The Cryptocurrency Bust

Cryptocurrencies are down about 75% from the beginning of the year.  See https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/20/after-the-bitcoin-boom-hard-lessons-for-cryptocurrency-investors.html.  Many investors have taken losses in the range of 70% to 90%.  Those who borrowed to buy cryptocurrencies learned the hard way that investments may or may not work out, but debts have to be repaid either way.  There may be some winners, but clearly there are plenty of losers.

The problem with cryptocurrencies is that they basically have no intrinsic value.  They're only worth what someone else will pay for them.  If buyer interest falls, people holding cryptocurrencies end up holding the bag.  If you want to buy cryptocurrencies, that's your choice.  But understand it's a speculative choice and lots of speculations end badly. 

The reason why stocks, bonds, real estate and a few other things have stood the test of time as good investments is they generally have underlying value.  If you want to build wealth, invest in value.  If you want to speculate, hope to win but don't be surprised if you lose.  If you want a decent retirement, avoid wishful thinking and focus on the higher percentage plays.  See  http://blogger.uncleleosden.com/2009/11/techniques-for-retirement-saving.html.

Is the Fed Undermining Portfolio Diversification?

A basic investment strategy for investors is to diversify.  Typically, investors put some of their money into stocks, and most of the rest into bonds.  Small portions may go into gold or other commodities, or be held as cash.  Stocks and bonds historically have tended to offset each other.  When stocks rose, bonds would fall, and vice versa.  A diversified portfolio would be hedged, ameliorating the ups and downs of the market and making investing less stressful. 

Today, though, central bank accommodation--in the form of ultra low interest rates, negative interest rates and quantitative easing--has distorted this historical relationship.  As the Fed and other central banks print more and more money, both stocks and bonds rise in value.  They no longer offset, and diversified portfolios are becoming unhedged.  If and when the era of easy money ends, both stocks and bonds could fall, and perhaps precipitously.   

By unhedging diversified portfolios, the central banks are heightening investor risks.  Many wealthy and institutional investors, apparently sensing the danger, have been increasing their levels of cash.  But ordinary mom and pop 401(k) investors may not be able to shift gears so easily.  They may face increasing exposure, and perhaps not know it.  If they sustain losses when they expected to be hedged, they could lose confidence in the markets.  The result could be rapid and ugly.  That's what happened on Black Monday, October 19, 1987, when the stock market crashed and fell 22.61% in a single day because many institutional investors thought they'd be hedged by a financial product called portfolio insurance and found out unexpectedly that portfolio insurance didn't work. 

The central banks could reduce accommodative policies in order to raise rates and normalize the financial markets.  But that process could cause investor losses and trigger selling that leads to a market meltdown.  If, on the other hand, central banks keep printing money, they may worsen the problem.  You could shift more assets to cash (or at least refrain from committing fresh cash to the markets).  Otherwise, understand that diversification, like everything else in the financial markets, is starting to look a little hinky.

Managing Personal Risk

Modern businesses put a lot of effort into managing risk.  They take risks, because that's how they might make big money.  But they also work to mitigate the downsides of their risks, because employee stock options don't pay off real well if the CEO, or someone or something else, blows up the business.

Individuals need to manage risk as well.  Bankruptcies most often result from unexpected problems, like a medical crisis or job loss.  If you don't deal with the ways that life can fall apart, the chances of your life fallling apart increase. The need to manage personal risk may be one of the most under-appreciated aspects of financial planning. While there's no perfect or complete way to analyze personal risk, here are some things to think about.

Age.  As you grow older, reduce risk.  If anything goes wrong, you will have less time to recover, and less ability to recover as your value in the labor force declines (and it eventually will).  There are variety of ways to reduce risk discussed below.  The important point is that as time passes and you accumulate more gray hair, reduce personal risk.

Occupation.  Your occupation can be a major risk factor.  Some types of work can't be performed by older people.  This would include construction, law enforcement, military service, fire fighting and other jobs that demand physical strength and endurance.  It could also include jobs that don't demand physical strength, but do require certain abilities that deteriorate with age, such as flying, working as an air traffic controller, or performing surgery.   If your job has a relatively limited time span, start building wealth at an early age and persist.  You may be able to have a second career when the first one ends.  But then again, maybe not.  Don't count on what's highly uncertain.  Assume your first occupation is all that you'll ever have and base your financial planning on it.

