Dissecting Volatility

POSTED BY: PROF. BRADFORD CORNELL, CORNELL CAPITAL GROUP MAR 27, 2020,
https://www.valuewalk.com/2020/03/level-of-volatility-stocks/


It is one thing to say that the market is volatile. It is quite another to appreciate fully what that really means. So let’s spend a moment to dissect the level of volatility.



The Current Level Of Volatility

The first thing to make clear is how is volatility measured. One way is to use historical data. The data necessary to estimate historical volatility is not a series of past prices, but past daily returns. The return is the percentage change in price adjusted for any payouts. Because payouts during that last couple of months have minuscule compared to price fluctuations, you can think of the return as the percentage change in price. To measure volatility, you cannot average past returns because positive and negative returns cancel each other leading to a vast underestimate of volatility. Therefore, volatility is measured by either the standard deviation of the returns, or more simply by the average of the absolute values of the returns. In most cases, the two estimates are quite similar.

By these measures, how volatile has the aggregate value of all U.S. publicly traded stocks been over the last three weeks? The average daily absolute price change comes to about 6.5% (with some negative and some positive). This level of volatility means that every day you can expect the market to move 6.5%. To appreciate how astonishing this is it is helpful to keep two observations in mind. First, remember that the value of the aggregate stock market is the present value of the cash flows to equity owners expected to be produced by all listed companies in all future years.

Second, that present value is a big number. At the end of 2019, the data base maintained by the Center for Research in Securities Prices calculates it to be $41.14 trillion. Of course, it has declined since then by an amount that depends on the day you do the calculation, but to keep things easy let’s use $35 trillion.



How To Measure Volatility

Based on that number, the current level of volatility implies that every day the market value of publicly traded American business can be expected to change by about $2.25 trillion. It takes a moment for that number to sink in. On average, based on whatever information comes in that day, the market is revaluing total equity by $2.25 trillion – and it is doing it day after day. While one may think that on a day or two, in response to major news, a move of this magnitude might be warranted, to have it occur day after day, often without the arrival of much in the way of value relevant new information is remarkable.

All that said, there is one factor, news about which may be driving the market up and down and that is the term of the lockdown associated with the virus. In a previous post, The Market and the Virus: Deconstructing the Drop, I calculated that the impact of the virus should be less than 10%. Ironically, if we use January 1, 2020 as the starting point, we are getting back to that level after the run-up of the last three days. The good news is that this interpretation implies that the market should sustain this level, but the offsetting bad news is that no further increase would be warranted. Of course, all of this depends on the assumptions used in modeling the duration of the virus-related economic shutdown, a number which, like the market, changes daily.



VIX Index Has Risen 5x

It is also possible to calculate forward looking measures of volatility. By far the best known is the VIX index which calculates the volatility implied by the prices of options on the S&P 500 index. Between the beginning of the year and the close on Thursday, the VIX index has risen by a factor of about five times. Options on individual stocks have seen their implied volatilities rise by similar factors. For those who employ hedging strategies using options, as we do at Cornell Capital, the pickings were slim prior to the virus crisis because volatility, and therefore option premia, were near historic lows. Needless to say that has changed dramatically. Option premia are at levels last seen at the height of the 2008 financial crisis.



In closing, it may seem that investing based on fundamental valuation is fruitless during times when the large daily price changes seem to have little relation to changes in value, but the reverse is true. Given the unpredictability of the massive short-term price movements, attempting to play a pricing game is ill advised. The best an investor can do is take positions based on his or her fundamental valuations and maintain sufficient reserves to ride out the bumps in both direction that are highly likely to occur. Those bumps can be softened by careful use of options, particularly in light of the current high option premia.

Stay in Touch with the Market: Opportunities and Dangers

Some investors buy and hold for the long term, stashing their securities in the proverbial vault for years. While such a strategy may have made sense at some time in the past, it seems misguided today. This is because the financial markets are prolific creators of investment opportunities. 

• Investors who are out of touch with the markets will find it difficult to be in touch with buying and selling opportunities regularly created by the markets. 
• Today with so many market participants having little or no fundamental knowledge of the businesses their investments represent, opportunities to buy and sell seem to present themselves at a rapid pace. 
• Given the geopolitical and macroeconomic uncertainties we face in the early 1990s and are likely to continue to face in the future, why would abstaining from trading be better than periodically reviewing one's holdings? 

Being in touch with the market does pose dangers, however.

