August 11 – unusual market day

A few things caught my attention today, and it is likely that means that the next few days (i.e. the short term) there is going to be some turbulence in the stock markets. If you have some leftover cash, after this storm purges some weaker holdings out of their positions, it’ll be a better time than not to load up.

First, the commodity that seemingly everybody in retail has talked about ad nauseum as the salvation to currency depreciation (gold) has cratered today:

This ~US$100 drop in gold is significant. The last time it got dumped badly was during the Covid-19 crisis where people were seeking liquidity in the form of cash at any price possible. Beyond that you have to go back to late 2016, and I think this was due to threats of interest rate normalization (does that feel like a long time ago!).

The psychology of the situation is telling. Gold was the crowded trade where everybody piled in because they were comfortable in ordering the shiny yellow metal. It was the hedge against the collapse of the currency and economy due to COVID-19. After it eclipsed $2,000/Oz, that was a catalyst for people to assume it was all systems go, and people were pronouncing price targets of $2,500, $3,000, etc., per ounce. Instead, the bottom is falling out, and the question is how low this price will have to go for the people that got in at $2,000+ to bail out.

What’s even more interesting is the rise up (some 10bps or so) of the 30-year US treasury bond:

This is not a huge rise, but it is sharp. Rising long-term interest rates have many spin-off consequences. Since the Federal Reserve effectively controls the yield curve at present, they may be pushing for larger spreads. Tough to tell at present. The assets of the Federal Reserve continue to be flat in the month of July.

I’m going to guess there will be a spike of equity volatility in the next few days that will follow this minor tremor. It will be enough to get weak hands out of the market and confuse people about future market direction – negative headlines and worries will once again permeate. A great time to deploy more incremental cash, similar to when the markets vomited in the second week of June.

Political arbitrage betting – US Presidential Election

There is no way for me to do this in size in Canada (Betfair would have been the best venue), so I’ll give this free arbitrage to the crowd following this site:

On most political betting sites, you can bet who will be the next president of the USA in the 2020 election. Trump is around 3:2 (bet $100, profit $150 if win), while Biden is around 2:3 (bet $100, profit $67 if win).

Legally, the Democrats have to nominate a presidential candidate very soon otherwise it becomes very difficult with regards to ballot access laws to have the name changed. During the 2016 election, the Donald Trump “grabbed her by the PXXXX” moment got a bunch of people interested in investigating the topic on how a major party candidate could be replaced on the ballot very late in the game. The conclusion is that by the end of August, things are more or less sealed up for a bunch of states and by mid-September most of the states are ‘locked in’. Courts would have to be petitioned at this point, which comes with obvious uncertainty.

It should be abundantly clear to a non-partisan observer that Joe Biden is suffering from dementia. It is getting to the point where the Democrats should be actively investigating whether they want him to be the nominee or not.

My arbitrage play at this point would be to sell Joe Biden (NOT Democratic Party) at this point and then liquidate the bet if he is formally nominated (which would be a neutral transaction, perhaps winning or losing 100-200bps or so in the process) or collecting a massive gain (100%) if the Democrats dump him from the presidential ticket. Hence the political arbitrage.

This would leave the question of who the Democrats would nominate, and that would be Kamala Harris, who you could get currently at 180:1 odds. I can’t find a place where I can legally purchase chances to win the Democratic nomination. After Biden is dumped I would then liquidate this bet (she would trade at least at 1:1 in the event of her nomination, so you would receive an ROI of around some 5000% percent in the process even if you got her at 100:1).

Betfair is closed to Canadians and would be one of the few credible venues where you can pull this off in any size. For those of you in the UK or elsewhere where Betfair is available, you’re welcome. At worst this is a neutral and at best you’ll get an ROI of 100% on your Biden “short sale”. I accept gift cards to fast food joints if you wish to express your appreciation after cashing in on this!

Miscellaneous notes

I took a few days out in a remote area (i.e. away from major urban centres) to do some reflection and avoiding the airwaves for the most part. It allows for mental digestion without dealing with the day to day distractions. Also, due to Covid-19, the tourism sector for the most part is decimated, which is why it is the perfect time to go out to places that would otherwise be swamped with tourists.

Covid

It’s pretty evident that nomenclature has made this much more difficult than it should be. The virus that causes COVID-19 is SARS-CoV-2. An analogy is that HIV is the virus that causes AIDS. Unfortunately, in everyday conversation, the words “COVID-19” refer to the disease and are conflated with the virus. There is ample evidence that even if you have the virus, there is a very good chance that you don’t get the disease, but the reports are still such that you are “COVID-positive”.

There are plenty of viruses out there that people are completely asymptomatic to. A good example is the Herpes Simplex virus, where it is estimated that 2/3rds of the world population has it. The disease that the virus causes is called Herpes simplex (same name as the virus).

