Category Archives: Books

Nassim Taleb: Journalism May Be The Greatest Plague We Face Today

Nassim Taleb, in no uncertain words, shares his opinion on journalism in Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets:

Try the following experiment. Go to the airport and ask travelers en route to some remote destination how much they would pay for an insurance policy paying, say, a million tugrits (the currency of Mongolia) if they died during the trip (for any reason). Then ask another collection of travelers how much they would pay for insurance that pays the same in the event of death from a terrorist act (and only a terrorist act). Guess which one would command a higher price? Odds are that people would rather pay for the second policy (although the former includes death from terrorism). The psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky figured this out several decades ago. The irony is that one of the sampled populations did not include people on the street, but professional predictors attending some society of forecasters’ annual meeting. In a now famous experiment they found that the majority of people, whether predictors or nonpredictors, will judge a deadly flood (causing thousands of deaths) caused by a California earthquake to be more likely than fatal flood (causing thousands of deaths) occurring somewhere in North America (which happens to include California). As a derivatives trader I noticed that people do not like to insure against something abstract; the risk that merits their attention is always something vivid.

This brings us to a more dangerous dimension of journalism. We just saw how the scientifically hideous George Will and his colleagues can twist arguments to sound right without being right. But there is a more general impact by information providers in biasing the presentation of the world one gets from the delivered information. It is a fact that our brain tends to go for superficial clues when it comes to risk and probability, these include being largely determined by what emotions they elicit or the ease with which they come to mind. In addition to such problems with the perception of risk, it is also scientific fact, and a shocking one, that both risk detection and risk avoidance are not mediated in the “thinking” part of the brain but largely in the emotional one (the “risk as feelings” theory). The consequences are not trivial: It means that rational thinking has little, very little, to do with risk avoidance. Much of what rational thinking seems to do is rationalize one’s actions by fitting some logic to them.

In that sense the depiction coming from journalism is certainly not just an unrealistic representation of the world but rather the one that can fool you the most by grabbing your attention via your emotional apparatus – the cheapest to deliver sensation. Take the mad cow “threat” for example: Over a decade of hype, it only killed people (in the highest estimates) in the hundreds as compared to car accidents (several hundred thousands!) — except that the journalistic description of the latter would not be commercially fruitful. (Note that the risk of dying from food poisoning or in a car accident on the way to a restaurant is greater than dying from mad cow disease.) This sensationalism can divert empathy toward wrong causes: cancer and malnutrition being the ones that suffer the most from the lack of such attention. Malnutrition in Africa and Southeast Asia no longer causes the emotional impact — so it literally dropped out of the picture. In that sense the mental probabilistic map in one’s mind is so geared toward the sensational that one would realize informational gains by dispensing with the news. Another example concerns the volatility of markets. In people’s minds lower prices are far more “volatile” than sharply higher moves. In addition, volatility seems to be determined not by the actual moves but by the tone of the media. The market movements in the eighteen months after September 11, 2001, were far smaller than the ones that we faced in the eighteen months prior — but somehow in the mind of investors they were very volatile. The discussions in the media of the “terrorist threats” magnified the effect of these market moves in people’s heads. This is one of the may reasons that journalism may be the greatest plague we face today — as the world becomes more and more complicated and our minds are trained for more and more simplification.

All great investors consider themselves contrarian investors. Rather than avoiding journalism and the mainstream media (as Taleb recommends in a post I wrote earlier), I think profitable trading ideas can be sourced by systematically analyzing the news and measuring investor sentiment. When investors become too negative on a company, that often is a good entry point.

One thing I tend to look for is analyzing how a stock reacts to unambiguously good or bad news. Stocks should act as you expect — positive returns in response to positive news and negative returns in response to negative news. It’s when this relationship doesn’t hold that presents interesting opportunities. An anecdotal example: Several days ago, the latest industry reports stated that Research in Motion’s smartphone market share has declined again. Yet the stock price barely declined as a result. The interpretation is clear — this particular piece of bad news has already been priced into the stock. Buying at this entry point would have resulted in a quick 20 percent return.

Interested readers can buy Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets on Amazon.

Nassim Taleb: On The Difference Between Noise And Information

Nassim Taleb advocates minimal exposure to the media as a guiding principle (read the previous post in this series here) because humans inherently are unable to tell the difference between noise and information.

Realizing this inability can lead to more generalized conclusions. First, we examine the difference between noise and information through an example borrowed from the investment world:

Let us manufacture a happily retired dentist, living in a pleasant, sunny town. We know a priori that he is an excellent investor, and that he will be expected to earn a return of 15% in excess of Treasury bills, with a 10% error rate per annum (what we call volatility). It means that out of 100 sample paths, we expect close to 68 of them to fall within a band of plus and minus 10% around the 15% excess return, i.e. between 5 and 25% (to be technical; the bell-shaped normal distribution has 68% of all observations falling between -1 and 1 standard deviations). It also means that 95 sample paths would fall between -5% and 35%.