• Investors can become obsessed, for example, with every market uptick and downtick and eventually succumb to short-term-oriented trading. 
• There is a tendency to be swayed by recent market action, going with the herd rather than against it. 
• Investors unable to resist such impulses should probably not stay in close touch with the market; they would be well advised to turn their investable assets over to a financial professionaL 

Another hazard of proximity to the market is exposure to stockbrokers.

• Brokers can be a source of market information, trading ideas, and even useful investment research. 
• Many, however, are in business primarily for the next trade. 
• Investors may choose to listen to the advice of brokers but should certainly confirm everything that they say. 
• Never base a portfolio decision solely on a broker's advice, and always feel free to say no.

The Relevance of Temporary Price Fluctuations (unrelated to Underlying Value)

Permanent loss versus Interim Price Fluctuations

In addition to the probability of permanent loss attached to an investment, there is also the possibility of interim price fluctuations that are unrelated to underlying value. (Beta fails to distinguish between the two.)

Many investors consider price fluctuations to be a significant risk: if the price goes down, the investment is seen as risky regardless of the fundamentals.



But are temporary price fluctuations really a risk? 

Not in the way that permanent value impairments are and then only for certain investors in specific situations. 

It is, of course, not always easy for investors to distinguish temporary price volatility, related to the short-term forces of supply and demand, from price movements related to business fundamentals. The reality may only become apparent after the fact.

While investors should obviously try to avoid overpaying for investments or buying into businesses that subsequently decline in value due to deteriorating results, it is not possible to avoid random short-term market volatility. 

Indeed, investors should expect prices to fluctuate and should not invest in securities if they cannot tolerate some volatility. 




If you are buying sound value at a discount, do short-term price fluctuations matter? 

In the long run they do not matter much; value will ultimately be reflected in the price of a security.

Indeed, ironically, the long-term investment implication of price fluctuations is in the opposite direction from the near-term market impact. 

For example, short-term price declines actually enhance the returns of long-term investors.' 



Near-term price fluctuations matter to certain investors

There are, however, several eventualities in which near-term price fluctuations do matter to investors.

1.   Security holders who need to sell in a hurry are at the mercy of market prices.

• The trick of successful investors is to sell when they want to, not when they have to.
• Investors who may need to sell should not own marketable securities other than U.S. Treasury bills.

2.   Near-term security prices also matter to investors in a troubled company. 

• If a business must raise additional capital in the near term to survive, investors in its securities may have their fate determined, at least in part, by the prevailing market price of the company's stock and bonds. (This effect, known as reflexivity.)

3.  Volatility is the friend of the long term value investor.

• The third reason long-term-oriented investors are interested in short-term price fluctuations is that Mr. Market can create very attractive opportunities to buy and sell. 

Warren Buffett: Volatility in the Market

Market Volatility

What should you do?

If you own a farm or an apartment, you do not get a quote on them every day or every week.

The value of a business depends on how much in terms of cash it delivers to its owners between now and judgment day and I don't think it changes in 10% in a 2 months period if you are looking at it as a business.

Anything, I mean, anything can happen in the market; that is why don't borrow money against any securities.  Markets don't have to open tomorrow.  You can have extraordinary events.


You can get some of the instruments that people don't understand very well that has a lot of fire-power.

Volatility of Single Stocks

Volatility of Single Stocks

Individual stocks tend to have highly volatile prices.

The returns you might receive on any single stock may vary wildly.



Best Performing Stocks

If you invest in the right stock, you could make bundles of money.

• For instance, Eaton Vance, an investment-management company, has had the best-performing stock for almost 25 years.  If you had invested $10,000 in 1979 in Eaton Vance, assuming you had reinvested all dividends, your investment would have been worth $10.6 million by December 2004.

Worst Performing Stocks

On the downside, since the returns on stock investments are not guaranteed, you risk losing everything on any given investment.

• There are hundreds of dot-com investments that went bankrupt or are trading for a fraction of their former highs in early 2000.

• Even established, well-known companies such as Enron, WorldCom and Kmart filed for bankruptcy and investors in these companies lost everything.

All Stocks in Between these two Extremes

Between these two extremes is the daily, weekly, monthly and yearly fluctuation of any given company's stock price.

• Most stocks won't double in the coming year, nor will many go to zero.

• But the average difference between the yearly high and low stock prices of the typical stock on the NYSE is nearly 40%.