Until people make a proper distinction between the virus and the disease, I generally believe public policy will be quite irrational in circumstances. Specifically, efforts to contain the virus by caging people and restricting various activities are effective in the short term, but pay very little to the fact that in the longer run, there will be re-infections. Jurisdictions that have claimed victory (e.g. New Zealand, Atlantic Canada, Hong Kong) will discover that the virus will re-emerge despite all efforts to contain it. This is ultimately a futile battle.

If I was pulling the public policy levers, it would be to focus on those obviously vulnerable to the disease and not the virus. As the age cohort is the dominant variable that correlates with mortality and severe symptoms, these people should continue to take extra precaution – both due to SARS-CoV-2, but also because there are a boatload of other viruses out there that also correlate positively with age in terms of mortality.

But in the meantime, we have long since passed the point where COVID-19 is used for rent-seeking and other political purposes. This is obvious in places like Hong Kong, which authorities are claiming to cite as the reason why they should shut down again (real reason – legislative elections are coming up and they won’t be good for the establishment), but also here in Canada, where incessant “mask or no mask” polarization completely misses the point – people that get the virus don’t necessarily get the disease.

This search for a vaccination is also a huge red herring, but it will serve a psychological purpose – a light at the end of the tunnel. However, my deep suspicion is that this will be similar to attempts to vaccinate against the common cold (Rhinoviruses and other Coronaviruses) and the annual “flu season vaccination” which protects against certain strains of flus (H1N1, H5N1, etc.). There is evidence to show such vaccinations do have effectiveness, but it is never a “black or white” situation – the flu vaccination, for instance, ranges in effectiveness from 10% to 50% (if you believe the evidence!), but it is impossible to measure after the fact – for ethical reasons, you can’t run a double-blind test where you purposefully infect people in one arm. Measuring something that does not happen is much more difficult – if you took the flu vaccine, but didn’t catch the disease, who is to say that you just simply never would have gotten it anyway?

So here is my prediction on the COVID-19 vaccination – there will be something released, it will be ‘proven’ to be effective, but its effectiveness will be diffuse (let’s call it a statistically significant 10% success rate). Victory will be claimed, and a whole bunch of people will take it (which will spark another public controversy over mandatory vaccinations vs. not taking them) and the world will move on.

Fundamentally, what is going on is much more simpler – we all have immune systems. Some of us are much better at fighting certain classes of viruses than others. There are some of us that have very good immune systems, and some of us that get sick all of the time. Statistically speaking, if you are young, treat your body well and have had general exposure to other amounts of viruses in your past life, your body will be well adapted to fighting SARS-CoV-2. Some will be much more vulnerable. A simple analogy is that happened to when the European explorers introduced smallpox to the native populations in North America – the natives didn’t stand a chance since their immune systems were not trained at all to fight the classification of viruses that had brewed up in the filthy urban centres of Europe over the prior centuries (prior to the advent of urbanized sewage systems, it made Chinese wet markets look very sanitary by comparison).

Another analogy is physical fitness – if you are asked to run 5km in a 75th percentile time and you haven’t done it before with zero athletic training, chances are if you actually forced do it, it would probably cause severe damage (shin splints to name the least, but it would probably cause severe cardiovascular damage). Recall the first recorded instance of a person running a marathon died after completing his mission (Pheidippides)! However, if your body is trained, you will be adapted to the stress that heavy physical activity incurs. While this simplifies matters with regards to immunology, the body that has faced a variety of viruses in the past will likely do better dealing with SARS-CoV-2 than those that are inherently sensitive.

Finally, if this virus is anything like other viruses, there will be subtle mutations that will increase and decrease the prevalence of disease – just like how you can get a “light” cold and a “bad” cold.

I really think it’s time we move on.

Investments in Markets

It is evident to me that investing in ‘stuff’ rather than ‘dollars’ is going to be the right decision. Other than some (rapidly depreciating) cash, I hold nothing financial in my portfolio. No banks, no insurers, etc.

There is currently a boom in technology-related issuers and I am content to let this segment of the market figure itself out with their high valuations. The rush to liquidity to largecap issuers (the FANGS, and throw in Tesla in there while you’re at it) are also a result of passive indexation – you throw a dollar into an S&P 500 index fund, and 20 cents of your investment automatically get forced into the top 5 or 6 companies – who’s going to sell it to you? As a result, prices rise when liquidity rises. The major indicies will likely continue rising.

It will eventually implode (analogy is year 2000) and when it does, the survivors left standing will be the ones that are actually producing real stuff. This means primary industry participants (that can actually produce such products at competitive costs as primary industries are quite competitive), but secondary industry participants that produce viable products from primary industry participants will also do quite well. I realize this is quite abstract, but I do have some names in mind.

Commodity investing

Gold is going crazy right now (and rightfully so – why bother speculating on negative interest rates with government bonds that are effectively yielding zero, when you can just get your hands on the shiny yellow metal?). I do not like any of the gold mining companies – they are all capital pits.  Their market value will go up on the basis of reserves, rather than having efficient operations and capital management.  Perhaps I’m a little too dismissive and throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but I think there are too many eyeballs on gold producers (despite most of these producers not being very well represented on the indicies). If you believe in gold, just buy the futures contracts and get price exposure that way.

Oil is a more interesting space, at least in Canada. Canadian SAGD producers (and more conventional low-decline producers) are going to be in shockingly decent shape – most of the capital has been spent and it requires relatively less maintenance capital to keep the production flowing. Contrast this to capital-intense shale producers which is now financially nonviable (and institutions are now smart to how this pricing model is no longer functional). Especially in Canada, environmental laws are incumbency protection for the major producers, and now that US shale has peaked (Q4-2019), they are going to be more reliant on imports once demand gets back up again. With Trans-Mountain continuing, Coastal Gaslink proceeding and Keystone probably continuing to fruition (maybe), it actually bodes quite well for Canada. Teck not getting into the oil sands game was probably the death knell for further oil production in Canada in the foreseeable future, which means the Suncor, CNQ and Cenovuses are going to be reaping the rewards.

My guess is we will see a triple digit oil price in a couple years. Other fossil fuels (gas, coal) will follow. It will be considered a massive surprise from market participants that thought the days of fossil fuels were done.

Again, just like gold stocks, probably investing in futures contracts are the easier method, although in Canada, most of the companies have been hacked so badly in the past decade that they are lean operations and you can pick and choose from them to get sufficient leverage (in addition to being registered account eligible).

Finally, the outlook for Coal companies right now feels like how the market felt about tobacco investing in the late 1990’s. The highest returns are to be made when an entire sector is shunned without any hint of contrarianism (which is what you see now in the airline and cruise ship industry).

Election Politics – USA

It is tough to believe the US Presidential Election is just over three months away.  Four years ago the election felt like it lasted a year.  This time around it feels like it hasn’t even started yet.

The most credible gambling site where you can throw a bunch of money at and not get defrauded (they respect wagers from people that actually are winning clients) is Pinnacle Sports.  They have Trump at +156 (39% to win) and Biden at -184 (65% to win) (note that the excess of 4% of the total of 104% is the “bid/ask spread”).  Another credible site (Betfair, but not available for Canadians) has Trump at 9/5 odds.  The basis for this is likely the litany of polling showing that Trump is down by about 9% across the country, which in most ordinary circumstances would result in a slaughter.

However, this is not any ordinary election, and the winner is determined from the electoral college and not the popular vote.  Just like in 2016, Trump is going to get slaughtered by significant margins in California and New York, but it doesn’t matter whether he loses by 40% or 20% in those states – the outcome is already pre-determined.  The question is how he does in MI, OH, FL, NC, PA.

The other question is if polling data is reliable.  In both Canada and the USA, elections are determined by who turns out to vote, and polling typically does not capture this data very well.  If I were to guess at present, I would say the odds are reversed.

Election Politics – Canada

There is a non-trivial chance of Justin Trudeau calling an election for October.  Be warned.

Robinhood and overactive retail trading

Globe and Mail had an interesting article on the advent of Robinhood.

Robinhood is not currently available in Canada, but I’ve seen enough videos to come to an easy conclusion – it is the financial brokerage equivalent of crack cocaine.

There’s two items I’d like to discuss. One is commission-free trading, and the other is the psychological aspects of trading.

Robinhood allows commission-free trading of various products. The company’s business model makes money on payment for order flow, where the entity sells order flow to market making entities (such as Virtu – VIRT on the Nasdaq). The market makers execute on the trades and they pocket money buying on the bid, selling at the ask, and also making some informed speculation on the very short term future prices of securities depending on the order flow coming in (which is why you tend to see discontinuities on intraday trading – it is the market maker pulling away from the bid when there is a crush of supply pressure or pulling away at the ask when there is a crush of demand pressure).

For each share of stock traded, Robinhood made four to 15 times more than Schwab in the most recent quarter, according to the filings. In total, Robinhood got US$18,955 from the trading firms for every dollar in the average customer account, while Schwab made US$195, the Alphacution analysis shows.

I would suspect this magnitude difference (US$18,955 for a Robinhood dollar to $195 for a Schwab dollar) is a mis-print, but the 4-15 times magnitude of payment for order flow would intuitively sound like it is in the ballpark – reflecting the fact that customers purchase the most profitable type of items (call and put options) with large spreads. A market maker isn’t going to make much money if you buy 100 shares of Microsoft, but if you purchase 50 call options of some medium-capitalization security, it is virtually guaranteed that they will be paying at least a 25 cent (if not 50 cent or 1 dollar) spread on the trade.

In essence, there are two components to the cost of a trade. One is the commissions and fees associated with the trade – and for the most part, this is fairly transparent. The other less transparent cost of trading, which is much higher than the commission, is the slippage you pay for execution. If you want immediate execution, you must pay the spread. This is more costly than most commissions unless if you are trading the most liquid of securities.

There is a more subtle aspect to trading which applies when you have to take larger positions in companies, and that is how to acquire enough of the stock without materially impacting the stock price, but this is usually an institutional concern. This concern does sometimes happen at the retail level, especially in lower capitalization/volume stocks (e.g. my frustrations with trading Torstar, where it didn’t take much money to affect the stock price!).

So as a result of Robinhood’s price structure, they have an incentive to have their customers trade as much as possible, and ideally trade securities that will generate higher payment for order flow margins (i.e. high bid-ask spread options, especially multi-leg option positions such as Iron Condors!).

As a result, they make trading as easy as opening up an app on your iPhone and tapping a few keys and you’ve suddenly made a trade. You can trade on the bus, trade in bed, trade at the gym, etc, etc.

Clearly they’re trying to turn it into a legalized version of casino gambling, without telling the consumer that the expected value of their transactions are probably going to be higher at a casino.

So this leads me to the second item of this post, and this is psychology. There is a book called Nudge which you should read and Robinhood employs many of these tricks.

Just viewing the plethora of Youtube videos of people “minting coin” (e.g. “How I Made $30,000 in 1 Week Stock Trading on Robinhood“), and the general “millennial” attitude of these market participants, makes it definitely a herd mentality atmosphere, coupled with the “missing out” psychological sentiment – other people are making money, seemingly by tapping buttons on their phone in bed, why can’t I??? Robinhood couldn’t purchase this type of marketing. Contrast this with Interactive Brokers, where you get some very dry videos that few people in relation will click on.

The other phenomena is the advent of more sophisticated “trading rooms”, which has existed since the dawn of time (yes, pre-digital world), where people with their Robinhood accounts can band together to pumping up securities and purchasing and selling the hot tip of the day, just like a huckster at a horse racing track. There is so much rich history in herd mentality in stock trading that it would fill volumes, but for example, I’m going through a book called “Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds“, which was published in 1841, and its first chapter is about after Louis the 14th bankrupted France, eventually there was a mania in paper currency and the corporation that was created to exploit the Louisana Territory – people were lined up to subscribe and shares were bidded up to the roof. It didn’t end well.

Another great example is the “bucket shops” of the late 19th and early 20th century. A book written on behalf of Jesse Livermore is a good chronicle of this form of legalized gambling (in the name of speculating on the prices of securities), but it basically has the same rhythm to it.

There are all sorts of stories of financial malfeasance, and they all prey on the same human psychological ‘nudges’ that we see today. The only difference is the medium, and our digital age. Our psychological failures are the same and have not evolved with technology.

Robinhood is indeed marketing brilliance, and the net asset value in these accounts gets transferred to the shareholders of Robinhood, the market makers, and the counterparties to the trades that get executed on the platform. I generally do not have much sympathy for those that lose money in this manner. I just hope they do not ruin their lives in the process.

The COVID quarter where everything gets written off

Most companies have a fiscal year corresponding with the calendar, and most of them will be reporting April to June results in the last week of July and in early August.

Q1’s results were in the onset of COVID-19, so results were only partially affected (the sanctions required due to the pandemic really only took effect in the middle of March).

Q2 will contain the full brunt of the economic consequences of COVID-19.

The results posted are going to be horrible for a lot of companies, especially on a GAAP basis. You’re going to see a whole bunch of write-downs of various assets that have been lingering on balance sheets for far too long, but Q2 will be the best time to formally impair them and get past mistakes out of the public consciousness.

The markets are not going to care. This has long since been baked in.

The next consequence of this is that you’re going to see headline computer generated metrics from company financial statements (price to earnings, EPS, etc.) over the next twelve months get wildly misstated due to the inevitable Q2 reporting of losses. This will also affect ROE/ROA, growth percentages, and almost anything relating to earnings in the calculation.

As a result, stock screens looking for value will be twisted unless if forward-looking adjustments can be made. A common forward-looking metric is “consensus analyst estimates”, but this figure is what an investor is looking as a rough short-term measuring stick in relation to the price the market is offering (indeed, if something looks ‘cheap’ solely on the basis of price to consensus analyst estimates, I’d view that much more as an alarm bell than a reason to buy).

The contamination of financial data coming from the COVID quarter will be the worst since the 2008-2009 financial crisis. While individual stock selection is always important, the COVID quarter should create an even better environment for stock selection than other times.