse, it’s essential to realize if you attempt to buy stocks that are in downtrends, you’ll likely experience more downtrend.

So, buying what you perceive are “undervalued” stocks is like catching a falling knife they say.

I’d rather wait for the knife to fall, stab the ground or someone’s foot, then pick it up safely.

Knives a dangerous, and up close, even more dangerous than a gun, so govern yourself accordingly.

Nevertheless, the valuation of stocks and overall valuation of the market by and large can be useful to observe at the extremes in valuation.

The chart below tells the story based on Morningstar’s fair value estimates for individual stocks.

The chart shows the ratio price to fair value for the median stock in Morningstar’s selected coverage universe over time.

  • A ratio above 1.00 indicates that the stock’s price is higher than Morningstar’s estimate of its fair value.
    • The further the price/fair value ratio rises above 1.00, the more the median stock is overvalued.
  • A ratio below 1.00 indicates that the stock’s price is lower than our estimate of its fair value.
    • The further it moves below 1.00, the more the median stock is undervalued.

It shows stocks are as undervalued as they were at the low in 2011, nearly as undervalued stocks were March 2020, but not as undervalued as stocks reached in the 2008 stock market crash when the S&P 500 lost -56% from October 2007 to March 2009.

If I were to overall a drawdown chart of the stock index it would mirror the undervalued readings in the chart.

As prices fall, stocks become more undervalued by this measure.

My observation is by and large stocks are relatively undervalued, but they can get much more undervalued if they haven’t yet reached a low enough point to attract institutional buying demand.

To be sure, in 2011 when stocks were as undervalued as Morningstar suggests they are now, the stock index had declined about -19%, similar to the current drawdown of -23%.

Source: http://www.YCharts.com

The waterfall decline in stock prices March 2020 was -34%, although it recovered quickly in a v-shaped reversal, so it didn’t get as much attention as the current bear market which is down 10% less, but has lasted for seven months without a quick recovery.

Time allows the losses to sink in for those who are holding their stocks.

This time the average stock is down much more than the stock indexes, too, so if you’re holding the weakest stocks your drawdown is worse than the index.

In that case, you’re probably wondering how low it can go.

If stock prices haven’t yet be driven down to a low enough level to attract big institutional capital to buy these lower prices, stocks can certainly trend down a lot lower from here.

For example, in the 2007 – 2009 bear market known as the 2008 Financial Crisis, one I successfully operated through as a tactical trader and risk manager, the stock index dropped -56% over 16 grueling months.

The infamous 2008 crash included many swings up and down on its way to printing a -56% decline from its high in October 2007.

That’s how bad it could get.

It’s also largely the cause of the situation the U.S. finds itself in today.

Since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve Open Market Committee have provided unprecedented support for the equity market and the bond market.

Passive investors and asset allocators have been provided a windfall from the Fed and Treasury, but it’s time to pay the debt.

For passive investors, they’ve been hammered with large losses this year and risk losing more if stock and bond prices keep trending down.

Stocks are already undervalued, but they can get much more undervalued.

Even worse, as my experience tactically operating through many declines like this since the 1990s reflects, are the paranna bites along with the shark bites.

The shark bite is from a passive asset allocator holding on through a prolonged deep bear market in stock prices as they fall -20%, -30%, -40%, -50% or more.

Because losses are so asymemtric and geometically compound aginast you, these capital losses become harder and harder to recover from.

If you lose -50%, it takes a 100% gain to get it back.

Stock market trends are asymmetric; they trend up much lower than they crash down, so that larger gain needed often takes longer, too.

So your emotional capital is at risk.

When you’re down a lot, you’re thinking and decision-making becomes cloudy and stressed because you[‘re under pressure like a pressure cooker.

You don’t know how low it can go.

If you are a buy and hold asset allocator, your loss is unlimited, as there is not point in which you would exit but zero.

Zero may be unlikely, but -50% or more isn’t, as evidenced by history.

And you’ve not been here before.

You’ve not seen this before.

The Fed has never stretched its open market operations this far before.

We just don’t know what’s going to happen next.

But, I’m prepared to tactically execute through whatever unfolds.

I’m having a great year relatively speaking. I’ve been positive most of the year and haven’t ventured far below our all-time new high.

Times like these are when my skillset is designed to show an edge.

Like many tactical investment managers like trend followers, hedge funds, global macro, I too had a period of relative underperformance of the long-only stock indexes. I held my ground but learned some new tricks during the many swings the past decade, and sharpened my countertrend axe to chip away some of the bad parts we don’t want.

But relative outperformance has never been my objective, especially not against a stock index for stock fund that’s fully invested in stocks all the time.

My objective has always been absolute return, not relative return.

My absolute return objective is what drives me to actively manage risk for drawdown control.

Like a good doctor, I aim to first do no harm… as best I can as a risk taker.

Looking at the Shiller PE ratio for the S&P 500, a long-term observation, the U.S. stock market is still grossly overvalued.

The S&P 500 was the second-highest most expensive valuation in 140 years, and even after the decline this year, the stock index is still twice the valuation of Black Monday in October 1987 and

only down to its extremely overvalued level it was on Black Monday Oct. 19, 1987, when the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell -22% in a single day and just now down to the valuation level the stock index was on Black Tuesday in the 1929 crash.

If you believe in fundamental valuation as a gauge and a guide, anything can happen, so please govern yourself accordingly.

If you need help or have questions, contact us here.

Mike Shell is the Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Shell Capital Management, LLC, and the portfolio manager of ASYMMETRY® Managed PortfoliosMike Shell and Shell Capital Management, LLC is a registered investment advisor focused on asymmetric risk-reward and absolute return strategies and provides investment advice and portfolio management only to clients with a signed and executed investment management agreement. The observations shared on this website are for general information only and should not be construed as investment advice to buy or sell any security. This information does not suggest in any way that any graph, chart, or formula offered can solely guide an investor as to which securities to buy or sell, or when to buy or sell them. Securities reflected are not intended to represent any client holdings or recommendations made by the firm. In the event any past specific recommendations are referred to inadvertently, a list of all recommendations made by the company within at least the prior one-year period may be furnished upon request. It should not be assumed that recommendations made in the future will be profitable or will equal the performance of the securities on the listAny opinions expressed may change as subsequent conditions change. Please do not make any investment decisions based on such information, as it is not advice and is subject to change without notice. Investing involves risk, including the potential loss of principal an investor must be willing to bear. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. All information and data are deemed reliable but are not guaranteed and should be independently verified. The presence of this website on the Internet shall in no direct or indirect way raise an implication that Shell Capital Management, LLC is offering to sell or soliciting to sell advisory services to residents of any state in which the firm is not registered as an investment advisor. The views and opinions expressed in ASYMMETRY® Observations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of Shell Capital Management, LLC. The use of this website is subject to its terms and conditions.

The longest economic expansion in U.S. history is over, but…

As the US and and global economies are entering a recession, this is when I start actively monitoring global macro-economic trends.

My investment and tactical trading decisions are informed by directional price trends, momentum, volatility, and investor sentiment. So, this quantitative data is my primary focus as a global macro/tactical investment manager.

That is, until economic trends shift outside their range and reach extremes.

Then I start observing these global macro trends to observe what has changed. We monitor thousands and data streams and time series, daily, with quantitative alerts that signal when these trends change, or when their rate of change shifts. For example, we monitor 4,136 global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) indicators alone.

US GDP Growth released today indicates the longest U.S. economic expansion in history is over.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis releases quarterly figures for US Gross Domestic Product. In addition to the Real GDP, the report also includes data for income, sales, inventories, and corporate profits. It is one of the most important parts of the National Income and Product Accounts.

US Real GDP Growth is measured as the year over year change in the Gross Domestic Product in the US as adjusted for inflation. Gross Domestic Product is the total value of goods produced and services provided in a the US. Real GDP Growth is a vital indicator to analyze the health of the economy. Two quarters of consecutive negative real GDP growth officially signifies a recession. Additionally, GDP is used by the Fed (FOMC) as a gauge to make their interest rate decisions. In the post World War II boom years, US Real GDP grew as high as 12.8% in a year, but in the late 20th century 0-5% growth was more the norm.

US Real GDP Growth is now at -4.80%, compared to 2.10% last quarter and 3.10% last year, which is materially below the long term average of 3.18%. This GDP is sharpest drop since 2008 as governments and consumers responded to the new coronavirus.

I expect the second quarter will be worse.

I’ve been pointing out a few years now that this is the longest economic expansion in U.S. history as well as the longest bull market for stocks that was very aged.

But, after a -37% decline in the popular market proxy, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the stock market is climbing a wall of worry.

Despite the negative GDP, the Dow Jones is up 2.7% today.

And the Dow Jones is now just -13.28% year to date, after starting 2020 up 3.55% and then crashing down -35% just a few weeks ago.

I have tactically operated through bear markets, so investors should be prepared for many significant swings along the way, but for now, it seems on March 24th stock prices reached a low enough point to attract buying enthusiasm that exceeds the desire to sell.

Of course, the buying enthusiasm may be mostly the Federal Reserve, but notwithstanding who is driving up prices, the trend is up for now.

The stock market is forward-looking, so what is, is.

Giddy up.

Mike Shell is the Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Shell Capital Management, LLC, and the portfolio manager of ASYMMETRY® Global TacticalMike Shell and Shell Capital Management, LLC is a registered investment advisor focused on asymmetric risk-reward and absolute return strategies and provides investment advice and portfolio management only to clients with a signed and executed investment management agreement. The observations shared on this website are for general information only and should not be construed as advice to buy or sell any security. Securities reflected are not intended to represent any client holdings or any recommendations made by the firm. Any opinions expressed may change as subsequent conditions change.  Do not make any investment decisions based on such information as it is subject to change. Investing involves risk, including the potential loss of principal an investor must be willing to bear. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. All information and data are deemed reliable but is not guaranteed and should be independently verified. The presence of this website on the Internet shall in no direct or indirect way raise an implication that Shell Capital Management, LLC is offering to sell or soliciting to sell advisory services to residents of any state in which the firm is not registered as an investment advisor. The views and opinions expressed in ASYMMETRY® Observations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect a position of  Shell Capital Management, LLC. The use of this website is subject to its terms and conditions.

Global Asset Allocation: Risk and reward isn’t a knob we turn to get what we want. 

I don’t believe I know anyone who invests all of their money in the stock market, all the time.

In order to invest all of your money in the stock market all the time, you’d have to be willing and able to accept a downside loss (drawdown) of -50% or worse. I say that because it’s the historical drawdown.

S&P 500 Stock Index Historical Drawdowns

In the S&P 500 Stock Index Historical Drawdowns chart below, we see -20% several times, -30% a few times, and -45% or more three times. It happens, it can happen, and it will happen again. It’s why I prefer to instead actively manage my risk for drawdown control.

Losses are exponential the deeper they get and too hard to overcome.

To truly understand the risk, I think we have to know if a market has fallen -50% in the past, it could certainly do it again in the future, or even worse. So, the risk isn’t some multiple times a volatility measure like Value at Risk, but instead, the possible loss is at least the worst historical drawdown. Past performance doesn’t guarantee future returns, so it could be worse next time, for all we know.

Since most people probably don’t have the risk tolerance, risk capacity, or financial ability to take that much risk, most investors invest in some fixed allocation of cash, bonds, and stocks. If they use an advisor, they most likely are further diversified into International markets to make it a diversified portfolio of Global Asset Allocation (GAA). To track Global Asset Allocation, I use the S&P Target Risk Indexes for Global Asset Allocation.

The short story is, S&P allocates between equities and fixed income.

TARGET RISK ALLOCATION

How has a Global Asset Allocation performed so far in 2020 through February?

To answer, I look at these S&P Target Risk Index. But, keep in mind, these indexes do not include fees such as advisory fees or trading costs. Clearly, more risk is not always compensated with more return. All of them are down, but the more aggressive allocation to stocks hasn’t resulted in more return, but less, so far.

Global Asset Allocation GAA performance 2020

In fact, the % off high shows the drawdown for each of the Target Risk Indexes. You can probably see why “growth” and “aggressive” isn’t always as it sounds.

Global Asset Allocation GAA Target Risk Drawdown

Risk and reward isn’t a knob we get to turn to get what we want.

I prefer to rotate, rather than allocation, and actively increase and decrease my exposure to the possibility of risk and reward. It’s the only way I know that has the potential for my objective of asymmetric risk-reward.

Mike Shell is the Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Shell Capital Management, LLC, and the portfolio manager of ASYMMETRY® Global TacticalMike Shell and Shell Capital Management, LLC is a registered investment advisor in Florida, Tennessee, and Texas. Shell Capital is focused on asymmetric risk-reward and absolute return strategies and provides investment advice and portfolio management only to clients with a signed and executed investment management agreement. The observations shared on this website are for general information only and should not be construed as advice to buy or sell any security. Securities reflected are not intended to represent any client holdings or any recommendations made by the firm. I observe the charts and graphs to visually see what is going on with price trends and volatility, it is not intended to be used in making any determination as to when to buy or sell any security, or which security to buy or sell. Instead, these are observations of the data as a visual representation of what is going on with the trend and its volatility for situational awareness. I do not necessarily make any buy or sell decisions based on it. Any opinions expressed may change as subsequent conditions change.  Do not make any investment decisions based on such information as it is subject to change. Investing involves risk, including the potential loss of principal an investor must be willing to bear. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. All information and data are deemed reliable but is not guaranteed and should be independently verified. The presence of this website on the Internet shall in no direct or indirect way raise an implication that Shell Capital Management, LLC is offering to sell or soliciting to sell advisory services to residents of any state in which the firm is not registered as an investment advisor. The views and opinions expressed in ASYMMETRY® Observations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect a position of  Shell Capital Management, LLC. The use of this website is subject to its terms and conditions.

Global Macro: is the coronavirus outbreak crushing the China ETF and causing the volatility expansion?

The past five days have been a little choppy in price action.

SPX january 2020

If you’ve been following my observations, it should be a surprise as a volatility expansion was expected.

The VIX CBOE S&P 500 Volatility Index has gained 34% the past five days, so it’s a volatility expansion indeed. At the 17 level, the VIX now implies a 17% volatility in prices over the next 30 days. So, the options market traders expect more vol.

VIX asymmetric risk reward return

I’m no day trader, but I monitor global macro trends daily both systematically through my programs as well as manually and visually. For me, the global macro trend includes other countries and over 100 markets including volatility.

Speaking of other countries…

Below is the US equity index drawdown so far relative to the Emerging Markets Index and EAFE which is developed international countries. Emerging Markets EM is the laggard.

SPY EFA EEM

Looking deeper, here are the country holdings for EEM. China, Taiwan, South Korea, and India are the main exposures in the EM index.

emering markets countires eem holdings

Here are the price trends of China, Taiwan, South Korea, and India that are the principal exposures in the EM index.

global macro trends coronavirus

The drawdowns of these emerging markets countries have been notably greater than the US so far. China and Brazil have fallen the most. As we have been positioned in short tern U.S. Treasuries recently, We have no exposure to these markets.

global macro trend following

I’m sure many investors believe it’s caused by the Coronavirus spreading across China and now the world. At this point, it may be driving some selling for some, but it’s really the market, doing what it does. To be clear, I’m saying the market would respond similarly regardless of the news headlines, because of the math. For some, that may sound provocative and I hope it is at least thought-provoking because I mean it.

To be sure… my assumption is testable.

The coronavirus was first detected in Wuhan city, Central China, in December 2019. It is believed to have originated from wild animals, passing to humans due to the wildlife trade and wet markets. However, Google Trends doesn’t show any activity until January 17th and then it jumped on January 24th.

when did coronavirus outbreak first make headlines

Next, I chart the price trend of the MSCI China stock index ETF along with the CBOE China ETF Volatility Index. Cboe Options Exchange (Cboe) now applies its proprietary Cboe Volatility Index® (VIX®methodology to create indexes that reflect expected volatility for options on select exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Cboe calculates and disseminates the Cboe China ETF Volatility Index (ticker VXFXI), which reflects the implied volatility of the FXI ETF.

Here we see the price trend up to January 17th was up over the past year and the implied volatility was near its low.

china stock trend coronavirus impact on market volatility

And to be sure, here is the chart going back a decade and I marked the lowest point of the China ETF VIX index to show implied volatility had reached an extreme low this month prior to the coronavirus outbreak.

china stock etf vix coronavirus

So, here is the price trend of the China ETF and its volatility index over the past 30 days. The low implied volatility was January 17th, so I was expecting a volatility expansion regardless of any news headlines that would suggest the blame for it. Indeed that’s what we’ve seen.

china etf stocks market vix volatility coronavirus

I believe the markets do what they do and some news gets the headline and the blame. Trends trend and then reverse because mathematically, they reach extreme lows and highs in their momentum making them more likely to reverse direction.

We have no way of knowing exactly why there has been enough selling pressure from investors and traders drive down China stocks, but I expected a volaltity expansion anyway, so if I had exposure to the China ETF  I would have responded accordingly. I didn’t and still don’t, so this is simply for informational purposes, as always.

I believe my systems and methods are robust because I focus on the actual direction of the price trend and its volatility, and the price trend is the final arbiter.  I’ve been doing what I do, over and over, for over two decades now. I’ve just gotten better at it with experience.

I don’t care so much about what news may be driving the trend, I focus on the market overreaction and underreaction and that’s observed in the price and volatility.

Mike Shell is the Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Shell Capital Management, LLC, and the portfolio manager of ASYMMETRY® Global TacticalMike Shell and Shell Capital Management, LLC is a registered investment advisor in Florida, Tennessee, and Texas focused on asymmetric risk-reward and absolute return strategies and provides investment advice and portfolio management only to clients with a signed and executed investment management agreement. The observations shared on this website are for general information only and should not be construed as advice to buy or sell any security. Securities reflected are not intended to represent any client holdings or any recommendations made by the firm. Any opinions expressed may change as subsequent conditions change.  Do not make any investment decisions based on such information as it is subject to change. Investing involves risk, including the potential loss of principal an investor must be willing to bear. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. All information and data are deemed reliable but is not guaranteed and should be independently verified. The presence of this website on the Internet shall in no direct or indirect way raise an implication that Shell Capital Management, LLC is offering to sell or soliciting to sell advisory services to residents of any state in which the firm is not registered as an investment advisor. The views and opinions expressed in ASYMMETRY® Observations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect a position of  Shell Capital Management, LLC. The use of this website is subject to its terms and conditions.

 

 

 

 

Why invest globally?

Why invest in international markets? someone asked.

Go back to 2007 and it was more obvious. I remember just the opposite questioned posed then; why not invest it all in Emerging Markets? Of course, that was after this:

emerging markets eem $eem trend following asymmetric

Emerging markets were the dominant trend from 2003 to 2007. As the chart shows, it wasn’t even close: 358% for the MSCI Emerging Markets Index vs. 76% for the S&P 500 U.S. stock index.

emerging markets outperform

The MSCI Emerging Markets Index represents securities that are headquartered in emerging markets countries. An emerging market is considered a country that has not yet become developed because of economic characteristics. These countries tend to present a unique investment opportunity because of the nature of their growth potentials.

However, emerging countries aren’t without risk. MSCI Emerging Markets Index has had three notable drawdowns greater than 50% in 1998, 2001, and 2008.

emerging markets eem drawdowns

Back in 2007, when someone asked me “why not invest it all in Emerging Markets” I guessed it was likely the end. Even though the person was born in a foreign country and did business globally, the enthusiasm was a sign. Doing business around the world doesn’t make someone a global investment expert. As this investor did indeed invest their money in Emerging Markets as he confirmed when I saw him a few years later, the timing was terrible. In fact, based on the MSCI Emerging Markets Index chart since 2007 it sill is.

emerging markets since 2007

As we see the full history below, although international stock markets like Emerging Markets can have periods of drawdowns and otherwise non-trending times, there are still potentially profitable price trends that may be captured with a robust tactical method. I’ve avoided EM for a while now for obvious reasons.

msci emerging markets index history

Then, there are developed international markets. The MSCI EAFE Index tracks large-cap and mid-cap companies in developed countries around the world. The index primarily covers the Europe, Australasia, and the Far East regions. This index is used as an important international benchmark. The index has had large drawdowns in 2003 and 2009, which were largely due to recessionary periods. As you can see in the chart, the performance was similar to Emerging Markets. However, the gains on the upside weren’t as much.

msci eafe international markets

You can probably see why investors aren’t talking about these international stocks the last several years. We won’t hear about it until after they trend up a lot and make headlines and magazine covers. I’m a global tactical manager, but I’ve avoided EM and DM for many years now for obvious reasons, unlike global asset allocation which invests in it all the time.

