It Just Has To Work

Barron's laid out a path to a stagflationary outcome like we had in the 1970's noting the dynamics of the oil market being the primary factor. The Friday growth revisions and inflation data didn't help to refute the argument. 

Bloomberg took up a similar conversation talking about what various investment firms are doing to help with the current equity volatility against a backdrop where plain vanilla 60/40 isn't really working.

There was a bit of a spaghetti thrown against the wall aspect to the different strategies expressed in the Bloomberg article. Bonds often work in times like this but are not for reasons we've gone over ad nauseum. What about gold? It sort of isn't working but I have a different take. Gold already worked. Arguably it priced in some sort of turmoil rising about 70% in the last year.

Are there some equities working? Yes but there are always some equities working no matter how bad it gets. For this event, defense stocks certainly have been working until the last week or so, rolling over a little. They also might have priced in turmoil ahead of time. 

There was no mention of managed futures which have been interesting in terms of the dispersion of performances. Over longer periods, performance dispersion seems more like magnitude but in the same direction. The long list of funds I track collectively seem to be doing different things on a daily basis. The differences probably come down to different types of signals used as well as risk weighting of positions. There have been times were managed futures has just been killed during equity market volatility, the first 10% down, but that isn't happening now. 

Another Bloomberg article suggested buffer/defined outcome funds instead of bonds to help with equity volatility. Buffer/defined outcome funds certainly are not malfunctioning through this, so that's good. I have no reason to think they would malfunction but the basic ones will not be proxies for equities when you want them to be. 

Inverse funds are mostly working. But client personal holding BTAL had a couple of disappointing days in there when the S&P 500 was down (good for BTAL) but software stocks had a bit of a recovery (bad for BTAL) that seemed to puzzle people but happened all the same. Going to heavy in inverse funds becomes counter productive at some weighting as too much of a drag. I'm not sure where that line is but mid single digits is not counter productive. 

REITs have been doing well which is a bit of a surprise with rates going up. REITs have tended to disappoint in times of turmoil more often than not and yieldy REITs tend to go down when people can better yields from bonds. 

The last (only?) time there really was stagflation, foreign equity markets outperformed the US. This was the case in the 2000's albeit with a different circumstance.

Foreign has had a bad week but a real stagflationary event would last more than a week or two and I would want foreign equity exposure in that instance. 

What all of this is about is diversifying your diversifiers. Forty percent in bonds, not working. Meb Faber has tweeted about how close 60/40 stocks/bonds is to 60/40 stocks/gold over long periods. Great but gold this month is not working. On the next event, maybe both will work and the things doing a little better now will do very poorly

There's no way to know when some random diversifier you believe in just will not get it done. It would be nice if gold was working this month but I don't want to put clients in a position where gold has to work just like anyone putting clients into 40% bonds is putting them into a position where bonds have to work and they aren't. 

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation.

There's An ETF For That?

YieldMax dialed it way down for its new US Stocks Target Double Distribution ETF (DDDD). Instead of yielding 50%, DDDD will target twice the distribution rate of the Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF (SCHD). SCHD yields about 3.5%. DDDD owns a slug of SCHD as well as quite a few of the individual stocks in SCHD. 

The fund will overlay option combos on SCHD as well as some of the holdings using call spreads, selling puts and a couple of other strategies occasionally. The boilerplate says the fund may return capital as part of its distributions. 

Copilot said that based on the current holdings, the dividends generated before any options are implemented should be 3.4-3.7%, in line with the fund. 

I'd be surprised if it had to return much capital to find the extra 3.5% yield. I suppose it might want to do that for some reason but I doubt it would have to. The extra drag then from the higher distribution versus SCHD would only be 87.5 basis points per calendar quarter. I can't imagine it would look like any of the crazy high yielders that move down and to the right on a price basis very swiftly only to then reverse split and then repeat the swift decline toward another reverse split.

We talk about using small allocations to the crazy high yielders in some sort of depletion or drawdown strategy. DDDD simply paying a little bit more should be plenty sustainable for anyone who would rather take yield out than sell from more of a total return approach. 

For all the talk about private equity/credit firms, it turns out there is a pretty narrow based ETF tracking the space. The Van Eck Alternative Asset Manager ETF (GPZ) only has about nine months under its belt but it appears to do a good job tracking the industry which lately means the price is down a lot.

That's not all the holding but it's most of them. Not captured in the screenshot is Blue Owl with a 3.28% weighting. There's no Goldman, Morgan Stanley or any of the other multiline financials that dominate funds like the following;

While I can't see ever wanting GPZ, there is probably useful information keeping tabs on it.

