Macro Tsimmis

intelligently hedged investment

Posts Tagged ‘C’

SELL ProShares UltraShort 20+ Year Treasury (TBT)

Posted by intelledgement on Fri, 06 Aug 10

We still like the macro analysis behind this play: as the supply of US debt increases, eventually, demand will dampen, and the incentive to buy long-term treasuries will have to rise to sustain enough sales to finance the government’s operations (not to mention interest payments on previous borrowings). This will depress the value of long-term treasury bonds, and thus cause the value of shares in this 2x inverse exchange-traded fund to increase.

However, timing is everything. We have pretty much been waiting—patiently but fruitlessly—for 18 months for this scenario to unfold. While for sure this means we are 18 months closer to a payoff here, we are up against a powerful flight-to-safety dynamic which, ironically, has ensured ever-increasing demand for long-term treasuries. No matter how many times we ask ourselves “Who would be nuts enough to loan the U.S. government money for twenty or thirty years?” the answer most days for the past 18 months has been “just about everyone.” When the alternative is an equity market where the value of even blue chips is unreliable (Citigroup down from $23 in 2009 to $1 in 2009 to $4 now; WAL-MART down from $63 in 2008 to $46 in 2009 to $52 now; Best Buy $47-$17-$34; Intel $25-$12-$20; etcetera) the guaranteed principal and ROI (albeit paltry) of treasuries looks like a veritable port in the storm.

And even though the long-term debt issues besetting the USA sans structural reform are as challenging as anything facing Spain or Italy today, the immediacy of the sovereign debt problems in Europe have only enhanced, relatively speaking, the shininess of U.S. treasuries.

Add to that the exigencies of deflationary pressures engendered by the side effects of deleveraging—viz., tight credit, continued pressure on real estate prices, and reduced consumer spending—which conspire to compel central banks to keep interest rates low. This does not per se guarantee low interest rates on treasuries, but it sure creates a headwind that pushes in that direction.

So we’ve got the best damn duck blind on the pond here, no doubt. But it’s been 18 months and all the ducks keep eschewing this pond in favor of neighboring ones. We will doubtless be back here, but in the meantime, we are cutting our losses (about 15%) and moving somewhere else with a better chance of bagging some dinner now.

Previous TBT-related posts:

Advertisements

Posted in A.1 Investment Recs | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

2Q10 Intelledgement Macro Strategy Investment Portfolio Report

Posted by intelledgement on Wed, 14 Jul 10

Summary of Intelledgement’s model macro strategy model investment portfolio performance as of 30 June 2010:

Position   Bought   Shares Paid Cost Now Value   Change       YTD         ROI       CAGR  
FXI 03-Jan-07 243 37.15 9,035.45 39.13 10,109.63 -5.69% -6.03% 11.89% 3.26%
IFN 03-Jan-07 196 45.90 9,004.40 30.25 8927.80 -2.75% -0.98% -0.85% -0.24%
DBA 13-Mar-08 235 42.50 9,995.50 23.99 5,637.65 -0.95% -9.27% -43.60% -22.07%
TBT 21-Jan-09 233 42.84 9,989.72 35.48 8,266.84 -27.13% -28.87% -17.25% -12.34%
EWZ 3-Aug-09 165 60.39 9,972.35 61.83 10,628.21 -15.19% -17.13% 6.58% 7.28%
IYW 29-Sep-09 208 51.86 10,794.88 51.60 10,771.70 -11.48% -10.32% -0.21% -0.29%
GLD 21-May-10 95 115.22 10,953.90 121.68 11,564.54 n/a 13.39% 5.57% 64.11%
SLV 21-May-10 636 17.29 11,004.44 18.21 11,614.63 n/a 10.10% 5.54% 63.69%
DOG 25-May-10 204 54.01 11,026.04 54.01 11,018.04 n/a 3.21% -0.07% -0.73%
PSQ 25-May-10 246 44.74 11,014.04 45.26 11,133.96 n/a 3.64% 1.09% 11.61%
SH 25-May-10 201 9.41 10,978.58 55.01 11,057.01 n/a 4.66% 0.71% 7.49%
cash -13,769.30 10,174.48
Overall 31-Dec-06 100,000.00 120,904.29 -4.01% -4.56% 20.90% 5.58%
Macro HF 31-Dec-06 100,000.00 120,194.43 0.70% 2.39% 20.19% 5.40%
S&P 500 31-Dec-06 1,418.30 1,030.71 -11.86% -7.57% -27.33% -10.09%

