Big Ideas: Evolving Trends and Skills on the Minds of Investment Professionals

What is happening to the investment industry? Where are we heading? How can I keep up? And, more often, how can I stay ahead of the curve? I attended more than 100 events for CFA Society Chicago in the last year, and nearly every time I find that small talk between CFA charterholders quickly turns to big ideas such as these.

We’re an analytical group, so it comes as no surprise to me that most of our members already understand that the investment industry is rife with change. Many already feel it in their daily work. And as I move between conversations and events, I know that no professional is more prepared for the future than a charterholder.

Take technology, for example. Blockchain, robo-advisors, high-speed trading, you name it; it’s impossible to deny their growing presence in our industry. These forces, along with the emergence of passive investments and ETFs, have put downward pressure on fees. This is great for investors as they will be able to gain more from their investments. However, these forces also put downward pressure on investment companies’ revenues. This leads to an arms race to collect assets, increase use of collective investments (as individual stock analysis is expensive), and ramp up technological investments.

Technical competence is essential to help investors navigate this rapidly changing environment. Starting in 2019, the CFA program curriculum will contain questions on data mining in order to keep this technical edge sharp. For future years, CFA Institute is even considering artificial intelligence questions. At CFA Society Chicago, we have and continue to explore these topics for professional development sessions that keep our members up to speed.

However, technical competence is not enough. As the needs of investors and the nature of investment practice change, ‘soft skills’ are becoming just as essential. Skillful client communication and presentation, brand building, networking, leadership, and improvisation are often needed to provide maximum value to clients. CFA Society Chicago members have already begun taking advantage of the new soft skill workshop developed by our Professional Development Advisory Group.

Ethics, though, will be the skill that will keep us on the right track. Confidence in our profession can only be built through a commitment to a high standard of ethics and embracing rules that protect the rights of investors. Charterholders already lead this charge. Charterholders are already rigorously trained in ethics and embrace the Statement of Investor Rights as drafted by CFA Institute. Furthermore, CFA Institute is a staunch advocate of a universal fiduciary standard.

Whether technical, “soft,” or ethical, every challenge our members see presents an opportunity to demonstrate their skills to meet them – some new, and some old. It’s just another chance for charterholders to prove their value.

Annual Business Meeting and Networking Reception

Members gathered for the annual business meeting of the CFA Society Chicago on June 15th at the Wyndham Grand Riverfront Chicago. Held in the hotel’s 39th floor penthouse lounge, the event offered grand views of the intersection of the Chicago River and Michigan Avenue as well as the buildings—both old and new—in the area.

Shannon Curley, CFA, CEO of the Society, kicked off the business part of the event by recognizing the society’s staff and board, as well as Advisory Group co-chairs for their contributions during the past year.  He noted that their efforts make our chapter the vibrant society that it is. He turned the mic over to Doug Jackman, CFA, out-going chairman, who summarized the highlights of the past year. Membership has increased to over 4,600 making the Chicago society the sixth largest in the world, and–as the oldest in the world–we rank as a leader within CFA Institute.

156CFA Society Chicago sponsored 150 events in the fiscal year with one of the most successful ones being the just completed Active vs. Passive Debate featuring Nobel Laureate, Eugene Fama. Jackman emphasized that the focus of programming has been (and will continue to be) education and advocacy of financial literacy. A few of the prominent names who presented at chapter events in the past year include Charles Evans (President, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago), David Kelly, CFA (JP Morgan), T. Bondurant French, CFA (Adams Street Partners), Liz Ann Sonders (Charles Schwab), and Dan Clifton (Strategas). The new Vault Series brought in industry experts to address special topics. The first speakers included Melissa Brown (Axioma), David Ranson (HCWE & Co.), and Doug Ramsey (Leuthold). Jackman also recognized the work of the Professional Development Advisory Group in producing numerous events to help our membership enhance “soft-skills”.

123Secretary/Treasurer Tom Digenan, CFA (now vice chair of the Society) presented the financial update highlighted by a $100,000 operating surplus (thanks to strong attendance at the Distinguished Speaker Series lunches and the Annual Dinner) and a $200,000 capital gain in reserves leaving them at 16 months of coverage (vs. a target of 13 months).

Jackman next presented the slate of officers for fiscal 2018 including Marie Winters, CFA, as chairman, Tom Digenan, CFA, as vice chair, and Tanya Williams, CFA, as secretary/treasurer. In addition three new Class C Directors were nominated for three year terms and four new Class E Directors were nominated for one year terms. All candidates were approved by a “show-of-hands” vote.