Employment stability.  If your job security is unstable, build up a large pool of savings to tide you over the rough spots.  A year's worth of living expenses, or more, in an emergency fund would be a good idea.  If you work in a boom-bust industry, like construction or oil and gas drilling, or an unpredictable job, like entertainment, your savings account is your best friend.  If you have to take on debts, or lose a car and/or house, because you didn't prepare for a layoff, your long term financial future may be cloudy.

Health.  Factor into your financial planning your health problems, especially any chronic ones you have.  There is no way to avoid having health problems, especially as you get older.  That's why having health insurance is so important--you will definitely use it.  Also have some savings available for health care expenses not covered by insurance--these expenses are one of the leading reasons for personal bankruptcy filings.  If your health is good, save plenty because you may need to finance a long life span. 

Debts.  Debts are one of the most dangerous risks.  Jobs may not be secure, but debts, once incurred, are a certainty.  If you're poor, but debt free, you won't end up in bankruptcy.  Poverty doesn't lead to bankruptcy; unmanageable debts do.  But debts are also one of the most controllable risks.  Avoid taking on debt unless it's really necessary.  Pay off debts as quickly as possible, especially as you get older.  A mortgage-free house is better than a sleeping pill.  There are some financial planners who will tell you to have a mortgage and invest your cash in stocks.  Well, if stocks maintained a nice, steady upward trend all the time, this might well be a smart move.  But if stocks are sometimes volatile--well, some people do manage to eat dog food.  Avoid debt and you avoid risk.

Moral and voluntary obligations.  Lots of people help their kids pay for college--and then help some more when the kids rebound home after graduating.  Many help their aged parents.  Quite a few help siblings, nieces, nephews, friends and so on when the going gets tough.  If you are likely to accept these obligations, manage your finances to be able to meet them.  Being nice can be a major financial risk factor. 

Riskiness of your assets.  This isn't quite the same as asset allocation.  This is preparing for things to go wrong with your choice of assets.  Don't think your allocation is necessarily right.  Almost no one predicted the financial crisis of 2008 and hundreds of millions of savers worldwide got a big tummy ache as a result.  If you really think that you and your financial planner have it all figured out, contact me about buying a very nice bridge in Brooklyn, and at a bargain price, too.

But back to the first point.  Stress test your investments (see http://blogger.uncleleosden.com/2010/11/stress-test-your-retirement.html).  If you are uncomfortable with the potential losses you could incur, change your allocation.  Of course, no matter what you do, you'll end up with some kind of allocation.  The important thing is to end up with something that you can live with on good days and bad.  

Insurance.  Only Congress is less popular than insurance companies.  But having some insurance coverage is important to mitigating risks.  We've already covered health insurance.  Have homeowners or renter's coverage.  Maintain plenty of liability coverage on your auto policy, and buy an umbrella policy if you have a significant net worth.  Get disability coverage (first check to see what your employer offers, and supplement it if appropriate).  If you have dependents, like minor children, buy life insurance.  Think about long term care coverage if you have significant assets.  Granted, writing a check to an insurance company feels like eating sawdust.  But if life takes a u-turn, it's comforting to be able to forward the bill to an insurance company.

Boost your benefits.  Work as long as possible to build up your Social Security credits and any pension benefits for which you are eligible.  Okay, Congress, the White House, City Hall, the boss, or somebody is always threatening to trim or take away these benefits.  But they will very likely survive in one form or another, and you benefit from maximizing them because they may offer the best shelter available when cold economic winds blow.

J.P. Morgan's Big Problem

The baseline problem underlying J.P. Morgan's recently announced $2 billion loss on a credit default swap bet gone bad is that big banks face virtually all economic risks. Banking, as conducted by major money center banks, cuts across essentially all economic sectors, all lines of commerce, all financial instruments, and all asset classes. There are some exceptions. For example, big banks rarely dabble in penny stocks or business startups. And they tend to limit their exposure to junk bonds. But they directly or indirectly play in almost all sandboxes in the economy.