Position = security the portfolio owns
Bought = date position acquired
Shares = number of shares the portfolio owns
Paid = price per share when purchased
Cost = total paid (price per share multiplied by # shrs plus commission)
Now = price per share as of date of report
Value = what it is worth as of the date of report (price per share multiplied by # shrs plus value of dividends)
Change = on a percentage basis, change since last report (not applicable for positions new since last report)
YTD (Year-to-Date) = on a percentage basis, change since the previous year-end price
ROI (Return-on-Investment) = on a percentage basis, the performance of this security since purchase
CAGR (Compounded Annual Growth Rate) = annualized ROI for this position since purchase (to help compare apples to apples)

Notes: The benchmark for the Intelledgement Macro Strategy Investment Portfolio (IMSIP) is the Greenwich Alternative Investments Global Macro Hedge Fund Index, which historically (1988 to 2009 inclusively) provides a CAGR of around 14.0%. For comparison’s sake, we also show the S&P 500 index, which since January 1950 has produced a CAGR of around 7.3%. Note that for our portfolio’s positions, dividends are added back into the value of the pertinent security and not included in the “cash” total (this gives a more complete picture of the ROI for dividend-paying securities). Also, the “Cost” figures include a standard $8 commission and there is a 1% rate of interest on the listed cash balance.

Transactions: The sudden return of volatility in 2Q10 had us jumping through hoops with not only more transactions than usual but some hard zigging and zagging…but in the end, all profitable (at least the closed trades):

Performance Review: Normally you’d have no difficulty characterizing a 4% loss as a bad quarter, but when you still beat the market (-12%) by eight points, the waters get a bit muddy. We did lose to the hedgies (±0%) by five points. Tactically, reflecting the schizoid market we are close to neutral here, with our three BRIC country funds plus our high tech fund bullish, our four short funds bearish, plus three commodity plays including two flight-to-safety/inflation insurance precious metal funds. Our BRIC ETFs overall were down—as one would expect in a -12% market: India (IFN, -3%), China (FXI, -6%), and Brazil (EWZ, -15%); plus the emerging markets-oriented US Technology ETF (IWY) tracked the market (-11%, which BTW did edge out the NASDAQ for the quarter by one point, for those keeping score at home). Our repurchase of the precious metal EFTs looks good so far with GLD +13% and SLV +10%; the agriculture commodities ETF (DBA) held its own (-1%). Our UltraShort Lehman 20+Year Treasury ETF (TBT), which goes up when the value of long-term treasuries decline, as they tend to do when long-term interest rates rise, had a disastrous quarter (-27%), as the European sovereign debt crisis sparked a flight-to-safety run on US government bonds, and interest rates consequently plummeted. Some of those losses were offset by profits on the purchase and sale of the three index short ETFs for the DOW (DOG), NASDAQ (PSQ), and S&P 500 (SH) during the quarter; we purchased them again towards the end of the quarter and were slightly ahead. We also made a profit on our sale of the Malaysia ETF (EWM), although the sale price was a tad lower than the close at the end of last quarter.

Overall, we are now 48 points ahead of the market in terms of total return-on-investment: +21% for us and -27% for the S&P 500 in the three-and-a-half years since the inception of the IMSIP at the end of 2006. We are one point ahead of our benchmark, the GAI Global Macro Hedge Fund Index, +21% to +20%. In terms of compounded annual growth rate, after three years IMSIP is +6%, the GAI hedgies are at +5%, and the S&P 500 is -10%.

Analysis: After five straight quarters of declining volatility, things got interesting—as in, “may you live in interesting times”—in 2Q10. A combination of continued slower-than-expected economic growth and the specter of sovereign debt defaults among European countries combined to spook the markets big time. The potential threat of defaults by any of the PIIGS (Portugual-Ireland-Italy-Greece-Spain) is considered to be extremely serious because it could engender a cascade of bank collapses—all over Europe and beyond—similar to the danger in 2008 attendant to a collapse of AIG, Bear Stearns, Citibank, Freddie, Fannie, Merrill Lynch, and/or Wachovia (all of whom were eventually bailed out by the US government). The powers-that-be most definitely consider that this would be a catastrophic eventuality, to be avoided at all costs. Thus the likelihood that central banks will once again deploy taxpayer dollars to bailout the moneyed elites, this time for their fecklessness in loaning money to over-extended governments instead of for their foolishness being lured into ludicrous spectulative bets by Goldman Sachs and their ilk.