153

Jackman then recognized out-going board members Kerry Jordan, CFA, Chris Mier, CFA, Maura Murrihy, CFA, Mark Schmid, and Lyndon Taylor as well as nine departing co-chairs of advisory groups. Curley similarly recognized Doug Jackman, CFA, for his service as board chairman including reinvigorating the relationship between our society and the University of Chicago and for obtaining funding from the CFA Institute that allowed us to bring in notable speakers like Eugene Fama and Tom Ricketts, CFA.

Finally, incoming chairman Marie Winters, CFA, looked to the future, describing her hopes to build on our past successes in the areas of employer engagement, volunteerism, and the challenges presented by technology and new regulations. Winters also pointed to improving gender diversity as a focus of attention, noting that it is surprisingly poor (just 13% of our members are women) for an industry built on a foundation of diversification.

With the business part of the meeting completed, attendees moved to the outdoor patio to enjoy the views and libations.

142

Distinguished Speaker Series: Gary P. Brinson, CFA, The Brinson Foundation

20170524_120455

On May 24th, a packed hall gathered for lunch at The Standard Club in Downtown Chicago to listen to renowned value investor Gary P. Brinson, CFA, while he shared his latest thoughts on the markets. Brinson founded Brinson Partners, a Chicago-based asset management firm that was acquired in 1994 by Swiss Bank, the predecessor of UBS, for $750 million. After the sale to Swiss bank, Brinson ran the asset management division of Swiss Bank to what later became known UBS Global Asset Management. Many consider Brinson to be one of the investment industries greatest thought leaders, although likely by design, he left the audience lots to ponder in his Investment Market Conundrums presentation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Using mean reversion with a 90-year historical lens. Brinson started off his presentation with a simple question: “What perplexes you?” and undoubtedly we moved on to what perplexes the investing legend himself. Despite volatility being at stubbornly low levels, the securities market today presents some very unique challenges and opportunities with macroeconomic datapoints that currently have meaningful deltas to their long-run mean. To start, real interest rates on long duration assets have turned negative in some countries across the world. Notably Germany (-0.9%), the United Kingdom (-2.0%), and Sweden (-1.2%) all have 10-year real interest rates that are in negatively territory and Switzerland, even further down the curve, with a negative -0.2% nominal 10-year interest rate. Theoretically it is an investment conundrum to hold capital to invest and to consider where you loan money to a government that inherently isn’t a risk free investment for a return that would leave you with less capital than when you started—and that is without a default!  Theoretically, it is very hard to compute the existence of long term negative nominal rates.

20170524_123647Europe has all sorts of problems; what about the U.S.? The U.S. has a 30 year nominal rate of 2.9% and after backing out a 2.0% inflation target a 0.9% real rate of return. Historically, from 1926-2016, the real return on a 30-year bond in the U.S. was 2.6% vs. 0.9% where it stands today. Mean reversion would call for this 0.9% real rate of return to increase 70bps closer to 1.6%. Turning to inflation, historically, inflation as averaged 2.9% from 1926-2016 and today stands at 2.0% as the difference between TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities) and the nominal yield. Semi-mean reversion says the likely inflation rate should be somewhere around 2.4%.  Inflation is largely governed by the velocity of money which beginning since the start of the financial crisis has plunged. This may or may not be permanent. If permanent, that estimate of inflation at 2.4% is woefully too low.  No economist seems to know why the velocity of money has slowed so meaningfully. Combining the mean reversion estimations, we should be observing a 30 year treasury rate closer to 4.0% real rate of return (1.6% nominal return + 2.4% inflation).  If the 30 year today (at 2.69% at the time of this publication) were to re-price to 4.0%, the value of that bond trading at a par value of $100 would fall to $81 market value.