The essential conceit of contemporary financial engineering is that risk somehow can be controlled. It is believed that if you find a clever enough math whiz with an MBA from a sufficiently fancy school, s/he can fashion a derivative for any purpose that will magically (albeit for a fee) transport risk to a distant land from which it will never return. With such magical powers, one need not be prudent and limit exposure to risky assets. One need only have a smart enough financial engineer to fashion a seemingly appropriate hedge.

Derivatives can work, and work well, when the risk they're meant to mitigate is narrow and well-defined. For example, futures contracts for red winter wheat serve salutary purposes when appropriately used by farmers, grain companies and speculators.

But when derivatives are deployed to mitigate wide-ranging and vaguely defined risks, their limitations come into play. Press reports indicate that J.P. Morgan's management directed its chief investment office to mitigate the risks of economic deterioration in Europe. This, to say the least, is a rather large, complex and wide ranging problem. Things in Europe can go downhill for a variety of reasons, not all of which are easily defined or predicted. The murkier a situation, the more difficult it becomes to fashion appropriate hedges. And if the hedges aren't entirely appropriate, their imperfections may have be hedged in turn. Reports in the financial press indicate the mandate from J.P. Morgan's management seems to have morphed into a net position that bet on improved financial health for a number of major corporations. Such a bet wouldn't seem the intuitively obvious way to hedge against a downturn in Europe.

As with all financial firms, J.P. Morgan's most important asset is its reputation. Since the 2007-08 financial crisis, its reputation has been golden. J.P. Morgan avoided unduly large real estate risks. It bought Bear Stearns at the government's behest, quelling incipient panic in the financial system. Its earnings were relatively stable, compared to its competitors. While the latter downsized to ditch hinky assets and offload risk, J.P. Morgan became the largest bank in America.

But such golden reputations become a burden, because the market expected J.P. Morgan to remain golden. Given that big money center banks face virtually all economic risks, this becomes a harder and harder job as time passes. Skilled risk managers and corporate executives might be able to anticipate most risks most of the time. But no one can predict all risks all the time, and a financial institution facing the length and breadth of economic risks borne by major money center banks will stumble sooner or later. Indeed, the longer a bank's winning streak, the greater the chance the next quarter will be a bad one.

Management sitting on a winning streak will understandably want to keep the streak going. But they must consider whether or not they can. Not all risks can be hedged or managed. Much of the "hedging" that goes on in the financial markets consists of using apples to hedge oranges. The two sides of the hedge are not mirror images of each other, but approximations. If the approximations are pretty close, a well-capitalized firm can get by. But that "if" gets bigger and bigger as derivatives positions get larger and as some derivatives are used to hedge risk factors in other hedges (which may have been the case at J.P. Morgan). When risk managers and management fail to recognize that the magic doesn't work in all situations, they get a morass.

Recognizing one's limits is an ancient and highly effective means of risk management. Not taking a risk, or offloading it, eliminates the possibility that it will later bite your butt. Being the biggest bank doesn't necessarily mean that you're the best bank. Appreciate that derivatives are imperfect financial instruments, and because of their newness, their imperfections are imperfectly understood. Given the inability to comprehend all risks or hedge them, having a shipload of capital may be best way for a bank to safeguard its future.

Banks typically trade at comparatively low multiples of earnings per share. That's because of the plethora of risks financial firms typically face. The siren call of the derivatives market is that, for a fee, a bank can hedge its way out of problems instead of having to manage them. These sirens have claimed a number of victims since the 2007-08 financial crisis, and now they appear to have lured J.P. Morgan onto a rocky coast.

Looking for Bernie Madoff

If you could get the candid assessment of the financial markets from a lot of investors today, it would probably be something like returns are low and risks are high. That explains why so much money, especially that held by individual investors, remains in bank accounts, money market funds, ultra short bond funds and other relatively low risk places. The financial markets have given us so many unpleasant surprises in the last 3 years, people are afraid the future holds more.

At the same time, with incomes stagnant and inflation increasing (regardless of government statistics and what high ranking government officials claim), many are under pressure to seek higher returns from their savings. There's nothing wrong with looking for a better return. Just remember that, even though we now live in the era of the endless bailout, there still isn't a free lunch. Unless you're a major bank, a sovereign nation, or a very large business corporation. Stocks and lower rated bonds might offer greater potential for profit, but they also offer greater potential for loss. Risk and reward walk hand-in-hand down Wall Street.