Clearly, we are dealing with a very optimistic situation. The dentist builds for himself a nice trading desk in his attic, aiming to spend every business day there watching the market, while sipping decaffeinated cappuccino.

The dentist is clearly a skilled investor. With a mean return of 15 percent and a volatility of 10 percent, the dentist can expect to be successful 93 percent of the time in a given year. That is, the dentist will achieve positive excess returns. When examined on extremely short time scales, however, the dentist will have only a marginal chance of achieving positive excess returns. On a given second, for example, the dentist has a 50.02 percent chance of success:

Over the very narrow time increment, the observation will reveal close to nothing. Yet the dentist’s heart will not tell him that. Being emotional, he feels a pang with every loss, as it shows in red on his screen. He feels some pleasure when the performance is positive, but not in equivalent amount as the pain experienced when the performance is negative.

At the end of every day the dentist will be emotionally drained. A minute-by-minute examination of his performance means that each day (assuming eight hours per day) he will have 241 pleasurable minutes against 239 unpleasurable ones. These amount to 60,688 and 60.271, respectively, per year. Now realize that if the unpleasurable minute is worse in reverse pleasure than the pleasurable minute is in terms, then the dentist incurs a large deficit when examining his performance at a high frequency.

Here Taleb draws upon one of the fundamental assumptions of economics and finance — humans are risk adverse in that they fear losses more than they like gains. On  a short time scale, investors observe the variance of the portfolio, not the returns. This variance contains little information of value, and in fact, observing a portfolio at any time scale always contains a combination of returns and variance. Furthermore, human emotions are unable or unwilling to understand the difference between the returns and variance of a portfolio. Undue reliance on short term fluctuations in a portfolio can be very damaging to an investors mental health:

Finally, this explains why people who look too closely at randomness burn out, their emotions drained by the series of pangs they experience. Regardless of what people claim, a negative pang is not offset by a positive one (some psychologists estimate the negative effect for an average loss to be up to 2.5 the magnitude of a positive one); it will lead to an emotional deficit.Now that you know that the high-frequency dentist has more exposure to both stress and positive pangs, and that these do not cancel out, consider that people in lab coats have examined some scary properties of this type of negative pangs on the neural system (the usual expected effect: high blood pressure; the less expected: chronic stress leads to memory loss, lessening of brain plasticity, and brain damage). To my knowledge there are no studies investigating the exact properties of trader’s burnout, but a daily exposure to such high degrees of randomness without much control will have physiological effects on humans (nobody studied the effect of such exposure on the risk of cancer). What economists did not understand for a long time about positive and negative kicks is that both their biology and their intensity are different. Consider that they are mediated in different parts of the brain — and that the degree of rationality in decisions made subsequent to a gain is extremely different from the one after a loss.

Restricting oneself to noise (either to the media or the short-term fluctuations in one’s portfolio) can lead to more rational investing decisions. “Silence is far better,” writes Taleb.

Read more reviews of Fooled By Randomness at Amazon here. If you enjoyed this post, follow Curated Alpha via EmailRSS, or Twitter.

Nassim Taleb: Minimal Exposure To The Media As A Guiding Principle

Nassim Taleb writes in Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets that minimal exposure to the media should be a guiding principle for someone involved in decision making under uncertainty — including all participants in financial markets. Taleb’s key argument is that what is reported in the media is noise rather than information, but most people do not realize that the media is paid to get your attention:

The argument in favor of “new things” and even more “new new things” goes as follows: Look at the dramatic changes that have been brought about by the arrival of new technologies, such as the automobile, the airplane, the telephone, and the personal computer. Middlebrow inference (inference stripped of probabilistic thinking) would lead one to believe that all new technologies and inventions would likewise revolutionize our lives. But the answer is not so obvious: Here we only see and count the winners, to the exclusion of the losers (it is like saying that actors and writers are rich, ignoring the fact that actors are largely waiters — and lucky to be ones, for the less comely writers usually serve French fries at McDonald’s). Losers? The Saturday newspaper lists dozens of new patents of such items that can revolutionize our lives. People tend to infer that because some inventions have revolutionized our lives that inventions are good to endorse and we should favor the new over the old. I hold the opposite view. The opportunity cost of missing a “new new thing” like the airplane and the automobile is minuscule compared to the toxicity of all the garbage one has to go through to get to these jewels (assuming these have brought some improvement to our lives, which I frequently doubt).