Stocks that don't perform over Long Time

In addition to being volatile, there is the risk that a single company's stock price may not increase significantly over time. 

• In 1965, you could have purchased General Motors' stock for $50 per share (split adjusted).  By May 2005 (4 decades later), your shares of General Motors would be worth only about $30 each.  Though dividends would have provided some ease to the pain, General Motors' return has been terrible.  
• You would have been better off if you had invested your money in a bank savings account instead of General Motors' stock.

All your Eggs in a Single Basket

Clearly, if you put all of your eggs in a single basket, sometimes that basket may fail, breaking all the eggs.

Other times, that basket will hold the equivalent of a winning lottery ticket.

Investing has a whole new set of rules.

If we are to be successful, we need to play by these new rules.

Why the average equity fund investor underperforms the market?

From 1993 to 2012, the S&P Index 500 averaged a gain of 8.21% per year.

However, during that same 20 year period, the average equity fund investor had an average annual gain of only 4.25%.  

Had the average equity fund investor just bought a low-cost S&P 500 Index fund and held it, he/she would have almost doubled their rate of return.

The underperformance was due to investor behaviour such as market timing and chasing hot funds.

Had these investors been long-term, buy-and-hold investors, they would have earned close to the market's returns.

When the average investor underperforms the index by such a significant amount, it is clear that most are playing with a bad set of guidelines or none at all.

A one-time investment of $10,000 invested at 8% compounds to $46,610 in 20 years.

The same $10,000 invested over the same period at 4.25% compounds to only $22,989.

Short-run performance of the stock market is random, unpredictable and very volatile

The short-run performance of the stock market is random, unpredictable and for most people, nerve-racking.

The next time you hear someone saying that he/she knows how the stock market or any given stock is going to perform in the next few weeks, months, or years, you can be sure they are either lying or self-delusional.

The long-term trend of the stock market is up and its performance consistent

There is more than 200 years of U.S. stock market history and the long-term trend is up.  

Over the long term, stock market performance has been rather consistent.

During any 50-year period, it provided an average after-inflation return of between 5 and 7 percent per year.

If you invested in a well-diversified basket of stocks and left them alone, the purchasing power of your investment would have doubled roughly every 12 years.

Stocks over the long-run offer the greatest potentials return of any investment

Although long-term returns are fairly consistent, short-term returns are much volatile.  

Stocks over the long-run offer the greatest potential return of any investment, but the short-run roller-coaster rides can be a nightmare for those who don't understand the market and lack a sound investment plan to cope with it.  

The 1990s were stellar years for stocks but the 1930s were a disaster.

Petronas Dagangan

The stock price has risen from MR 2.00 in 2000 to MR 4.00 in 2005.

It has risen from MR 4.00 in 2005 to MR 8.00 in 2010.

From MR 8.00 in 2010, it has risen to MR 17.00 in 2015..

From 2000 to 2015, this stock has delivered multi-bagger returns.

Between 2000 to 2015, there were 3 big dips in the price of the stock, in 2001, 2009 and recent months.

Don't forget to add the GROWING dividends!

Latest February 2015  Special Dividend  0.22 

18 Nov 2014	0.12 Dividend
21 Aug 2014	0.14 Dividend
21 May 2014	0.12 Dividend
20 Feb 2014	0.175 Dividend
14 Nov 2013	0.175 Dividend
4 Sep 2013	0.175 Dividend
10 Jun 2013	0.175 Dividend
7 Mar 2013	0.175 Dividend
12 Dec 2012	0.175 Dividend
4 Sep 2012	0.175 Dividend
4 Jun 2012	0.175 Dividend
8 Mar 2012	0.15 Dividend
7 Dec 2011	0.15 Dividend
24 Aug 2011	0.15 Dividend
1 Aug 2011	0.35 Dividend
9 Dec 2010	0.30 Dividend
24 Feb 2005	2: 1 Stock Split
* Close price adjusted for dividends and splits.

3 Aug 2010	0.15 Dividend
7 Dec 2009	0.15 Dividend
5 Aug 2009	0.33 Dividend
10 Dec 2008	0.12 Dividend
1 Aug 2008	0.33 Dividend
14 Dec 2007	0.12 Dividend
12 Dec 2005	0.05 Dividend
17 Aug 2005	0.10 Dividend
30 Nov 2004	0.10 Dividend
5 Aug 2004	0.20 Dividend
10 Dec 2003	0.20 Dividend
23 Jul 2003	0.10 Dividend
22 Jul 2003	0.10 Dividend
* Close price adjusted for dividends and splits.

