Posts Tagged ‘investing’

Numberscruncher: Perfectly Imperfect Information

19990607-750-0[1]Eugene Fama is the Susan Lucci of the Nobel Prize world. He not only developed the Efficient Markets Hypothesis, which sits beneath almost every theory in finance, but he also is on faculty at the University of Chicago, a Nobel factory. Still, Fama has not received the early-morning call from Sweden. That’s too bad. The Efficient Markets Hypothesis says that market prices are accurate because everyone has the information needed to make rational investment decisions. In the real world, markets are not perfectly efficient, but they are close. The Efficient Markets Hypothesis assumption helps people try to figure out where the flaws are. (It goes without saying that those people who believe that markets are always efficient do not see the flaws and make mistakes. Fama, by the way, does not think markets are perfectly efficient.)

The Efficient Markets Hypothesis doesn’t assume that everyone involved is wise, but that there are more people with good information than bad information. The signal-to-noise ratio is high enough that the irrational and uninformed traders cancel each other out. Over the long run, this seems to be true, but there can be enormous deviations from efficiency in the short term as traders figure out who has the right information. (more…)

Numberscruncher: Mutual Funds and Mutual Conflicts

72471067Last week, I went to a security analysts’ luncheon featuring John Bogle, the retired founder of the mutual fund company Vanguard Group. Bogle didn’t have nice things to say about his colleagues. He said that too many mutual fund companies charge high fees and manage funds for their own short-term benefit rather than what is best for investors over the long haul. In an efficient market, it’s very difficult for a money manager to outperform the market indexes. Vanguard made its mark selling index mutual funds, which look like the market indexes. They perform no better and no worse than the stock market as a whole, and that’s okay.

The people in the audience were professional investors: analysts and portfolio managers for banks, insurance companies, mutual funds, and pension funds throughout Chicago. They came out in force for Bogle, even though they knew that he wasn’t going to flatter them.

Bogle gave an overview of history which shows that this current market mess should not have been a surprise to anyone. He cites one major destabilizing trend: the movement away from individual stock ownership to institutional ownership. Most institutions have an individual as a beneficiary; they include pension funds, mutual fund companies, trust accounts, and charitable endowments. These funds view investments as tradeoffs between risk and return, nothing more. Bogle says that they changed the nature of the game, but the underlying rules were not adjusted.

Because most of us now have the risk of investing for our own retirements, usually through mutual funds, these rules matter. (more…)

Where’s the (Tea) Party?

Rick Santelli of CNBC has called for a Chicago Tea Party, a revolt by taxpayers against a government stimulus package that may reward some irresponsible folks for their behavior. Jon Stewart invited him to appear on The Daily Show, but Santelli canceled. Hence, the Daily Show staff prepared a little tirade against Santelli and CNBC for missing the whole market implosion.

So much shouting! Of all the political revolutions coming out of Illinois right now, Santelli’s Tea Party is a strange one. Most folks in Cook County could take paying more in Federal taxes; we’re ticked off about the county board president, elected under questionable circumstances, finding great jobs for his relatives. The foreclosure rate here is relatively low, too, so it’s not like mortgage restructuring offends frugal Chicagoans the way they might upset the frugal in Phoenix.

Santelli covers the derivatives markets. With derivatives, there is a loser for every winner. Because many people buy derivatives as insurance, they are okay with taking small losses on the exchange instead of large losses outside of it. Hence, options and futures traders are no more affected by this market mess than they are by any other bit of news. Whether the news is good or bad, some win and some lose, and those who lose more than they win quit. It’s likely that Santelli and his friends on the floor aren’t suffering the losses that other investors are. I know some people who work at a futures trading firm here in Chicago, and they are so relaxed right now it’s almost scary.

But here’s what Stewart missed: CNBC is entertainment. Jim Cramer is a comedian. Rick Santelli is an actor. All financial news happens too fast for professional investors to rely on the media. If you read about it in the Wall Street Journal, it’s too late to make a trade; investors pay good money for Bloomberg boxes so that they can see the news as it happens. Small trading rooms will sometimes keep CNBC on in the background, more for the activity than for the insight, the same way that I like to go to sleep with the TV on when I’m alone.

But, but, but, you might be saying, some of the stock ideas from CNBC make big money! Of course they do. In theory, the investment markets are efficient. In theory, securities prices reflect the amount of risk that they have, so in theory, you could pick stocks by throwing darts at pages of the Wall Street Journal. (If you read the Journal online, you might want to use spitballs instead.) So, of course some stock pickers and some investment styles are going to be right on occasion. (more…)