I’m unconstrained and tactical, so I shift between markets based on trends and countertrends, rather than allocating to them for constant exposure to the risk-reward.

The chart above doesn’t exhibit asymmetric risk-reward by itself, but my special weapons and tactics aim to extract it from what is there.

More recently, I’ve mostly focused in high dividend yield global stocks. But, there will come a time when this market are the place to be and when they do, I have 30 other countries outside the United States in my universe.

Have a question or comment? shoot me an email below:

Mike Shell is the Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Shell Capital Management, LLC, and the portfolio manager of ASYMMETRY® Global Tactical.

Mike Shell and Shell Capital Management, LLC is a registered investment advisor focused on asymmetric risk-reward and absolute return strategies and provides investment advice and portfolio management only to clients with a signed and executed investment management agreement. The observations shared on this website are for general information only and should not be construed as advice to buy or sell any security. Securities reflected are not intended to represent any client holdings or any recommendations made by the firm. Any opinions expressed may change as subsequent conditions change.  Do not make any investment decisions based on such information as it is subject to change. Investing involves risk, including the potential loss of principal an investor must be willing to bear. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. All information and data are deemed reliable but is not guaranteed and should be independently verified. The presence of this website on the Internet shall in no direct or indirect way raise an implication that Shell Capital Management, LLC is offering to sell or soliciting to sell advisory services to residents of any state in which the firm is not registered as an investment advisor. The views and opinions expressed in ASYMMETRY® Observations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect a position of  Shell Capital Management, LLC. The use of this website is subject to its terms and conditions.

Asymmetry in yield spreads, inverted yield curve warning shot, and unemployment

The 10-2 Treasury Yield Spread is the difference between the 10-year treasury rate and the 2-year treasury rate.

A 10-2 treasury spread that approaches zero indicates a “flattening” yield curve. A flattening yield curve is when the shorter-term interest rate (2 years) is the same as longer-term interest rate (10 year).

Although many people mistakenly promote symmetry and balance as a good thing when it comes to investment management, this is another of many instances where asymmetry is preferred over symmetry.

If we balance our profit and loss, we make no progress.

So, I prefer profits over losses and profit greater than loss.

If we balance our risk and reward, we are left with no change.

So, I prefer asymmetry over symmetry: more reward, less risk, or asymmetric risk-reward.

Getting this wrong can be one of the biggest mistakes of your life. If you balance your portfolio, you’ll have periods of gains, but they may be followed by periods of losses and the losses are just enough to remove the gains. Asymmetric returns are achieved by capturing more of the good, less of the bad.

In the chart below, we can see the yield spread went negative in August. Since then, it has trended back up. The Yield Spread has become more asymmetric.

A negative 10-2 yield spread is historically considered a precursor to a recessionary period. So, symmetry is the first signal of an issue, then it turns negative. That’s why we saw these inverted yield curve headlines in August. Since yield curve inversions are scares, they get significant attention in the financial press.

inverted yield curve

Typically, long-term bonds have higher yields than short-term bonds. An inverted yield curve is seen as an indicator of an impending recession. A negative 10-2 spread predicted every recession from 1955 to 2018 but occurred 6-24 months before the recession happened, so the inverted yield curve is a leading indicator that signals far in advance. The gray area labels recessions. You can see the Yield Spread drops to a low level before the recession.

Although it isn’t currently inverted, we should take note it did invert briefly, and the spread is on the low range of its cycle historically We can see in the chart the inversion doesn’t necessarily stay flat or inverted for long. The signal, then, is the symmetry then the inversion.

The slope of the yield curve oscillates up and down with the state of the economy. The upward-sloping yield curve is observed when the economy is growing. When investors expect a recession, they also expect falling interest rates. The belief of the market that interest rates are going to fall drives the inversion. When the yield curve inverts, it’s because investors have low confidence in the economy over the near term. So, it’s an indicator of investor sentiment and behavior. Here is a visual of the historical rates between the 2 and 10 year. The 10 year should be materially higher as a reward for tying money up longer as is the case most of the time.

The 10-2 spread reached a high of 2.91% in 2011, and went as low as -2.41% in 1980. The good news is the 10-2 spread flattened to zero last September but has since spread back out.

Only time will tell if the inversion in 2019 will precede a recession. All we know now is it’s a warning shot across the bow to pay attention to other leading economic indicators that precede the next stage of the business cycle.

But, the rate of change in interest rates is probably the most important leading indicator. Falling interest rates result in a lower cost of capital and liquidity for both consumers and businesses. When money is cheaper, we’re more likely to spend. We should be more inclined to buy a new $100,000 car at 2% than 4%. When interest rates rise, as they are now, we know the economy will eventually slow down as it costs more to borrow money to fund business projects or personal spending. As interest rates rise, people spend less. Since the cost of the loan literally rises, this happens whether they know what they are doing or not, since rising rates also means people and businesses can afford less debt. When rates rise, payments rise, so the amount they can borrow, which is based on income, reduces spending.

The yield curve inversion doesn’t automatically mean a recession is in the near future.

Employment is essential, too. The U.S. Unemployment Rate is about as low as it’s ever been.

As with all cycles, it isn’t the extremely low level of the cycle we should focus on, but what’s more likely to happen next. It should be no surprise that low unemployment precedes recessions.

For me, the directional trend of the stock market will be my primary guide for the economy but I monitor many trends for situational awareness of what is going on.

Mike Shell is the Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Shell Capital Management, LLC, and the portfolio manager of ASYMMETRY® Global Tactical.

Mike Shell and Shell Capital Management, LLC is a registered investment advisor focused on asymmetric risk-reward and absolute return strategies and provides investment advice and portfolio management only to clients with a signed and executed investment management agreement. The observations shared on this website are for general information only and should not be construed as advice to buy or sell any security. Securities reflected are not intended to represent any client holdings or any recommendations made by the firm. Any opinions expressed may change as subsequent conditions change.  Do not make any investment decisions based on such information as it is subject to change. Investing involves risk, including the potential loss of principal an investor must be willing to bear. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. All information and data are deemed reliable but is not guaranteed and should be independently verified. The presence of this website on the Internet shall in no direct or indirect way raise an implication that Shell Capital Management, LLC is offering to sell or soliciting to sell advisory services to residents of any state in which the firm is not registered as an investment advisor. The views and opinions expressed in ASYMMETRY® Observations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect a position of  Shell Capital Management, LLC. The use of this website is subject to its terms and conditions.

 

Global Asset Allocation had a strong year in 2019, but…

People don’t usually invest all their money in equities, even though the stock market is mostly what we talk about. Large institutional investors like pensions and endowments don’t invest all their capital in the stock market, either. Instead, they invest in allocation to stocks and bonds globally diversified across world markets.

One of my favorite examples of the stock and bond part of this global asset allocation is the S&P Dow Jones Indices’ Target Risk index series.

S&P Dow Jones Indices’ Target Risk series comprises multi-asset class indices that correspond to a particular risk level. Each index is fully investable, with varying levels of exposure to equities and fixed income and are intended to represent stock and bond allocations across a risk spectrum from conservative to aggressive.

global asset allocation ETF ETFs ishares S&P target risk

For example, after a positive year for stocks and bonds, most investors will pay more attention to the one that gained the most. After stocks outperform bonds, the best gains are naturally going to be the global allocation that held the most stock exposure.

The S&P Target Risk Aggressive® Index is one of four multi-asset class indices that compose the S&P Target Risk Series. The S&P Target Risk Aggressive Index emphasizes exposure to equities, maximizing opportunities for long-term capital accumulation. It may include small allocations to fixed income to enhance portfolio efficiency. In a positive year like 2019, it was the clear winner on the upside. The aggressive allocation gained 19% so far in 2019. On the other end of the spectrum, even the conservative allocation gained 10%.

But, risk isn’t a knob.

Asset allocators don’t get to dial it up or down, and it always work out the way they want.

The reward isn’t a knob, either.

Just because a portfolio is dialed up with risk to “aggressive” doesn’t mean you get the reward from it.

That’s especially true in the short term. Had you believed risk and reward is a knob you turn to get what you want in January a year ago, you could have experienced the aggressive allocation resulted in the more aggressive loss.

The conservative model lost the least, but that isn’t a sure thing, either. In global asset allocation, conservative means more allocation to bonds for fixed income. If bonds fall and stocks rise, the conservative model could lose money and the more stock weighted aggressive could gain.

Diversification is often presented by advisors as a risk management strategy that mixes a wide variety of investments within a portfolio. But, diversification does not assure a profit or protect against loss. The outcome of asset allocation is driven by the exposure to stocks vs. bonds and their gain and loss.

That’s not what I do.

A global asset allocation of exposures that otherwise remain static is very different from dynamic exposures that change based on asymmetric risk-reward driving tactical decisions.

My outcome is decided by my tactical increase and decreases in exposure to risk-reward as I focus on asymmetric risk-reward. I believe there is a time for offense and a  time for  defense.

But, for everyone else, there’s global asset allocation. It’s what most people do. They allocate capital, I rotate capital. I rotate, rather than allocate.

If I were going to invest in static, long-only, fully invested all the time global asset allocation, it would look like these S&P Target Risk indexes. When it comes to a simple allocation of capital, who’s going to do it better than S&P? Many advisors are charging their clients 0.50% to 1% for a simple asset allocation like this. I personally believe the risk of a disaster is so high it makes the unmanaged risk imprudent, so we don’t offer fixed, long-only, fully invested all the time global asset allocation at Shell Capital. If we did, we’d probably manage billions because investors want “market returns” until they are big losses. We could also spend our time selling instead of analyzing. But we would constantly be apologizing for market behavior instead of embracing up and downtrends. In my opinion, it’s a difficult business model, but it’s still the easiest for financial advisors. They allocate to the funds, rebalance routinely, maybe do some tax-loss harvesting, and write a commentary about what the market did that lead to their results. Admittedly, it’s a lot easier than tactical portfolio management. When the market doesn’t do what they wanted, it’s the market’s fault. In 2008, they said let’s  “hunker down.”

From my perspective, the investment advisory firms with the largest assets under management tend to be asset allocation firms. They advise clients to invest in global asset allocation models similar to these. Since they aren’t doing constant research and making tactical trading decisions, their time is freed up for the golf course, where they meet more and more clients.

Why do I think it’s a challenging advisory business model?

Global asset allocation doesn’t give me what I want, nor does it give our clients what they want. We want active risk management. We want a point in which we’ll reduce our exposure to loss and maybe even reverse it so as prices fall we profit from it. Sure, like global asset allocation, tactical portfolio management does not assure a profit or guarantee protection against a loss, either. But, like any other action in life vs. inaction, it’s an attempt, which to me, is better than no attempt at all.

What I know is this: global markets can and do all fall together in times of crisis when investors who held their losses too long keep tapping out as prices fall.

global asset allocation diversification failed 2008

Even the most respected global allocation funds participated in the waterfall decline enough to tap out most investors I know if they had invested in them – we didn’t.

I know some advisors and media have been criticizing the “hedge fund” side of the investment industry for years now because total returns haven’t been as high as the past. I don’t think passive indexing advisors have all that much to speak about themselves. Even the most aggressive index allocation that assumes no fees is a 26% gain in the past three years. That’s not an average gain, it’s a gain in capital.

More importantly, those numbers haven’t changed over the past 5 years. So, the past 5 years haven’t been so outstanding for anyone, especially factoring in the volatility.

In fact, it’s caused by volaltity. Volatility eats away at compounding capital positively.

Speaking of volatility, it’s the downside volatility we don’t like. Here are the historical drawdowns of these indexes since they launched in 2011.

If you look close, to get the return of global asset allocation, you’d have to hold through declines of -10% to -20% routinely. In a big bear market will be worse, which hasn’t happened since these indexes weRE made available.

That’s why I believe even a passive global asset allocation is a risky business and not an investment model I’m willing to offer. If people we know want global asset allocation, we show them a way to get it without us. We only offer what we believe is of value.

I can’t imagine what it would be like in 2011 when these global allocations were falling and all we can say is “Hopefully it stops falling?”

But, what if it doesn’t?

What if it keeps falling?

I believe everyone has a tap-out point. We can either determine it in advance or find out the hard way. The tap-out point will be tested over and over with global asset allocation.

But, 2019 wasn’t one of those years, so everyone has something to celebrate this year.

When the wind is blowing, we can let out the sail and enjoy the ride.

When the wind stops blowing, we have to row, not sail, or risk sinking.

Mike Shell is the Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Shell Capital Management, LLC, and the portfolio manager of ASYMMETRY® Global Tactical.

Mike Shell and Shell Capital Management, LLC is a registered investment advisor focused on asymmetric risk-reward and absolute return strategies and provides investment advice and portfolio management only to clients with a signed and executed investment management agreement. The observations shared on this website are for general information only and should not be construed as advice to buy or sell any security. Securities reflected are not intended to represent any client holdings or any recommendations made by the firm. Any opinions expressed may change as subsequent conditions change.  Do not make any investment decisions based on such information as it is subject to change. Investing involves risk, including the potential loss of principal an investor must be willing to bear. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. All information and data are deemed reliable but is not guaranteed and should be independently verified. The presence of this website on the Internet shall in no direct or indirect way raise an implication that Shell Capital Management, LLC is offering to sell or soliciting to sell advisory services to residents of any state in which the firm is not registered as an investment advisor. The views and opinions expressed in ASYMMETRY® Observations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect a position of  Shell Capital Management, LLC. The use of this website is subject to its terms and conditions.

Active management and tactical allocation isn’t the only method with “strategy risk” as global asset allocation can get off track, too

Most investors, individual and institutional, apply some kind of asset allocation method to a portfolio mix of cash, bonds, and stocks. The most diversified also invest internationally,  so their portfolio is global. The most common method is strategic asset allocation, which allocates capital to funds that represent different parts of the stock and bond markets based on some prediction of future exected returns or historical returns along with variance. There isn’t much skill to it unless you can predict the future better than others.

That’s Global Asset Allocation and it’s especially what large institutional investors like pensions and endowments do.

Since around 2002, most financial advisors have adopted it as well. I say 2002 because that was when I remember even the large Wall Street brokers like J.P. Morgan and Merrill Lynch starting to teach their financial advisors to use Modern Portfolio Theory to create Global Asset Allocation portfolios. Although in many cases, these investment brokers and banks don’t necessarily allow their brokerage salespeople to create their own models, instead, they sell models the firm creates. After all, financial advisors at a brokerage firm or investment bank aren’t analysts or portfolio managers, their job is to sell the firms’ products and services. So, most individual investors who have a financial advisor at a large brokerage firm probably find themselves in some kind of Global Asset Allocation.

In The stock market has made little progress in the past two years which is a hostile condition for trend following I pointed out the U.S. equity market has made little progress in the past two years. I also showed a simple example of how and why it’s a hostile condition for trend following methods.

The past two years haven’t been any better for allocation to global stocks and bonds, no matter how you sliced it.

To illustrate this observation, we use the S&P Target Risk Index Series. Below is the chart of all four “target risk” allocations between global stocks, bonds, and cash.

An index isn’t a physical basket of securities, but a mathematical construct that describes the market. So, we can’t invest directly in an index. But we can invest in securities like ETFs that track indexes and which provide exposure to the markets they reflect. In the case of S&P Target Risk, BlackRock iShares has ETFs that aim to track each of the four indexes.

The S&P Target Risk series of indices comprises multi asset class indices that correspond to a particular risk level. They measure risk level based on exposure to cash and bonds (for lower expected risk) to stocks for higher risk and expected return. So, the four indices each measure the performance of specific allocations to equities and fixed income. Each index has varying levels of exposure to equities and fixed income and are intended to represent stock and bond allocations across a risk spectrum from conservative to aggressive.

Something unique about these indices is each index is composed of exchange traded funds (ETFs), rather than an index allocation to other mathematical indices.

Again, the indices represent stock-bond allocations across a risk spectrum from conservative to aggressive. The assigned risk level of the index (conservative, moderate, growth, and aggressive) depends on the allocation to fixed income.

S&P Target Risk Conservative Index. The index seeks to emphasize exposure to fixed income, in order to produce a current income stream and avoid excessive volatility of returns. Equities are included to protect long-term purchasing power.

S&P Target Risk Moderate Index. The index seeks to provide significant exposure to fixed income, while also providing increased opportunity for capital growth through equities.

S&P Target Risk Growth Index. The index seeks to provide increased exposure to equities, while also using some fixed income exposure to dampen risk.

S&P Target Risk Aggressive Index. The index seeks to emphasize exposure to equities, maximizing opportunities for long-term capital accumulation.

We can refer to Index Construction for details on each index’s allocation to equity and fixed income.

Index Construction Target Risk S&P global asset allocation index

The short version is there is a 10% to 20% difference between the allocation between bonds and stocks.

So, how has Global Asset Allocation performed in this very volatile two years that’s had a hard time gaining enough momentum to stay at new highs?

The Aggressive allocation participated in the downside but not the upside.

Active management or tactical allocation isn’t the only method with “strategy risk” as sometimes asset allocation can get off track. 

I don’t offer this kind of asset allocation that allocates capital to fixed buckets of stocks and bonds and then rebalances them periodically. As a tactical portfolio manager, instead of allocating to markets, I rotate between them based on asymmetric risk-reward. We don’t want to have too much exposure to falling markets and we prefer to focus on up trending markets. So, I prefer to limit my downside by predefining my risk and the upside takes care of itself as we let profits run. For me and our clients, our portfolio a replacement to this kind of asset allocation. Frankly, if I didn’t think I could achieve a better asymmetric risk-reward profile over full market cycles including drawdown control that we are better willing and able to tolerate, I wouldn’t bother doing what I do. If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. But, from what I’ve seen so far, many investors in global asset allocation tapped out in the last bear market as both stocks and bonds experienced waterfall declines. Do you know what didn’t? cash and shorts.

To me, that’s tactical.

The bottom line is, all investments and investment strategies involve risk, including the potential loss of principal an investor must be willing to bear. Which one is right anyone is a function of their personal preferences toward someone actively making decisions or passively holding exposure to market risk, their risk tolerance for drawdowns, and their desire to pursue asymmetric risk-reward. None of it is a sure thing.

Mike Shell is the Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Shell Capital Management, LLC, and the portfolio manager of ASYMMETRY® Global Tactical.

Mike Shell and Shell Capital Management, LLC is a registered investment advisor focused on asymmetric risk-reward and absolute return strategies and provides investment advice and portfolio management only to clients with a signed and executed investment management agreement. The observations shared on this website are for general information only and should not be construed as advice to buy or sell any security. Securities reflected are not intended to represent any client holdings or any recommendations made by the firm. Any opinions expressed may change as subsequent conditions change.  Do not make any investment decisions based on such information as it is subject to change. Investing involves risk, including the potential loss of principal an investor must be willing to bear. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. All information and data are deemed reliable but is not guaranteed and should be independently verified. The presence of this website on the Internet shall in no direct or indirect way raise an implication that Shell Capital Management, LLC is offering to sell or soliciting to sell advisory services to residents of any state in which the firm is not registered as an investment advisor. The use of this website is subject to its terms and conditions.

I don’t always comment on economic indicators, but when I do, it’s a trend like ISM Manufacturing Index

The ISM Manufacturing Index monitors changes in production levels from month to month and is considered an important economic indicator by many global macro investment managers. Some of them consider a level above 50 as an indicator of a growing manufacturing sector.