Comments:  5.2.2015

Revenue - Lower due to Decrease in Sales volume

Group Operating Profit  -  Lower due to lower gross margin and higher operating expenditure.

1.  Lower gross profit margin - Lower due to higher product cost due to unfavourable timing differences of the Mean of Platts Singapore ("MOPS" prices compared to corresponding quarter last year.

2.  Higher operating expenditure - mainly attributed to manpower expenses, ICT maintenance charges, advertising and promotion and net loss on foreign currency as US dollar weakened against Malaysian Ringgit during the current period compared to net gain on foreign currency during the corresponding period last year.

Increase in revenue - due to higher selling price 

Decrease in revenue - due to decrease in sales volume, despite a higher average selling price.


The downward trend in global oil prices has an adverse impact on PDB's margins.  

PDB's business is expected to be challenging as long as the downward trend is expected to continue.


How to defend its overall market leadership position?

1. Grow its business domestically - further strengthening its brand, sweating existing assets and continuosly enhancing customer relationship management.

2.  Continue its cost optimisation efforts - enhancement of supply and distribution efficienecy, improvement of terminal operational excellence to further improve cost of operations.



NOTE:  

Results of PDB will be affected adversely when:

1.  US currency is weakening.  

2.  The global oil price is trending downwards.    


Do you think the fundamentals of PDB are permanently damaged or they are facing a temporary period of difficulties or challenges?   


How can PDB delivers better results?

1.  Increasing its volume sold.
2.  Lower average selling prices may lead to increase in volume sold.
3.  Operational efficiency - cost and expense minimisation - leading to increasing profit margins.
4.  When US dollar is appreciating or getting stronger.
5.  When global oil price is stabilised or increasing in price trend.

Any price - and therefore P/E - movements that is not related to the company's earnings is transient.

The stock market is governed by a diverse set of influences.  And just as the sea is, it is predictable over the long term but not over the short term.

Probably the most widely watched reason for the long-term fluctuations of the price and P/E is the rise and fall of the stock market itself.  This can be a function of the economy's volatility.  The economy is battered by the rise and fall of interest rates, by inflation, and by a variety of factors that drive consumer confidence or buying power up or down.  Actual changes in the economy itself will cause longer-term changes in the market and the prices of its individual stocks.  Speculation about such changes has a shorter-term effect.

In the shorter term, there are the ripples and wavelets.  Every little utterance of a government official or company offer, insider buying or selling (which may or may not mean anything), rumour, gossip, and just about anything else can influence the whims of those on the street.  Many people will use these stories to try to make or break a market in the stock.

Over the life of a company, its fair P/E - the "normal" relationship between a company's earnings and its stock's price - is relatively constant.  It does tend to decline slowly as the company's earnings growth declines, which happens with all successful companies.  For all practical purposes, however, that relationship is remarkably stable.  And for that reason, it's also remarkably predictable.

When a company's earnings continue to grow, so will its stock price.  Conversely, when earnings flatten or go down, the price will follow.

The little fluctuations in the P/E ration above and below that constant (fair) value are not so predictable because they are all caused by investor perception and opinion.  Think of them as the winds that blow across the surface of the sea.

The broader moves above and below the norm are the undulations that are typically caused by the continuous rising and falling of analysts' expectations.  When a company first emerges into its explosive growth period, the analysts expect earnings to continue to skyrocket.  Earnings growth estimates in the 50% range or more are not uncommon.

As the company continues to meet these expectations, investor confidence booms along with it, and more investors pay a higher and higher price for the stock.  The P/E rises as a meteor right along with the price.  The faster the growth, the higher the P/E.  This does nothing to alter the value of the "reasonable or fair" P/E multiple.  It just means that investor confidence has risen well above that norm and that there will eventually be an adjustment.

Sure enough, one fine day when the analysts' consensus called for growth of 45%, the company turns in a "disappointing" earnings growth of only 38%.  The analysts start wringing their hands because the company has not met their expectations, and some fund manger sells.  Next, all of the lemmings on Wall Street follow suit.  And not long thereafter you get a call from your broker telling you that you've had a nice ride, you've made a lot of money on the stock, and it's time to take your profit and get out.  In the meantime, the broker has made a commission on your purchase and is hoping to make it on your sale as well.