Now the exact same argument applies to information. The problem with information is not that it is diverting and generally useless, but that it is toxic. We will examine the dubious value of the highly frequent news with a more technical discussion of signal filtering and observation frequency farther down. I will say here that such respect for the time-honored provides arguments to rule out any commerce with the babbling modern journalist and implies a minimal exposure to the media as a guiding principle for someone involved in decision making under uncertainty. If there is anything better than noise in the mass of “urgent” news pounding us, it would be like a needle in a haystack. People do not realize that the media is paid to get your attention. For a journalist, silence rarely surpassed any word.

On the rare occasions when I boarded the 6:42 train to New York I observed with amazement the hordes of depressed business commuters (who seemed to prefer to be elsewhere) studiously buried in The Wall Street Journal, apprised of the minutiae of companies that, at the time of writing now, are probably out of business. Indeed it is difficult to ascertain whether they seem depressed because they are reading the newspaper, or if depressive people tend to read the newspaper, or if people who are living outside their genetic habitat both read the newspaper and look sleepy and depressed. But while early on in my career such focus on noise would have offended me intellectually, as I would have deemed such information as too statistically insignificant for the derivation of any meaningful conclusion, I currently look at it with delight. I am happy to see such mass-scale idiotic decision making, prone to overreaction in their post-perusal investment orders – in other words I currently see in the fact that people read such material an insurance for my continuing in the entertaining business of option trading against the fools of randomness. (It takes a huge investment in introspection to learn that the thirty or more hours spent “studying” the news last month neither had any predictive ability during your activities of that month nor did it impact your current knowledge of the world. This problem is similar to the weaknesses in our ability to correct for past errors: like a health club membership taken out to satisfy a New Year’s resolution, people often think that it will surely be the next match of news that will really make a difference to their understanding of things.)

A counterargument to Taleb’s position is that by being exposed to the media, one can sample the views of other market participants. When too many market all have the same opinion, asset prices tend to become overbought or oversold which lead to excellent investment opportunities.

While I thoroughly enjoyed reading Fooled By Randomness, one of my chief criticisms is that  Taleb is thoroughly convinced that his way of approaching financial markets is superior and remains unwilling to consider other opinions. His arrogance is apparent throughout the book as he manages to insult or offend several groups of people. Still, I found his writing to be extremely thought-provoking.

Read more reviews of Fooled By Randomness at Amazon here. If you enjoyed this post, follow Curated Alpha via Email, RSS, or Twitter.

Nassim Taleb: The Role Of Luck In Financial Markets

Nassim Taleb writes on the role of luck in financial markets in Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets:

There is one world in which I believe the habit of mistaking luck for skill is most prevalent – and most conspicuous – and that is the world of markets. By luck or misfortune, that is the world in which I have operated most of my adult life. It is what I know best. In addition, economic life presents the best (and most entertaining) laboratory for the understanding of these differences. For it is the area of human undertaking where the confusion is greatest and its effects the most pernicious. For instance, we often have the mistaken impression that a strategy is an excellent strategy, or an entrepreneur a person endowed with “vision,” or a trader a talented trader, only to realize that 99.9% of their past performance is attributable to chance, and chance alone. Ask a profitable investor to explain the reasons for his success; he will offer some deep and convincing interpretation of the results. Frequently, these delusions are intentional and deserve to bear the name “charlatanism.”

Taleb also has a natural skepticism towards individuals who are considered successful or skilled traders:

Notice how our brain sometimes gets the arrow of causality backward. Assume that good qualities cause success; based on that assumption, even though it seems intuitively correct to think so, the fact that every intelligent, hardworking, persevering person becomes successful does not imply that every successful person is necessarily an intelligent, hardworking, persevering person (it is remarkable how such a primitive logical fallacy – affirming the consequent – can be made by otherwise very intelligent people, a point I discuss in this edition as the “two systems of reasons” problem).

There is a twist in research on success that has found its way into the bookstores under the banner of advice on: “These are the millionaires’ traits that you need to have if you want to be just like those successful people.” One of the authors of the misguided The Millionaire Next Door wrote another even more foolish book called The Millionaire Mind. He observes that in the representative cohort of more than a thousand millionaires whom he studied most did not exhibit high intelligence in their childhood and infers that it is not your endowment that makes you rich – but rather hard work. From this, one can naively infer that chance plays no part in success. My intuition is that if millionaires are close in attributes to the average population, then I would make the more disturbing interpretation that it is because luck played a part. Luck is democratic and hits everyone regardless of original skills. The author notices variations from the general population in a few traits like tenacity and hard work: another confusion of the necessary and the causal. That all millionaires were persistent, hardworking people does not make persistent hard workers become millionaires: Plenty of unsuccessful entrepreneurs were persistent, hardworking people. In a textbook case of naive empiricism, the author also looked for traits these millionaires had in common and figured out that they shared a taste for risk taking. Clearly risk taking is necessary for large success – but it is also necessary for failure. Had the author done the same study on bankrupt citizens he would certainly have found a predilection for risk taking.