However, the current level is now down to 47.30, down from 49.50 last month and down from 63.90 one year ago. This is a change of -4.44% from last month and -25.98% from one year ago.

Global Macro traders and investors who rely on economic indicators monitor the ISM Manufacturing Index to observe US economic trends and conditions. When the index is rising, they expect a bullish stock market in reaction to higher corporate earnings. Looking at the past year, the level is in a downtrend. As such, this downtrend may be bearish for the economy and stock market.

In fact, there seems to be a trend here as I broaded out the time horizon to see the bigger picture. ISM Manufacturing Index is also in a downtrend over the past three years.

We can say the same about the past five years. This economic indicator is trending down and in a downtrend.

Next is the 10-year trend. Over the past 10 years, the recent trend is notable.

Looking back over the full period I have data, which is before 1950, the historical trend suggests it could get worse, but it’s also at the lower range it has reached before it does.

So, this economic indicator suggests as investors, we had better be prepared and aware of the situation as tactical risk management is likely to be more obviously necessary for the near future. This is potentially negative for stocks from this point.

What about bonds?

The opposite is the case for bonds. Bonds may fall as the ISM Manufacturing Index rises and in an uptrend because of the sensitivity of bonds to inflation. However, when the ISM Manufacturing Index is declining like it is now and in a downtrend, it can be positive for bonds.

The funny thing is my directional price trend systems already have us meaningful exposure to long term U.S. Treasury bonds.

You see, I don’t have to know about economic indicators or follow them, my systems and methods identify when the trends are actually starting as well as when they reverse. When they do this well, we naturally get in sync with the price trends and what these economic indicators observe.

It looks like there are real signs of a slowing U.S. economy. As such, investors need to be prepared and not be complacent with non-risk managed holdings in their portfolio. I manage our risk at Shell Capital Management by predefining my exits on all of our holdings, hedging, and tactically investing in the direction of trends and sometimes likely countertrends. It’s what our clients pay us for. As this economic expansion is very aged as is the bull market in stocks, the only certainty is the change we’ll see in the future. What has been trending up so long will eventually trend down.

I’m as prepared as I’ve ever been and probably better now than I was in the past when I operated through such conditions.

Mike Shell is the Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Shell Capital Management, LLC, and the portfolio manager of ASYMMETRY® Global Tactical.

Mike Shell and Shell Capital Management, LLC is a registered investment advisor focused on asymmetric risk-reward and absolute return strategies and provides investment advice and portfolio management only to clients with a signed and executed investment management agreement. The observations shared on this website are for general information only and should not be construed as advice to buy or sell any security. Securities reflected are not intended to represent any client holdings or any recommendations made by the firm. Any opinions expressed may change as subsequent conditions change.  Do not make any investment decisions based on such information as it is subject to change. Investing involves risk, including the potential loss of principal an investor must be willing to bear. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. All information and data is deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed and should be independently verified. The presence of this website on the Internet shall in no direct or indirect way raise an implication that Shell Capital Management, LLC is offering to sell or soliciting to sell advisory services to residents of any state in which the firm is not registered as an investment advisor. Use of this website is subject to its terms and conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Argentina stock market loss is a reminder of single country ETF risk

If we looked at the MSCI Argentina ETF on July 4th, its gains year to date were astonishing.

Below is a chart of both iShares MSCI Argentina & Global Exposure ETF (AGT) and Global X MSCI Argentina ETF (ARGT) price trend from January 1st to July 4th.

The Global X MSCI Argentina ETF (ARGT) invests in among the largest and most liquid securities with exposure to Argentina. Both of the ETFs intend to track the MSCI All Argentina 25/50 Index.

On the iShares MSCI Argentina and Global Exposure ETF website, iShares highlights the theme:

Why AGT? Currently, the second-largest economy in South America, Argentina has recently implemented policies to make its market friendlier to foreign investors (World Bank. Based on 2015 GDP)

However, International investing involves risks, including risks related to foreign currency, limited liquidity, less government regulation and the possibility of substantial volatility due to adverse political, economic or other developments. These risks often are heightened for investments in emerging/developing markets or in concentrations of single countries.

Yesterday, the ETF priced in U.S. dollars dropped -24%. Just like that, in a single day, most of its year-to-date gain evaporated.

 at Bloomberg reports “Argentina’s 48% Stock Rout Second-Biggest in Past 70 Years” and;

  • Only Sri Lanka has suffered a worse single-day drop since 1950
  •  South America nation endured similar one-day sell-off in 2002

Single countries can be subject to the possibility of substantial volatility and loss of value due to adverse political events.

Argentina’s peso also fell -15% after a surprising primary election outcome. CNN says It seems investors how populists could replace the country’s current, business-friendly government.

Bloomberg goes on to say:

“That marked the second-biggest one-day rout on any of the 94 stock exchanges tracked by Bloomberg going back to 1950. Sri Lanka’s bourse tumbled more than 60% in June 1989 as the nation was engulfed in a civil war.”

The top 5 shows 1-day percent declines from -36% to -62%:

Global X MSCI Argentina ETF AGT ARGT

 

You can probably see why I say we must actively manage the possibility of loss through tactical risk management methods. Tactical risk management methods may include predefined exits, hedging, and position size control. Of the 40 or so single country ETFs I include in my global universe of ETFs, it necessarily requires the realization that any single country can result in a loss like Argentina.

 

I built my risk management systems with the possibility of these enormous losses in mind, so we can probably be more prepared than those with no plan to direct and control the exposure to the possibility of loss.

Mike Shell is the Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Shell Capital Management, LLC, and the portfolio manager of ASYMMETRY® Global Tactical.

Mike Shell and Shell Capital Management, LLC is a registered investment advisor and provides investment advice and portfolio management exclusively to clients with a signed and executed investment management agreement. The observations shared on this website are for general information only and should not be construed as advice to buy or sell any security. Securities reflected are not intended to represent any client holdings or any recommendations made by the firm. Investing involves risk, including the potential loss of principal an investor must be willing to bear. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. All information and data is deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed and should be independently verified. The presence of this website on the Internet shall in no direct or indirect way raise an implication that Shell Capital Management, LLC is offering to sell or soliciting to sell advisory services to residents of any state in which the firm is not registered as an investment advisor. Use of this website is subject to its terms and conditions.

All investors are market timers

All investors are market timers.

It isn’t just tactical traders.

I’ve been hearing more about “market timing” recently from some investment advisors saying they aren’t market timers.

But they are.

We all are.

And timing is everything. Like it or not.

I start off with general definitions of market timing from a Google search.

According to Wikipedia:

Market timing is the strategy of making buying or selling decisions of financial assets (often stocks) by attempting to predict future market price movements. The prediction may be based on an outlook of market or economic conditions resulting from technical or fundamental analysis.”

This definition indicates “by attempting to predict future market price movements” is what draws the distinction of “market timing.”

Next is Investopedia:

“What Is Market Timing?

Market timing is a type of investment or trading strategy. It is the act of moving in and out of a financial market or switching between asset classes based on predictive methods. These predictive tools include following technical indicators or economic data, to gauge how the market is going to move.

So, it seems the distinction they make for “market timing” is a prediction.

Yet, everyone must necessarily make a prediction about the future to invest or trade.

For the passive indexers who buy and hold index funds, they necessarily make a prediction those funds past performance will resemble future results. They assume the stock and bond markets will have a positive return over the long term. The truth is, that is not a certainty, but a prediction on their part. In fact, choosing a time to rebalance their asset allocation is market timing, too, especially if they do it in response to price trend changes.

For value investors who actively look to add stocks they believe have been undervalued by the market, and/or trade for less than their intrinsic values, they are necessary market timing. When they sell a stock that has reached full value, they are timing the exit. It’s market timing. Some may even reduce or hedge overall stock exposure when the broad stock indexes are overvalued, which is also a timing decision. The more aggressive value investors, such as a value hedge fund, may use leverage to buy more stocks after their prices fall in a bear market. It’s market timing.

For momentum investors. it’s about following the historical trend. Momentum investing is a system of buying stocks or other securities that have had high returns over the past three to twelve months, and selling those that have had poor returns over the same period. It’s market timing as it assumes on average they’ll achieve more gains from the positive trends than losses from the negative trends. Extrapolating the recent past into the future is necessarily market timing.

What about non-directional trading strategies like certain options spreads and volatility trading? They still require and entry and an exit and timing the trade. Being invested in the stock market, buy the way, is explicitly short volatility, so when volatility expands stocks usually fall.

I want to be long volatility when it’s rising and short or out when it isn’t. I want to be in an options positions that on average result in asymmetry: more profit, less loss.

For example, an options straddle is a non-directional trading strategy that incorporates buying a call option and a put option on the same stock or ETF with the same strike and the same expiration. With a non-directional trade, we may have a two in three chance of making money because we can profit if the stock moves up or down. It requires movement, which is a prediction of the price expanding and timing it. It’s market timing.

Rather than trying to debate against “market timing” it seems more useful to admit we are all doing it in all we do, one way or another.

I embraced that long ago, and for me, I realize timing is everything.

But that doesn’t mean it always has to be perfect timing, either.

Asymmetry results from the average gains overwhelming the average losses, so the timing could have no edge if the profit-taking and loss cutting systems are robust.

All investors are market timers. The market timers who make the biggest riskiest bet are the passive index asset allocators who make no attempt to manage their risk, assuming past performance is indicative of future results.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Mike Shell is the Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Shell Capital Management, LLC, and the portfolio manager of ASYMMETRY® Global Tactical.

Mike Shell and Shell Capital Management, LLC is a registered investment advisor and provides investment advice and portfolio management exclusively to clients with a signed and executed investment management agreement. The observations shared on this website are for general information only and should not be construed as advice to buy or sell any security. Securities reflected are not intended to represent any client holdings or any recommendations made by the firm. Investing involves risk including the potential loss of principal an investor must be willing to bear. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. All information and data is deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed and should be independently verified. The presence of this website on the Internet shall in no direct or indirect way raise an implication that Shell Capital Management, LLC is offering to sell or soliciting to sell advisory services to residents of any state in which the firm is not registered as an investment advisor. Use of this website is subject to its terms and conditions.

Global Asset Allocation hasn’t done any better

I’ve been hearing of how different active management strategies haven’t performed as well as the S&P 500 stock index the past five years. I can’t say it’s a big surprise since the SPX has been well into an overvalued level since 2013.

iShares Global Asset Allocation ETFs are an interesting example for GAA. Each of them has a percent in stocks and a percent in bonds. According to iShares:

Each iShares Core Allocation Fund offers exposure to U.S. stocks, international stocks, and bonds at fixed weights and holds an underlying portfolio of iShares Core Funds Investors can choose the portfolio that aligns with their specific risk considerations like investment time horizon; for example, those with longer investment time horizons may consider the iShares Core Aggressive Allocation ETF.

Each ETF has a fixed allocation to stocks and bonds.

ishares global allocation ETF

So, the difference between them as they go from conservative to aggressive is what percent is in stocks vs. bonds. iShares Core Allocation brochure says these ETFs harness the experience of BlackRock and the efficiency of iShares ETFs to get a broad mix of bonds and global stocks. BlackRock is the largest asset manager in the world, so if it’s global allocation you want, I’m guessing these may be hard to beat. I’ve not invested in them nor do I recommend them, but I think they make for a good example of what can or can’t be accomplished with Global Asset Allocation.

Global Asset Allocation hasn’t done much better than alternative strategies. Over the past five years, the total return for the most aggressive ETF is 31%. Simple math says that’s around 6% over five years.

So, by this measure, Global Asset Allocation doesn’t come close to putting 100% of your money into a stock index fund. Below we see the SPY, for example, has doubled the iShares aggressive allocation and tripled the conservative allocation.

But, who invests all their money in the stock index all the time?

I don’t believe I know anyone who does.

Why?

A picture is worth a thousand words. The stock index has declined over -50% twice since 1999, so it could certainly do it again.

Next, we compare the S&P 500 which is fully invested in stocks all the time to their conservative allocation in terms of % off high to observe historical drawdowns. Clearly, there is a huge difference in the downside risk as well as the upside reward. For a conservative investor who can’t handle -50% drawdowns or more than, say -20%, investing all their money in something that declines that much isn’t an option.

When the valuation level is so expensive, it increases the possibility a big bear market may happen again.

The Shiller PE Ratio for example, is the second-highest it’s ever been. In fact, the only two times it was higher was Black Tuesday before the largest crash in American history and the 1995-99 bubble. This has also been the longest economic expansion in U.S. history.

Shiller PE Ratio

So, we shouldn’t be surprised to see another bear market and recession in the years ahead. However, my main point here is these higher valuation levels suggest higher risk levels, so many active management strategies have probably taken less risk in the past five years.

But, it doesn’t seem Global Asset Allocation from the largest asset manager in the world hasn’t done any better.

May as well be honest and realistic about it.

Not convinced?

Think you or your investment advisor can do better than iShares managed by BlackRock at Global Asset Allocation?

Ok, I’ve added four more well known Global Asset Allocation funds. To keep the chart clean, I’m only comparing them to the top-performing iShares ETF, which of course is the most aggressive since it’s a bull market.

None of these funds have achieved a better result. The two best known active global allocation funds, BlackRock Global Allocation, and PIMCO All Asset have achieved a total return of only 15% the past five years.

The past five years have been very unusual. It’s a period of the longest economic expansion in U.S. history and the longest bull market.

It isn’t going to last forever.

Mike Shell is the Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Shell Capital Management, LLC, and the portfolio manager of ASYMMETRY® Global Tactical.

Mike Shell and Shell Capital Management, LLC is a registered investment advisor and provides investment advice and portfolio management exclusively to clients with a signed and executed investment management agreement. The observations shared on this website are for general information only and should not be construed as advice to buy or sell any security. Securities reflected are not intended to represent any client holdings or any recommendations made by the firm. Investing involves risk including the potential loss of principal an investor must be willing to bear. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. All information and data is deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed and should be independently verified. The presence of this website on the Internet shall in no direct or indirect way raise an implication that Shell Capital Management, LLC is offering to sell or soliciting to sell advisory services to residents of any state in which the firm is not registered as an investment advisor. Use of this website is subject to its terms and conditions.

A few observations on Global Macro and Trend Following

A few observations on #GlobalMacro and #TrendFollowing

As I see it, trend following can be global macro and global macro can be trend following. I call my primary strategy “global tactical,” which is an unconstrained, go-anywhere combination of them both and multiple strategies.

There is no way to predict the future direction of the stock market with macroeconomics. There are far too many variables and the variability of those variables change and evolve. The way to deal with it is to simply evolve with the changing trends and direct and control risk.

For me, it’s about Man + Machine. I apply my proprietary tactical trading systems and methods to a global opportunity set of markets to find potentially profitable price trends. Though my computerized trading systems are systematic, I use their signals at my discretion.

I believe my edge in developing my systems and methods began by first developing skill at charting price trends and trading them successfully. If I had started out just testing systems, I’d only have data mined without the understanding I have of trends and how markets interact.

Without the experience of charting market trends starting in the 90’s I probably would have overfitted backtested systems as it seems others have. A healthy dose of charting skill and experience helped me to avoid systems that relied on trends that seemed unlikely to repeat.

For example, if one had developed a backtested system in 2000 without experience charting those prior trends in real-time, they’d have focused on NASDAQ stocks like Technology. The walk forward would have been a disaster. We can say the same for those who backtested post-2008.

All portfolio management investment decision-making is very challenging as we never know for sure what’s going to happen next. The best we can do is apply robust systems and methods based on a positive mathematical expectation and a dose of skilled intuition that comes with experience.

As such, ALL systems and methods are going to have conditions that are hostile to the strategy and periods you aren’t thrilled with the outcome. For me, self-discipline comes with knowledge, skill, and experience. I am fully committed, steadfast, and persistent in what I do.

Mike Shell is the Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Shell Capital Management, LLC, and the portfolio manager of ASYMMETRY® Global Tactical.

Mike Shell and Shell Capital Management, LLC is a registered investment advisor and provides investment advice and portfolio management exclusively to clients with a signed and executed investment management agreement. The observations shared on this website are for general information only and are not specific advice, research, or buy or sell recommendations for any individual. Investing involves risk including the potential loss of principal an investor must be willing to bear. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. All information provided is deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed and should be independently verified. The presence of this website on the Internet shall in no direct or indirect way raise an implication that Shell Capital Management, LLC is offering to sell or soliciting to sell advisory services to residents of any state in which the firm is not registered as an investment advisor. Use of this website is subject to its terms and conditions.

Welcome to March! A review of global asset allocation and global markets

In the first two months of 2019 global asset allocation has gained 4% to 8.6%. I use the iShares Core Global Allocation ETFs as a proxy instead of indexes since the ETFs are real world performance including costs. The four different allocations below represent different exposure to global stocks vs. bonds.

global asset allocation ETF ETFs asymmetric risk reward .jpg

I’m not advising anyone to buy or sell these ETFs, but instead using them as an example for what a broadly diversified global asset allocation portfolio looks like. Most financial advisors build some type of global asset allocation for their clients and try to match it with their risk tolerance. The more aggressive clients get more stocks and the most conservative clients get more bonds. Of course, this is just asset allocation, so the allocations are mostly fixed and do not change based on market risk/reward. This is very different than what I do, which is focus on asymmetric risk/reward by increasing and decreasing exposure to risk/reward based on my calculations of risk levels and the potential for reward. So, my system is global, but it’s tactical rotation rather than fixed allocation.

The iShares Core Allocation Funds track the S&P Target Risk Indexes. So, BlackRock is the portfolio manager managing the ETF and they are tracking S&P Target Risk Indexes. Here is their description:

S&P Dow Jones Indices’ Target Risk series comprises multi-asset class indices that correspond to a particular risk level. Each index is fully investable, with varying levels of exposure to equities and fixed income and are intended to represent stock and bond allocations across a risk spectrum from conservative to aggressive.

In other words, they each provide varying allocations to bonds and stocks. The Conservative model is more bonds, the Aggressive model is more stocks.

S&P Target Risk Conservative Index. The index seeks to emphasize exposure to fixed income, in order to produce a current income stream and avoid excessive volatility of returns. Equities are included to protect long-term purchasing power.

S&P Target Risk Moderate Index. The index seeks to provide significant exposure to fixed income, while also providing increased opportunity for capital growth through equities.

S&P Target Risk Growth Index. The index seeks to provide increased exposure to equities, while also using some fixed income exposure to dampen risk.

S&P Target Risk Aggressive Index. The index seeks to emphasize exposure to equities, maximizing opportunities for long-term capital accumulation. It may include small allocations in fixed income to enhance portfolio efficiency.

Below is an example of the S&P Target Risk Index allocations and the underlying ETFs they invest in. Notice their differences is 10% to 20% allocation between stocks and bonds.

Global Allocation Index Construction

These ETFs offer low-cost exposure to global asset allocation with varying levels of “risk,” which really means varying levels of allocations to bonds. I say they are “low-cost” because these ETFs only charge 0.25% including the ETFs they are invested in. Most financial advisors probably charge 1% for similar global asset allocation, not including trade commissions and the ETF or fund fees they invest in. Even the lowest fee advisors charge at least 0.25% plus the trade commissions and the fund fees they invest in. With these ETFs, investors who want long-only exposure all the time to global stock and bond market risk/return, they can get it in one low-cost ETF. However, they do come with the risks of being fully invested, all the time. These ETFs do not provide any absolute risk management.

As an unconstrained, go-anywhere, absolute return manager who does apply active risk management, I’m unconstrained from a fixed benchmark, so I don’t intend to track or “beat” a benchmark. I operate with the limitations of a fixed benchmark. My objective is to create as much total return I can within a given amount of downside risk so investors don’t tap out trying to achieve it. It doesn’t matter how much the return is if inveestors tap out during drawdowns before it’s achieved. However, I consider global asset allocation that “base rate.” If I didn’t think I could create better asymmetric risk/reward than these ETFs I wouldn’t bother doing what I do. I would just be passive and take the beatings in bear markets. If we can’t tolerate the beatings, we would invest in the more conservative ETF. I intend to create ASYMMETRY® and win by not losing, and that necessarily requires robust risk management systems and tactics.