After a while, after the price and the P/E have plummeted and then sat there for a while, some analyst wakes up to the fact that a 34% earning growth rate is still pretty darn good and jumps back in.   Soon the cycle is reversed.  The market starts showing the company some respect again.  And you get a call from your broker.

Of course, as a smart intelligent investor you didn't sell it in the first place!  Because you were watching the fine earnings growth all along, you knew better than to sell.  And you chose the opportunity to buy some more.  In the meantime, your brokers'; clients who were not so savvy has taken their profits (and, had paid the taxes on them, by the way) and are now wishing that they had stayed in with you.  By the time their broker called them again, the price had already climbed past the point where it made good sense for them to jump in again.

It is best to assume that any price - and therefore P/E - movements that is not related to the company's earnings is transient.  If the stories - not the numbers - cause the price to move, the change won't last.  What goes up will come down, and what goes down will come up.,  You have to be concerned only when the sales, pretax profits, or earnings cause the change, and then only if you find that the performance decay is related to a major long-term problem that is beyond the management's ability to resolve.

Remember also that a sizable segment of Wall Street doesn't make its money investing as you do; it makes its money on the "ocean motion."  Buy or sell, it makes little difference to them what you do.  They make their money either way.  But it sure makes a big difference to you!

Volatility is not risk. Risk is the reasoned probability of that investment causing it's owner a loss of purchasing power over his contemplated holding period.

Investing is often described as the process of laying out money now in the expectation of receiving more money in the future.

At Berkshire we take a more demanding approach, defining investing as

•  the transfer to others of purchasing power now with the reasoned expectation of receiving more purchasing power – after taxes have been paid on nominal gains – in the future. 
• More succinctly, investing is forgoing consumption now in order to have the ability to consume more at a later date.

From our definition there flows an important corollary: The riskiness of an investment is not measured by beta (a Wall Street term encompassing volatility and often used in measuring risk) but rather by the probability – the reasoned probability – of that investment causing its owner a loss of purchasing-power over his contemplated holding period. 

• Assets can fluctuate greatly in price and not be risky as long as they are reasonably certain to deliver increased purchasing power over their holding period. 
• And as we will see, a non-fluctuating asset can be laden with risk.

Investment possibilities are both many and varied.



http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2011ltr.pdf

Investors should expect prices to fluctuate

The Relevance of Temporary Price Fluctuations

In addition to the probability of permanent loss attached to investment, there is also the possibility of interim price fluctuations that are unrelated to underlying value.

Many investors consider price fluctuations to be a significant risk:  if the price goes down, the investment is seen as risky regardless of the fundamentals.

But are temporary price fluctuations really a risk?

• Not in the way that permanent value impairments are and 
• then only for certain investors in specific situations.

It is, of course, not always easy for investors to distinguish temporary price volatility, related to the short-term forces of supply and demand, from price movements related to business fundamentals.  The reality may only become apparent after the fact.

While investors should obviously try to avoid overpaying for investments or buying into businesses that subsequently decline in value due to deteriorating results, it is not possible to avoid random short-term market volatility.  

Indeed, investors should expect prices to fluctuate and should not invest in securities if they cannot tolerate some volatility.

Comparing equity yields with term deposits is lazy

Marcus Padley
December 3, 2011

I have been getting a little bit irritated by the constant comparisons between the yield on equities and the yield on a bond or term deposit.

The argument goes that equity yields are now higher than bond yields and also higher than term deposits, so you should switch.

But the truth is that a comparison of the returns on term deposits or bonds with equity yields is simply lazy and ridiculous and reckless, because it misses the point about why people are in term deposits in the first place.

Let me explain by taking a well-known income stock - the National Australia Bank, one of the highest-yielding and safest blue-chip stocks in the market. The yield on the NAB is 7.5 per cent - 10.7 per cent including franking. That, everyone will tell you, is cheap and the argument is that all you mugs holding term deposits earning just 5.5 per cent are idiots because you get a whole extra 2.2 per cent in the NAB or 5.2 per cent including franking.

Fair enough, until you consider this exercise.



Get a chart up of the NAB over the last year (one year will do). Now mark off the peaks and troughs since January and calculate how many and how big the variations have been. You will find that the NAB has had 10 fluctuations. Five rallies and five falls.