Buy Fooled By Randomness here.

Nassim Taleb: End Bonuses For Bankers

Bonuses are particularly dangerous because they invite bankers to game the system by hiding the risks of rare and hard-to-predict but consequential blow-ups, which I have called “black swan” events. The meltdown in the United States subprime mortgage market, which set off the global financial crisis, is only the latest example of such disasters.

Consider that we trust military and homeland security personnel with our lives, yet we don’t give them lavish bonuses. They get promotions and the honor of a job well done if they succeed, and the severe disincentive of shame if they fail. For bankers, it is the opposite: a bonus if they make short-term profits and a bailout if they go bust. The question of talent is a red herring: Having worked with both groups, I can tell you that military and security people are not only more careful about safety, but also have far greater technical skill, than bankers.

The ancients were fully aware of this upside-without-downside asymmetry, and they built simple rules in response. Nearly 4,000 years ago, Hammurabi’s code specified this: “If a builder builds a house for a man and does not make its construction firm, and the house which he has built collapses and causes the death of the owner of the house, that builder shall be put to death.”

This was simply the best risk-management rule ever. The Babylonians understood that the builder will always know more about the risks than the client, and can hide fragilities and improve his profitability by cutting corners — in, say, the foundation. The builder can also fool the inspector; the person hiding risk has a large informational advantage over the one who has to find it.

Continue reading here. I also recommend reading Nassim Taleb’s Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets which I consider one of the most thought provoking books on financial markets. Most books about trading and financial markets lack depth because they are thinly veiled attempts to sell some additional products to the reader. Or they are written in a way to maximize sales of the book. Most books are written with the assumption that the reader has little background in financial markets. Nassim Taleb’s book suffers from none of these flaws. I hope to write a series of posts on certain excerpts from the book in the near future.

Posting has been sparse recently due to increased activity at my day job. I hope to return to my regular posting schedule soon.

An Approach To Trading The Markets From Liar’s Poker

The following is an excerpt from Liar’s Poker by Michael Lewis. Liar’s Poker is a semi-autobiographic novel of Michael Lewis while working as a bond salesman at Solomon Brother’s during the 1980s.

Interestingly, Michael Lewis never intended for Liar’s Poker to contain any techniques or knowledge applicable to investing or trading, but I believe there are some great lessons contained in the book. The key takeaways are:

  1. The market tends to overreact to significant events, and it pays to be a contrarian.
  2. Analyze and act on secondary and tertiary effects to significant events quickly before the market becomes aware of them.

Alexander was unique, the closest thing I met to a master of the markets, which, I’m now convinced, no man really is. He was twenty seven, two years older than I, and had been with Salomon Brothers for two years when I arrived. He had grown up trading a portfolio of securities. He recalls making a killing in the stock market while in the seventh grade. At the age of nineteen he lost ninety-seven thousand dollars on U.S. treasury bill futures. He was not, in other words, a normal child. Once he learned to ride his gains and cut his losses, he never looked back. What he lost in t-bills, the made back several times in gold futures.

Alexander knew how to exploit the world’s financial market. What’s more, as a salesman he knew how to sound as if he knew how to exploit the world’s financial markets, and he had the same effect on other men in our little world as sirens have on sailors. Within months after he moved from London and onto the forty-first floor in new York, he had been discovered by a handful of managing directors who wanted to know what to do with their own money. You’d have thought they’d be comfortable making their own investment decisions, but they weren’t. Each day they’d ask Alexander for advice. To get it, however, they had to stand in line behind Alexander’s clients and me. Alexander was a salesman, but like all the very best salesman, he had the instincts of a trader. His customers – and his bosses – simply did whatever he told them to.

Alexander had a knack for interpreting events around him. The most impressive aspect of this was its speed. When news broke, he seemed to have already planned his response. He trusted his nose completely. If he had a flaw, it was that he lacked the ability to question his own immediate reactions. He saw the markets as a tightly woven web. Yank on one filament in the web, and the other filaments had to move, too. He therefore traded in all markets. The bonds, currencies, and stocks of France, Germany, the United States, Japan, Canada, and Britain; the markets in oil, precious metals, and bulk commodities – all interested him.