I'll close out with advice from Barron's about The Best Way To Trade A Volatile Stock Market which is that investors "should do as little as possible." Maybe put differently, do less. If you've been reading this blog for a while, hopefully you recognize the pattern of small tweaks when risk factors change, not necessarily as an emotional response. That's the objective anyway.

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation.

Duration Is Not The Answer

Something I don't think I've ever talked about before but I am not a fan of fixed income duration.

We have of course talked about this so often that I am sure I've lost readers for banging the same drum over and over for so many years.

The screenshot is just a nanocosm, a moment in time but it captures the unreliability of fixed income duration. 

There is some yield where ten years or 20 years is adequately compensated but four point something percent isn't it. If we ever get a yield that you think does provide adequate compensation for ten years or 20 years, just buy the individual issue, don't buy the ETF.

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation.

Mr. Potter's Investing Philosophy

 Boaz Weinstein isn't selling, he's buying.

Or trying to buy anyway, distressed assets from a couple of the fund providers like Blue Owl for 65-80 cents on the dollar. We talked about this the other day. I don't think the takeaway is to also try to buy distressed private credit assets. I'm not even sure what that would look like, Weinstein is trying to assets out of funds like Blue Owl and the others, so to buy shares would appear to mean buying a fund that just sold on the cheap if that's what happens. 

What the point is that we can take away from is about not panicking when things go poorly for random holdings. If you include sector funds in your strategy, I do, a sector isn't going to go to zero. If you've sized it correctly then there should be no need to sell just because it is down. To Weinstein's point, it would be a time to buy pessimism as he puts it. The better sale would be to sell excessive optimism. In January I shaved down SPDR Metal and Mining (XME) by about 20%. It doubled in a year which is great but maybe excessive. 

I'm not a buyer of the private credit pessimism. The whole space reminds me of trying to hold onto an M80 but without the Bitcoin-like upside potential. I take that back. The common stocks of the private credit companies do have that potential but that would add a lot of volatility to a portfolio. We look at Blackstone (BX) frequently for blogging purposes. It is down to $107 from $199 in November, 2024. 

I don't think there's a reasonable risk of it failing, might not be as confident in Blue Owl, but while I don't doubt it gets back to $199 and higher eventually, maybe the path back to $199 goes through $60 first. I don't know either way in terms of price of course but in terms a volatility, I would expect the moves to be huge in both directions. Including that sort of volatility in a portfolio makes sense but again, it needs to be sized correctly and considered with something else that might be just as volatile. Having 5% in four or five holdings with this kind of volatility is going to be painful if the market whooshes down and that would increase the odds for panic selling for the investor who didn't understand what they were getting into. 

We've been talking about redemption requests impacting private credit funds and that appears to now be happening with Cliffwater. I haven't seen any reports that Cliffwater's assets are impaired so assuming they are not impaired, a bad outcome could just simply be a sort of contagion effect. People believing the entire space is in trouble could be looking for liquidity anywhere or as we quoted in a different blog post, no one wants to be the last one out.

"Hi there, it's Cliffwater. I need to sell some paper right now to meet redemptions."

"Hi Cliffwater. How's 85 cents sound?"

These things are complicated and expensive in addition to being illiquid. 

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation.

Risk & Diversification

Here's a doozy of a Tweet.

It's not a joke (nice timing on the screen grab). That's the CEO of Strategy pumping one of the company's variable rate perpetual preferred issues. 

It shows a yield on Yahoo of 11.5% at the current price. Nothing bad will happen until it does. Or put differently, risk happens fast and if the whole Strategy story crumbles, STRC might drop like a Wylie Coyote cartoon. Isolating that risk isn't too difficult, knowing when it will happen is pretty much impossible. Once you really break a risk down to simple terms, you can then make an informed decision about whether it is a risk you should take. I am surprised how steady it has been.

Larry Swedroe wrote about risk, diversification and risk adjusted returns. He hinted at this but if you have a diversified portfolio, you are going to have a few things that will "make you want to puke" as Jason Buck said. Once an investor realizes it's not in their interest to try to optimize for one week but for long periods of time, it becomes easier to endure a period where something is simply lagging or to endure when a diversifier that is intended to offset equity volatility does just that. You don't want your diversifiers to be your best performers. 

This was interesting;

We've looked at this a little bit with the Unlimited Long/Short Equity ETF (HFEQ) which targets not twice the return of long short but twice the volatility. At some point I may have mentioned the Unlimited Managed Futures ETF (HFMF) which targets twice the volatility of regular managed futures. 