The size of the rallies has been +12.8 per cent, +17.8 per cent, +8.3 per cent, +23.2 per cent and +26.9 per cent. The falls have been -9.8 per cent, -15.3 per cent, -23.9 per cent, -13.5 per cent and -18.7 per cent and if we picked a smaller-income stock or took NAB out over a longer period, it would be even more dramatic.



Now tell me after 10 moves of more than 7.5 per cent in just a year that I should be worrying about the 7.5 per cent yield on the NAB. Now tell me, amid that volatility and instability, that I should mention the yield on the NAB and the yield on a risk-free term deposit or bond in the same breath. Now tell me the prudence behind selling my term deposit and buying the NAB.


The NAB and almost all other income stocks in the current market, are not stable low-risk investments; they are volatile trading stocks and the message is clear and let's make it clearer, once and for all. You cannot compare the yield on an equity to the yield on a bond because one includes no risk of a capital loss (no risk of a gain either) and the other contains a currently huge perceived risk of a capital loss (or gain).

Promoting income stocks because they yield more than a bond is ignoring that extra risk and misunderstanding why people are now in bonds and term deposits. They are there because they don't want to lose any more money. Because they don't want volatility.

The only way to compare equities to bonds or equities to term deposits is if the equities came with a price guarantee, which they don't, or if you compare risk-free yields with the expected total return from equities, which includes the extra volatility and risk and not just the dividends.

In the current market, equities are nothing like a bond or term deposit because share-price risk is dominating the investment decision not the yield. Do you really think people are in term deposits to make 5.5 per cent? No, they are in term deposits to avoid losing money. The focus is on the risk not the return. Risk rules.

But it's not all gloom. The good news is that this is not a normal state of affairs. The sharemarket is supposed to be about opportunity not risk and the fact that risk is so in focus means the opportunity side of the equation is being ignored.

Also, risk can change very quickly. Ahead of the last European Union summit the market jumped 11 per cent in four days on lower perceived equity risk. The banks jumped 19.2 per cent. If the GFC doesn't reignite, the focus is going to very rapidly swing back to yields and price-to-earnings (PE) ratios. If the GFC is behind us, how long do you think the NAB is going to trade on a 10.7 per cent yield and the market on a PE of 10.7 times against a long-term average of 14 times?

Not long. In which case the game now is not debating the marginal merits of term deposits versus equities but waiting for a chink of light in the outlook for risk, because that is all that matters and because when it appears, the herd is going to smash down the door to get to those yields and PEs.

At the moment they don't believe in them. Your job is to be on the ball on the day they do.

Marcus Padley is a stockbroker with Patersons Securities and the author of sharemarket newsletter Marcus Today. His views do not necessarily reflect those of Patersons.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/money/investing/comparing-equity-yields-with-term-deposits-is-lazy-20111202-1oakh.html#ixzz1jkzaigzd

Redefining Risk. Realistic definition of Risk.

Redefining Risk

Risk was the chance that you might not meet your long-term investment goals. 

And the greatest enemy of reaching those goals:  inflation. 

Nothing is safe from inflation. 

It's major victims are savings accounts, T-bills, bonds, and other types of fixed-income investments.

Investors usually use Treasury bills as their benchmark for risk. These are considered risk-free because their nominal value can't go down. However, T-bills and bonds are in fact highly risky because of their susceptibility to inflation.




Realistic definition of Risk

A realistic definition of risk recognizes the potential loss of capital through inflation and taxes, and includes:

1. The probability your investment will preserve your capital over your investment time horizon.

2. The probability your investments will outperform alternative investments during the period.

Short-term stock price volatility is not risk. Avoid investment advice based on volatility.

So if volatility is not risk, what is your major risk?

The major risk is not the short-term stock price volatility that many thousands of academic articles have been written about. 

Rather it is the possibility of not reaching your long-term investment goal through the growth of your funds in real terms. 

To measure monthly or quarterly volatility and call it risk - for investors who have time horizons 5, 10, 15 or even 30 years away - is a completely inappropriate definition. (David Dreman)


Take Home Lesson

Using Dreman's definition of risk, stocks are actually the safest investment out there over the long term. 

Investors who put some or most of their money into bonds and other investments on the assumption they are lowering their risk are, in fact, deluding themselves.

"Indeed, it goes against the principle we were taught from childhood - that the safest way to save was putting our money in the bank." 

Tips on how to invest during turbulent times

Tuesday October 25, 2011

Singular Vision - By Teoh Kok Lin

STOCK markets around the world lately gave investors that sinking feeling again, weighed down by deepening woes of Europe's sovereign debts, an anemic US economy and new fears of a sharp economic slowdown in China.