The luckiest thing that happened to me during the period I spent at Salomon Brothers was having Alexander take me into his confidence. We met when I replaced him in London. For two years prior to my arrival, he had worked for Stu Willicker and beside Dash Riprock. When we met, he was returning to New York, to be a bond salesman on the forty-first floor. There was no reason for him to watch over me. Except for the mango tea which he required me to smuggle in bulk to him from Paris, there was nothing in it for him. It was a genuinely selfless act, which I recount only because at the time it seemed so incredible. It was as if he had bought hares in my future and were determined to make the trade come right. We spoke at least three times each day and as often as twenty. The conversations during the first few months consisted of his talking and my asking questions.

My job was a matter of learning to think and sound like a money spinner. Thinking and sounding like Alexander were the next best thing to being genuinely talented, which I wasn’t. So I listened to the master and repeated what I heard, as in kung fu. It reminded me of learning a foreign language. It all seems strange at first. Then, one day, you catch yourself thinking in the language. Suddenly words you never realized you knew are at your disposal. Finally you dream in the language. It seems odd now to to think of dreaming of moneymaking schemes. But it didn’t seem terribly out of the ordinary when I woke up one morning thinking that there was an arbitrage available in Japanese bond futures. That morning I looked into the Japanese market, saw that it was indeed the case, and wondered why I had dreamed of it, since I couldn’t recall having ever spoken of the subject. Gobbledygook to you, perhaps. A second language to me.

Many of the trades that Alexander suggested followed one of two patterns. First, when all investors were doing the same thing, he would actively seek to do the opposite. The word stockbrokers use for this approach is contrarian. Everyone wants to be one, but no one is, for the sad reason that most investors are scared of looking foolish. Investors do not fear losing money as much as they fear solitude, by which I mean taking risks that others avoid. When they are caught losing money alone, they have no excuse for their mistake, and most investors, like people, need excuses. They are, strangely enough, happy to stand on the edge of a precipice as long as they are joined by a few thousand others. But when a market is widely regarded to be in a bad way, even if the problems are illusory, many investors get out.

A good example of this was the crisis at the U.S. Farm Credit Corporation. It looked for a moment as if Farm Credit might go bankrupt. Investors stampeded out of Farm Credit bonds because having been warned of the possibility of accident, they couldn’t be seen in the vicinity without endangering their reputations. In an age when failure isn’t allowed, when the U.S. government had rescued firms as remote from the national interest as Chrysler and the Continental Illinois Bank, there was no chance the government would allow the Farm Credit bank to default. The thought of not bailing out an eighty-billion-dollar institution that lent money to America’s distressed farmers was absurd. Institutional investors knew this. That is the point. They people selling Farm Credit bonds for less than they were worth weren’t necessarily stupid. They simply could not be seen holding them. Since Alexander wasn’t constrained by appearances, he sought to exploit people who were. (The occupational hazard of his role was an ugly elitism; you begin to think everyone else is stupid.)

The second pattern to Alexander’s thought was that in the event of a major dislocation, such as a stock market crash, a natural disaster, the breakdown of OPEC’s production agreements, he would look away from the initial focus of investor interest and seek secondary and tertiary effects.

Remember Chernobyl? When news broke that the Soviet nuclear reactor had exploded, Alexander called. Only minutes before, confirmation of the disaster had blipped across our Quotron machines, yet Alexander had already bought the equivalent of two supertankers of crude oil. The focus of investor attention was on the New York Stock Exchange, he said. In particular it was on any company involved in nuclear power. The stocks of those companies were plummeting. Never mind that, he said. He had just purchased, on behalf of his clients, oil futures. Instantly in his mind less supply of nuclear power equaled more demand for oil, and he was right. His investors made a large killing. Mine made a small killing. Minutes after I had persuaded a few clients to buy some oil, Alexander called back.

“Buy potatoes,” he said. “Gotta hop.” Then he hung up.

Of course. A cloud of fallout would threaten European food and water supplies, including the potato crop, placing a premium on uncontaminated American substitutes. Perhaps a few folks other than potato farmers think of the price of potatoes in America minutes after the explosion of a nuclear reactor in Russia, but I have never met them.

But Chernobyl and oil are a comparatively straightforward example. There was a game we played called What if? All sorts of complications can be introduced into What if? Imagine, for example, you are an institutional investor managing several billion dollars. What if there is a massive earthquake in Tokyo? Tokyo is reduced to rubble. Investors in Japan panic. They are selling yen and trying to get their money out of the Japanese stock market. What do you do?

Well, along the lines of pattern number one, what Alexander would do is put money into Japan on the assumption that since everyone was trying to get out, there must be some bargains. He would buy precisely those securities in Japan that appeared the least desirable to others. First, the stocks of Japanese insurance companies. The world would probably assume that ordinary insurance companies had a great deal of exposure, when in fact, the risk resides mainly with Western insurers and with a special Japanese earthquake insurance company that’s been socking away premiums for decades. The shares of ordinary insurers would be cheap.