Some investment products include guarantees against loss. These often are touted by insurance companies and should be scrutinized closely. The promise against loss is going to cost you. It could be in the form of tight limits on upside returns (i.e., if the product generates a return, the insurance company is going to keep a good portion of it), stiff penalties for early termination or withdrawal, and in other forms. Remember that if the markets perform poorly and your return is zero, even though your losses are also zero, you would have been better off in passbook savings. (That's not a theoretical point; anyone who put money in passbook savings ten years ago instead of stocks is ahead of the market.) While no one knows what the future will bring, investing in a no-lose product doesn't mean you'll win.

Even though many insurance companies might want to sell you a lousy deal, in general they aren't fraudsters. The worst thing you could encounter in your quest for higher returns is the markets magician who claims to consistently produce good, albeit not spectacular yields, day in and day out, year after year. No one can do that, period. If you meet anyone who says he or she can, put your hand on your wallet and run away. Fast. No matter how tempted you are, and no matter how good the sales pitch sounds, don't invest.

The biggest frauds are perpetrated, not because the bad guy lies, but because investors lie to themselves. They convince themselves that lead can indeed be turned into gold. They brush aside contrary evidence and the rationality of naysayers. They want to hear, however improbably, that good returns can be secured with no risk. They seek out the con artists who promise the sun, the stars and the moon.

Bernie Madoff didn't have to find many of his victims. They found him, and they were ready to believe every word of his web of lies. He'll be in prison for the rest of his life. But there are plenty of latter day Bernie's around. Often, the gullible and greedy will find them. As a matter of law, the con artist is liable and should be punished sternly. As a matter of reality, if you go looking for a latter day Bernie Madoff, you'll probably find him. And you'll regret it.

Why the Average Investor Does Well

An investor who tries to be average will probably do well. How can average be well? Because success in investing requires balancing risk and reward. Risk and reward walk hand-in-hand down Wall Street. The higher the potential payoff from an investment, the greater the risk of loss. The lower the payoff, the safer the investment is likely to be. The payoff from stocks can be good; sometimes, very good. But you can also lose your shirt. The payoff from a bank account is much lower. But they are federally insured up to $100,000, so your risk of loss is essentially zero (unless you have over 100K in the bank).

Many, and perhaps most, people underestimate financial risk. The proof of this is in the tendency of markets to become over-valued and then deflate painfully. The stock market did this in the late 1990s and 2000. The real estate market did it in the early 2000s and is still deflating today. Going back in time, stocks did it in the 1970s and the 1920s. Real estate boomed and busted in the early 1980s and then again in the late 1980s and early 1990s. These cycles occur because people tend to underestimate the potential for markets to fall and buy too much.

On the level of the individual investor, the problem shows up as the tendency to “chase returns.” As we discussed in our May 20, 2007 blog “Why the Tortoise Ends Up Wealthier Than the Hare” (http://blogger.uncleleosden.com/2007/05/why-tortoise-ends-up-wealthier-than.html), investors often invest when an asset is increasing in value and sell after it has dropped. They end up buying high and selling low. That’s not much of a way to make money. Buying and holding is a better long term strategy.

If you control your risks, you’ll get lower returns. But that also means smaller swings in the ups and downs of your portfolio, so you'll be less tempted to buy too much when prices are rising or sell too soon when they're falling. In other words, if you try to get returns that approximate market averages, you’ll be taking reasonable risks while enjoying the potential for the long term returns that the stock market offers. Your portfolio will swing up and down more gently, and that will lessen the temptation to buy into an asset bubble.

An easy way to invest in a well-diversified portfolio with reasonable risk is to use lifecycle or target date funds. These mutual funds are designed for long term retirement planning, and the fund personnel allocate your money into a diversified portfolio for you. You don't have to do the investment strategizing yourself. For more information about these funds, read our May 16, 2007 blog, “Investing Made Simple” (http://blogger.uncleleosden.com/2007/05/investing-made-simple.html).

So, just this once, you can ignore your parents and try to be average. You might be rewarded for it.

Monster News from Loch Ness: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/05/31/britain.lochness.ap/index.html