I think this sort of idea for now anyway is a better way to add capital efficiency than the far more common twice the return levered funds that reset every day. But using something like client personal holding BTAL to leverage down, as we've described it previously, into slightly more equity exposure also works. 

To point number 1 about the allocator needing to do the rebalancing, I'm not sure why that it a problem. It's a task to be done but I don't think it's a problem. For point number 2, I think there is an embedded assumption that variance drain (volatility drag) can be modeled or predicted but it's path dependent. 

Anytime we've ever done some sort of long term study with the 2X S&P 500 ETF (SSO) it tracks 2x the index pretty closely most of the time. It delivers the general effect most of the time. Levered funds tracking narrower things or more volatile indexes tend to deviate more. SSO may not be close enough for you and just because it is pretty close most of the time, the wrong sequence will cause a lot of pain.

In 21 full and partial years since SSO started trading, I would say that 2020, 2018, 2015, 2011 and 2007 are when the deviation might have been uncomfortable certainly but not catastrophic. The way to use it, if there is any way in this context would not be to put 30% into SSO and think you've got 60% equities. More like, 50% into plain vanilla equities and maybe 5% in SSO to get to 60 exposure leaving 5% left over for some sort of diversifier or maybe 45 and 7.5 leaving 7.5 left over for a diversifier. 

Does it work when doubling the volatility in managed futures like HFMF?

The sample size is limited but based on first impressions, not really. Looking at long/short equity, there are more successful months than with managed futures.

But then this gets interesting.

The 2x volatility works in this comparison.

The period is too short to draw a conclusion about the performance but the volatility numbers are close and although you can't see it, the standard deviation numbers are even closer to each other. 

The concept is valid and yes there would be work to do but unless you're putting it all in one target date funds (not bagging on that), then any portfolio strategy you implement will require work. 

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation.

A Citrini Gloomsday Portfolio

The other day I said I'd try to put something together that might work if Citrini Research's prediction possible outcome stemming from AI plays out. As a reminder here's what they spelled out for two years from now.

• Unemployment rate hits 10%
• 30% decline in the S&P 500
• Home prices fall at least 10% in some big markets including NYC, LA and Chicago
• Labor income drops below 50% of GDP
• CPI goes negative

I came up with this;

Instead if QLEIX which is leveraged up here, I plan to monitor this idea using 15% in HFEQ which is long biased L/S that targets 2x volatility. I used JEPI but I would swap out that equity beta for BTYB that we looked at on Sunday. Since that fund is only a month old, it makes no sense to back test it yet. NFLY is a crazy high yielder yes but it avoids crazy CEO risk like a couple of the crazy high yielders have and I think would be an important piece of this puzzle but without completely selling out the portfolio for yield.

The managed futures is split as you can see but doesn't have a big weighting. We know it can take a bit for managed futures to adjust during regime changes. 

I wouldn't focus on the returns looking back. It is designed to be less volatile than 60/40 which it is, with smaller drawdowns which has also been the case. Much smaller drawdowns. It gets a lot of yield from just three sources/25% of the portfolio but there would be a little interest rate risk using BTYB, less though than with VBAIX in case rates go up. Yes, in a deflationary environment, the book says yields go down but I don't want to bet on too much normalcy from the treasury market. If yields do go down then 10% in BTYB should get some benefit.  

One thing I did not model in was asymmetry. I'm not sure Bitcoin is the answer in this context. I'm still holding as I outlined recently but if you want to model in a small slice to asymmetry I would look elsewhere like maybe uranium or something that might benefit from the AI gloomsday that Citrini is talking about. 

Infrastructure as a theme might makes sense. Client personal holding CBOE might benefit if VIX trading and a few other things see outsized trading volume growth.

Going 100% cash is probably a bad way to go. It's suboptimal at a minimum in case Citrini turns out to be completely wrong about this or it kind of plays out the way they suggest but with a much smaller impact on the equity market. Even if they're exactly right, after stocks bottom out, they will start to go up and eventually make a new high. Guessing on when the bottom is in has a low probability of success. The first draft of this portfolio we created for this post has holdings that have the opportunity to go up, even be antifragile, in the face of Citrini's AI Gloomsday scenario. 

BTAL, ARBIX, MERIX and NOC are in my ownership universe.

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation.

This Derivative Income ETF Might Not Be Horrible

Quick hit Sunday.

A few weeks ago we mentioned the Vistashares Bitbonds 5 Year Weekly Income Fund (BTYB) which had just started trading. The fund is 80% long five year treasuries and 20% in a Bitcoin synthetic covered call with the objective of generating twice the yield versus just owning a five year treasury.