Then Alexander would buy a couple of hundred million dollars’ worth of Japanese government bonds. With the economy in temporary disrepair, the government would lower interest rates to encourage rebuilding and simply order the banks to lend at those rates. Japanese banks would comply as usual with their government’s request. Lower interest rates would mean higher bond prices.

Also, the short-term panic could well be overshadowed by the long-term repatriation of Japanese capital. Japanese companies have massive sums invested in Europe and America. Eventually they would withdraw those investments, turn inward, lick their wounds, repair their factories, and bolster their stock. What would that mean?

Well, to Alexander, it would suggest buying yen. The Japanese would buy yen, selling their dollars, francs, marks, and pounds to do so. The yen would appreciate not just because the Japanese were buying it buy because foreign speculators would eventually see the Japanese buying it and rush to join them. If the yen collapsed immediately after the quake, it would only further encourage Alexander, who sought always to do the unexpected, that his idea was a good one. On the other hand, if the yen rose, he might sell it.

Each day Alexander called and explained something new. After several months of struggling I began to catch on. When Alexander hung up, I would call three or four investors and simply parrot what Alexander had just said. They would think me, if not a genius, then at least astute. On the basis of what I told them, they put money on the line. They made handsome profits, just like the investors to whom Alexander spoke. Soon they were calling me. Before long they wouldn’t speak to anyone else but me. That would do whatever I, meaning Alexander, told them to do. This would soon prove very valuable.

-Liar’s Poker, pp. 172 – 177.

Liar’s Poker is one of the classic Wall Street texts. Read the reviews of Liar’s Poker on Amazon.

Exceprt From You Can Be A Stock Market Genius

I have recently been reading Joel Greenblatt’s You Can Be a Stock Market Genius. This is a book that I have seen on multiple reading lists of people that I consider much more knowledgeable than I am, including several hedge fund managers. In particular, David Einhorn of Greenlight Capital and Daniel Loeb of Third Point both specifically recommend this book.

You Can Be a Stock Market Genius describes an investment strategy that is most likely unknown to individual investors: special situation and event-driven investing. The book provides an excellent overview of spinoffs, rights offerings, risk arbitrage, merger securities, bankruptcies, restructurings, recapitalizations, and stub stocks. I generally prefer reading books that are more academic and technical in nature, but I feel this book is worth reading simply because there aren’t other books on the subject. Below is a brief excerpt on Greenblatt’s view of options and special-situation investing which I find very compelling:

The option markets can present special-situation investors with an opportunity to make spectacular profits from a little-known market inefficiency. This is true even though for over two decades elaborate computer models have been continually developed and refined to calculate the correct theoretical values for every conceivable type of option (including LEAPS and warrants). Given the amount of professional and academic firepower directed toward the study of options and other derivative securities (securities created to emulate or react to the movements of other securities), you might think that common sense and a pencil would be of little use. In reality, when it come to investing in the options of companies undergoing extraordinary corporate change, special-situation investors have a huge advantage over the high-powered quants (read “computer-wielding eggheads,” or more accurately “rich computer-wielding eggheads”).

This is because, in many cases, option traders (including the quants) view stock prices as simply numbers – not as the prices of shares in actual businesses. In general, professionals and academics calculate an option’s “correct” or theoretical price by first measuring the past price volatility of the underlying stock – a measure of how much the price of the stock has fluctuated. This volatility measure is then plugged into a formula that is probably some variant of the Black-Scholes model for valuing a call option. (This is the formula used by most academics and professionals to value options.)

The formula takes into account the stock’s price, the exercise price of the option, interest rates, and the time remaining until expiration, as well as the stock’s volatility. The higher a stock’s past volatility, the higher the option price. Often, however, option traders who use these formulas do not take into account extraordinary corporate transactions. The stocks of companies undergoing an imminent spinoff, corporate restructuring, or stock merger may move significantly as a result of these special transactions – not because historically their stocks have fluctuated in a certain way. Therefore, the options of companies undergoing extraordinary change may well be mispriced. It should be no surprise, then, that this is where your opportunity lies.

Depending upon how large or how important a spinoff is relative to the parent company, the stocks of spinoffs and parent companies can move dramatically after a spinoff is completed. Since the date of distribution of spinoff shares is announced in advance, knowing this information along with some fundamental information about the underlying companies involved can give you a large edge over option traders who invest “by the numbers.” One strategy would be to buy options that expire several weeks to several months after a spinoff is consummated. In the period after the spinoff, the parent company’s stock may make a dramatic move because investors had previously been holding back on purchasing the parent’s stock until the divestiture of the unwanted business was completed. So, too, the spinoff stock’s price could be a source of surprise during this initial trading period simply because it is a new stock with no trading history and no underwriter to set an expected price range. The bottom line is that the options markets can be a profitable place to exploit your research efforts in the spinoff area. Specifically, you can apply both your knowledge of when a spinoff is scheduled to take place and your fundamental understanding of the underlying companies involved.

