Slow Down, You Think Too Fast

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - February 12th, 2012, 9:00PM

~~~

Daniel Kahneman: Many psychologists think of the mind in terms of two systems. System one is the associative one. System one is the impulsive one. System one tends to me more emotional. System two is capable of following rules and system two is more socialized in the sense that it supervises what people say and to some extent what they think and tends to bring those things in line with existing norms.

There has been a fair amount of research indicating there are classes of decision where following your gut is a good idea. It’s a fairly limited class. It’s much more limited than most people think. If you’re choosing posters or if you’re choosing things in terms of whether you would like them in future you’ll do reasonably well following your immediate impulse.

For other decisions, following you immediate impulse is not guaranteed to do well. It could do well. It depends a lot on how much experience you’ve had. If you have had a lot of experience in a particular domain you can trust yourself in that domain – if you’ve been able to learn from your mistakes, which isn’t always true. Otherwise, in big decisions, in really big decisions, you might want to slow down, and that is almost the only advice that we have for people. When things get really big and you’re really not sure, slow down.

We’re very inclined to take subjective confidence at face value, that is, to assume that if an individual feels confident in a judgment or in a decision then that must be valid. People are extremely confident even when they don’t know what they are talking about or don’t know what they are doing. So confidence is a mark of intuitive thinking regardless of whether intuitive thinking is expert intuitive thinking or heuristic intuitive thinking.

To distinguish intuitive thoughts that you can trust from those you can’t trust you really have to look at the environment and you have to look at the individual’s opportunity to learn the environment. There are some environments that simply cannot be learned because they are chaotic and too complex. So I don’t believe people have intuitions about stocks because we know that that world is not regular enough to support valid intuition.

Now there are domains. Wall Street and stock picking is not the same thing. Many people – and that certainly is true for hedge funds – without necessarily having internal information, which is illegal, they have a lot more information than other people about particular industries or about particular companies. There, some of them, I think, may know enough to build expertise. Most of them probably don’t and had better do an extensive analysis.

So you have to look at the world, not look at people’s confidence.

Innovation Can Be Trained

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - February 12th, 2012, 4:30AM

Source: Slides That Rock

Open Thread: “Where Are the Bears?”

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - February 9th, 2012, 7:15PM

I was speaking to a friend who is a well known, well regarded Technician. She stated: “I dont know anyone who is bearish . . . Even Nouriel Roubini flipped bullish.”

I thought that was an interesting observation.

While I am not sure who is bearish (Hussman, Shilling, Edwards, Faber, Belkin & Rogers) I do think this rally is rather hated, and has been for many quarters.

Here wee are with stocks making multi-year highs.

“Buy Strength” I was always taught . . . “Sell weakness.” Yet it seems no one wants to buy strength — people want to buy lower.

~~~

That’s our open thread for tonight: Where are the Bears? And what does this mean for the next 12 months of equity action?

Are Positives Starting to Dominate ?

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - February 8th, 2012, 9:06PM

The folks at ISI are suggesting that the economic and policy data is beginning to become overwhelmingly positive. I am less sanguine then they are, and I disagree with a few of the bullet points (#1 especially).

However, it is a pretty long list of things that seem to be improving — or at least not getting worse:

• Housing starting to recover
• Labor market improving
• Credit expansion unfolding
• Low dollar
• Low rates
• Pent-up demand
• US mfg renaissance
• US energy sector booming
• Double-dip fears minimal so far this year
• Inflation receding around the world
• Europe financial strains have eased
• Liquidity is building in the world economy, eg, corporate cash
• There’ve been 83 stimulative policy initiatives announced around
the world over the past 5 months, eg, Indonesia cut rates
• The Fed has rates on hold at zero and is doing Operation Twist
• ECB is scheduled to further expand its balance sheet on Feb 29
by as much as + €1t
• There are no particular problems at the moment such as Japan
disasters, Thailand floods, supply-chain disruptions, gasoline
price spikes, and debt ceiling crises