Many investors sold shares to hold more cash, despite cash earning very little interest. In Singapore for example, six months USD fixed deposits of less than US$1mil earns zero interest in some banks.

In the United States, 10-year Treasury bonds are yielding 2.1% per annum; despite misery returns, many investors prefer the safety of US Treasuries during crisis times, while waiting for policymakers to act boldly and markets to stabilise.

At the same time, we see many economists and other pundits offer a whole host of predictions about today's global financial predicaments. The many predictions range from the slightly hopeful to the pessimistic, right down to the disastrous and absurd.

Does it sound familiar? Did we not hear many such predictions during the 2008/2009 global financial crisis? Who should we listen to? What should one do?

No doubt in hindsight, a few forecasts will be correct; and as the dust settles, many extreme predictions will also likely be forgotten. Yet for investors today, separating much of the “noise” from facts is one of the more tricky parts of steering through these very challenging times.

Fundamentals and valuation takes a back seat during a crisis

Volatile stock markets today are driven by latest positive or negative news flow affecting sentiment. Uncertainties during a crisis causes investment risks to spike, stock investors tend to sell first and ask questions later; fundamentals and stock valuation typically takes a back seat in the short term.

No doubt many investors worry about negative impact to a company's fundamentals in difficult times. For example, a manufacturing company's stock with a present price earning (PE) multiple of six times can change drastically to 60 times PE if earnings were to collapse 90% because of a global financial crisis.

Similarly, a property company's price to book value discount of 60% can easily drop to 30% if asset value is marked down by half in troubled times. Monitoring, reassessments and analysis of a company's financial progress is obviously important during tumultuous times.

Share prices of companies (even those with good fundamentals) may continue to fall indiscriminately, due to many reasons such as panic selling, fund redemption and repatriation. Investors should tread cautiously, even if stock prices may appear to be at very attractive levels.

I relate a challenging experience from the last global stock market plunge. In 2008, I invested in the largest luxury watch distributor and retailer in China (at that time 210 stores and sales amounting to 5.5 billion yuan a year or about 30% market share).

This Hong Kong listed Chinese company sells luxury watches (such as Omega, Longines, Bvlgari) from global brand owners Swatch group of Switzerland and LVMH of France (both by the way are also 9.1% and 6.3% shareholders of this Chinese company respectively).

As the US sub-prime mortgage crisis deepens by end-July 2008, many stocks around the world plunged. This company's shares similarly dropped from HK$2 to HK$1.50 in a matter of weeks.

We vigorously reassessed the company's fundamentals, including visits to retail outlets in China and Hong Kong. The result was an affirmation of our conviction to invest in the company for the long-term, despite short-term price weakness.

By late September 2008, we decided to purchase more shares when valuation proved so attractive at HK$1.15 per share (at a PE multiple of eight times).

Unfortunately, as the global financial crisis worsened, the company's shares continued to plunge and bottomed to a low of HK$0.51 by Nov 26, 2008.

This stock eventually recovered back to HK$2 per share (by June 1, 2009) and went on to exceed HK$5 per share by late 2010. The company's share prices recovered partly because Asian equities rebounded quickly in 2009, but also reached new highs because the company's fundamentals continue to improve with strong sales (+49%), profitability (+26%) and expansions (+140 stores to 350 stores) from 2008 to 2010.

A lesson if you will that during a crisis, one should be prepared for short-term (weeks and months) stock market volatility.

It is essential for bargain hunters to have long-term holding power, good understanding of company fundamentals and strong conviction on a company's prospect. In the long-term, we know fundamentals and valuation does matter.

How does one invest during a time of crisis?

My approaches to investing in turbulent times are:

Search for and invest (when valuations are attractive) in well managed companies that will not only survive but emerge stronger from crisis times;

Be prepared to stomach stock market volatility in the months ahead;

Have a longer term investment horizon (perhaps two to three years); once this crisis dissipates, reap the rewards as stock markets recover.

In Asia, macroeconomic fundamentals likely will remain resilient as many Asian economies have strong foreign currency reserves, coupled with more fiscal and monetary policy options to support growth.

China is also likely to withstand any fallout from Europe better than most would think. China's economy is still growing at a strong 9.1% gross domestic product growth for the third quarter of 2011; speculations about China's economy crashing may be somewhat premature at this stage.