Greenblatt’s underlying theme is that special-situation investing is a niche investing strategy that is often overlooked by large investment managers and individual investors. In the case of option securities, most of the time market participants do a pretty good job of accurately pricing options using various quantitative models. Special situations, however, are so rare, that the models that quants use to price option securities cease to function as accurately as before. In these circumstances, quants may make adjustments to their models to reflect anticipated changes due to the spinoff (or other event), but they are operating outside of their realm of core competency. Investors who are well versed in the specifics of event-driven investing can profit under these circumstances. Moreover, Greenblatt shows through various case studies that the lack of attention to this area increases the likelihood that profitable investing opportunities can be found.

More reviews can be found here.

Ray Dalio’s Principles: To Succeed, Suspend Your Ego And Focus On Your Weaknesses

Ray Dalio oversees Bridgewater Associates, one of the largest hedge funds in the world. Dalio writes about his most fundamental life and management principles in his text titled Principles which is required reading for all employees at Bridgewater. A major part of Bridgewater’s corporate culture is a relentless focus on the open discussion of mistakes and weaknesses.

I like to expose myself to motivational texts, videos, or self improvement books from time to time for my personal journey of constant advancement. Around 95% of all self improvement texts are crap, but every once in a while, I’ll come across some ways of thinking that are used by people that have actually achieved a significant level of success and aren’t focused on just selling books or some sort of program. Ray Dalio is one of these people.

Dalio writes about making mistakes and weaknesses, something that individuals  generally try to suppress and cover up — even to themselves:

Unlike any other species, man is capable of reflecting on himself and the things around him to learn and adapt in order to improve. He has this capability because, in the evolution of species man’s brain developed a part that no other species has – the prefrontal cortex. It is the part of the human brain that gives us the ability to reflect and conduct other cognitive thinking. Because of this, people who can objectively reflect on themselves and others – most importantly on their weaknesses are – can figure out how to get around these weaknesses, can evolve fastest and come closer to realizing their potentials than those who can’t.

However, typically defensive, emotional reactions – i.e., ego barriers – stand way of this progress. these reactions take place in the part of the brain called the amygdala. As a result of them, most people don’t like reflecting on their weaknesses even though recognizing them is an essential step toward preventing them from causing them problems. Most people especially dislike others exploring their weaknesses because it makes them feel attacked, which produces fight or flight reactions; however, having others help one find one’s weaknesses is essential because it’s very difficult to identify one’s own. Most people don’t like helping others explore their weaknesses, even though they are willing to talk about behind their backs. For these reasons most people don’t do a good job of understanding themselves and adapting in order to get what they want most out of life. In my opinion, that is the biggest single problem of mankind because it, more than anything else, impedes people’s abilities to address all other problems and it is probably the greatest source of pain for most people.

Some people get over the ego barrier and others don’t. Which path they choose, more than anything else, determines how good their outcomes are. Aristotle defined tragedy as a bad outcome for a person because of a fatal flaw that he can’t get around. So it is tragic when people let ego barriers lead them to experience bad outcomes.

People who worry about looking good typically hide what they don’t know and hide their weaknesses, so they never learn how to properly deal with them and these weaknesses remain impediments in the future. These people typically try to prove that they have the answers, even when they really don’t. Why do they behave in this unproductive way? They typically believe the senseless but common view that great people are those who have the answers in their heads and don’t have weaknesses. Not only does this view not square with reality, but it also stands in the way of progress.

This explains why people who are interested in making the best possible decisions rarely are confident that they have the best possible answers. So they seek to learn more (often by exploring the thinking of other believable people — especially those who disagree with them) and they are eager to identify their weaknesses so that they don’t let these weaknesses stand in the way of them achieving their goals.

So, what are your biggest weaknesses? Think honestly about them because if you can identify them, you are on the first step toward accelerating your movement forward. So think about them, write them down, and look at them frequently.

Successful people understand that bad things come at everyone and that it is their responsibility to make their lives what they want them to be by successfully dealing with whatever challenges they face. Successful people know that nature is testing them, and that it is not sympathetic. How much do you let yourself off the hook rather than hold yourself accountable for your success?

In summary, I believe that you can probably get what you want out of life if you can suspend your ego and take a no-excuses approach to achieving your goals with open-mindedness, determination, and courage, especially if you rely on the help of people who are strong in areas that you are weak.

If I had to pick just one quality that those who make the right choices have, it is character. Character is the ability to get one’s self to do the difficult things that produce the desired results. In other words, I believe that for the most part, achieving success – whatever that is for you – is mostly a matter of personal choice and that, initially, making the right choices can be difficult. However, because of the law of nature that pushing your boundaries will make you stronger, which will lead to improved results that will motivate you, the more you operate in your “stretch zone,” the more you adapt and the less character it takes to operate at the higher level of performance. So, if you don’t let up on yourself, i.e., if you operate with the same level of “pain,” you will naturally evolve at an accelerating pace. Because I believe this, I believe that whether or not I achieve my goals is a test of what I am made of. It is a game that I play, but this game is for real.

Read the full text of Ray Dalio’s Principles here.

Curated Interview With Jim Rogers From Market Wizards

I previously wrote a post about Market Wizards: Interviews With Top Traders. This post is the eighth in a series of curated interview questions and responses from the notes that I took while reading the book.

Who is Jim Rogers?

Jim Rogers is perhaps the most well-known trader interviewed by Jack D. Schwager in Market Wizards. Rogers and George Soros founded the Quantum Fund in 1973, one of the longest-running and best-performing hedge funds in the world.

Jack D. Schwager was eager to interview Rogers “because of his stellar reputation as one of the shrewdest investors of our time” and Rogers is unique in the sense that he is one of the only traders interviewed in the book that considers himself a bad trader. Rogers says, “I am probably not the person you want to interview. I often hold positions for many years. Furthermore, I’m probably one of the world’s worst traders. I never get in at the right time.” Rogers humble response does not change the fact that he is widely considered as one of the most famous and successful traders of our generation.

The notes I took on this chapter are the longest, and I consider his interview to be the most helpful, most entertaining, and best interview in the book.

On a margin of safety:

Whenever I buy or sell something, I always try to make sure I’m not going to lose any money first. If there is very good value, then I’m probably not going to lose much money even if I’m wrong.

It sounds like you have a great deal of conviction when you put on a trade.

Yes, I usually do; otherwise, I don’t bother doing it. One of the best rules anybody can learn about investing is to do nothing, absolutely nothing, unless there is something to do. Most people – not that I’m better than most people – always have to be playing; they always have to be doing something. They make a big play and say, “Boy, am I smart, I just tripled my money.” Then they rush out and have to do something else with that money. They can’t just sit there and wait for something new to develop.

Continue reading

Curated Interview With Marty Schwartz From Market Wizards

I previously wrote a post about Market Wizards: Interviews With Top Traders. This post is the seventh in a series of curated interview questions and responses from the notes that I took while reading the book.

Who is Marty Schwartz?

Marty Schwartz is best known for his repeated entries in the U.S. Trading Championships, a four-month trading championship where contestants begin with $400,000 in trading capital. In nine of the ten championships, his average return was 210 percent non-annualized, making more money than all the other contestants combined.

He is also the author of Pit Bull: Lessons from Wall Street’s Champion Day Trader, a semi-autobiographical account of his career as an independent trader.

Marty Schwartz’s responses in Market Wizards are unique because he is an individual trader and his advice is geared towards individual traders. Most of the other traders interviewed in Market Wizards are professional money managers, and while they are extremely successful traders, their experience and responses are best suited for people with backgrounds similar to theirs. Schwartz’s story should also encourage traders whose initial attempts at trading have not been successful since Schwartz himself was consistently unsuccessful over a 10-year period. It wasn’t until he found a trading style that matched his personality and changed his mindset that he became successful.

Reflecting on his history of consistent losses in the stock market:

In 1976, I met my wife-to-be and she had a profound effect on me. She made me realize that my life was not a dress rehearsal; it was the real thing and I had been screwing it up. Although I had steadily earned good salaries, I was still almost broke because I consistently lost money in the market. By mid-1978, I had been a security analyst for eight years and it had become intolerable. I knew I had to go something different. I always knew I wanted to work for myself, have no clients, and answer to no one. That, to me, was the ultimate goal. I had been brooding for years, “Why wasn’t I doing well when I was groomed to be successful?” I decided it was now time to be successful.

On analyzing market sentiment:

I talked to my friend Bob Zoellner several times a day, and he taught me how to analyze market action. For example, when the market gets good news and goes down, it means the market is very weak; when it gets bad news and goes up, it means the market is healthy.

When did you turn from a loser to a winner?

When I was able to spate my ego needs from making money. When I was able to accept being wrong. Before, admitting I was wrong was more upsetting than losing the money. I used to try to will things to happen. I figured it out, therefore it can’t be wrong. When I became a winner, I said, “I figured it out, but if I’m wrong, I’m getting the hell out, because I want to save my money and go on to the next trade.” By living the philosophy that my winner are always in front of me, it is not so painful to take a loss. If I make a mistake, so what!

Continue reading