What do you think? Is the data objectively getting better, or is this merely a selective list of positives?

~~~

What say ye?

Magazine Cover Indicator: New York “End of Wall Street”

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - February 6th, 2012, 10:38AM

This week’s New York magazine — a non Business publication — has a rather bearish cover discussing “The Emasculation of Wall Street.

Last week, I mentioned the Barron’s cover was somewhat bullish, with the caveat that Barron’s is a business weekly. New York magazine is more general interest — its not Time or Newsweek, because it covers Wall Street in its back yard.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg is out with this headline today: Investors Fearful as Stock Rally Best Since 1987.

Still, I suspect the NY Mag cover is a bullish sentiment indicator.

>

Source:
The End of Wall Street As They Knew It
Gabriel Sherman
NY, Feb 5, 2012
http://nymag.com/print/?/news/features/wall-street-2012-2/

Decoding the Brain’s Cacophony

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - February 4th, 2012, 3:39PM

Michael Gazzaniga: An interview with the neuroscientist and professor of psychology

Decoding the Brain’s Cacophony (NYT)

2011 Investment Mea Culpas

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - January 31st, 2012, 7:30AM

January is nearly over, so it is once again time to look at the various errors, mistakes and bad calls that I made in the asset management business in 2011. I have made ‘fessing up part of my process – this is my third annual version (see my previous mea culpas for 2009 and 2010). I have made this an annual rite of contrition. Each January, I set down on paper my Mea Culpas – owning up to the errors, mistakes and failures that are a regular part of the investing process.

For most money managers, 2011 was a challenging year. But I am less concerned with under-performance as a Mea Culpa, choosing instead to focus on the process (for the record, we outperformed our benchmark, and did so with considerably less risk).

First the good news: Assessing what did right in 2011, there were plenty of things to be pleased with: The Macro calls worked well, we stuck to our discipline. We avoided the entire August collapse. Buying into the breakout in October, we quickly reversed ourselves when it failed. And when the signs were to go long and strong to start the year, I held my nose and did so.

As always, in the business of managing assets, there is always something new to learn. This morning, I want to look not at what I got right, but rather what I did wrong, where there is room for improvement. We will also revisit prior mea culpas to see where we have been fortunate to improve as a result of these annual lists.

Let’s have at it:

1. Running Assets vs. Managing a Business: It may be obvious, but these are two very different skill sets. I first mentioned this last year – and though these are supposed to be mea culpas, I have to give kudos to a pair of outstanding hires: Josh and Anna. They make me better, and for that I am grateful.

Possible solution: Learning to be a business manager versus an asset manager means reaching outside your comfort zone, educating yourself, pushing into new areas. But the key: Find more outstanding people and hire them.

2. Confirmation Bias: I find myself reading more of the analysts whose current views I agree with and less of those whose views are opposite my own. Off the top of my head: Laksman Athushan, Jim Bianco, Michael Belkin and John Hussman. I need to find people whose macro views differ from mine as well as those whose market perspective is more aggressive than my own.

Possible solution: Read more of the folks I occasionally disagree with like Doug Kass, David Rosenberg, and others. Worry less about hunting for that nugget of info and more on the process others employ to challenge my own views.

3. Articulate policy and principles: I have a pretty firm set of beliefs when it comes to investing (seen in about 6,000 posts on the blog), but I have yet to put it down in a short format. This is a function of laziness and fear of ridicule.

Possible solution: DO IT. Break the beliefs down into 10 key principles, post them somewhere, and review annually. Forget about the opinions of the public and focus on what matters most to yourself and your process.

4. Skepticism: I tend to disbelieve/distrust/ignore new sources of info. I have begun to grow cynical. This has led to unfairly dismissing new sources  of information/analysis/commentary. The secret to being skeptical — and to Sturgeons Law — is to not reject 100% of everything that comes your way, just the 95% that is crap.

Possible solution: Consider the what ifs before rejecting something. Might this analyst be correct? Might their process work out? Be more generous with your attitude rather than being so dismissive.

5. Communication: A new issue for me, as I added lots more individual clients. I was very inefficient when I came to communicating with both new and prospective clients. Its not that I didn’t communicate; rather, it was haphazard and disorganized. Too many phone calls, too many calendar conflicts.

Possible solution: Organize: Create a system of communication to both existing and prospective clients. Use technology, conference calls, webinars to reach people in a more efficient way.

6. Time Management: An annual issue, although I did get better at it this year (see #1 above). Focus more on research, writing, and asset management –let the rest come to you.

Possible solution: Prioritize: Do less of what matters least; Work with a daily checklist to make sure things get finished; Focus.

7. Clients: It is always a balancing act when dealing with clients. On the one hand, you cannot blow them off when they bring you concerns (its their money!). On the other hand, you cannot allow the investing public’s group mentality (or panic) to infect you. Further, we took some heat for calls that turned out to be correct, but in a few cases, took steps at the request of clients that lowered overall performance; that must stop.

Possible solution: Be proactive. Improve regular communication with all clients; Work on making sure they understand the process, our current thoughts, and where we are so as to avoid the 2nd guessing. Preempt the “My way or the highway” conversation proactively;

8. Undercapitalized: I worked on several projects where capital was a major issue. This is something that is singularly important to any new entity. The bootstrapping approach seems to work in very rare circumstances where there is an immediate influx of revenue, but for moist start ups, it’s a pipedream. You cannot grow a business when the daily focus is raising money.

Possible solution: Steer away from firms that have too little capital. Make sure that the structure is appropriate. Avoid the classic undercapitalized but over enthusiastic founders.