Obviously it's been a rough run for Bitcoin since BTYB listed but the result is far from horrible. The chart is price only, so adding back in the 15 cents it has paid out so far and the drag from Bitcoin has been less than 100 basis points compared to the UFIV ETF. YBTC is a crazy high yielding covered call fund tracking Bitcoin. It's only a month but I like the idea of harnessing volatility to add a little bit of yield. Maybe BTYB can actually achieve that. There is still interest rate risk though even with just five years. In 2022, IEI which tracks 3-7 year treasuries bottomed out with just over a 12% decline at it's still $12 below its late 2021 high.

From Torsten Slok. No immigration is economically serious. 

Here's a link to the Citrini Research piece that really upset markets a couple of weeks ago. Here's the TLDR from Bloomberg.

• US unemployment rate exceeds 10% 

• S&P 500 declines more than 30% from its level at time of launch

• Zillow Home Value Index declines more than 10% YoY in any of: NYC, LA, San Francisco, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix 

• Labor share of gross domestic income first-release value for any quarter falls below 50% 

• CPI falls below 0% in any monthly release 

Citrini leads off saying this is not a prediction, it's merely one possible outcome over the next couple of years. Bloomberg added that Kalsi currently shows a 13% probability of three of the five happening by July of 2028. 

When I see any sort of gloomsday (play on words of doomsday) predictions possible outcomes, my inclination is to think about resiliency of not just the portfolio but also my various income streams. Portfolio resiliency could come from small exposures to inverse strategies, managed futures (after the first 10% down), a mix of different long/short including absolute return, gold can work in a deflationary environment and there will be some others including defense contractors based on the current geopolitical environment. A crazy thought is that funds like BTYB could work too. Higher yield, not crazy high yield. 

Later this week I will try to put together an anti-Citrini Portfolio, could be fun.

Resiliency of income streams involves learning new things, making sure current income streams can adapt if needed and not being over reliant on any single income stream. I'd also encourage working on trying to add an additional income stream. I think a related point is to start to build into your planning the idea that Congress will not actually be able figure out the Social Security problem. As crazy as it sounds, they might actually screw this up. 

I bet you saw the headline from the WSJ about The Crossing Guard Making $14,000 A Month Mailing Out Her Musings From The Job. The article says she took the crossing guard job to better "connect with her community" for 50 minutes a day without implying she gave up her day job. Then her day job sort of withered shortly thereafter though. It reads like the opportunity found her but she took on the crossing guard gig expecting nothing, then had an idea and was able to monetize it very successfully. It's a great example of what we've been talking about here for a long time. 

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation.

When Does A Crappy Deal Become Good?

First this.

We've made this point before. There is an element of private equity/credit firms needing retail bag holders' via 401k plans to soak up deal supply. I do not think 401k plans have any shot of getting in on the "good deals." 

How did Robinhood's private markets retail fund do on day one?

The $4 dollar drop isn't as bad as it first seems. The first print was at $22, a $3 drop. That is likely the sales charge paid by people who bought on the offering. Never buy closed end funds on the offering. There is a process where the sales charge gets worked quickly off in the market. If the sales charge was $3 then people buying the offering were paying $25 for $22 worth of assets. It doesn't look like the sales charge is publicly available but some or all of the $3 drop is the market discounting whatever the actual sales charge was and doing it very quickly. 

A funny story that I've told before. I worked at Morgan Stanley for about ten minutes in 2002/2003 and there was some sort of closed end fund offering and of course there was a sales credit available to us for any shares we placed. Knowing how these work, I stayed away. I got asked about it by a senior guy in the office, I explained the sales charge issue, he got pissed and told me I was wrong. Of course that is exactly what happened but he never brought it up again. From back then, I remember the sales charge being more like a buck and half but maybe it was more for RVI due to it being riskier....or crappier. 

Boaz Weinstein from Saba is partnering with Cox Capital to try to buy a lot of Blue Owl's distressed assets. Blue Owl was able to sell some of the good stuff for more than 99 cents on the dollar to meet some redemption demand. It looks like Saba and Cox are trying to buy assets from Blue Owl between 65 cents and 80 cents on the dollar. 

I saw a comment somewhere about this noting that if Weinstein is trying to buy, retail investors should not be so quick to sell. There is logic to that of course. I am glad I don't have to try to make that decision but there is a price where what was originally a crappy deal becomes a good deal. Buying RVI at a big premium wasn't a good idea but buying at some whopper of a discount might be.

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation.