In investing, things are most of the time not definite.
I make a very poor salesman because straight away, people can detect a lack of confidence. I would rather say, my face most of the time, show how uncomfortable I am with things.
That is why we have advisers because they don’t have this problem of mine. At work, I kept the deepest, darkest part of what I know about the markets and investing firewalled from them.
This is so that they can function. If you know too much, it affects your ability to push a good narrative.
My friends who teach investing courses, trading courses probably cannot share too many of these uncertainties. Placed enough uncertainties in a prospects head and they will not make a decision.
Outside of these two groups, I hear folks having high conviction in companies that will never die, strategies that will always work, REITs that will always be better.
Not sure if others feel the same way, but in the active investing world, seldom do you get a feeling an investment feels permanently safe.
In the past, I shared that you can build conviction in a stock, or a trend by digging deeper into the numbers and doing deeper qualitative analysis.
When I do more, I generally feel much more comfortable in putting money to work.
But I never had that “this will sure work” kind of feeling. The posture is always: “Think this is safe enough. Got enough margin of safety. Lets get invested. See how it goes.”
When prices starts to change, when events starts unfolding, it becomes: “Ok this is getting safe, let’s add more.”
Or “Shit man, this feels like a possible train wreck results coming up.”
I never felt things are definite. This is why I admire people who could have high conviction that
- Certain sect-oral trends would ALWAYS work
- This company will WILL survive
- This investing system WILL work
I dunno. Maybe I am a low confidence, risk adverse character by default.
I feel a lot of confidence people have is based on past history.
And today’s sharing might give a different perspective. We cover things passive investors, active investors and retirement planners can relate to.
The Limitations of Relying just on Numbers
The protagonist of this article (What I Learned From Losing $200 Million) eventually got a promotion and a great bonus. In the eyes of most people in the firm, he did so well and should be held up as a successful case study for others to follow.
I learn to have enough vulnerability to fully based investing decisions on my fundamental analysis after reading this article. Well, I had enough vulnerability before this, but this article really hits home the fact that if you do some really thorough work, if your framework has weaknesses, your investments will sometimes suffer from serious capital impairment.
Bob Henderson worked for a major investment bank during the 2008 financial crisis. He had a serious unrealized loss position to the tuned of $200 million at one point. In this article, Bob takes us through how he sees this deal. His firm largely viewed this deal as successful.
This is not a story of a trader that took a lot of risk and finally made a really bad trade that cost the firm. Bob describes their firms system as a collective effort. Bob was a physics trained PHD. He was hired for his skill in modelling.
By 2008, he has spent the past 10 years developing derivative and trading strategies. By and large most of the trades was successful. Bob thinks that his edge was not in predicting the future but simply for being careful and logical and systematic.
That sounds like what a lot of us want to think ourselves to be.
His models have worked for 10 years. This means that it has prevented large eventual trading losses. But 2008 was the first time he encountered the extreme tail end events.
His modelling is suppose to give the team a sensing of how much shit the open positions are subjected to.
His team’s models is mainly based on historical data. You can read the details of the trade from the article (it gives you a glimpse of why it is likely we may not be able to put out such trades by ourselves)
Bob would like us to think that his team’s models are very comprehensive. But that did not prevent his team from losing $20 million, then $30 million in 2 days. His model will show him that he is destined to lose even more money.
Until this point I’d managed the deal almost entirely on my own, making the decisions that led to where I … we … were now. But after a black cab ride from Heathrow to our Canary Wharf office, I got the guys off the trading floor and into a windowless conference room and confessed: I’d tried everything, but the deal was still hemorrhaging cash. Even worse, it was sprouting new and thorny risks outside my area of expertise. In any case, the world was changing so quickly that my area of expertise was fast becoming obsolete. I pleaded for everyone to pitch in. I said I was open to any ideas.
As I spoke, I noticed that one of the guys had tears welling up in his eyes. I paused for a second, stunned. Then my own eyes started to fill from a sudden wash of gratitude and relief that came, I think, from no longer being alone.
Basically, the math models stopped working in real world.
Historical Data Gives Us an Illusion of Control
Bob explains to us some of the frailties of using historical data.
I am trying to risk managed future situations with historical data. If the result shows that the probability of a high impact event is very, very low, I feel safe. If the maximum loss that I could suffer is still a manageable sum, I feel safe.
By doing this, I am expecting the future to be very similar to the past. In Bob’s case, 2008 presented real world events that is not contained in past data.
So what was once thought to be low impact, or very very low probability, became a reality and the models could not handled it.
Our models based on historical data makes us feel safe.
It gives us an illusion of control.
Bob thought he had good control for 10 years, until this one event showed him that maybe it is an illusion.
I understood immediately, having spent countless hours over many years struggling to extract probabilities and other forward-looking metrics from historical data.
The biggest challenge was always that the answers depended so much on which timeframe you focused on. The past month? Year? Five years? And if you want to use data to estimate the probability of a very rare event, then you need a lot of data—the more rare, the more data—which means taking data from further back in the past, and the further back you go, the less relevant it probably is.
But what’s the alternative to estimating probabilities? If we can’t say anything about what the probabilities are, then we really are forced to worry about the absolute worst possible scenario. A trader would never sell options or short stocks, since his losses could be infinite. People would avoid cars, planes, marriages … everything really, for fear of the worst possible result. We’d all be paralyzed.
This Explains why Most Money is in Fixed Deposits and Properties
For many of us, we want to ensure things are very very safe (to ourselves) before we can take the plunge.
One of the lesson I learn from this is that the future may rhyme like the past, but it is never the same.
And therefore you can never feel comfortable.
As investors, we try to search for the holy grail:
- A very decent positive expected return
- Low volatility in value of the portfolio
- Not too much effort to tend to this investment
- This investment do not cost us a lot
- Very safe. There is no blow up or not a scam
What if, it does not exist?
For a lot of people they just became paralyzed. They do not invest. They leave their money in what they considered as “very very safe and decent return places”.
These are the fixed deposits, and property. By what they know from the long history.
Guessing in a Forward Looking Uncertain World
Bob realized his models were not working. It is just telling him things will only get worse.
He needs to find another way to save himself (and the firm)
He gives us a hint that the answer lies in Bayesian Networks. Bayesian Networks tries to gain inference by looking at the probability of events depending on other events.
It feels to me like its a systematic guesswork.
At this point, I agree with that thesis.
I realized, what saved my wealth from numerous occasion of potential blow-ups was not just the fundamental analysis but making the kind of dependence guessing.
For example, competitors results are not looking so good (or looking very good). Given they are in the same industry, and what we know about the company’s potential, there is every chance this company will not do so well (or do better).
It is guessing after doing a lot of fundamental work.
Guessing has a Cost to It
The cost of guessing is that unless we are very sophisticated, we cannot always get it right.
To guess well, you got to be very in tuned with the company to make that guess. A lot of investors make guesses and say it doesn’t work. That is because they don’t really know that company (despite they claiming they “done the homework”. Basically not in depth enough)
If you know the health of a company, its earnings potential in the past, and learn about the industry, you could increase your probability of success in making a good guess.
For those who preached passive investing in a portfolio of low cost funds, they believe that even folks like myself cannot outguess the market well over time.
I generally think that way.
The cost is that if you missed the best 50 days in the market, your average compounded returns might go from 7-8% a year returns to negative a year.
The opposite is also true. If you missed the worst 50 days, your returns will look much better.
However, the key thing is… if you are truly risk adverse, missing out on the worst days increases the chances of you staying in investing for the long haul.
Passive investing in a way is betting that future looks pretty much like in the past.
Dealing with the Weakness of Using Historical Data in Retirement Planning
If you ask me what I will recommend for your wealth building or retirement, I would say a broadly diversified, low cost portfolio.
You can get cash flow from it for retirement or financial independence.
Then you will ask me how safe is this strategy?
Well, this post probably show you the weakness.
Many also asked me whether spending an initial 4% of your initial capital in retirement, then subsequently adjust that initial first year spending by inflation is a safe spending method.
Well, this post probably show you the weakness.
You will move on and try to find the next holy grail in investing or retirement.
You will probably not find it. And would find an active boutique fund, or a dividend income strategy that gives you that illusion they have more control over these uncertainty than my suggestion.
The reality is that… the future is uncertain:
- The banks where your fixed deposit are in, have every chance of blowing up
- Your property’s future growth rate might be very different from in the past, on a secular basis
- Your unit trust dividend income is based on the earnings and capital appreciation of the fund. If the performances lags, dividend income goes down. If you need $1000 a month in dividend income and the fund gives you exactly $1000 a month, and you cannot live on less, you are screwed
My counter to your question whether these are safe is… what is your alternative?
There are some safer alternative:
- Build a bond ladder of high quality bonds or a bond fund with high quality
- Use Inflation Protected Bonds
- Use a less than 2% initial withdrawal rate
All 3 have similarities. They are very safe, likely takes care of inflation, but also need a lot more money.
So the solution to a lot of problems is having more money.
The value of Bob’s sharing for me is to lay out some of the uncomfortable things I feel in active investing.
The future is uncertain. But a lot of the time, the future rhymes with the past.
Whether it is investing, or retirement there are no ultimate investment, super safe stock or safest retirement strategy.
You just need to get better at understand and living with these things. Understand very well how things work, mitigate, transfer or accept the risks that come with it.
Sign up with the new SG broker Futu SG today till before 31th May and you can receive one FREE Apple share and 3 months of Commission-free trading. All you have to do is open the account and deposit SG$2700 into the account and you can get this welcome package estimated to worth SG$170!
Here are the easy steps that allow you to qualify in less than 2 hours.
Do Like Me on Facebook. I share some tidbits that is not on the blog post there often. You can also choose to subscribe to my content via email below.
I break down my resources according to these topics:
- Building Your Wealth Foundation – If you know and apply these simple financial concepts, your long term wealth should be pretty well managed. Find out what they are
- Active Investing – For active stock investors. My deeper thoughts from my stock investing experience
- Learning about REITs – My Free “Course” on REIT Investing for Beginners and Seasoned Investors
- Dividend Stock Tracker – Track all the common 4-10% yielding dividend stocks in SG
- Free Stock Portfolio Tracking Google Sheets that many love
- Retirement Planning, Financial Independence and Spending down money – My deep dive into how much you need to achieve these, and the different ways you can be financially free
- Providend – Where I currently work doing research. Fee-Only Advisory. No Commissions. Financial Independence Advisers and Retirement Specialists. No charge for the first meeting to understand how it works