Market expectations assuming mean reversion.  Now taking these mean reversion theme and looking at the equity market—one can estimate a nominal return for the S&P 500 at 10.0% with 5.8% in capital appreciation including inflation and 4.0% in income including dividends and share buybacks from operating cash flow (Note: ((1 + 5.8%) * (1 + 4.0%) – 1) = 10.0%). One can expect bonds to offer a 5.5% return, and net of a 2.7% inflation assumption a 2.6% real return compared to a 6.9% real return for US stocks. Comparing where we are today to 1926, P/E ratios are much higher, and dividend yields are much lower. There are a number of factors for this, but if one were to only consider mean reversion, one would expect a 2.2% real growth in earnings, leading to a lower market P/E ratio and a higher market dividend yield. If we consider the path were are on as a new investment equilibrium level and ignore the trends of the early 1900s, one could consider stocks to be fairly valued in this environment. Elevated P/E ratios shouldn’t be of concern and real growth rates of 4.8% (6.8% nominal) with real interest rate debt at 0.9%. However, if we believe real interest rates will increase to the long-term average of 1.6% and inflation to 2.6%, we should model returns on stocks to equal 8.0% (3.2% income and 4.6% capital appreciation) and the return on long term government bonds to be 4.0%. What is rather frightening is the market reaction we would see for the 30-year to trade at 4.0%– long term bonds would fall 19% in principal value and stocks would fall 25% in creating these forward desired return objectives.

20170524_130958Volatility expectations assuming mean reversion.  Standard deviation of large cap stocks was 19.9% from 1926 to 2016.  Over the past year, the markets have average 13.3%. Again if we assume semi-mean reversion, volatility should increase to 16.8%. The risk premiums have also been subdued across all asset classes and in a similar manner these should also increase. The conundrum is what we are now finding is both volatility and correlations are remarkably unstable. These lead financial analysts and portfolio managers with a very tough question – what should we use as the input for volatility? The correlations of returns between the S&P and the 10-year has declined meaningfully and recently went negative.

Share buybacks – A return “on” or “of” investment? Share buybacks should be viewed just as a dividend – a return on investment for shareholders. Today the companies that make up the S&P 500 offer a 2.1% dividend yield, and if we add share buybacks as an additional return on capital this figure increases 40bps to 2.5%. However, how much of these share buy-backs are being financed with debt? Brinson pointed out that using debt to subsidize share buy-backs is a return “of investment, not a return “on investment.

Active vs. Passive Management. To conclude, Brinson switched gears and discussed the hotly debated topic of active versus passive management that left many wondering if he and his firm was either an “expert” or “lucky” coin flipper. He gave the example of 10,000 people in a room where each person was tasked to call their coin flip correctly ten times in a row. Out of the 10,000 people in the room, only nine would be able to accomplish the feat of calling heads or tails correctly ten times in a row. Now these nine coin flippers were clearly one of the 10,000 that got lucky – randomness makes one think you’re looking at something meaningful when you’re really only lucky. Randomness is pervasive in the securities marketplace, and if you make the wrong assumptions thinking data has statistical significance is can lead investors to make very poor decisions.

Tying it all together – A Book Recommendation. Brinson concluded with a book recommendation – The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives by Leonard Mlodinow written in 2008. The book dissects statistical concepts such as regression toward the mean and the law of large numbers, while using examples from wine ratings and school grades to political polls.

Distinguished Speaker Series: Joseph Scoby, Magnetar

20170608_122126

CFA Society of Chicago hosted Joseph Scoby on Thursday, June 8th at the University Club to discuss how markets may be in the early days of a third disruption. Scoby is the Head of Magnetar’s Quantitative Investments Group which includes Alternative Risk Premia and Tactical Trading and brings 30 years of market experience in investments and risk management.

The three stages of disruption can be thought of as 1) active vs. passive in long-only portfolios 2) the advent of smart beta and 3) improving transparency for asset allocation. Scoby then gave three larger themed disruptions in society today, the Human Genome, Horizontal Fracking, and Big Data then expanded to a number of companies which have also disrupted their respective industries, Uber, Amazon, and Netflix. Similar to these aforementioned examples, technology in the market place has allowed managers to see what is going into returns and may be causing a secular change in how we invest.

DSC_3784Scoby gave us three levers of a portfolio 1) asset allocation 2) the manager and 3) cost. When viewing what our portfolio actually mimics, the speaker argued that we could be paying too much for each respective exposure which could lead to increased transparency over time. For example, the systematic return stream of hedge fund managers produced a 0.45 beta, which in the old days or ‘hood closed’ cost investors 2 and 20. Today, the ‘open era’ (transparent era), investor may begin to pay for each part; Alpha, Alternative Risk Premium, Smart Beta, and Beta with varying fees. One may pay 100 basis points for Alpha, but only 0-15 basis points for beta as the Vanguards of the world can replicate comparable results for rock-bottom costs.

The speaker went on to say how alpha is harder to find today given crowding of knowledge and process, as well as capacity issues, which makes cost and execution that much more important (differentiation is harder to find). Going forward, more transparent portfolios may also begin to use alternative risk exposure (return stream derived from exposure to a specific alternative asset class) as a way to differentiate one’s portfolio, and as a result, may earn their higher fees. An example given of alterative risk premium was merger arbitrage; 7% of deals break but most are priced as if 13% break – enabling 5.02% annualized returns with 6.88% volatility for his defined period.

Purchasing alternative risk premium isn’t straight forward, Scoby said, a few firms like Magnetar, AQR, and DFA offer it as well as a few ETF’s.

Oak Brook Progressive Networking Dinner

abendbrot-939435_1920

On May 23rd, CFA Society Chicago held a progressive networking dinner at Maggiano’s Little Italy in Oak Brook.

A progressive networking dinner allows participants to meet people in a casual environment over good food and drinks. Dinner is split into three rounds; salad/appetizer, main course, and desert. Each participant is assigned a specific table for each round / course. Then over that course, each person has the opportunity to provide an introduction and background to their table mates. After each course the participants reassemble at different tables and sit with a new group. The setup allowed me to meet 15 people during the event.

Conversation at the various tables went quickly from introductions to a wide variety of topics. I shared my first course with a quant from a prop trading firm, a member of an independent financial advisory firm, and a credit underwriter. Conversation ranged from the potential effects of the Department of Labor’s Fiduciary Rule, while another table mate explained how and where to attract funds for a hedge fund that he was starting.

My second and third courses allowed me to meet a new set of individuals including an ETF portfolio manager, wealth manager, institutional asset allocation manager, and financial consultant. These conversations also went in a variety of directions; the nature and constraints that must be followed to build and run a completion fund, the rationale behind currency hedging global trading in the current market, and the Bears trade for the second pick in the recent draft. Consensus on the trade was that it was rich.

My straw poll as to the effectiveness of the event was overwhelmingly positive. The participants I spoke with appreciated the setting, which allowed for more in depth conversation, as well as discussions that involved all of their tablemates.

This event was one of several CFA Society Chicago events that are held in the suburbs each year. The central Oak Brook location allowed 25 people to attend from a variety of suburban locations.

May 2017 Investment Exchange Forum: Investing in Asia

The Investment Exchange Forum was held on May 10th at the CFA Society Chicago office at 33 N LaSalle St. The group had lively discussions on the topic at hand surrounding Investments in Asia and broader stock pitches we were considering making investments in or currently held positions in.

David W. of Morningstar started us off with pitching Albemarle Corporation (NYSE: ALB)–a global developer, manufacturer, and marketer of highly-engineered specialty chemicals including lithium, a key component of David’s thesis. Lithium is used in the batteries of electric cars and David believes the market is underestimating the long term potential for electric vehicle adoption. While the market may view the developers of the electric car market such as Tesla at full value (or some would argue over-valued), the way to play the trend is by betting on the suppliers and miners of the components that make up the electric car battery. As adoption grows and as fuel standards continue to increase, all auto manufacturers will have to adjust and likely move into the either fully electric or hybrid vehicles. These secular changes will ultimately drive an increased need for electricity (positive for utilities), lower demand for gas-focused energy (negative for energy) and higher demand for materials used in battery components such as lithium and cobalt (positive for chemical/mining companies). Risks include the phase out of current federal/state incentive programs, lower oil prices making gasoline cheaper, and the still relatively high costs of implementing a fully electric vehicle versus a gas combustion engine.

Matt C. of US Bank also proposed an investment in Asia and two in the US REIT market, New York REIT (NYSE:NYRT), iStar (NYSE:STAR), and Hunter Douglas (AMS:HDG). We started off looking at New York REIT as a liquidation arbitrage play with the perceived liquidation value well in excess of its share price of $9.69/sh as of 5/10/17. New York REIT is an owner operator of 19 properties, which aggregate 3.3 million rentable square feet in primarily office assets in New York City. On January 3rd, 2017, NYRT shareholders approved a plan to liquidate the company. The investment thesis is supported by a number of factors including private market transactions for New York City Class A office rents in the low 4% cap rat rate range. A 4.5% cap rate on last quarters reported NOI equates to a $12.50/sh share price for NYRT. Winthrop Realty Advisors was appointed as the liquidation manager for the assets in March 2017. An incentive plan is in place where Winthrop would participate in added upside bonuses if the liquidation amount totals over $11/sh. We believe Winthrop’s management team would be hesitant to accept the terms of the agreement if they didn’t believe they could achieve over $11/sh in liquidation value. Winthrop Realty Trust, a diversified REIT run by NYRT’s existing management team, excluding CEO Wendy Silverstein, announced its liquidation in April 2014. The initial liquidation estimate was “at least $13.80/share”; to date, $9.25 of dividends have been paid, and the 2016 10-K suggested the remaining assets are estimated to be valued at $9/share, taking the total liquidation estimate to  $18.25, or 32% in excess of the original estimate. As stated in a proxy filing dated September 26, 2016, the company received an offer from a publicly traded REIT for $11.25/share in December 2015, excluding the Viceroy hotel.  With fundamentals in New York City office stable, we fail to see why a 20% discount to this prior offer should exist in the marketplace today.

