esoteric rambling hand waver (yours truly)

I'm on the verge of transitioning the model portfolio back to being net long stocks for two somewhat related reasons. Most importantly, when adjusting for last year's cash-for-clunkers program (i.e. excluding auto sales), retail sales growth seems to have stabilized with a slight up trend.

Secondly, I just think the forces of inflation will eventually overwhelm deflation. I know there is plenty of slack in the labor market right now which is generally where higher inflation expectations originate, but the problem is that much of this slack is comprised of folks tied to the housing/finance industry who don't have the skills to immediately switch to more productive sectors of the economy. So I think in those more productive sectors, we actually could see some wage inflation. Meanwhile, in housing/finance, the blood has been let and folks left with jobs probably won't see a steady drop in their nominal incomes.

Then of course you have the 'currency wars' whereby sovereign states with inverted age demographic pyramids (e.g. Japan, E.U.) or even just age columns (e.g. U.S.) are pursuing Quantitative Easing in order to monetize their high levels of external debt. Of course the party line is they are only trying to ward off deflation, but call me cynical, I don't think the general public has the stomach for another Paul Volker to come in and disinflate when banks start lending again (which they are now by the way) thereby increasing credit, which I believe is the largest driver of the total money supply.

So who wins with inflation in the long run? If you have a mortgage loan or large amount of other debt, you might break even because that gets repaid with less valuable dollars, but you still have to cope with higher costs throughout the rest of your budget (food, energy, consumer goods, healthcare). Who loses with inflation? Anyone without a mortgage, especially retirees who are trying to live off their savings. Ultimately, if it really gets out of hand and transitions to hyperinflation, everyone loses because exchanging goods and services for currency could become undesirable, which is the basis for the specialization of labor that underlies modern society. I realize that last point could qualify for tin-foil hat club membership, but I do believe most things sound crazy until they don't.

As an aside, I suspect the reason bonds and stocks have rallied together of late is due to the strong bid from the FED underlying bond prices. As institutions understandably sell treasuries at incredibly low yields to the FED, they redeploy the proceeds into riskier assets like corporate bonds. The sellers of the corporate bonds redeploy their proceeds into preferred equity and the sellers of preferred equity redeploy into common equity. Thus, the FED can increase asset prices across the entire risk spectrum. Now there is a seller for every buyer in each of these asset classes, but as the prices get bid up, you have more companies raising capital via bond issuances or stock offerings. If the companies invest that money to create new productive assets (machines, software, etc), then it will drive economic growth, at least in nominal terms before adjusting for inflation. In real terms, since the world's population growth is declining, we don't need as much real growth in production of goods and services. But of course real growth would still be desirable insofar as it would necessarily increase material wealth per capita. I think that is a good thing for everyone out there making less than say ~$70m per year, but above that level, I subscribe to the view that material wealth doesn't correlate with happiness.

So, back to where I started, the only question is when I increase exposure to stocks and how much. I've been thinking there would be a pull-back coming this week on news of Republican gains in congress and the putative quantitative easing announcement. You know, the old "buy the rumor, sell the news" bit. Unfortunately, that seems to be a popular bit of advice, so if there are enough market participants out there of this persuasion, we may actually see the market rise again this week.

Conclusion: I'm going to sell the 1/3 allocation to the ETF that moves inversely with the S&P on Monday and sit with the proceeds in cash until next week when I may redeploy the cash into the low beta stock holdings.

time to short Yen?

According to this persuasive article, it may be time to short Yen, which can be done by purchasing the Exchange Traded Fund that moves 2x the inverse of the Yen; ticker YCS.

model portfolio 10/10/10

Although I decided to go 'market neutral' back in June based on weakened retail sales data, the instrument I used to hedge the stock exposure is the ETF that is short the S&P 500 (ticker: SH). Since the model portfolio's long positions are roughly 1/3 foreign stocks, I essentially hedged out the stock exposure while leaving some foreign currency exposure. Sometimes, it's better to be lucky than good (in the short run). So while the market has been fairly volatile and the model portfolio has been fairly stable (providing for a superior risk-adjusted profile), the model portfolio has only maintained its return lead over the indexes due to the declining dollar alluded to above.

real estate (part 4)

I wondered what it might look like if one were to trade the top-25 cities based on momentum. Again this is based on OFHEO data, which pertains to single-family residential.

The Test:
1. Rank the 25 cities based on price appreciation over the prior three quarters.
2. Invest 10% of the portfolio into each of the top-10 ranked cities.
3. Whenever a city falls out of the top-10, sell the investment (with 6% transaction cost) and buy whatever city has moved up to the top-10. These trades are modeled using a two-quarter lag, so as not to incorporate any hindsight bias. Two quarters is probably the minimum amount of time necessary to receive the price appreciation data from the government pertaining to the prior quarter and then make the trades.

Results:
1. With transaction costs, the momentum trading strategy results pretty much match the results achieved by simply buying and holding all 25 cities. The benchmark of buying and holding all 25 cities is without any re-balancing and the associated transaction costs.
2. Without transaction costs, the momentum trading strategy is far superior, generating much higher returns with approximately the same volatility.

Conclusion:
As with many quantitative strategies, transaction costs become the limiting factor. However, the insight is useful if one is deploying new money and would have to incur the transaction costs in any event.

One day I'd like to see how closely the OFHEO data tracks the appreciation of apartment properties and other commercial property types. Since those larger transaction sizes typically have much lower transaction costs (say 1.5%), I'd like to see if this would be a viable investment strategy, or at least a helpful augmentation.

great minds

think alike as crossingwallstreet makes the same point articulated in this space not two weeks ago.