Now that we know what they are, below are their total returns including dividends looking back over time. (To see the full history in the prospectus click: iShares)

In the chart below, we see the global asset allocation ETFs are attempting to get back to their September 2018 high. While the S&P 500 stock index is still down about -4% from its September 2018 high, the bonds in these ETFs helped reduce their drawdowns, so they have also recovered their losses better.

global tactical asset allocation asymmetric risk reward

To be sure, below are the drawdowns. The iShares Core Conservative ETF is only 30% stocks and 70% bonds, so it had a smaller drawdown and has recovered from it already. I added the S&P 500 in this chart with is 100% stocks to show how during this correction, the exposure to bonds helped offset losses in stocks. Diversification does not guarantee a profit or protect against a loss in a declining market. Sometimes diversification and even the broadest global asset allocation fails like it did in 2008.

GLOBAL TACTICAL ASSET ALLOCATION ASYMMETRIC RISK REWARD DRAWDOWN

We can look inside the ETF to see their exposures. Below we see the iShares Core Moderate ETF which is 60% stocks and 40% bonds largest holding is the iShares Core Total USD Bond Market ETF (IUSB) at 50% of the fund.

iShares Core Moderate Allocation ETF

Below is the 1-year total return chart including dividends for its largest holding. It has gained a total return of 2.9% the past year. All of the gains were this year.

iShares Core Total USD Bond Market ETF (IUSB)

Next, I added the other two largest holdings iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) and iShares Core MSCI International Developed Markets ETF (IDEV). The weakness was worse in international stocks. 

GLOBAL ASSEST ALLOCATION ADVISORS TACTICAL

No total return chart is complete without also looking at its drawdowns. The combination of the total return chart and the drawdown is what I call the ASYMMETRY® Ratio. The ASYMMETRY® Ratio is the total return divided by the risk it took to achieve it. I prefer more total return, less downside drawdown.

global tactical asset allocation drawdown risk management

The point is, global stocks and bonds have recovered much of the losses. As we would expect so has global asset allocation. The only issue now is the short term risk has become elevated by my measures, so we’ll see how the next few weeks unfold.

Mike Shell is the Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Shell Capital Management, LLC, and the portfolio manager of ASYMMETRY® Global Tactical.

Mike Shell and Shell Capital Management, LLC is a registered investment advisor and provides investment advice and portfolio management exclusively to clients with a signed and executed investment management agreement. The observations shared on this website are for general information only and are not specific advice, research, or buy or sell recommendations for any individual. Investing involves risk including the potential loss of principal an investor must be willing to bear. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. All information provided is deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed and should be independently verified. The presence of this website on the Internet shall in no direct or indirect way raise an implication that Shell Capital Management, LLC is offering to sell or soliciting to sell advisory services to residents of any state in which the firm is not registered as an investment advisor. Use of this website is subject to its terms and conditions.

Global asset allocation takes a beating in 2018

Most financial advisors and financial planners recommend to their clients some type of global asset allocation. Their global asset allocation models usually include a range of bonds, U.S. stocks, and International stocks. Some may include what are considered alternative investments like real estate (REITs), private equity, or tactical trading, but most of them keep it plain vanilla. This asset allocation method is called “strategic asset allocation” since it usually applies some form of portfolio optimization of historical returns and volatility to determine the weight between stocks and bonds.

Who can blame them? asset allocation and diversification is easy to sell and easy to defend. If someone sells their business or retires with a large 401(k), it’s easy to sell them on diversifying their assets. If the markets go down it isn’t their fault, it’s the market that’s doing it. Is it too much drawdown or volatility? They just recommend a change to less stocks and more bonds. Of course, that only works when bonds aren’t falling too.

Since many actively managed mutual funds failed to avoid losses during the last bear market 2007 to 2009, many advisors shifted their strategic asset allocation from actively managed mutual funds to index funds. It’s easy to see why; their clients lost a lot of money, even as much as -40% for a balanced portfolio of 60% stocks and 40% bonds. If they were more invested in stocks, it was as much as -50% or more.

If a mutual fund was supposed to be “active,” I can see how such losses would be unacceptable. If an investor is paying more for portfolio management, they probably expect to have a more asymmetric risk/return profile than what long-only exposure to stock indexes all the time would provide for less cost. Index funds and ETFs are cheap because they simply provide exposure to market risks and rewards. They provide this exposure all the time, so when markets fall as they do in a bear market, they lose value and have no stop loss for risk management.

I also use index ETFs to gain exposure to markets, countries, and sectors, but I don’t just buy and hold them, I increase and decrease my exposure to actively manage my risk/reward. My objective is an asymmetric risk/reward, so I want to avoid the larger losses as I try to capture gains. For me, it starts at the individual position level and flows through to the portfolio level. I’m entering positions we expect to result in an asymmetric risk/reward payoff; positions with a higher expected gain than its potential loss. I do this over and over, and they don’t all have to result in asymmetry. We just need the average gains to exceed the average losses over time to achieve a positive asymmetric risk-return profile. It’s an absolute return objective, meaning our focus is on our own payoffs and risk-reward profile, not trying to track what a stock index is doing. My strategy is unconstrained from the limitations of a fixed benchmark. Our objective is more about making money with a predetermined amount of absolute risk, not relative returns and tracking indexes. As such, the return stream is expected to be unique.

That isn’t what active mutual fund managers do.

The typical active mutual fund has an objective of relative return vs. an index benchmark. As I’ve been an investment manager for over two decades, I’ve seen the relative return comparisons become more and more intense. Brokerage firms and investment advisors have created sophisticated performance reporting programs to compare their performance to chosen benchmarks. Active mutual funds have a mandate to “beat” and index. For example, some of them aim to beat the large growth, mid value, or small growth asset classes. Most of them attempt to beat their benchmark by filtering through the stocks in the index and picking better stocks. If a relative return is their objective, they are not focused on managing downside risk. Instead, they are focused on tracking the benchmark and getting ahead of it. Many of them probably attempt it by holding a more focused portfolio or with a portfolio of the higher momentum stocks relative to the benchmark. Since risk management isn’t their objective, they view any overweight in cash as a risk of underperformance. That’s what traditional “active managers” do. What I do is typically called “tactical management” since my objective is absolute return, not relative return, and I want to actively control my drawdowns through risk management. For example, I could be positioned in all cash in a bear market, hedged, short, or long volatility.

So, there is an important distinction between “active managers” with a relative return benchmark-beating objective and those of us with an unconstrained strategy and focus on absolute returns. Mutual funds are typically relative return managers trying to beat a benchmark, hedge funds are typically absolute return managers creating their own unique return stream. Although, typically means that isn’t always the case.

Ok, so, the headline was about the performance of Global Asset Allocation this year.

Back to global asset allocation.

Some financial advisors and media enjoy disparaging all types of active management. They talk about how relative return managers like most mutual funds don’t beat their benchmarks. They’ll point out how absolute return hedge fund type strategies may manage downside risk, but don’t earn as much return as an all-stock portfolio. Most of the time, it isn’t a reasonable comparison. For example, saying the Barclays Hedge Fund Index underperformed the S&P 500 the past decade isn’t complete without also considering the drawdowns. In the last bear market, the S&P 500 declined -56% while the Barclays Hedge Fund Index that includes a composite of thousands of hedge funds declined only -24%. I will suggest the stock index loss was so large most tapped out while the Barclays Hedge Fund Index was low enough that investors could have held on.

It doesn’t matter how much the return is if the risk is so high you tap out before its achieved. 

This year has been a challenging and hostile year for all investment strategies.  While those who adhere to a long-only fully invested asset allocation all the time will talk about the performance of active managers, theirs isn’t much to speak of, either. I know a lot of advisors, and we work with some who invest in my portfolio. Most of their global asset allocations are very simple, and now many of them use index funds and charge an advisory fee for the asset allocation and rebalancing.

There are some mutual funds that offer a varying method of asset allocation. I am not recommending any of these funds, this is for educational and informational purposes only. Some popular ones that come to mind are BlackRock Global Allocation (MDLOX), Arrow DWA Balanced. PIMCO All Asset All Authority (PAUAX), DFA Global Allocation 60/40 (DGSIX). BlackRock Global Allocation, Arrow DWA Balanced, and PIMCO All Asset All Authority are active allocation funds while DFA Global Allocation is a passive allocation fund managed by Dimensional Fund Advisors. Below are their year-to-date total returns, including dividends. (To see their full history click on the links in their names above.)

Global Asset Allocation Funds

I know financial advisors who are big advocates of large asset managers like Dimensional Fund Advisors (DFA), PIMCO, and BlackRock. Advisors often tout how large they are and how many academics or how many analysts and portfolios managers they have on staff. I included the Arrow DWA Balanced fund because it’s managed by Dorsey Wright, which isn’t as large, but I know advisors use it. Most advisors who offer asset allocation models are doing their own asset allocations for their clients. The above returns are the result of each of these asset managers doing the allocation and investment selection. So, I would expect when it comes to global asset allocation, those funds should be as good as it gets. How is a financial planner who isn’t a portfolio manager going to do better?

Some may say “What about Vanguard? They are some of the cheapest funds you can buy?”. I don’t know of a Vanguard global asset allocation fund like the DFA fund, but they do have a balanced 60/40 fund that doesn’t include exposure to international. Below is their balanced allocation fund along with their International stock fund. Though their fund isn’t down -7% like the global allocation funds, if you added 20% of their International to make it “global,” we can see it would be similar.

vanguard asset allocation funds

Since indexing and ETFs have become more popular than mutual funds, today we have some interesting ETFs that track global asset allocation indexes so we can better understand the return streams of global asset allocation.

iShares is a BlackRock company, the world’s largest asset manager with $6.29 trillion in assets under management. If an investor thinks a large size with many professionals is the key to investment success, they would probably BlackRock is the best. Of course, I don’t agree, since the most skilled portfolio managers I know are small, focused, specialized firms with all their skin in the game. BlackRock’s iShares offers the iShares Core Allocation Funds, which are ETF allocations of ETFs. Each iShares Core Allocation Fund offers exposure to U.S. stocks, international stocks, and bonds at fixed weights and holds an underlying portfolio of iShares Core Funds. Investors can choose the portfolio that aligns with their specific risk considerations like investment time horizon and risk tolerance; for example, those with longer investment time horizons and higher risk tolerance may consider the iShares Core Aggressive Allocation ETF.

More specifically, the iShares Core Allocation Funds track the S&P Target Risk Indexes. So, not only do you have BlackRock’s portfolio management managing the fund, but they are tracking S&P Target Risk Indexes. Here is their description:

S&P Dow Jones Indices’ Target Risk series comprises multi-asset class indices that correspond to a particular risk level. Each index is fully investable, with varying levels of exposure to equities and fixed income and are intended to represent stock and bond allocations across a risk spectrum from conservative to aggressive.

In other words, they each provide varying allocations to bonds and stocks. The Conservative model is more bonds, the Aggressive model is more stocks.

S&P Target Risk Conservative Index. The index seeks to emphasize exposure to fixed income, in order to produce a current income stream and avoid excessive volatility of returns. Equities are included to protect long-term purchasing power.

S&P Target Risk Moderate Index. The index seeks to provide significant exposure to fixed income, while also providing increased opportunity for capital growth through equities.

S&P Target Risk Growth Index. The index seeks to provide increased exposure to equities, while also using some fixed income exposure to dampen risk.

S&P Target Risk Aggressive Index. The index seeks to emphasize exposure to equities, maximizing opportunities for long-term capital accumulation. It may include small allocations in fixed income to enhance portfolio efficiency.

Below is an example of the S&P Target Risk Index allocations and the underlying ETFs they invest in. Notice their differences is the 10% to 20% allocation between stocks and bonds.

Global Allocation Index Construction

These ETFs offer low-cost exposure to global asset allocation with varying levels of “risk,” which really means varying levels of allocations to bonds. I say they are “low-cost” because these ETFs only charge 0.25% including the ETFs they are invested in. Most financial advisors probably charge 1% for global asset allocation, not including trade commissions and the fund fees they invest in. Even the lowest fee advisors charge at least 0.25% plus the trade commissions and the fund fees they invest in. With these funds, investors who want long-only exposure all the time to global stock and bond market risks and returns, they can get it cheap in one fund.

Now that we know what they are, below are their total returns including dividends year to date in 2018. (To see the full history click: iShares)

global asset allocation fund ETF

The % off high chart shows their drawdowns from their price high.

global asset allocation ETF ETFs

Global asset allocation is having a challenging year in 2018 because U.S. stocks, International stocks, and bonds are all down this year.

Of course, a calendar year doesn’t mean a lot. What we do over 15 or 20 years or more is what matters. But, as low-cost index asset allocation advisors talk about the performance of active managers and hedge fund type managers, 2018 has included conditions that have been hostile for all kinds of strategies.

As I said yesterday if this market volatility and correction develops into a full bear market, the asset allocations that are fully exposed to downside risk will test investors’ tolerance for drawdowns.

How deep can drawdowns be for such a globally diversified portfolio? Looking at the historical % off high of DFA Global Allocation and Vanguard Balanced gives a historical example. Even two of the efficient allocation funds available had drawdowns of around -35% to -40% in the last bear market. If it’s done it before, it can certainly happen again.

DFA Global Allocation Vanguard Balanced

Those of us applying active risk management and hedging strategies aim to limit the drawdowns within a tolerable amount rather than allowing them to become too large. For me, more than -20% becomes exponentially more difficult to tolerate and recover from. We have to deal with the -10% or so drawdowns sometimes since we can’t avoid them all. We necessarily have to take some risk to gain exposure to the possibility of gains.

Ok, so my headline was a little exaggerated. Drawdowns of -5% to -12% isn’t exactly a “beating”, but that’s the kind of headline we often see about active management and hedge funds.

You can probably see why I believe it’s essential to actively manage risk and position capital in the direction of price trends.

 

Mike Shell is the Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Shell Capital Management, LLC, and the portfolio manager of ASYMMETRY® Global Tactical.

The observations shared on this website are for general information only and are not specific advice, research, or buy or sell recommendations for any individual. Investing involves risk including the potential loss of principal an investor must be willing to bear. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. The presence of this website on the Internet shall in no direct or indirect way raise an implication that Shell Capital Management, LLC is offering to sell or soliciting to sell advisory services to residents of any state in which the firm is not registered as an investment advisor. Use of this website is subject to its terms and conditions.

Divergence in Global Asset Allocation

We’ve observed divergence across global markets since September, so those invested in a static global asset allocation probably notice it the most. I focus my U.S. equity portfolio exposures more granularly into individual stocks and sectors rather than these broad asset classes, but I still monitor them all. I’ll share some recent observations.

Since the first of September, I observed small cap stocks started to trend down. In the chart below, up until September, we see small cap stocks (orange) had trended up with the best momentum since the drop in February and April. Large and mid-cap stocks trends converged with each other until recently when mid-cap stocks turned down more than the large stocks index. At this point, the small company stock index year to date trend has declined to converge with the popular S&P 500 stock index of mainly large companies.

stock market divergence between large and small cap stocks

To get a better visual of the recent divergence, I draw a chart of the % off high to see each of their drawdowns. Here we see the S&P 500 has barely declined off its high. The weakness is in mid-cap stocks and even more in small-cap stocks. Investors who have the typical asset allocation portfolio hold some static mix of small, mid, and large. They probably notice unusual strength until September, then those gains faded away.

divergence small and large cap trend following momentum

But, the divergence isn’t just in U.S. stocks. In fact, U.S. stocks have been the strongest trends in the world recently. Bonds, for example, have been in a downtrend. Here are three bond index ETFs year to date. The broad U.S. Aggregate Bond index has declined nearly -5%, corporate bonds -7%, and the long-term U. S. Treasury -10% this year alone.

bond trend momentum losses in 2018

Yes, that is U. S. Treasuries, U.S. government bonds, down over -10% year to date. However, the downtrend in bonds didn’t just start this year. This trend has been going for a while, so here we see the % off high the past three years for a better view of the downside. The long-term U.S. Treasury index is down about -21% from its top three years ago. So, to the extent that static global asset allocation portfolios have a fixed allocation to bonds, you can probably see how they weigh down a portfolio. In fact, to the point of offsetting gains in stocks if their weight is enough.

bond fund ETF drawdowns risk

In May 2015 I warned of this when I shared Allocation to Stocks and Bonds is Unlikely to Give us What We Want and What You Need to Know About Long-Term Bond Trends. I suggested that bonds may not provide a crutch in the next bear market. In fact, in September 2015 I shared that Bonds Aren’t Providing a Crutch for Stock Market Losses.

You can probably see why I prefer to rotate and shift between markets based on trends and tactical decisions rather than a fixed asset allocation to them.

Market trends move in cycles over time. No market price trends up all the time. Even within long-term uptrends, markets cycle up and down along the way with smaller trends within the larger trend. For example, the small-cap divergence at this point is a smaller divergence. Before small stocks declined, they had stronger momentum.

When it comes to bonds or other investments that pay interest or dividend yield, there can be some positive about the price trend falling. As the price trends down, the yield it pays trends up. I discussed this in more detail last spring in When I apply different trend systems to ETFs. But I’ll share an example here.

Since the long-term Treasury is down the most, I’ll use it as an example. First, let’s consider as risk-conscious investors, we should naturally prefer to position our capital in the safest investments possible if we can achieve our return objective with it. In other words, if we can get the capital gains and yield we want from government bonds, we would prefer that over even more risky stocks. All markets and all investments have risks and investors who have held long-term Treasuries (or other bonds) the past few years have certainly experience that even fixed income has risks.

However, for those of who didn’t buy and hold bonds the past few years, their yields are beginning to look more interesting as the price has declined. We can illustrate that very clearly with the chart below showing the declining price trend of the long-term Treasury, but the yield is rising the lower the price falls. Clearly, if we were going to have some exposure to these bonds, we would prefer them now over prior periods because the yield it pays is higher.

TLT long term treasury

So, there is divergence within U.S. stocks and also some divergence within bonds and interest rates. Most investors who have an asset allocation have a global asset allocation, not just U.S. stocks, and bonds. The more “sophisticated” institutional style portfolio like the endowments and pension funds allocate capital to International markets, real estate, and commodities, etc.

In Emerging Markets Reached a Bear Market Level I shared an observation that the emerging markets index has declined -20%. Below is the total return of the emerging markets and developed international stocks markets.

emerging markets international stocks 2018 drawdown trend momentum EEM EFA

As always, to get the full view of the downside risk we have to observe the drawdown in terms of % off high. Here we see that international developed and emerging markets are still in downtrends. With both of them down between -11% and -21%, you can see how their declines could offset any gains from U.S. stocks in static global asset allocation.

emerging market drawdown risk management

Since our topic is divergence across global markets and we are taking a global macro view for typical global asset allocation, we’ll include real estate (REITs) and private equity. This real estate index ETF seeks to provide precise exposure to companies from real estate management and development and REITs, excluding mortgage REITs. Since private equity, like what some of the pensions and endowments invest in, is actually private companies instead of publically traded company stocks, we’ll use the Global Listed Private Equity index ETF. The Index it tracks includes securities of 40 to 75 private equity companies, including business development companies (BDCs), master limited partnerships (MLPs) and other vehicles whose principal business is to invest in, lend capital to or provide services to privately held companies (collectively, listed private equity companies). Once again, any exposures to these markets aren’t helping global asset allocation in 2018.

real state and private equity trends momentum global tactical asset allocation

I didn’t want to end on a downtrend, so I saved the commodity indexes for last. For a proxy for commodities, we observe trend price trend of index ETFs like the iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust. It seeks to track the results of a fully collateralized investment in futures contracts on an index composed of a diversified group of commodities futures. Unlike other markets, the price of “stuff” has trended up lately. Only time will tell if the trend continues, but the rising price of commodities can be considered inflation.

commodity ETF trend following momentum asymmetric risk

You may be wondering, what is the big global macro driver of most of these trends?

As I shared in the observation in The Trend in Interest Rates and the Impact on the Economy and Stock Market and Rising Interest Rate Impact on Real Estate and Home Construction:

Interest rates are rising for the first time in over a decade.

rising interest rates trend .jpg

Some divergence isn’t necessarily a bad thing for those of us who are willing and able to tactically shift between global markets and actively manage risk.

Mike Shell is the Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Shell Capital Management, LLC, and the portfolio manager of ASYMMETRY® Global Tactical.

The observations shared in this material are for general information only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual. Investing involves risk including the potential loss of principal an investor must be willing to bear. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. The presence of this website on the Internet shall in no direct or indirect way raise an implication that Shell Capital Management, LLC is offering to sell or soliciting to sell advisory services to residents of any state in which the firm is not registered as an investment advisor. 

Stanley Druckenmiller on his use of Technical Analysis and Instinct

Stanley Druckenmiller has a 30-year track record that is considered “unrivaled” by many. From 1988 to 2000, Druckenmiller was a portfolio manager for George Soros as the lead portfolio manager for Quantum Fund. He founded Duquesne Capital to manage a hedge fund in 1981 and closed the fund in August 2010.

Kiril Sokoloff of Real Vision interviewed him recently and shared parts of the interview on YouTube.

I watched the full 90-minute interview and noted some observations I’ll share.

Speaking of dealing with “algo trading” and “the machines,” Kiril Sokoloff asks Stan Druckenmiller:

“Let’s talk about the algos. We haven’t seen the algos sell, we’ve only seen them buy. We saw a little bit of it in February when there was some concentrated selling. We saw it in China in 2015, which was scary. Most people weren’t focused on that but I was and I think you were, too.

They (algos/machines) are programmed to sell when the market is down -2%. The machines are running and can’t be stopped and a huge amount of trading and money is managed that way. We’ve been operating in a bull market and a strong economy.

What happens when it’s a bear market and a bad economy, will things get out of hand?”

So, knowing that and knowing we’re at risk of that any moment… what are you watching for? …. how are you protecting yourself? What are you watching for? 

Stanley Druckenmiller answers:

“I’m going to trust my instincts and technical analysis to pick up this stuff up. 

But what I will say… the minute the risk reward gets a little dodgy I get more cautious than I probably would have been without this in the background.”

What was most fascinating about the rare interview of Stanley Druckenmiller is that some of us have figured out a successful tactical trading global macro strategy using the common elements of price trends, relative strength, risk management, and momentum combined with a dose of instinct all applied to global markets.

You can see for yourself at:

This wasn’t the first time Stan Druckenmiller spoke of his use of technical analysis and charts. In Part IV “Fund Managers and Timers” of The New Market Wizards in 1992, Jack Schwager included an interview with Stanley Druckenmiller titled “THE ART OF TOP-DOWN INVESTING.”

When asked what methods he used, he spoke of earnings, and then:

“Another discipline I learned that helped me determine whether a stock would go up or down is technical analysis. Drelles was very technically oriented, and I was probably more receptive to technical analysis than anyone else in the department. Even though Drelles was the boss, a lot of people thought he was a kook because of all the chart books he kept. However, I found that technical analysis could be very effective.”

Then, he was asked about his experiences during the 1987 stock market crash:

Jack Schwager: What determined the timing of your shift from bullish to bearish?

Stanley Druckenmiller: It was a combination of a number of factors. Valuations had gotten extremely overdone: The dividend yield was down to 2.6 percent and the price/book value ratio was at an all-time high. Also, the Fed had been tightening for a period of time. Finally, my technical analysis showed that the breadth wasn’t there—that is, the market’s strength was primarily concentrated in the high capitalization stocks, with the broad spectrum of issues lagging well behind. This factor made the rally look like a blow-off.

Jack Schwager: How can you use valuation for timing? Hadn’t the market been overdone in terms of valuation for some time before you reversed from short to long?

Stanley Druckenmiller: I never use valuation to time the market. I use liquidity considerations and technical analysis for timing. Valuation only tells me how far the market can go once a catalyst enters the picture to change the market direction.

Jack Schwager: The catalyst being what?

Stanley Druckenmiller: The catalyst is liquidity, and hopefully my technical analysis will pick it up.

Well, that sounds familiar.

What is most fascinating to me is that I’ve come to the same conclusions through my own experience over more than two decades without knowing Stanley Druckenmiller or others similar to him beforehand. I have to admit that I didn’t remember having so much in common with his strategy because I read The New Markets Wizards so long ago.

Some of us have discovered very similar beliefs and strategies through independent thinking and our own experiences. When I discover that others have found success I see the common characteristics and that confirms what drives an edge.

 

Mike Shell is the Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Shell Capital Management, LLC, and the portfolio manager of ASYMMETRY® Global Tactical.

You can follow ASYMMETRY® Observations by click on on “Get Updates by Email” on the top right or follow us on Twitter.

 

The observations shared in this material are for general information only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual. Investing involves risk including the potential loss of principal an investor must be willing to bear. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

What trends are driving emerging markets into a bear market?

In Emerging Markets Reached a Bear Market Level we noted the emerging markets index has declined -20%, which is considered to be in bear market territory. The emerging markets index includes 24 countries classified as emerging countries.

To see the country exposure, we examine the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF holdings. China is about 31%, South Korea is about 15%, Taiwan is over 12%, so the top three countries make up 58% of the country exposure. Add India at 10% and the top four countries is a dominant 68% of the exposure. Clearly, we’d expect the drift of these top holdings to dominate the trend.

what countries are emering markets ETF ETFs

Below we see the 2018 price trends of the emerging markets ETF and the top four countries that make up 68% of the emerging markets index ETF exposure. We see that South Korea and China are the primary downtrends that are trending close to the emerging markets index ETF. Taiwan and India have stronger relative momentum.

emerging markets $EEM china $FXI india south korea 2018 trend

To get a better understanding of what is driving the downtrend, we draw the % off high charts to see the drawdowns. From this observation, we can see what is really driving the trend. Of the top four countries in the index, the negative momentum of China and South Korea are driving the trend down. China is down -24% over the past year as South Korea is down -17%.

emerging market ETF trends

Taiwan and India have stronger relative momentum since they have trended up more recently since July. Prior to July, they were trending closer to China and South Korea.

You can probably see why I include the individual countries in my global universe rather than just the broad emerging markets index ETF that includes 24 countries. I want to find potentially profitable price trends, so I increase my opportunity to find them when I give myself more options.

There are 24 countries represented in the MSCI Emerging Markets Index and we’ve looked at the top 4 because they are given 68% of the exposure. That leaves only 32% in the other 20 countries. So, in regard to understanding what is driving the MSCI Emerging Markets Index, viewing the trend of the top holdings is enough to get an idea of the countries driving returns. But, in wanting to go find potentially profitable price trends, I research all the countries trends.

What about the rest of the emerging markets countries? 

Looking at the other 20 countries classified as emerging markets, I’ll divide them into groups. First, we’ll look at the other countries that are down -10% or more year-to-date. Then, I’ll draw a chart of those that are down this year,  but not as much. We’ll end with the few that are positive in 2018.

Emerging markets countries down the most year-to-date include Turkey, South Africa, Indonesia, Brazil, Philippines, Chile, Poland, and Peru. Priced in U.S. dollars, these countries are down between -14% and -52%. Turkey is down the most.

emerging markets countries down 2018 $EEM

Looking at their % off high shows us the drawdown over the past year, which is a different perspective. If you had held one of these ETFs, this is the amount it would be down from its highest price over the past year.

Emerging markets countries down the most 2018

Clearly, these emerging countries are in downtrends and a bear market if we define a bear market as a -20% decline. Keep in mind, these ETFs are foreign stocks priced in U.S. dollars, so to U.S. investors, this is what the trends of these countries look like.

Next, we observe emerging markets countries that are down less than -10% in 2018. Russia, Columbia, Thailand, and Malasia are down between -3% and 8% so far. Their trends are generally down: lower highs and lower lows.

emering markets year to date 2018

We can see the downtrends in a different perspective when we view their drawdowns as a % off high over the past year.

emering market countries percent off high asymmetric risk reward

I saved the best for last. The strongest trending top momentum emerging markets countries so far in 2018 are Mexico, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Saudi Arabia was previously classified as a smaller frontier market, but, this summer MSCI announced it will include the MSCI Saudi Arabia Index in the MSCI Emerging Markets Index.

top momentum emerging markets countires 2018

Hearing names like Mexico, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar may highlight home country bias for some investors. Home country bias is the tendency for investors to favor companies from their own countries over those from other countries or regions.

I don’t have a home country bias. I am open to finding potentially profitable price trends in any country around the world. We encourage investors to be open to global trends and not limit their choices, but if our clients don’t want exposure to any specific country, we are able to exclude it in our ASYMMETRY® Managed Portfolios.

While the United States is the single largest economy in the world, according to JP Morgan it accounts for only a small fraction of global GDP and just over 35% of the world’s capital markets. Yet, studies show that U.S. investors have nearly 75% of their investments in U.S.-based assets. As we’ve shown here, there has been a good reason to avoid emerging countries for now, but as we explain in Emerging Markets Reached a Bear Market Level there are times when these countries present strong relative momentum over U.S. stocks.

This is why I tactically shift between global markets based on their directional price trends rather than a fixed buy and hold global asset allocation.

 

Mike Shell is the Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Shell Capital Management, LLC, and the portfolio manager of ASYMMETRY® Global Tactical.

You can follow ASYMMETRY® Observations by click on on “Get Updates by Email” on the top right or follow us on Twitter.

The observations shared in this material are for general information only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual. Investing involves risk including the potential loss of principal an investor must be willing to bear. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Emerging Markets Reached a Bear Market Level, or is it a Continuation of a Secular Bear Market?

Emerging Markets Reached a Bear Market Level, or is it a Continuation of a Secular Bear Market?

An emerging market is a country that has some characteristics of a developed market but does not satisfy standards to be termed a developed market.

The MSCI Emerging Markets Index covers more than 800 securities across large and mid-cap size segments and across style and sector segments in 24 emerging markets. The 24 countries in the index represent 10% of world market capitalization.  The Index is available for a number of regions, market segments/sizes and covers approximately 85% of the free float-adjusted market capitalization in each of the 24 countries.

MSCI uses their MSCI Market Classification Framework to classify countries based on economic development, size and liquidity, and market accessibility criteria.

According to MSCI, it includes countries like Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico in the Americas. emerging markets in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa are countries like Hungary, Poland, Russia, and Turkey. Asia emerging markets are China, India, Korea, and Taiwan.

MSCI Emerging Markets Index ETF ETFs

Now that we have clarified who the emerging markets countries are, let’s take a look at their price trends.

The MSCI Emerging Markets Index is in a bear market territory, down -20% from its high in January. The investment industry defines a “bear market” as a -20% off its recent high, so we’ll go with it.

emerging markets $EEM #EEM $IEMG

This isn’t the first time Emerging Markets have declined -20% or more since 2009. The downtrend 2015 – 2016 was over -30%.

EEM Emerging Markets $EEM

Looking back to 2007, we see the Emerging Markets Index has never recovered to reach its high in September 2007. It’s still down about -24% from the high 11 years ago.

$EEM Emerging Markets ETF ETFs

So, if we define a “bear market” as -20% off its high, the Emerging Markets Index was in a bear market until January this year and has since reversed back into a bear market again. A bear market that lasts 11 years as this one did is called a “secular bear market“.

emerging markets long term trend secular bear market eem $eem

So, we could say: emerging markets have reentered their secular bear market. Or, maybe it’s just a continuation of a secular bear market if we don’t consider the temporary January 2018 breakout above its 2007 high to have ended the ongoing secular bear market.

The bottom line is, emerging markets countries as an index are trending down. They’ve been in a generally non-trending range for the last decade, though there have been many swings up and down along the way.

It is what it is, but you may now wonder; Why? I pointed out in Trend of the International Stock Market one reason International stocks are trending down for U. S. investors is the Dollar has trended up. Currency risk is a significant risk facing investors in International and emerging markets. But that isn’t the only driver of stocks in these emerging markets countries.

My focus is on the direction of the actual price trends. Any guess anyone has about what is driving the trend is just a narrative. Some guesses are better than others as there are specific return drivers that drive trends, but my decisions are made based on what the trend is now and if it’s more probable the direction will continue or reverse.

Why do I care about the trend of emerging markets?

As the portfolio manager of a global tactical investment program, I make tactical trading and investment decisions across world markets including not only U.S. stocks, bonds, commodities, and currencies, but also international stocks and bonds. My global universe includes developed countries as well as frontier markets and emerging markets.

As emerging markets are down -20% off their high, smaller frontier markets are close behind and larger developed countries are also in a downtrend.

International stock ETF ETFs

Less experienced ETF investors and advisors sometimes ask why I include international markets in my universe, because they’ve only seen these non-trending, weak trending, and down-trending periods the last twelve years.

I include these international markets to make my universe global because there have been periods when these markets provide significantly better trends and momentum over the U.S. stock market. For example, the 2003-2007 bull market.

international emerging markets countries trend following momentum

You can probably see how exposure to these markets added significant alpha to my global tactical portfolio prior to 2008. However, you may also notice their trends weren’t without volatility and declines along the way, so it wasn’t as simple as a buy and hold allocation to them. My Global Tactical Rotation® systems rotate between these markets trying to capture their positive trends rather than a fixed allocation to them.

As seen in the chart above, the relative strength of emerging, frontier, and developed countries were significant over domestic stock indexes in the 2003 to 2007 bull market. It was a trend driven by commodities and countries that produce natural resources.

They will have their opportunity again but for now, this trend isn’t our friend.

Mike Shell is the Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Shell Capital Management, LLC, and the portfolio manager of ASYMMETRY® Global Tactical.

You can follow ASYMMETRY® Observations by click on on “Get Updates by Email” on the top right or follow us on Twitter.

The observations shared in this material are for general information only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual. Investing involves risk including the potential loss of principal an investor must be willing to bear. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

 

Global Market ETF Trends

Looking at the broad global markets, U.S. stocks are in a positive trend along with the U.S. Dollar. International stocks, commodities, and foreign currency are trending down.

With the directional trends and momentum being in U.S. stocks, though not without volatility, that has been our focus this year.

International stocks including both developed countries $EFA and emerging markets $EEM are trending down so far in 2018 as the U.S. Dollar $UUP is trending up.

The U.S. Dollar $UUP is trending similar to U.S. stocks $SPY in April.

The dollar has an inverse correlation with foreign currency like the Euro.

With the rising dollar $USD, gold $GLD is trending down even more than the Euro currency $FXE.

So, the overall broad observation of global macro picture is clearly a rising U.S. Dollar and U.S. stocks that are diverging from other markets.

Mike Shell is the Founder, and Chief Investment Officer of Shell Capital Management, LLC, and the portfolio manager of ASYMMETRY® Managed Portfolios and ASYMMETRY® Global Tactical.

You can follow ASYMMETRY® Observations by click on on “Get Updates by Email” on the top right or follow us on Twitter.

The observations shared in this material are for general information only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual. Investing involves risk including the potential loss of principal an investor must be willing to bear. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Global Stock and Bond Market Trends 2Q 2018

Yesterday we shared the 2nd Quarter 2018 Global Investment Markets Review, which used a broad range of indexes on performance tables to present the year-to-date progress of world markets. The issue with a table that simply shows a return number on it is it doesn’t properly present the path it took to get there. In the real world, investors and portfolio managers have to live with the path of the trend and we can see that only in the price trend itself. So, today we’ll look at the price trends of stocks, bonds, commodities, real estate, sectors, and other alternatives like volatility. I don’t just look for potentially profitable price trends in stocks and bonds, I scan the world.

How is the market doing this year? Which market?

First, a quick glance at global markets including commodities, stock indexes, volatility, ranked by year-to-date momentum. We wee the CBOE Volatility Index $VIX has gained the most. One clear theme about 2018 is that volatility has increased and this includes implied or expected volatility. Overall, we see some asymmetry since the markets in the green are more positive than the markets in the red. The popular S&P 500 stock index most investors point to is in the middle with only a 2% gain for the year. Commodities like Cocoa, Lumber, Orange Juice, and Crude Oil are leaders while sugar, live cattle, and soybeans are the laggards. Most investors probably don’t have exposure to these markets, unless they get it through a commodities ETF.

 

Most investors probably limit themselves to the broad asset classes, since that’s what most financial advisors do. So, we’ll start there. Below are the trends of broad market ETFs like the S&P 500, Aggregate Bond, Long-Term Treasury. For the year, Emerging Markets has the weakest trend – down nearly -6%. Developed Markets countries are the second weakest. The rising U.S. Dollar is helping to put pressure on International stocks. The leader this year is Commodities, as we also saw above. The Commodity index has gained 8% YTD.

What about alternative investments? We’ll use liquid alternative investments as an example since these are publicly available ETFs. I’ve included markets like Real Estate, Private Equity, Mortgage REITs, and the Energy MLP. Not a lot of progress from buying and holding these alternative investments. This is why I prefer to shift between markets trying to keep capital only in those markets trending up and out of those trending down.

liquid alternative investments

The Volatility VXX ETF/ETN that is similar to the VIX index has gained so much early in the year I left it off the following chart because it distorted the trends of the other markets. It’s one of the most complex securities to trade, but we can see it spike up to 90% when global markets fell in February.

VIX VXX

Looking at the price trend alone isn’t enough. It would be incomplete without also considering their drawdowns. That is, how much the market declined off its prior high over the period. Analyzing the drawdown is essential because investors have to live with the inevitable periods their holdings decline in value. It’s when we observe these decline we realize the need for actively managing risk. For me, actively managing risk means I have a predetermined exit point at all times in my positions. I know when I’ll exit a loser before it becomes a significant loss. Many say they do it, I’ve actually done it for two decades.

The alternative investments are in drawdowns YTD and Energy MLP, and Mortgage REIT is down over -10% from their prior highs. The Energy MLP is actually down -51% from its 2014 high, which I don’t show here.

alternative investment drawdowns risk management

Next, we go back to the global asset class ETFs to see their drawdowns year-to-date. We don’t just experience the gains, we also have to be willing to live with their declines along the way. It isn’t enough to provide an excellent investment management program, we also have to offer one that fits with investors objectives for risk and return. The most notable declines have been in Emerging Market and developed international countries. However, all of these assets are down off their prior highs.

GLOBAL ASSET CLASS RISK MANAGEMENT TREND FOLLOWING 2018

Clearly, markets don’t always go up. The trends so far in the first six months of 2018 haven’t offered many opportunities for global asset allocation to make upward progress.

This is why I rotate, rather than allocate, to shift between markets rather than allocate to them. We also trade in more markets than we covered here, like leading individual stocks. The magnitude of these drawdowns also shows why I believe it is essential to direct and control risk and drawdown.

 

Mike Shell is the Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Shell Capital Management, LLC, and the portfolio manager of ASYMMETRY® Global Tactical.

You can follow ASYMMETRY® Observations by click on on “Get Updates by Email” on the top right or follow us on Twitter.

The observations shared in this material are for general information only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual. Investing involves risk including the potential loss of principal an investor must be willing to bear. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

 

 

 

 

2nd Quarter 2018 Global Investment Markets Review

It is no surprise to see global equity markets stall after such a positive trend last year. As we will see, the weakness is global and across both bonds and stocks.

Before we review the year-to-date gains and losses for indexes, I want to share some of the most interesting asset allocation indexes I’ve seen.

Keep in mind: we don’t offer this kind of asset allocation that allocates capital to fixed buckets of stocks and bonds and then rebalances them periodically. As a tactical portfolio manager, I don’t allocate to markets, I rotate between them to focus my exposure on markets in a positive trend and avoid (or short) those in a negative trend. I don’t need to have exposure to falling markets. We consider our portfolio a replacement (or at least a compliment) to traditional “asset allocation” offered by most investment advisors.

I want to present some global asset allocation indexes because, in the real world, most investors don’t allocate all of their investment capital to just stocks or just bonds; it’s some combination of them. If they keep their money in cash in the bank, they aren’t investors at all.

To observe what global asset allocation returns look like, we can look at the Morningstar Target Risk Indexes:

The Morningstar Target Risk Index series consists of five asset allocation indexes that span the risk spectrum from conservative to aggressive. The family of asset allocation indexes can serve as benchmarks to help with target-risk mutual fund selection and evaluation by offering an objective yardstick for performance comparison.

All of the indexes are based on a well-established asset allocation methodology from Ibbotson Associates, a Morningstar company and a leader in the field of asset allocation theory.

The family consists of five indexes covering the following equity risk preferences:

  • Aggressive Target Risk
  • Moderately Aggressive Target Risk
  • Moderate Target Risk
  • Moderately Conservative Target Risk
  • Conservative Target Risk

The securities selected for the asset allocation indexes are driven by the rules-based indexing methodologies that power Morningstar’s comprehensive index family. Morningstar indexes are specifically designed to be seamless, investable building blocks that deliver pure asset-class exposure. Morningstar indexes cover a global set of stocks, bonds, and commodities.

These global asset allocation models are operated by two of the best-known firms in the investment industry and the leaders in asset allocation and indexing. I believe in rotating between markets to gain exposure to the trends we want rather than a fixed allocation to them, but if I all I was going to do is asset allocation, I would use these.

Now that we know what it is, we can see the year-to-date return under the YTD column and other period returns. All five of the risk models are down YTD. So, it’s safe to say the first six months of 2018 has been challenging for even the most advanced asset allocation.

Below are the most popular U.S. stock indexes. The Dow Jones Industrial Average which gained the most last year is down this year. The Tech heavy NASDAQ and small-cap stocks of the Russell 2000 have gained the most.

The well-known bond indexes are mostly down YTD – even municipal bonds. Rising interest rates and the expectation rates will continue to rise is putting pressure on bond prices.

Morningstar has even more indexes that break bonds down into different fixed-income categories. Longer-term bonds, as expected, are responding most negatively to rising rates. The most conservative investors have the more exposure to these bonds and they are down as much as -5% the past six months. That’s a reason I don’t believe in allocating capital to markets on a fixed basis. I prefer to avoid the red.

Next, we observe the Morningstar style and size categories and sectors. As I wrote in Growth has Stronger Momentum than Value and Sector Trends are Driving Equity Returns, sectors like Technology are driving the Growth style.

International stocks seem to be reacting to the rising U.S. Dollar. As the Dollar rises, it reduced the gain of foreign stocks priced in foreign currency. Although, some of these countries are in negative trends, too. Latin America, for example, was one of the strongest trends last year and has since trended down.

At Shell Capital, we often say that our Global Tactical Rotation® portfolios are a replacement for global asset allocation and the so-called “target date” funds. Target date funds are often used in 401(k) plans as an investment option. They haven’t made much progress so far in 2018.

It is no surprise to see most global markets down or flat in 2018 after such a positive 2017.

But, only time will tell how it all unfolds the rest of the year.

Mike Shell is the Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Shell Capital Management, LLC, and the portfolio manager of ASYMMETRY® Global Tactical.

You can follow ASYMMETRY® Observations by click on on “Get Updates by Email” on the top right or follow us on Twitter.

The observations shared in this material are for general information only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual. Investing involves risk including the potential loss of principal an investor must be willing to bear. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Commodities are trending with better momentum than stocks

Commodities are trending with better momentum than stocks

Commodities are trending with better momentum than stocks over the past year.

A commodity is a raw material or primary agricultural product that can be bought and sold, such as copper or coffee. A commodity is a basic good used in commerce that are usually used as inputs in the production of other goods or services.

Soft commodities are goods that are grown, such as wheat, or rice.

Hard commodities are mined. Examples include gold, helium, and oil.

Energy commodities include electricity, gas, coal, and oil. Electricity has the particular characteristic that it is usually uneconomical to store, and must, therefore, be consumed as soon as it is processed.

The Commodity Trend

At first glance, we see in the chart commodities ETF Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking ETF has trended meaningfully above the popular S&P 500 index of U. S. stocks. The relative outperformance is clear over this one-year time frame. Commodities, as measured by this ETF, are in an absolute positive trend and registering relative momentum.

Commodity ETF trend following commodites natural resources $GNR $GSG $DBC

Examining a price trend is incomplete without also considering its downside. On the downside, I look at the % off high drawdowns over the period. We see that commodities were more volatile than stocks before 2018 with four dips around -4%. Since the stock market -10% decline that started in February, commodities declined, too, but not as much as U. S. stocks.

asymmetry ratio commodity drawdown

Looking back at the trend chart, I added a simple trend line to show that communities are trending directionally better than the popular U. S. stock index. So, my quantitative Global Tactical Rotation®  system that ranks an unconstrained global universe of markets including bonds, stocks, commodities, currencies, and other alternatives like real estate signaled this trend has been generating asymmetric risk/return.

commodity ETF trend commodities

What is the that Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking ETF? (the bold emphasis is mine)

The Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund seeks to track changes, whether positive or negative, in the level of the DBIQ Optimum Yield Diversified Commodity Index Excess Return™ (DBIQ Opt Yield Diversified Comm Index ER) plus the interest income from the Fund’s holdings of primarily US Treasury securities and money market income less the Fund’s expenses. The Fund is designed for investors who want a cost-effective and convenient way to invest in commodity futures. The Index is a rules-based index composed of futures contracts on 14 of the most heavily traded and important physical commodities in the world. The Fund and the Index are rebalanced and reconstituted annually in November.

This Fund is not suitable for all investors due to the speculative nature of an investment based upon the Fund’s trading which takes place in very volatile markets. Because an investment in futures contracts is volatile, such frequency in the movement in market prices of the underlying futures contracts could cause large losses. Please see “Risk and Other Information” and the Prospectus for additional risk disclosures. Source: Invesco

The challenge for some investors, however, is that Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking ETF generates a K-1 tax form for tax reporting. That isn’t a terrible issue, but it means instead of receiving the typical 1099 investors receive a K-1. Some investors aren’t familiar with a K-1, and they can obtain them later than a 1099.

Then, there may be other investors who simply prefer not to own futures for the reason in the second paragraph of the above discription: “Because an investment in futures contracts is volatile, such frequency in the movement in market prices of the underlying futures contracts could cause large losses.” In reality, all investments have risk and stocks can have just as much risk of “large losses” as commodity futures, but it’s a matter of investor preference and perception.

Since we have a wide range of investor types who invest in my ASYMMETRY® Investment Program I could gain my exposure to commodities in other ways. For example, the SPDR® S&P® Global Natural Resources ETF often has a similar return stream as ETFs like DBC that track a commodity futures index, except is actually invests in individual stocks instead.

Key features of the SPDR® S&P® Global Natural Resources ETF

  • The SPDR® S&P® Global Natural Resources ETF seeks to provide investment results that, before fees and expenses, correspond generally to the total return performance of the S&P® Global Natural Resources Index (the “Index”)

  • Seeks to provide exposure to a number of the largest market cap securities in three natural resources sectors – agriculture, energy, and metals and mining

  • Maximum weight of each sub-index is capped at one-third of the total weight of the Index

Below we see the price trend of this ETF of global natural resources stocks has been highly correlated to an ETF of commodities futures.

global natural resources ETF replacement for commodity ETF no K1

In fact, as we step the time frame out to the common inspection date of each ETF in 2011, the SPDR® S&P® Global Natural Resources ETF has actually outperformed Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking ETF overall in terms of relative momentum.

commodity ETF global natural resources trend following no K1

The bottom line is, commodities “stuff” is trending up over the past two years and when the price of “stuff” is rising, that is called “inflation”.  Commodities and global natural resources have been in a downtrend for so long it shouldn’t be a surprise to see this trend reverse up. Only time will tell if it will continue, but if we want exposure to it, we can predefine our risk by deciding at what price I would exit if it doesn’t, and let the trend unfold.Mike Shell is the Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Shell Capital Management, LLC, and the portfolio manager of ASYMMETRY® Global Tactical.You can follow ASYMMETRY® Observations by click on on “Get Updates by Email” on the top right or follow us on Twitter.The observations shared in this material are for general information only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual. Investing involves risk including the potential loss of principal an investor must be willing to bear. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.Buying and Selling ETFsETFs are flexible and easy to trade. Investors buy and sell them like stocks, typically through a brokerage account. Investors can also employ traditional stock trading techniques; including stop orders, limit orders, margin purchases, and short sales using ETFs. They are listed on major US Stock Exchanges.

ETFs are subject to risk similar to those of stocks including those regarding short-selling and margin account maintenance. Ordinary brokerage commissions apply. In general, ETFs can be expected to move up or down in value with the value of the applicable index. Although ETF shares may be bought and sold on the exchange through any brokerage account, ETF shares are not individually redeemable from the Fund. Investors may acquire ETFs and tender them for redemption through the Fund in Creation Unit Aggregations only. Please see the prospectus for more details. After-tax returns are calculated based on NAV using the historical highest individual federal marginal income tax rates and do not reflect the impact of state and local taxes. Actual after-tax returns depend on the investor’s tax situation and may differ from those shown. The after-tax returns shown are not relevant to investors who hold their fund shares through tax-deferred arrangements such as 401(k) plans or individual retirement accounts. Performance of an index is not illustrative of any particular investment. It is not possible to invest directly in an index. As with all stocks, you may be required to deposit more money or securities into your margin account if the equity, including the amount attributable to your ETF shares, declines. Unless otherwise noted all information contained herein is that of the SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF. S&P – In net total return indices, the dividends are reinvested after the deduction of withholding tax. Tax rates are applied at the country level or at the index level.

 

 

February Global Market Trends

After a very positive January for U.S. and international stocks, in February it only took 10 days for the S&P 500 to decline -12% intraday and a -10% drawdown based on closing price.

stock market decline drawdown februrary 2018

Yet, February ended with the S&P 500 only down -3.5% after that -12% intra-month drawdown.  For the month, International (MSCI EAFE) and Emerging Markets declined the most viewing the below board based indexes. The U.S. Dollar gained 1.8%.

global market returns february 2018 loss drawdown

Next, we view February global market returns relative to the S&P 500 stock index by holding it constant. This visual shows us how much markets gained/lost net of the S&P 500, Though in the absolute trend table above I showed bonds declined in absolute return, they gained relative to the S&P 500,

global market trend returns relative to spx spy S&P 500

Of course, one month isn’t a trend. In fact, I’m going to explain how this is an intentional logical inconsistency. Speaking of one time period in isolation, be it a month, year, or series of years is just an arbitrary time frame. What’s worse is viewing just the result over a time frame, like the month of February above, in just a table format.

A return stream is precisely that; a stream. A return stream is a continuous price trend in a continuous specified direction. Continuous is forming an unbroken whole; without interruption. So, I like to view return streams as price trends on a chart so I can see how the trend really unfolded over the period. Observed as a visual price trend, we see both the good and the bad of the price action along the way. You can probably see how it does that better than a simple performance table, monthly return % of the period or the bar chart above.

stock market decline februrary 2018

In the chart above, we see how much the price trends of those markets declined along the way before closing the month yesterday. I wrote about the short-term risk reversal in Stock Market Analysis of the S&P 500 suggesting it may reverse back up at least temporarily and retrace some loss and it did.

Now, what is essential about looking at performance data and trends is what the investor experiences. Investors experience what they choose to experience. For example, suppose and the investor is fully invested in the stock market, they could experience the month one of three ways.

  • If the investor only looks at his or her month-end statement, they would experience either the month end “-3.5%”.
  • If the investor watches their account or market indexes closely every day, they experienced every daily move and the full -12% decline and then some recovery.
  • Some may not pay any attention at all either because they are disinterested or they have an investment manager they trust to manage their risk-taking and risk management for them.

Investors and traders get to choose what time frame they watch things. I’ve always observed that “watching it too closely” can lead to emotional mistakes for many. For me, I’m paying attention and may zoom in and pay more attention when trends get more volatile or seem to reach an extreme. But, I’m a tactical portfolio manager, it’s what I do. I can view short term or long term trends alike with self-discipline. I have an edge that has been quantified by a long track record of 14 years in the current portfolio I manage.

I said this recently on Twitter:

If the investor doesn’t like to see such losses like those experienced in many markets in February, they may choose to instead not be fully invested in stocks all the time. That’s what I do. I’m not invested in any specific market all the time. My exposure to risk and return increases and decreases over time based on trends and my risk systems. I intentionally increase and decrease my exposure to the possibility of loss and gain. I’m also unconstrained so I can do it across any global market like bonds, currency, stocks, commodities, or alternatives like REITs, inverse (shorting), or volatility.

According to the American Association of Individual Investors, the decline was so quick most individual investors didn’t seem to respond:

Majority of Investors Avoided Taking Action in Recent Market Correction

“This week’s Sentiment Survey special question asked AAII members what portfolio action, if any, they took in response to the recent market correction. The majority of respondents (62%) said they didn’t make any change or only made a small change. Many of these respondents described themselves as being focused on the long term, viewing this month’s correction as being only temporary in nature or not severe enough to warrant any action. A few of these respondents described the correction as lasting too short of a time for them to take advantage of it. Nearly 33% respondents said they took advantage of the decline to buy stocks or funds. Some said they took advantage of the reduced prices to either add to current positions or buy new holdings. Just 7% of respondents said they sold stocks during the correction. A small number of respondents said they sold some positions and then bought new positions.”

I say investors should find and do what helps them, not make it worse. Know yourself, know your risk, and know your risk tolerance. That’s what we do.

So, that is what happened during the month of February, and a little asymmetric observation to go with it.

 

Mike Shell is the Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Shell Capital Management, LLC, and the portfolio manager of ASYMMETRY® Global Tactical.

You can follow ASYMMETRY® Observations by click on on “Get Updates by Email” on the top right or follow us on Twitter.

Investment results are probabilistic, never a sure thing. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Is this the Inflection Point for Stocks?

As if the election result wasn’t enough, the U.S. stock market has surprised most people by trending up since last November.

But, it has been stalling since March. The S&P 500 drifted down about -3% into March and April.

The stock market seems to be at an inflection point now.

Understanding the market state is an examination of the weight of the evidence.

The weight of the evidence seems to suggest defense.

My first indicator is always the actual price trend itself. If we want to know what is going on, there is no better observation than the actual price trend. The price action tells us what force is in control: supply or demand. And, we can see the potential for the inflection point – when the direction is changing. In the chart below, I highlight a recent point of “resistance”. I call it resistance because the stock index hasn’t broken above the March high and is instead drifting sideways.

average age of bull market top

Investors sometime assume a prior price high will automatically become “resistance” just because it’s the price range they expect to see the price trend stall. Resistance is the price level where selling is expected to be strong enough to prevent the price from rising further. We can see that recently in the chart. As the price advances towards the prior peak, supply may overcome demand and prevent the price from rising above resistance. For example, it may be driven by investors who wished they had sold near the prior peak and had to wait as the price recovered again. They anchor to that prior high. Once it gets back to the prior peak, they exit. Prior highs don’t always become “resistance” as expected. Sometimes demand is strong enough to break through and keep trending up. At this point, we see there has been some resistance at the prior high. I highlighted it in yellow in the chart above. So, we shouldn’t be surprised to see the price decline if this resistance holds for a while. Or, it could be an inflection point.

The S&P 500 stock index is mainly large companies. Smaller companies tend to lead larger companies. Their price trends move in a wider range and they sometimes move faster, so they get to a point sooner. That’s why we say small company stocks “lead” large company stocks. In that case, I highlight below that the small company stock index, the S&P 600 Small Cap ETF, reached its prior, but found resistance and reversed down. The soldiers may lead the way for the Generals.

Small Cap

It seems that the stock index is stalling at a time when investors are complacent. When investors are complacent or overly optimistic an inflection point is more likely. The CBOE Volatility Index® (VIX® Index)  is very low. The CBOE Volatility Index® (VIX® Index®) is a key measure of market expectations of near-term volatility conveyed by S&P 500 stock index option prices. The VIX® historically trends between a long-term range. When the VIX® gets to an extreme, it becomes more likely to eventually reverse. In the chart below I show the price level of the VIX® since its inception in 1993. We can see its long-term average is around 20. I highlighted in red its low range is around 12 and it has historically spiked as high as 25 or 60. This means the traders of options are expecting lower volatility in the weeks ahead at a time when other things seem to suggest otherwise.

As I continue sharing some observations, I’m going to get farther away from my main decision maker which is the directional price trend, but you’ll see how these indicators help to quantify the state of the trend and the potential for an inflection point. As we keep going, keep in mind that indicators are a derivative of the price at best or a derivate of something unrelated to the directional price trend. In the case of the VIX® Index index above, it’s a measure of options (a derivative) on the stocks in the S&P 500. When we start looking at things like economic growth and valuations we are necessarily looking at things that are a derivative of price, but not as absolute as the price trend itself. The direction of the price trend is the arbiter.

Another signal of an inflection point is breadth. That is, what percent of stocks are rising or falling. Since I have mentioned the S&P 500 stock index, I’ll show the S&P 500 Bullish Percent Index below. The Bullish Percent is a breadth indicator based on the number of stocks on Point & Figure buy signals. Developed by Abe Cohen in the mid-1950s, the Bullish Percent Index was originally applied to NYSE stocks. Cohen was the first editor of ChartCraft, which later became Investors Intelligence. BP signals were further refined by Earl Blumenthal in the mid 70’s and Mike Burke in the early 80’s. The S&P 500 Bullish Percent shows a composite of the 500 stocks in the S&P 500 index that are in a positive trend. The S&P 500 Bullish Percent recently reversed to a column of O’s from a high point of 80, which means about 80% of the S&P 500 stocks were in a positive trend and about 8% of them are now in a negative trend. In addition to the direction, the level is important because we consider the level above 70% or 80% to be a higher risk (red zone) and the levels below 30% to be lower risk (green zone). So, more and more stocks within the index are starting to decline. This weak “breadth” or participation could be a signal of a change in trend.

Bullish Percent

I’m not necessarily a big user of economic indicators. I believe the stock indexes are the leading indicator for the economy, so that’s my guide. However, I have a strong sense of situational awareness so I like to understand what in the world is going on. The total return of stocks is a function of three things: earnings growth + dividend yield + P/E ratio expansion or contraction. Since earnings growth has made up nearly 5% of the historical total return of the S&P 500 since 1926, it does matter in the big picture in regard to expected return. Today, we observe the headline in the Wall Street Journal:

GDP Slows to Weakest Growth in Three Years

The U.S. economy’s output grew at the slowest pace in three years during the first quarter, underscoring the challenges facing the Trump administration as it seeks to rev up growth.

The New York Times says:

G.D.P. Report Shows U.S. Economy Off to Slow Start in 2017

■ The economy barely grew, expanding at an annual rate of only 0.7 percent.

■ The growth was a sharp decline from the 2.1 percent annual rate recorded in the final quarter of last year. It was the weakest quarterly showing in three years.

■ Consumption, the component reflecting individual spending, rose by only 0.3 percent, well below the 3.5 percent rate in the previous quarter.

The Takeaway

The first-quarter performance upset expectations for a Trump bump at the start of 2017.

If you want an economic catalyst for why prices could stall or reverse down, there you go. You see, earnings growth of stocks is part of GDP. GDP is the sales of all U.S. companies, private and public. The earnings growth of the S&P 500 is the earnings of those 500 companies. In other words, GDP of the economy is highly connected to EPS of an index of 500 stocks.

This recent stall in the price trend and economic growth along with a dash of complacency comes at a time when stocks are “significantly overvalued”, according to my friend Ed Easterling at Crestmont Research:

“In the first quarter the stock market surged 5.5%, well more than underlying economic growth. As a result, normalized P/E increased to 29.4—significantly above the level justified by low inflation and low interest rates. The current status remains “significantly overvalued.” The level of volatility plunged over the past quarter and is now in the lowest 4% of all periods since 1950. The trend in reported earnings for the S&P 500 Index reflects a repeating pattern of overly-optimistic analysts’ forecasts. Earnings and volatility should be watched closely and investors should heighten their sensitivity to the risks confronting an increasingly vulnerable market.”

Oh, and one more thing: Monday will be May. I’m not a huge fan of using seasonality as an indicator to enter or exit the stock market, but there is some tendency for certain periods to gain or lose value historically. For example, a common seasonality is “Sell in May and go away”. Depending on the historical time frame you look and which index, some periods show a “summer slump”. One theory is many investors and traders go on vacation in the summer, so volume is light. They return after the summer and take more action.

So, maybe this will be a good time to sell in May and go away. Not because it’s May, but instead because the weight of the evidence suggests this could be an inflection point.

We’ll see.

The Stock Market Trend: What’s in Your Boat?

The stock market trend as measured by the S&P 500 stock index (the black line) has had a difficult time making any gains in 2015. SPY in the chart below is the SPDR S&P 500 ETF seeks to track the investment results of an index composed of large-capitalization U.S. equities. It’s the stock index most people talk about.

But, what is more interesting is the smaller companies are even worse.

The red line is the iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM), which seeks to track the investment results of an index composed of small-capitalization U.S. equities.

The blue line is the iShares Micro-Cap ETF (IWC), which seeks to track the investment results of an index composed of micro-capitalization U.S. equities. This index provides exposure to very small public U.S. companies.

Small Cap Laggards

Clearly, smaller companies are having an even more difficult time attracting enough demand to create a positive trend lately. This may be the result of a very aged bull market in U.S. stocks. It could be the very early stages of a change in the longer term direction.

We’ll see…

I don’t worry about what I can’t control. I instead focus only on what I can control. My focus is on my own individual positions risk/reward. I defined my risk/reward.  If I want to make a profit I have to take some risk. I decide when to take a risk and when to increase and decrease the possibility of a loss.

Successful investment managers focus less on what’s “outside their boat” and focus on what’s “inside their boat.”

Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Hasn’t Managed Downside Risk

 shares an interesting observation in Fortune ” Warren Buffett’s Berkshire lost $11 billion in market selloff“. He points out that Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A or BRK.B) is tracking the U.S. stock indexes on the downside. He says:

“…during the worst of the downturn from mid-July to the end of August. That represents a 10.3% drop. The good news for Buffett: His, and his investment team’s, performance was likely not much worse than everyone else’s. During the same time, the S&P 500 fell 10.1%.”

Comparing performance to others or “benchmark” indexes is a what I call a “relative return” objective. Comparing performance vs. our own risk tolerance and total return objectives is an “absolute return” objective. The two are very different as what I call “relativity” is more concerned about how others are doing comparatively, while “absolute” is more focused on our own situation.

The article also said:

“If you are invested in an index fund, you may have outperformed the Oracle of Omaha, slightly.”

Let’s see just how true that is. Since the topic is how much Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway has lost during this stock market decline, I’ll share a closer look.

A picture speaks a thousand words. As it turns out, the guru stock picker is actually down -13.4% off it’s high looking back over the past year. That’s about -4% worse than the SPDR® S&P 500® ETF (SPY) that seeks to provide investment results that, before expenses, correspond generally to the price and yield performance of the S&P 500® Index. I am using actual securities here to present an investable comparison: SPY vs. BRK.B.

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Lost compared to stock index

As we observe in the chart, Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway began to decline off it’s high at the end of last year while the S&P 500® Index started last month. I have observed more and more stocks declining over the past several months. At the same time, more and more International markets have entered into their own bear markets. So, it is no surprise to see a focused stock portfolio diverge from a broader stock index.  points out some of the individual stock positions in ” Warren Buffett’s Berkshire lost $11 billion in market selloff

Below is the total return of the two over the past year. We can see the high in Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway BRK.B was in December 2014.

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Lost compared to stock index total return

I believe world markets require active risk management and defining directional trends. For me, that means predefining my risk in advance in each position and across the portfolio.

Chart source: http://www.ycharts.com

Read the full Fortune article here: ” Warren Buffett’s Berkshire lost $11 billion in market selloff

Stock Market Decline is Broad

We typically expect to see small company stocks decline first and decline the most. The theory is that smaller companies, especially micro companies, are more risky so their value may disappear faster.  Below, we view the recent price trends of four market capitalization indexes: micro, small, mid, and mega. We’ll use the following index ETFs.

Vanguard ETFs small mid large micro cap

Since we are focused on the downside move, we’ll only observe the % off high chart. This shows what percentage the index ETF had declined off its recent highest price (the drawdown). We’ll also observe different look-back periods.

We first look back 3 months, which captures the full extent of the biggest loser: as expected, the micro cap index. The iShares Micro-Cap ETF (IWC: Green Line) seeks to track the investment results of an index composed of micro-capitalization U.S. equities. Over the past 3 months (or anytime frame we look) it is -13% below its prior high. The second largest decline is indeed the small cap index. The Vanguard Small-Cap ETF (VB: Orange Line) seeks to track the performance of the CRSP US Small Cap Index, which measures the investment return of small-capitalization stocks. The small cap index has declined -11.5%. The Vanguard Mega Cap ETF (MGC) seeks to track the performance of a benchmark index that measures the investment return of the largest-capitalization stocks in the United States and has declined -9.65%. The Vanguard Mid-Cap ETF (VO) seeks to track the performance of a benchmark index that measures the investment return of mid-capitalization stocks and has declined -9.41%. So, the smaller stocks have declined a little more than larger stocks.

Small and Micro caps lead down

Source: Shell Capital Management, LLC created with http://www.ycharts.com

Many active or tactical strategies may shift from smaller to large company stocks, hoping they don’t fall as much. For example, in a declining market relative strength strategies would rotate from those that declined the most to those that didn’t. The trouble with that is they may still end up losing capital and may end up positioned in the laggards long after a low is reached. They do that even though we may often observe the smallest company stocks rebound the most off a low. Such a strategy is focused on “relative returns” rather than “absolute returns“. An absolute return strategy will instead exit falling trends early in the decline with the intention of avoiding more loss. We call that “trend following” which has the objective of “cutting your losses short”. Some trend followers may allow more losses than others. You can probably see how there is a big difference between relative strength (focusing on relative trends and relative returns)  and trend following (focusing on actual price trends and absolute returns).

So, what if we look at the these stock market indexes over just the past month instead of the three months above? The losses are the same and they are very correlated. So much for diversification. Diversification across many different stocks, even difference sizes, doesn’t seem to help in declining markets on a short-term basis. These indexes combined represent thousands of stocks; micro, small, medium, and large. All of them declined over -11%, rebounded together, and are trending down together again.

stock market returns august 2015

Source: Shell Capital Management, LLC created with http://www.ycharts.com

If a portfolio manager is trying to “beat the market” index, he or she may focus on relative strength or even relative value (buy the largest loser) as they are hoping for relative returns compared to an index. But a portfolio manager who is focused on absolute returns may pay more attention to the actual downside loss and therefore focuses on the actual direction of the price trend itself. And, a key part is predefining risk with exits.

You can probably see how different investment managers do different things based on our objectives. We have to decide what we want, and focus on tactics for getting that.

Why Index ETFs Over Individual Stocks?

A fellow portfolio manager I know was telling me about a sharp price drop in one of his positions that was enough to wipe out the 40% gain he had in the stock. Of course, he had previously told me he had a quick 40% gain in the stock, too. That may have been his signal to sell.  Biogen, Inc (BIIB) recently declined about -30% in about three days. Easy come, easy go. Below is a price chart over the past year.

Biogen BIIB

Source: Shell Capital Management, LLC created with http://www.stockcharts.com

Occasionally investors or advisors will ask: “Why trade index ETFs instead of individual stocks?“. An exchange-traded fund (ETF) is an investment fund traded on stock exchanges, much like stocks. Until ETFs came along the past decade or so, gaining exposure to sectors, countries, bond markets, commodities, and currencies wasn’t so easy. It has taken some time for portfolio managers to adapt to using them, but ETFs are easily tradable on an exchange like stocks. Prior to ETFs, those few of us who applied “Sector Rotation” or “Asset Class Rotation” or any kind of tactical shifts between markets did so with much more expensive mutual funds. ETFs have provided us with low cost, transparent, and tax efficient exposure to a very global universe of stocks, bonds, commodities, currencies, and even alternatives like REITs, private equity, MLP’s, volatility, or inverse (short). Prior to ETFs we would have had to get these exposures with futures or options. I saw the potential of ETFs early, so I developed risk management and trend systems that I’ve applied to ETFs that I would have previously applied to futures.

On the one hand, someone who thinks they are a good stock picker are enticed to want to get more granular into a sector and find what they believe is the “best” stock. In some ways, that seems to make sense if we can weed out the bad ones and only hold the good ones. It really isn’t so simple. I view everything a reward/risk ratio, which I call asymmetric payoffs. There is a tradeoff between the reward/risk of getting more detailed and focused in the exposure vs. having at least some diversification, such as exposure to the whole sector instead of just the stock.

Market Risk, Sector Risk, and Stock Risk

In the big picture, we can break exposures into three simple risks (and those risks can be explored with even more detail). We’ll start with the broad risk and get more detailed. Academic theories break down the risk between “market risk” that can’t be diversified away and “single stock” and sector risk that may be diversified away.

Market Risk: In finance and economics, systematic risk (in economics often called aggregate risk or undiversifiable risk) is vulnerable to events which affect aggregate outcomes such as broad market declines, total economy-wide resource holdings, or aggregate income. Market risk is the risk that comes from the whole market itself. For example, when the stock market index falls -10% most stocks have declined more or less.

Stock and Sector Risk: Unsystematic risk, also known as “specific risk,” “diversifiable risk“, is the type of uncertainty that comes with the company or industry itself. Unsystematic risk can be reduced through diversification. If we hold an index of 50 Biotech stocks in an index ETF its potential and magnitude of a  large gap down in price is less than an individual stock.

You can probably see how holding a single stock like Biogen  has its own individual risks as a single company such as its own earnings reports, results of its drug trials, etc. A biotech stock is especially interesting to use as an example because investing in biotechnology comes with a unique host of risks. In most cases, these companies can live or die based on results of drug trials and the demand for their existing drugs. In fact, the reason Biogen declined so much is they reported disappointing second-quarter results and lowered its guidance for the full year, largely because of lower demand for one of their drugs in the United States and a weaker pricing environment in Europe. That is a risk that is specific to the uncertainty of the company itself. It’s an unsystematic risk and a selection risk that can be reduced through diversification. We don’t have to hold exposure to just one stock.

With index ETFs, we can gain systematic exposure to an industry like biotech or a sector like healthcare or a broader stock market exposure like the S&P 500. The nice thing about an index ETF is we get exposure to a basket of stocks, bond, commodities, or currencies and we know what we’re getting since they disclose their holdings on a daily basis.

ETFs are flexible and easy to trade. We can buy and sell them like stocks, typically through a brokerage account. We can also employ traditional stock trading techniques; including stop orders, limit orders, margin purchases, and short sales using ETFs. They are listed on major US Stock Exchanges.

The iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF objective seeks to track the investment results of an index composed of biotechnology and pharmaceutical equities listed on the NASDAQ. It holds 145 different biotech stocks and is market-cap-weighted, so its exposure is more focused on the larger companies. It therefore has two potential disadvantages: it has less exposure to smaller and possibly faster growing biotech stocks and it only holds those stocks listed on the NASDAQ, so it misses some of the companies that may have moved to the NYSE. According to iShares we can see that Biogen (BIIB) is one of the top 5 holdings in the index ETF.

iShares Biotech ETF HoldingsSource: http://www.ishares.com/us/products/239699/ishares-nasdaq-biotechnology-etf

Below is a price chart of the popular iShares Nasdaq Biotech ETF (IBB: the black line) compared to the individual stock Biogen (BIIB: the blue line). Clearly, the more diversified biotech index has demonstrated a more profitable and smoother trend over the past year. And, notice it didn’t experience the recent -30% drop that wiped out Biogen’s price gain. Though some portfolio managers may perceive we can earn more return with individual stocks, clearly that isn’t always the case. Sometimes getting more granular in exposures can instead lead to worse and more volatile outcomes.

IBB Biotech ETF vs Biogen Stock 2015-07-29_10-34-29

Source: Shell Capital Management, LLC created with http://www.stockcharts.com

The nice thing about index ETFs is we have a wide range of them from which to research and choose to add to our investable universe. For example, when I observe the directional price trend in biotech is strong, I can then look at all of the other biotech index ETFs to determine which would give me the exposure I want to participate in the trend.

Since we’ve observed with Biogen the magnitude of the potential individual risk of a single biotech stock, that also suggests we may not even prefer to have too much overweight in any one stock within an index. Below I have added to the previous chart the SPDR® S&P® Biotech ETF (XBI: the black line) which has about 105 holdings, but the positions are equally-weighted which tilts it toward the smaller companies, not just larger companies.  As you can see by the black line below, over the past year, that equal weighting tilt has resulted in even better relative strength. However, it also had a wider range (volatility) at some points. Though it doesn’t always work out this way, you are probably beginning to see how different exposures create unique return streams and risk/reward profiles.

SPDR Biotech Index ETF XBI IBB and Biogen BIIB 2015-07-29_10-35-46

Source: Shell Capital Management, LLC created with http://www.stockcharts.com

In fact, those who have favored “stock picking” may be fascinated to see the equal-weighted  SPDR® S&P® Biotech ETF (XBI: the black line) has actually performed as good as the best stock of the top 5 largest biotech stocks in the iShares Nasdaq Biotech ETF.

SPDR Biotech vs CELG AMGN BIIB GILD REGN

Source: Shell Capital Management, LLC created with http://www.stockcharts.com

Biotech indexes aren’t just pure biotech industry exposure. They also have exposures to the healthcare sector. For example, iShares Nasdaq Biotech shows about 80% in biotechnology and 20% in sectors categorized in other healthcare industries.

iShares Nasdaq Biotech ETF exposure allocation

Source: www.ishares.com

The brings me to another point I want to make. The broader healthcare sector also includes some biotech. For example, the iShares U.S. Healthcare ETF is one of the most traded and includes 23.22% in biotech.

iShares Healthcare Index ETF exposure allocation

Source: https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239511/IYH?referrer=tickerSearch

It’s always easy to draw charts and look at price trends retroactively in hindsight. If we only knew in advance how trends would play out in the future we could just hold only the very best. In the real world, we can only identify trends based on probability and by definition, that is never a sure thing. Only a very few of us really know what that means and have real experience and a good track record of actually doing it.

I have my own ways I aim to identify potentially profitable directional trends and my methods necessarily needs to have some level of predictive ability or I wouldn’t bother. However, in real world portfolio management, it’s the exit and risk control, not the entry, the ultimately determines the outcome. Since I focus on the exposure to risk at the individual position level and across the portfolio, it doesn’t matter so much to me how I get the exposure. But, by applying my methods to more diversified index ETFs across global markets instead of just U.S. stocks I have fewer individual downside surprises. I believe I take asset management to a new level by dynamically adapting to evolving markets. For example, they say individual selection risk can be diversified away by holding a group of holdings so I can efficiently achieve that through one ETF. However, that still leaves the sector risk of the ETF, so it requires risk management of that ETF position. They say systematic market risk can’t be diversified away, so most investors risk that is left is market risk. I manage both market risk and position risk through my risk control systems and exits. For me, risk tolerance is enforced through my exits and risk control systems.

The performance quoted represents past performance and does not guarantee future results. Investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that an investor’s shares, when sold or redeemed, may be worth more or less than the original cost. Current performance may be lower or higher than the performance quoted, and numbers may reflect small variances due to rounding. Standardized performance and performance data current to the most recent month end may be obtained by clicking the “Returns” tab above.

What You Need to Know About Long Term Bond Trends

There is a lot of talk about interest rates and bonds these days – for good reason. You see, interest rates have been in a downtrend for decades (as you’ll see later). When interest rates are falling, the price of bonds go up. I wrote in “Why So Stock Market Focused?” that you would have actually been better off investing in bonds the past 15 years over the S&P 500 stock index.

However, the risk for bond investors who have a fixed bond allocation is that interest rates eventually trend up for a long time and their bonds fall.

This year we see the impact of rising rates and the impact of falling bond prices in the chart below of the 20+ year Treasury bond. It’s down -15% off its high and since the yield is only around 2.5% the interest only adds about 1% over this period for a total return of -14.1%. Up until now, this long term Treasury index has been a good crutch for a global allocation portfolio. Now it’s more like a broken leg.

But, that’s not my main point today. Let’s look at the bigger picture. Below is the yield (interest rate) on the 10-Year U.S. government bond. Notice that the interest rate was as high as 9.5% in 1990 and has declined to as low as 1.5%. Just recently, it’s risen to 2.62%. If you were going to buy a bond for future interest income payments, would you rather invest in one at 9.5% or 1.5%? If you were going to lend money to someone, which rate would you prefer to receive? What is a “good deal” for you, the lender?

I like trends and being positioned in their direction since trends are more likely to continue than reverse, but they usually do eventually reverse when inertia comes along (like the Fed). If you care about managing downside risk you have to wonder: How much could this trend reverse and what could its impact be on fixed bond holdings? Well, we see below that the yield has declined about -70%. If we want to manage risk, we have to at least expect it could swing the other way.

One more observation. Germany is one of the largest countries in the world. Since April, the 10-year German bond interest rate has reversed up very sharp. What if U.S bonds did the same?

As I detailed in “Allocation to Stocks and Bonds is Unlikely to Give us What We Want” bonds are often considered a crutch for a global asset allocation portfolio. If you care about managing risk, you may consider that negative correlations don’t last forever. All trends change, eventually. You may also consider your risk of any fixed positions you have. I prefer to actively manage risk and shift between global markets based on their directional trends rather than a fixed allocation to them.

The good news is: by my measures, many bond markets have declined in the short term to a point they should at least reserve back up at least temporarily. What happens after that will determine if the longer trend continues or begins to reverse. The point is to avoid complacency and know in advance at what point you’ll exit to cut losses short…

As they say: “Past performance is no guarantee of the future“.

Allocation to Stocks and Bonds is Unlikely to Give us What We Want

That was the lesson you learned the last time stocks became overvalued and the stock market entered into a bear market.

I believe holding and re-balancing markets doesn’t give us the risk-adjusted returns we want. In all I do, I believe in challenging that status quo, I believe in thinking and doing things differently. The way I challenge the status quo is a focus on absolute return, limiting downside risk, and doing it tactically across global markets. Why do I do it?

In a Kiplinger article by Fred W. Frailey interviewed Mohamed El-Erian, the PIMCO’s boss, (PIMCO is one of the largest mutual fund companies in the world) he says “he tells how to reduce risk and reap rewards in a fast-changing world.” This article “Shaking up the Investment Mix” was written in March 2009, which turned out the be “the low” of the global market collapse.

It is useful to revisit such writing and thoughts, especially since the U.S. stock market has since been overall rising for 5 years and 10 months. It’s one of the longest uptrends recorded and the S&P 500 stock index is well in “overvalued” territory at 27 times EPS. At the same time, bonds have also been rising in value, which could change quickly when rates eventually rise. At this stage of a trend, asset allocation investors could need a reminder. I can’t think of a better one that this:

Why are you telling investors they need to diversify differently these days?

The traditional approach to diversification, which served us very well, went like this: Adopt a diversified portfolio, be disciplined about rebalancing the asset mix, own very well-defined types of asset classes and favor the home team because the minute you invest outside the U.S., you take on additional risk. A typical mix would then be 60% stocks and 40% bonds, and most of the stocks would be part of Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index.

This approach is fatigued for several reasons. First of all, diversification alone is no longer sufficient to temper risk. In the past year, we saw virtually every asset class hammered. You need something more to manage risk well.

But, you know, they say a picture is worth a thousand words.

Since we are talking about downside risk, something that is commonly hidden when only “average returns” are presented, below is a drawdown chart. I created the drawdown chart using YCharts which uses total return data and the “% off high”. The decline you see from late 2007 to 2010 is a drawdown: it’s when the investment value is under water. Think of this like a lake. You can see how the average of the data wouldn’t properly inform you of what happens in between.

First, I show PIMCO’s own allocation fund: PALCX: Allianz Global Allocation Fund. I include an actively managed asset allocation that is very large and popular with $55 billion invested in it: MCLOX: BlackRock Global Allocation. Since there are many who instead believe in passive indexing and allocation, I have also included DGSIX: DFA Global Allocation 60/40 and VBINX: Vanguard Balanced Fund. As you can see, they have all done about the same thing. They declined about -30% to -40% from October 2007 to March 2009. They also declined up to -15% in 2011.

Global Allocation Balanced Fund Drawdowns

Going forward, the next bear market may be very different. Historically, investors consider bond holdings to be a buffer or an anchor to a portfolio. When stock prices fall, bonds haven’t been falling nearly as much. To be sure, I show below a “drawdown chart” for the famous actively managed bond fund PIMCO Total Return and for the passive crowd I have included the Vanguard Total Bond Market fund. Keep in mind, about 40% of the allocation of the funds above are invested in bonds. As you see, bonds dropped about -5% to -7% in the past 10 years.

Bond market risk drawdowns

You may notice they are recently down -2% from their highs. Based on the past 10 years, that’s just a minor decline. The trouble going forward is that interest rates have been in an overall downtrend for 30 years, so bond values have been rising. If you rely on bonds being a crutch, as on diversification alone, I agree with Mohamed El-Erian the Chief of the worlds largest bond manager:

“…diversification alone is no longer sufficient to temper risk. In the past year, we saw virtually every asset class hammered. You need something more to manage risk well.”

But, don’t wait until AFTER markets have fallen to believe it.

I just don’t believe holding and re-balancing markets is going to give us the risk-adjusted returns we want. In all I do, I believe in challenging that status quo, I believe in thinking and doing things differently. The way I challenge the status quo is a focus on absolute return, limiting downside risk, and doing it tactically across global markets. Want to join us? To see what that looks like, click: ASYMMETRY® Managed Accounts

The Volatility Index (VIX) is Getting Interesting Again

In the last observation I shared on the CBOE Volatlity index (the VIX) I had been pointing out last year the VIX was at a low level and then later started trending up. At that time, many volatility traders seemed to think it was going to stay low and keep going lower – I disagreed. Since then, the VIX has remained at a higher average than it had been – up until now. You can read that in VIX® gained 140%: Investors were too complacent.

Here it is again, closing at 12.45 yesterday, a relatively low level for expected volatility of the S&P 500 stocks. Investors get complacent after trends drift up, so they don’t price in so much fear in options. Below we observe a monthly view to see the bigger picture. The VIX is getting down to levels near the end of the last bull market (2007). It could go lower, but if you look closely, you’ll get my drift.

Chart created by Shell Capital with: http://www.stockcharts.com

Next, we zoom in to the weekly chart to get a loser look.

Chart created by Shell Capital with: http://www.stockcharts.com

Finally, the daily chart zooms in even more.

Chart created by Shell Capital with: http://www.stockcharts.com

The observation?

Options traders have priced in low implied volatility – they expect volatility to be low over the next month. That is happening as headlines are talking about stock indexes hitting all time highs. I think it’s a sign of complacency. That’s often when things change at some point.

It also means that options premiums are generally a good deal (though that is best determined on an individual security basis). Rather than selling premium, it may be a better time to buy it.

Let’s see what happens from here…

My 2 Cents on the Dollar

The U.S. Dollar ($USD) has gained about 20% in less than a year. We observe it first in the weekly below. The U.S. Dollar is a significant driver of returns of other markets. For example, when the U.S. Dollar is rising, commodities like gold, oil, and foreign currencies like the Euro are usually falling. A rising U.S. Dollar also impacts international stocks priced in U.S. Dollar. When the U.S. Dollar trends up, many international markets priced in U.S. Dollars may trend down (reflecting the exchange rate). The U.S. Dollar may be trending up in anticipation of rising interest rates.

dollar trend weekly 2015-04-23_16-04-40

Chart created by Shell Capital with: http://www.stockcharts.com

Now, let’s observe a shorter time frame- the daily chart. Here we see an impressive uptrend and since March a non-trending indecisive period. Many trend followers and global macro traders are likely “long the U.S. Dollar” by being long and short other markets like commodities, international stocks, or currencies.

dollar trend daily 2015-04-23_16-05-04

Chart created by Shell Capital with: http://www.stockcharts.com

This is a good example of understanding what drives returns and risk/reward. I consider how long the U.S. Dollar I am and how that may impact my positions if this uptrend were to reverse. It’s a good time to pay attention to it to see if it breaks back out to the upside to resume the uptrend, or if it instead breaks down to end it. Such a continuation or reversal often occurs from a point like the blue areas I highlighted above.

That’s my two cents on the Dollar…

How long are you? Do you know?

Asymmetric Returns of World Markets YTD

As of today, global stock, bond, commodity markets are generating asymmetric returns year to date. The graph below illustrates the asymmetry is negative for those who need these markets to go “up”.

Asymmetric Returns of World Markets 2015-04-10_10-52-47

source: http://finviz.com

 

A Tale of Two Conditions for U.S. and International Stocks: Before and After 2008

In recent conversations with investment advisors, I notice their sentiment has shifted from “cautious and concerned” about world equity markets to “why have they underperformed”. Prior to 2013, most investors and investment advisors were concerned about another 2007 to 2009 level bear market. Now, it seems that caution has faded. Today, many of them seem to be focused on the strong trend of U.S. stocks since mid-2013 and comparing everything else to it.

Prior to October 2007, International stocks were in significantly stronger positive directional trends than U.S. Stocks. I’ll compare the S&P 500 stock index (SPY) to Developed International Countries (EFA). We can visually observe a material change between these markets before 2008 and after, but especially after 2013. That one large divergence since 2013 has changed sentiment.

The MSCI EAFE Index is recognized as the pre-eminent benchmark in the United States to measure international equity performance. It comprises the MSCI country indices that represent developed markets outside of North America: Europe, Australasia and the Far East. For a “real life” example of its price trend, I use the iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (EFA). Below are the country holdings, to get an idea of what is considered “developed markets”.

iShares MSCI EAFE ETF Developed Markets exposure 2015-04-05_17-14-43

Source: https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239623/EFA

Below are the price trends of the popular S&P 500 U.S. stock index and the MSCI Developed Countries Index over the past 10 years. Many investors may have forgotten how strong international markets were prior to 2008. Starting around 2012, the U.S. stock market continued to trend up stronger than international stocks. It’s a tale of two markets, pre-2008 and post-2008.

Developed Markets International stocks trend 2015-04-05_17-22-22

No analysis of a trend % change is complete without also examining its drawdowns along the way. A drawdown measures a drop from peak to bottom in the value of a market or portfolio (before a new peak is achieved). The chart below shows these indexes % off their prior highs to understand their historical losses over the period. For example, these indexes declined -55% or more. The International stock index nearly declined -65%. The S&P 500 U.S. stock index didn’t recover from its decline that started in October 2007 until mid-2012, 5 years later. The MSCI Developed Countries index is still in a drawdown! As you can see, EFA is -24% off it’s high reached in 2007. Including these international countries in a global portfolio is important as such exposure has historically provided greater potential for profits than just U.S. stocks, but more recently they have been a drag.

international markets drawdown 2015-04-05_17-30-00The International stock markets are divided broadly into Developed Markets we just reviewed and Emerging Countries. The iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM) tracks this index. To get an idea of which countries are considered “Emerging Markets’, you can see the actual exposure below.

emerging countries markets 2015-04-05_17-13-31

https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239637/EEM?referrer=tickerSearch

The Emerging Countries index has reached the same % change over the past decade, but they have clearly taken very different paths to get there. Prior to the “global crisis” that started late 2007, many investors may have forgotten that Emerging Markets countries like China and Brazil were in very strong uptrends. I remember this very well; as a global tactical trader I had exposure to these countries which lead to even stronger profits than U.S. markets during that period. Since 2009, however, Emerging Markets recovered sharply but as with U.S. stocks: they have trended up with great volatility. Since Emerging Markets peaked around 2011 they have traded in a range since. However, keep in mind, these are 10-year charts, so those swings up and down are 3 to 6 months. We’ll call that “choppy”. Or, 4 years of a non-trending and volatile state.

Emerging Markets trend 10 years 2015-04-05_17-21-06

Once again, no analysis of a trend % change is complete without also examining its drawdowns along the way. A drawdown measures a drop from peak to bottom in the value of a market or portfolio (before a new peak is achieved). The chart below shows these indexes % off their prior highs to understand their historical losses over the period. For example, these indexes declined -55% or more. The Emerging Market stock index declined -65%. The S&P 500 U.S. stock index didn’t recover from its decline that started in October 2007 until mid-2012, 5 years later. The MSCI Emerging Countries index is still in a drawdown! As you can see, EFA is -26% off it’s high reached in 2007. As I mentioned before, it recovered sharply up to 2011 but has been unable to move higher in 4 years. Including these Emerging Markets countries in a global portfolio is important as such exposure has historically provided greater potential for profits than just U.S. stocks, but more recently they have been a drag.

emerging markets drawdown 2015-04-05_17-52-19

Wondering why the tale of two markets before and after 2008? The are many reasons and return drivers. One of them can be seen visually in the trend of the U.S. Dollar. Below is a 10-year price chart of the U.S. Dollar index. Before 2008, the U.S. Dollar was falling, so foreign currencies were rising as were foreign stocks priced in Dollars. As with most world markets, even the U.S. Dollar was very volatile from 2008 through 2011. After 2011 it drifted in a tighter range through last year and has since increased sharply.

Dollar impact on international stocks 2015-04-05_18-05-02

The funny thing is, I’ve noticed there are a lot of inflows into currency-hedged ETFs recently. Investors seem to do the wrong thing at the wrong time. For example, they’ll want to hedge their currency risk after it already happened, not before… It’s just like with options hedging: Investors want protection after a loss, not before it happens. Or, people will buy that 20 KW generator for their home after they lose power a few days, not before, and may not need it again for 5 years after they’ve stopped servicing it. So, it doesn’t start when they need it again.

You can probably see why I think it’s an advantage to understand how world markets interact with each other and it’s an edge for me.

Mike Shell is the Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Shell Capital Management, LLC, and the portfolio manager of ASYMMETRY® Global Tactical.

The observations shared on this website are for general information only and are not specific advice, research, or buy or sell recommendations for any individual. Investing involves risk including the potential loss of principal an investor must be willing to bear. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. The presence of this website on the Internet shall in no direct or indirect way raise an implication that Shell Capital Management, LLC is offering to sell or soliciting to sell advisory services to residents of any state in which the firm is not registered as an investment advisor. Use of this website is subject to its terms and conditions.

Absolute Return as an Investment Strategy

Absolute Return Investment Strategy Fund Manager

In “Absolute Return: The Basic Definition”, I explained an absolute return is the return that an asset achieves over a certain period of time. To me, absolute return is also an investment objective.

In “Absolute Return as an Investment Objective” I explained that absolute return is an investment objective is one that does not try to track or beat an arbitrary benchmark or index, but instead seeks to generate real profits over a complete market cycle regardless of market conditions. That is, it is focused on the actual total return the investor wants to achieve and how much risk the investor will willing to take, rather than a focus on what arbitrary market indexes do.

Absolute return as a strategy: absolute return is sometimes used to define an investment strategy. An absolute return strategy is a plan, method, or series of maneuvers aiming to compound capital positively and to avoid big losses to capital in difficult market conditions. Whereas Relative Return strategies typically measure their success in terms of whether they track or outperform a market benchmark or index, absolute return investment strategies aim to achieve positive returns irrespective of whether the prices of stocks, bonds, or commodities rise or fall over the market cycle.

Whether you think of absolute return as an objective or a strategy, it is a skill-based rather than market-based. That is, the absolute return manager creates his or her results through tactical decision-making as opposed to taking what the market is giving. One can employ a wide range of approaches toward an absolute return objective, from price-based trend following to fundamental analysis. In the ASYMMETRY® Managed Accounts, I believe price-based methods are more robust and lead to a higher probability of a positive expectation. Through my historical precedence, testing, and experience, I find that any fundamental type method that is based on something other than price has the capability to stray far enough from price to put the odds against absolute returns. That is, a manager buying what he or she believes is undervalued and selling short what he believes is overvalued can go very wrong if the position is on the wrong side of the trend. But price cannot deviate from itself. Price is the judge and the jury.

Of course, absolute return and the “All Weather” type portfolio sound great and seem to be what most investors want, but it requires incredible skill to execute. Most investors and advisors seem to underestimate the required skills and experience and most absolute return strategies and funds have very limited and unproven track records. There is no guarantee that these strategies and processes will produce the intended results and no guarantee that an absolute return strategy will achieve its investment objective.

For an example of the application of an absolute return objective, strategy, and return-risk profile,  visit http://www.asymmetrymanagedaccounts.com/

Absolute Return as an Investment Objective

Absolute Return objective fund strategy

In Absolute Return: The Basic Definition, I explained an absolute return is the return that an asset achieves over a certain period of time. To me, absolute return is also an investment objective.

Absolute Return as an investment objective is one that does not try to track or beat an arbitrary benchmark or index, but instead seeks to generate real profits over a complete market cycle regardless of market conditions. That is, an absolute return objective of positive returns on investment over a market cycle of both bull and bear market periods irrespective of the direction of stock, commodity, or bond markets.

Since the U.S. stock market has been generally in a uptrend for 6 years now, other than the -20% decline in the middle of 2011, we’ll now have to expand our time frame for a full market cycle to a longer period. That is, a full market cycle includes both a bull and a bear market.

The investor who has an absolute return objective is concerned about his or her own objectives for total return over a period and tolerance for loss and drawdowns. That is a very different objective than the investor who just wants whatever risk and return a benchmark, allocation, or index provides. Absolute returns require skill and active management of risk and exposure to markets.

Rather than a long article, this is going to be a series of smaller parts, building up to what absolute return really means.

For an example of the application of an absolute return objective, strategy, and return-risk profile,  visit http://www.asymmetrymanagedaccounts.com/

US Government Bonds Rise on Fed Rate Outlook?

I saw the following headline this morning:

US Government Bonds Rise on Fed Rate Outlook

Wall Street Journal –

“U.S. government bonds strengthened on Monday after posing the biggest price rally in more than three months last week, as investors expect the Federal Reserve to take its time in raising interest rates.”

My focus is on directional price trends, not the news. I focus on what is actually happening, not what people think will happen. Below I drew a 3 month price chart of the 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (TLT), I highlighted in green the time period since the Fed decision last week. You may agree that most of price action and directional trend changes happened before that date. In fact, the long-term bond index declined nearly 2 months before the decision, increased a few weeks prior, and has since drifted what I call “sideways”.

fed decision impact on bonds
Charts created with http://www.stockcharts.com

To be sure, in the next chart I included an analog chart including the shorter durations of maturity. iShares 3-7 Year Treasury Bond ETF (IEI) and iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Bond ETF (IEF). Maybe there is some overreaction and under-reaction going on before the big “news”, if anything.

Government bonds Fed decision reaction
Do you still think the Fed news was “new information“?

Diversification Alone is No Longer Sufficient to Temper Risk…

That was the lesson you learned the last time stocks became overvalued and the stock market entered into a bear market.

In a Kiplinger article by Fred W. Frailey interviewed Mohamed El-Erian, the PIMCO’s boss, (PIMCO is one of the largest mutual fund companies in the world) he says “he tells how to reduce risk and reap rewards in a fast-changing world.” This article “Shaking up the Investment Mix” was written in March 2009, which turned out the be “the low” of the global market collapse.

It is useful to revisit such writing and thoughts, especially since the U.S. stock market has since been overall rising for 5 years and 10 months. It’s one of the longest uptrends recorded and the S&P 500 stock index is well in “overvalued” territory at 27 times EPS. At the same time, bonds have also been rising in value, which could change quickly when rates eventually rise. At this stage of a trend, asset allocation investors could need a reminder. I can’t think of a better one that this:

Why are you telling investors they need to diversify differently these days?

The traditional approach to diversification, which served us very well, went like this: Adopt a diversified portfolio, be disciplined about rebalancing the asset mix, own very well-defined types of asset classes and favor the home team because the minute you invest outside the U.S., you take on additional risk. A typical mix would then be 60% stocks and 40% bonds, and most of the stocks would be part of Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index.

This approach is fatigued for several reasons. First of all, diversification alone is no longer sufficient to temper risk. In the past year, we saw virtually every asset class hammered. You need something more to manage risk well.

But, you know, they say a picture is worth a thousand words.

Since we are talking about downside risk, something that is commonly hidden when only “average returns” are presented, below is a drawdown chart. I created the drawdown chart using YCharts which uses total return data and the “% off high”. The decline you see from late 2007 to 2010 is a dradown: it’s when the investment value is under water. Think of this like a lake. You can see how the average of the data wouldn’t properly inform you of what happens in between.

First, I show PIMCO’s own allocation fund: PALCX: Allianz Global Allocation Fund. I include an actively managed asset allocation that is very large and popular with $55 billion invested in it: MALOX: BlackRock Global Allocation. Since there are many who instead believe in passive indexing and allocation, I have also included DGSIX: DFA Global Allocation 60/40 and VBINX: Vanguard Balanced Fund. As you can see, they have all done about the same thing. They declined about -30% to -40% from October 2007 to March 2009. They also declined up to -15% in 2011.

Vanguard DFA BlackRock PIMCO Asset Allcation

Charts are courtesy of http://ycharts.com/ drawn by Mike Shell

Going forward, the next bear market may be very different. Historically, investors consider bond holdings to be a buffer or an anchor to a portfolio. When stock prices fall, bonds haven’t been falling nearly as much. To be sure, I show below a “drawdown chart” for the famous actively managed bond fund PIMCO Total Return and for the passive crowd I have included the Vanguard Total Bond Market fund. Keep in mind, about 40% of the allocation of the funds above are invested in bonds. As you see, bonds dropped about -5% to -7% in the past 10 years.

PIMCO Total Return Bond Vanguard Total Bond

Charts are courtesy of http://ycharts.com/ drawn by Mike Shell

You may have noticed the end of the chart is a drop of nearly -2%. Based on the past 10 years, that’s just a minor decline. The trouble going forward is that interest rates have been in an overall downtrend for 30 years, so bond values have been rising. If you rely on bonds being a crutch, as on diversification alone, I agree with Mohamed El-Erian the Chief of the worlds largest bond manager:

“…diversification alone is no longer sufficient to temper risk. In the past year, we saw virtually every asset class hammered. You need something more to manage risk well.”

But, don’t wait until AFTER markets have fallen to believe it.

Instead, I apply active risk management and directional trend systems to a global universe of exchange traded securities (like ETFs). To see what that looks like, click: ASYMMETRY® Managed Accounts

Sectors Showing Some Divergence…

So far, U.S. sector directional price trends are showing some divergence in 2015.

Rather than all things rising, such divergence may give hints to new return drivers unfolding as well as opportunity for directional trend systems to create some asymmetry by avoiding the trends I don’t want and get exposure to those I do.

Sector ETF Divergence 2015-03-04_11-24-54

For more information about ASYMMETRY®, visit: http://www.asymmetrymanagedaccounts.com/global-tactical/

 

Chart source: http://www.finviz.com/groups.ashx