After our meeting, NYRT reported first quarter results under the liquidation basis of accounting after the close on 5/10/17. The liquidation basis of accounting requires that management estimate the net sales proceeds on an undiscounted basis as well as the undiscounted estimate of future revenues and expenses of the company the through the end of liquidation. The net assets in liquidation at quarter-end were valued at $9.25/sh—disappointing investors in after-market hours sending the shares down 9% after hours. The earnings call provided further clarity around the management team’s liquidation strategy. No assets can be sold until debt assumption has been reached on World-Wide Plaza ($875mm) which includes mezzanine lenders. The debt should be assumed in the near term and there are currently no other assets on the market other than WWP which is expected to close by the end of 3Q17. Liquidation expected to be completed by the 1Q18, however company is not under distress. The company has 2 years to liquidate the holdings (until 4Q18). NYRT is open to someone acquiring NYRT as portfolio, however will continue to proceeding with liquidation efforts.

Two other companies discussed included iStar (STAR), a US mortgage REIT that turned into a landlord after the recession of 2008. Matt likes investing in REITs, particularly smaller cap mortgage REITs because he believes there is a lot of mispricing in the market. The background is that the company hasn’t paid a dividend since 2010 and they have been soaking up their NOL’s as they sell off properties they have foreclosed on. Matt said the company believes that shares could be worth two to three times current trading levels if the assets are broken up and sold separately in the private market. Finally, Matt presented Hunter Douglas (AMS:HDG) which is an overseas company operating in two business segments—window coverings and architectural products—both which provide the company with remarkable cash flows. The company is based in the Netherlands and is 70% family owned leaving float at only 30%, a key risk for the investment. There is ample cash on balance sheet, however we discussed examples including Nokia and Emerson Radio where you can burn cash by investing in unprofitable ventures in your own business.

Nick R. of Oculus Asset Management proposed a number of investments in Asia including Cross-Harbour Holdings Ltd (HKG:0032), Methanex Corporation (NASDAQ:MEOH), and Swire Pacific Ltd (HKG:0019). Cross-Harbour Holdings is a $4.3B Honk Kong investment holding company that owns toll roads for tunnels that go into Hong Kong and owns subsidiaries that operate driver training centers. The company maintains 61% gross margins and has ample cash on the balance sheet creating a natural floor for shares. Share price performance has been astounding—since 2014 the stock has delivered an over 100% return doubling from near $5.50/sh to $12/sh where it trades today. Methanex is a China spread business that sells Methanol made out of coal in China, in which they possess a dominant monopoly. The Company operates production sites in Canada, Chile, Egypt, New Zealand. Finally, Swire Pacific Ltd, is a Hong Kong based company that is the Holdco of five diversified well-run businesses in Hong Kong. The business operates as a diversified conglomerate controlling an aviation manufacturer, a Coke bottler, tugboats and steamboats, and other subsidiaries. The company maintains 25% operating margins, however the largest risk to this investment is its lack of float with the private owners owning the majority of outstanding shares. Because of this, the company trades at a discount for both the lack of control and its conglomerate structure. Risks to these investments include currency risk, unique rules on the exchanges, poor corporate governance, and lack of float outstanding.

The Investment Exchange Forum is held every other month. Please check the CFA Society Chicago website to register for the next event.

Volunteer of the Month: June 2017

volunteer-1888823

Andrew Bushey, CFA

Andrew Bushey, CFA

The Social Events Advisory Group is tasked with organizing relaxing, entertaining, and networking-oriented events that will appeal to the Society’s diverse membership. Andrew has been actively involved on the advisory group since 2016 and is part of a core group of members thinking outside the box when planning social events.

Today Andrew is being recognized for his efforts with the Society’s kickball team. Since the inception in summer 2014, Andrew has played every year on the team and will be serving as team captain when the summer league starts later this month.