~~~

Follow up from prior year’s Mea Culpas

1. Too Many Equity Mutual Funds: I have always known mutual funds were a mixed bag, and last year, I finally did something about it: In my asset allocation model, I slowly replaced mutual funds with ETFs. A portfolio I took over began with 8 funds and 2 ETFs; that raio is now reversed.

Actual solution: Used more ETFs more to increase exposure quickly so we carry less cash sooner and raise exposure more quickly; Better to own positions with tight stops, or to own half positions, than none at all;

2. Putting Cash to work: Despite making the right call in early March, we legged in slowly. I am not suggesting that you go all in on a single day or week, but the process of going from 80% cash to fully invested took longer than it should have. Directly related to the two points above, when the market is rallying aggressively, we need to carry less cash sooner and more exposure more quickly;

Actual solution: iShares Barclays 1-3 Year Treasury Bond Fund – rather than sit with a 40% cash position – even for a month – the 1-3 year yields something, and if we are right on why we moved to cash, may even appreciate.

3. Focus!: We all have many items calling out for our attention; but having too much on your plate means things fall through the cracks (like that option trade!). Our modern short attention span society has the appearance of being more productive, but probably isn’t. Free association is great for creative brainstorming sessions, but winging it during execution means stuff is going to slide.

Actual solution: The checklist! When I stick to my TTD, I can be wonderfully productive. Must stay with that in 2010.

4. Health: After years of neglect, I promised myself that when I turned 50, I would start taking better care of myself. Your body is a used car, and if you want to get to 150,000 miles, you need to do more than put in petrol. (I was embarrassed to put this down as a mea culpa last year).

Actual solution: Went for my first check up in years. (Blood Pressure/Cholesterol are excellent)  On a diet, going to the gym, running again. Colonoscopy scheduled for the Spring. Now the trick is to trick to it.

~~~

As always, ideas, suggestions, and hints for improving are always welcome!

Barron’s Cover: Don’t Lose My Money

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - January 28th, 2012, 1:00PM

“Things in the U.S. aren’t nearly as bad now as they were back in 2008 and early 2009, but don’t try and tell the retail investor that. They’re truly spooked.”

-Justin Walters, co-founder of Bespoke Investment Group.

>

Here we are 12 years into a secular bear market, and the concern amongst investors is capital preservation and risk management. Indeed, as the nearby cover of this weeks Barron’s is an article about the fear amongst investors (click for larger version). It may be the single most Bullish thing I’ve seen this year.

I find some of this hilarious:

• A recent survey conducted by Investment News found just 43.6% of financial advisors planned to increase their clients’ allocation to stocks this year, down from 63.4% at the start of 2011;

• A survey by the Yale School of Management showed a marked decline among investors who felt confident there wouldn’t be a stock-market crash over the next six months. The outlook was especially grim among individual investors, who seemed as worried about a crash as at the height of the financial crisis.

• Notwithstanding the downgrade of U.S. debt, investors bent on capital preservation are buying enough Treasuries to drive the benchmark yield on 10-year notes to below 2%.

• Of more than 300 new exchange-traded funds launched in 2011, the two most popular by far were conservative strategies that steered investors toward stability and capital preservation.

• Risk aversion is particularly acute among “Generation Y” investors born after 1980, who have decades to go before they retire but are especially reluctant to invest.

These data points show the depth of risk aversion amongst the investor class.

>

Nervous Investors

>
click for larger graphic

>

Source:
Just Don’t Lose It!
KOPIN TAN
Barron’s, January 28, 2012
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424052748704895604577178933290614156.html

How the Brain’s Wiring Forms Thoughts and Emotions

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - January 24th, 2012, 6:36AM

New techniques, including advances in brain scans, are helping to reveal the hidden anatomy of brain wiring and giving scientists a new understanding of how thoughts, memories and emotions are formed. WSJ’s Robert Lee Hotz reports.

1/23/2012 7:00:38 PM

Is Anyone Any Good at Picking Hedge Fund Managers?

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - January 23rd, 2012, 6:30AM

Last week, I gave a very informal presentation to an audience of sophisticated HNW investors. Lots of family offices, none with less than $10m net worth; I’d ballpark the median > $50m. They get together regularly to discuss investing issues they are wrestling with.

The presentation was very general, including my (non)outlook on the economy, markets, investing, etc.

During the Q&A portion, issues of asset allocation, indexing, tactical adjustments, rebalancing, behavioral economics, and more were batted about. One of the questions that came up was fund manager under-performance. Starting with the usual data points — 80% of managers miss their benchmark, etc. — we then discussed why family offices, foundations and institutions were so willing to pay 2+20 for what is sub-par performance. Yes, 2011 was a rough year, but the problem seems to go much further than that.

One of the questioners asked, and surprised himself with the answer:  “Based on all this, then why do we bother picking hedge funds anyway? Why shouldn’t we simply index?

Why shouldn’t you, indeed? I replied that I thought indexing made sense for many HNW investors, but I favored a form of tactical overlay versus straight Buy & Hold. (We’ve discussed the 10 month MA as a simple sell signal). We never got to discuss the incentives that drive consultants to sell these folks on the belief that they can consistently select managers who can out-perform; that is worthy of a full discussion some other time.

The most interesting part of the discussion was almost an afterthought. After stating that, yes, there were 100s of very talented hedge fund managers — out of a pool of 10,000 — I asked the group this: How can you find these outstanding hedge fund managers? How can you evaluate whether to give them your capital? How successful have you been at this?

No one had much of an answer.

We know exactly who the superstars are ex post facto. But we don’t get to retroactively go back in time to give our money to Jim Simmons or Ray Dalio. I told the group that I am “awful at selecting managers who don’t have a 10 year track record of out performance; (though I redeem myself by knowing when to fire a manager).”

But  the really interesting part came in the form of a challenge to the group: “Who is good at picking Hedge fund managers? Who amongst you has the ability to consistently evaluate managers who then outperform over time? Not only that, but outperform on an after fee basis?”

Their was a stunned silence.

I continued: “I do not have that skill set. Evaluating hedge fund managers based on the information that is currently shared is not my forté; more importantly, I doubt YOU have the skill set to pick hedge fund managers. (if you did, why are you here?)”

I pointed out the simple fact that most of us are not well equipped to evaluate managers. The ability to evaluate someone based on either understanding their approach and temperament was not what most of us were capable at. I continued:  “That is what Excel is for; You mark down the quarterly and annual track record managers you select (monthly performance data is mostly noise), keep a list of the qualifications you used to make that decision. Then you track their performance net of fees. How have you done?

More silence.

Understand exactly what I am saying: Its not that there aren’t 100s of managers worthy of your capital — there are 100s maybe even 1000s who are. However, you simply are not well equipped to pick them. Sure, we can look at long-term track records. Bridgewater is Institutional only; Renaissance Technologies returned outside investor monies; There are lots of well known funds doing extremely well over a multi-decade plus period — but good luck getting them to take your money at this stage.

Time was up, the moderator thanked everyone, but the question remains:  How many investors can consistently select hedge fund managers who beat their benchmark over long periods of time after fees?

>

Previously:
2011: Disastrous Year For Mutual, Hedge Fund Managers (January 17th, 2012)

When Do You Fire a Manager? (April 5th, 2011)

43 queries. 0.355 seconds.