Similarly, I think many established Asian companies have sufficient resources be it cash, borrowing powers or human capital, to emerge out of these turbulent times faster and stronger than before.

I believe with increasingly attractive valuation, the investing risk-reward equation (potential downside risk versus long term return prospects) favors Asian equities in the long run. I have confidence investing in Asia's fundamentals and Asian companies for many more years ahead.

Teoh Kok Lin is the founder and chief investment officer of Singular Asset Management Sdn Bhd

Stock market volatility - getting used to it

Diary of a private investor: politicians have us in their grip

Once you become acclimatised to the market turbulence, the investment game is still worth playing.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou and French President Nicolas Sarkozy Photo: Reuters

By James Bartholomew

2:00AM BST 01 Oct 2011

Stock market volatility has been going on so long that one is almost getting used to it. It is the peacetime equivalent of living through a war and getting accustomed to siren wails. A share of mine drops 4pc and the next day falls another 7pc. Nothing unusual about that. If I can't take it, I should go and get treated for shell shock.

Often people who write in newspapers adopt a persona and, in particular, a confidence that is not genuine, let alone justified. Actually, most of us do not know what is going to happen. And in our personal investments and other financial decisions, we make mistakes like everyone else. Investment is living with uncertainty – knowing you will get it wrong some of the time but reckoning the game is still worth playing.

There is certainly no need to think that everyone but you is doing fine in the current crisis. I got the following email from a former chief investment officer of a major fund manager who now looks after his own money: "I am doing badly. I sell the wrong stocks, hold onto the wrong stocks and bottom fish in the wrong stocks." I know how he feels.

A couple of months ago, when the current crisis of confidence began, I sold off some of my shares in Telecom Plus, a utility company. I reasoned that people had been pushing the price up because it was a relatively safe bet in uncertain times but really the shares were now somewhat overrated. I sold when the shares had fallen a little and they have since risen, even above the level in July – a magnificent outperformance. Thank goodness I sold only a minority of my holding.

Right now the outlook for the markets seems to depend more on politicians than I can ever remember it doing before. They are often referred to on radio and television as "leaders", which I am beginning to find slightly risible. It is apparent that this bunch of "leaders" firstly does not really know what to do and secondly, to the extent that they have got ideas of what to do, their ideas are all different. It has a bit of a feel of the doomed Weimar Republic.

RELATED ARTICLES

• Can investors unearth bargains amid the ruins? 
  24 Sep 2011
• Shares with European potential 
  23 Sep 2011
• Fidelity: 'At times like these, investors should remember the strong get stronger' 
  23 Sep 2011
• Cash in on destruction 
  22 Sep 2011

Of course it is not surprising that nothing can easily be done when the euro is a single currency without a single country running it.

Nevertheless, at any moment an announcement could conceivably be made which will overcome the widespread fear and distrust. If that happens, the market could rise so fast that you would not be able to get any money into it. But if the "leaders" continue to dribble out half-hearted rescues that don't work, the market could fall further. It's up to those "leaders".

Despite all the uncertainty and volatility, I have been buying some shares in the past month, bringing my cash down from about 14pc of my portfolio to 10pc.

One notion of mine has been to secure some of the fabulous dividend yields that are currently available. I half-think "forget about the share prices, just focus on the whopping dividend income".

Apparently investors in the United States have had the same thought and have been buying into exchange-traded funds (ETFs).

ETFs are funds you can buy and sell like shares and give you exposure to a particular kind of investment – like gold, or a whole stock market, or whatever.

There is an equivalent one in Britain called iShares FTSE UK Dividend Plus, but it might be better to buy directly into big companies with handsome prospective yields, such as Vodafone (5.8pc with the price at 164p), Shell (5.2pc at £20.27) and British Land (5.5pc at 490p).

At least one piece of good news has turned up. It now looks likely that the Bank of England will finally put in place some quantitative easing either this month or next.

The minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee openly raised the possibility last month and one of the members has said he almost voted for it then.

Some people have objected in the past that there is a danger it could fuel inflation. But wage inflation is dormant and commodity prices have now fallen back.

I am particularly aware of this since I have shares in a zinc mine and the price of this estimable metal has slipped from $1.12 in July to 86 cents earlier this week. Ouch!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/shares-and-stock-tips/8798796/Diary-of-a-private-investor-politicians-have-us-in-their-grip.html