Help us in thanking Andrew for taking his advisory group duties to the next level and making the Society champions on the field!

We appreciate all you do for the Society Andrew!

FINTECH EXCHANGE 2017

Hosted by Barchart, the third annual FinTech Exchange held on April 27th at Venue SIX10 highlighted the latest in technology innovation for financial markets and trading firms. The 2017 event focused on methods in which data is delivered, stored, analyzed and visualized; as well as the new types of data in the alternative space. It featured 10-minute Lightning Round presentations, topic specific round table discussions, plus an all-day exhibit hall for networking that featured a Live DJ and Pro Ping Pong action.

Barchart’s CEO Mark Haraburda, delivered the opening remarks and highlighted the fact that Chicago was ranked among the top five FinTech hubs in the world by Deloitte. In Deloitte’s published report, Connecting Global Fintech: Interim Hub Review 2017, Chicago acts as the epicenter for all FinTech activity in the Midwest, representing well over 20,000 financial institutions.

The keynote speaker was Vaidy Krishnan from Tableau, a software company that helps people see and understand their data. He spoke about choosing an analytics platform that not only offers data visualization, but also can provide visual analytics that help you dive into the “why” of your data. Data visualization tools such as static dashboards are the start of the analytical process and not the end; while visual analytics software go a step further and provide interactive exploration of the data to its most granular detail.

The Lightning Rounds began with Maria Belianina from OneTick speaking about the power of integrating with a single point platform for tick data management and analysis. In addition to being a data warehouse, OneTick is directly integrated with R and MATLAB for quantitative analysis.

Julie Menacho from the CME Group spoke about the exchange’s market technology and data services. CME Datamine offers historical data via the cloud through a partnership with Amazon Web Services and software provider TickSmith. She then went on to discuss the CME’s initiative around Alternative Data, which she described as non-traditional data sources which can be leveraged as part of the investment process. One example was satellite imagery of where world oil tanks were being stored to give an idea of the current supply of oil. These new sources of untapped data can be a predictive indicator of market performance.

Sean Naismith from Enova Decisions talked about harnessing the power of predictive analytics. He spoke about their decision management system Colossus, which is integrated with multiple data providers to help produce optimal decisions in real-time. These predictive analytics are used to help detect fraud, minimize credit risk, and optimize operations in real-time.

Catherine Clay from the CBOE discussed how the CBOE is keeping its innovative mojo, through the two P’s, Process and Partners. She described the CBOE’s weekly development release cycle to push out code related enhancements. She also went over the CBOE’s technology partnerships that allow the exchange to expand their market data and product offerings.

In honor of National Bring your Child to Work Day, Jim Austin of Vertex Analytics decided to put his kids to work! They put on a fun re-enactment of a chaotic open outcry where all you heard was the fill order. Jim used this to highlight the amount of undocumented activity that can occur during trading. He then brought us into today’s world of big market data and electronic trading. Vertex provides a solution to capture, manage, and analyze this financial market data, currently collecting over 4.5 billion market messages per day. Firms can also use Vertex’s platform to supervise their own trading patterns and behavior, which can be used to mitigate compliance violations.

The final two presentations focused on how FinTech is disrupting retail trading. Tim McDermott of Nadex, highlighted the key issues that hold individuals back from trading. These key issues included margin requirements, fear of professional traders, time constraints, and an unclear path on how to begin. Nadex offers small binary option contracts with a floor of $0 and a ceiling of $100, limiting a trader’s overall risk. It’s also easy to open an account and begin trading if you pass all the checks, usually within 15 minutes. Michael Patak from Topstep Trader also believes there’s a lot of opportunity in retail. He believes that by combining education with games, you can attract new traders to the marketplace. TopStep Trader provides a path where you can fine tune your approach using real-time simulated accounts.

I attended one of the roundtable sessions led by Jason Henrichs and Lisa Curran, CFA, from FinTEx, a Chicago based nonprofit, and learned how they’re growing the FinTech ecosystem in the Midwest. Lisa went on to speak about how FinTEx is focused on promoting collaboration among their member firms and modeled their events to resemble those hosted by CFA Society Chicago. Jason discussed their partnership with FinTech Sandbox, a nonprofit group that provides startups free access to financial data and infrastructure. This partnership should provide a boost to Chicago’s already surging FinTech sector.

This was my first time attending the FinTech Exchange but it will not be my last. I wasn’t aware of the vast amount of innovation occurring right here on our doorsteps in Chicago, and I’m excited to see how these new sources of data impact the Financial Services sector.

Vault Series: Doug Ramsey, CFA, CMT, The Leuthold Group, LLC

Playing the Market Melt-Up

DSC_3736

The CFA Society Chicago gathered in the Vault Room at 33 North LaSalle to hear Doug Ramsey, CFA of Leuthold Weeden Capital Management discuss the likely future direction of the equity market. Ramsey is the CIO of The Leuthold Group and co-portfolio manager of the Leuthold Core Investment Fund and Leuthold Global Fund. .

Ramsey is both a CFA charterholder and a Chartered Market Technician (“CMT”). Holders of the CMT have demonstrated expertise in the theory, practice and application of technical analysis. He maintains Leuthold’s proprietary Major Trend Index, a multi-factor model that utilizes mainly technical data. The model contains a long history of market data going back to 1930. The data and subsequent market behavior discussed in the Vault Room included data up to May 12th of this year.

The Major Trend Index is comprised of 130 indicators that roll-up into 5 categories. The categories are comprised of quantitative and qualitative factors that influence the direction of markets. A plus and minus figure is computed for each category and a ratio that includes all the data is computed. The Major Trend Index yielded a ratio of 1.14 as of May 12th,  a ratio over 1.00 is considered bullish.

The age of the current bull equity market has many speculating that the bull market is nearing an end. Ramsey spoke at length as to how his model can be used to forecast a market top. The Major Trend Index concludes that the current bull market has more room to run. He believes that the equity market sell-off in early 2016 has set the stage for another leg-up in the current bull market.

The model used by Ramsey uses seven (7) stock market indices to monitor the health of the equity market.  They are as follows:

  • Dow 65 Composite
  • Dow Transports
  • Dow Utilities
  • Russell 2000
  • S&P 500 Financials
  • S&P 500 Cyclicals
  • NYSE Advance/Decline Line

Negative performance in at least 5 of these 7 categories has foretold a market top. Ramsey characterizes a market top as a “lonely” one. The bull market is propelled at its end by only one or two sectors before a bear market begins.

DSC_3744Ramsey then spoke at some length about the market sell-off that occurred at the beginning of 2016 and its effect on the current bull market. In May of 2015 six (6) of the seven (7) categories were in negative territory which is a strong indication of a market top. The equity market was essentially flat in 2015 and the beginning of 2016 a market correction occurred. A bear market did not occur as the index only fell 14%, by definition a bear market does not begin before a 20% sell-off.

The fact that a bear market did not occur after the 2015 signal does not necessarily negate the usefulness of the model. The year 2015 coincided with a trough in corporate earnings and the market reflected that. Ramsey believes that the 14% pullback that occurred in early 2016 has given new life to the current bull market which in his opinion does not look to have reached its top.

Following his presentation Ramsey spoke with a group of attendees on a number of topics including:

  • Momentum investing works, investing in sectors or companies that have already experienced price appreciation can still yield profit.
  • Tech valuations are not in bubble territory. Several slides in his presentation illustrated the strong earnings that are now being realized by tech companies.
  • You can make an argument that low volatility (higher dividend)  stocks may have reached bubble territory since investors appear to be drawn to these.

CFA Society Chicago Book Club:

How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of Intangibles in Business by Douglas W. Hubbard

how-to-measure-anythingPath dependence is the phenomenon often used to explain why people sometimes persist with practices that are no longer optimal or economically rational. Statistics is another area where path dependence has struck. The statistical techniques that students learn in school, the ones that practitioners apply in industry, and the ones researchers use in journal publications often aren’t the best or the most appropriate ones but rather the ones that continue to be used because they’ve always been used.  Douglas Hubbard’s How to Measure Anything (2010) attempts to update some of those techniques for the 21st century.  In addition, he offers some refreshing perspectives on behavioral finance and the biases that adversely affect decision makers, even the so-called professional decision makers at the executive level in industry and government. Finally, he offers a unifying framework for decomposing complex problems into individual variables, assessing the value of reducing the uncertainty for each of those variables, measuring those variables, and finally determining probabilities through Monte Carlo simulations and Bayesian statistics.

Starting with antiquated statistical techniques, every former stats 101 student probably remembers going through some type of hypothesis testing exercise such as testing if a coin is fair, a drug works, voters prefer a candidate, etc. Those tests take a null hypothesis, such as assuming that a coin is fair, flipping it multiple times, and then determining the probability of observing a series of outcomes if the coin were fair. If the probability of observing a series of outcomes on a supposedly fair coin is less than some arbitrary threshold, usually five percent, the experimenter rejects the null hypothesis and concludes that the coin is not fair.  For example, the probability of observing five heads out of five flips on a fair coin is 3.13%, which would cause an experimenter using the five percent threshold to reject the null hypothesis that the coin is fair. The five percent shibboleth comes from the statistician Sir Ronald Fisher’s 1925 paper “Statistical Methods for Research Workers.” He wrote a year later in “The Arrangement of Field Experiments” (1926) that the threshold was arbitrary and that other thresholds may be used; however, the damage had been done and the five percent threshold remains as a venerated relic.

The whole process is a convoluted way to approximate the more useful question: What’s the probability of getting a heads on a given coin? The Bayesian approach to statistics, in contrast to the frequentist approach previously described, seeks to do just that. Mr. Hubbard notes that the term “Bayesian” was first used by Fischer himself as a derogatory reference to adherents of the approach named after Rev. Thomas Bayes. Rev. Bayes is credited with developing the first formulation of how new evidence can be used to update prior beliefs.  In the case of Bayesian statistics, new evidence is used to update prior assumptions about probabilities.

Once the distribution of the relevant variables or drivers is better known, Mr. Hubbard postulates a relationship between the variables and generates a hypothetical distribution of the phenomenon that one is trying to predict using Monte Carlo simulations. First developed to solve intractable problems in nuclear physics, modern computing power has made the technique accessible to anyone with a personal computer and an Excel spreadsheet. Instead of trying to compute the probability of a phenomenon such as rolling a two with a pair of dice (“snake eyes”), Monte Carlo simulations flip the problem by simulating thousand or perhaps millions of rolls and then determining what percentage of the rolls were twos. With an Excel spreadsheet, Mr. Hubbard shows how to calculate distributions and expected values for complex phenomenon after estimating the distribution of the underlying variables and their relationships. Monte Carlo simulations are seldom taught in introductory statistics courses. The topic is usually reserved for advanced classes and special topics classes even though the basics of the technique are no more complicated than regression modeling and several other topics that are covered in introductory classes.

With new statistical tools in tow, Mr. Hubbard then sets forth on finding what to measure.  Here Mr. Hubbard again notes a pernicious tendency among decision makers to either measure what’s easy to measure or what they’re already familiar with. The solution, Mr. Hubbard argues, is to triage variable before trying to reduce uncertainty about them by introducing metrics to quantify the costs and benefits of acquiring additional information about each variable. He starts with the Expected Value of Perfect Information (EVPI): What would it be worth to know a presently unknown quantity with complete certainty? He then works backwards to determine the incremental Expected Cost of Information (ECI) and the incremental Expected Value of Information (EVI). Finally, he adds a time component, noting that for some decisions the value of information is perishable. Mr. Hubbard notes that adding the time component can prevent what pioneering decision theorist Howard Raiffa called, “Solving the right problem too late.”

In addition to the tendency to measure the wrong things and measure in the wrong amounts, Mr. Hubbard notes several other behavioral and cognitive biases, such as expectancy bias and overconfidence. Instead of just rehashing problems that already have been noted extensively in the behavioral finance literature, Mr. Hubbard goes further and offers solutions, especially to the problem of overconfidence and quantifying uncertainty. When asked to calculate a 90% confidence interval for an unknown quantity, such as the wingspan of a Boeing 747 aircraft, most people choose too narrow a range. Mr. Hubbard shows that with training the average person can estimate ranges for unknown quantities such that on average the true value falls within their estimated range 90% of the time. The training, called “calibration training,” is simple to conduct and has a tremendous success rate.  Organizations should probably spend more time training their executives to become better decision makers given how much time and money as they spend sending them to conferences, hiring executive coaches, and giving them physical and psychological assessments.

When the CFA Society Chicago’s Book Club met to discuss Mr. Hubbard’s book in April 2017, most of the participants welcomed his fresh approach to quantitative and empirical problem solving. If there were any misgivings about the book, they were that it didn’t fully live up to its title: “Finding the Value of Intangibles in Business.” The participants would have welcomed more examples of how the techniques described could be used to value business units or firms that make intensive use of intangibles such as brand identity, intellectual property, or perhaps others.

Hopefully, this won’t be the last time that Mr. Hubbard crosses paths with the Society and we’ll get to fulfill that promise.