Our perspective is that this is yet another swerve in the extended oscillating skid which we have written of before. The combination of intrinsically short-sighted democratically elected—and, more to the point, re-elected—politicians and a culture that increasingly craves instant gratification has done us in. We got into this situation by overspending, borrowing beyond our means, and speculating on bubble-valued assets. The U. S. government’s attempts to address our problems have generally been short on addressing systemic issues and long on creating the temporary illusion that things are getting better.

The proper way to defeat an oscillating skid is to turn into it, thus affording your tires traction and enabling you to regain control. In our case, we could do this by allowing the insolvent financial institutions to go out of business, as they so richly deserve to. We could require more stringent capital requirements for both lenders and borrowers doing business in the USA. We could clean house at the regulatory agencies so they will actually enforce the rules already on the books (e.g., not allowing naked short selling). We could make it illegal for ratings agencies to accept payment from any company they rate. We could create an exchange for the trading of derivatives. We could encourage good corporate governance practices (e.g., favoring for government contracts companies that reward management with long-term stock options rather than instant cash bonuses so that corporate leaders’ interests were better aligned with the long-term interest of shareholders). We could reduce social welfare spending commitments to sustainable levels going forward.

But instead, we are fighting the skid at every turn. We are throwing good taxpayer money after bad propping up the “too big to fail” banks. We are debasing our currency in futile attempts to reinflate the housing and credit bubbles that got us into this latest fix in the first place. Instead of addressing the systemic problem of overcommitted government largesse, we are expanding the role of government and increasing our commitments.

Conclusion: There is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone always pays, sooner or later. For decades, we—through our elected leadership—have relentlessly whipped out our national credit card to, in effect, pass the debt on to future suckers. Well, if you have a mirror handy, you can meet one of those future suckers right now. The government is still flashing plastic, but now it is a debit card, and the account being charged is the one that’s comprised of your life savings.

In our best effort to avoid those charges, as of 1 July, we continue to hold four long emerging market ETFs in the portfolio: China (FXI), India (IFN), Brasil (EWX), and US high tech (IYW which we consider an emerging market play as some two-thirds of the revenue of the companies comprising the ETF are ex-USA derived). We believe that in a deleveraging environment, the economies that are still growing will fare far better than those that are not; thus these long positions will be the last we will surrender if and when things get really dicey. Already, things are somewhat dicey…enough so that we now have four inverse ETFs (that go up when whatever they are tied to goes down) to serve as insurance against a sudden worsening of the sovereign debt crisis (which could be either European- or domestic state/local government-based): the short DOW index ETF (DOG), the short NASDAQ index ETF (PSQ), the short S&P 500 index ETF (SH), and the inverse long-term Treasury bonds ETF (TBT). We are considering unloading this last because the (up-to-now) European sovereign debt crisis has engendered a perverse flight-to-safety that is driving U.S. bond rates down (and the values of the bonds up), even though in the long run the USA is no more solvent than Greece. We believe the value of those bonds will eventually plummet but we have held TBT for over a year now with no joy and it could be we can do better with the funds between now and a more opportune time to be short treasuries.

We also still have three long commodity plays: the agriculture ETF (DBA) and precious metals ETFs for gold (GLD) and silver (SLV). The dollar actually stronger again last quarter, the flight-to-safety reaction to the European sovereign debt crisis resulted in increased gold and silver prices anyway. In the longer run, we expect another massive round of central bank quantitative easing in response to the next crisis—or the one after that—and in the deluge of dollars that results, the commodities positions should provide some dry shelter for our assets.

Posted in A.2 Investment Reports | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

BUY ProShares Short Financials ETF (SEF)

Posted by intelledgement on Mon, 25 Jan 10

For a year now, we have been complaining that the Obama administration has totally failed to deliver “change we can believe in” with respect to the most important issue affecting the USA—managing the economy.

The G. W. Bush administration presided over the terminal phase of a real estate bubble that was exacerbated by lax and irresponsible regulation (to be fair, the real estate bubble was stoked by the Clinton administration and easy money policies go back further than that). When it finally blew up in our faces in 2008, instead of working to fix the problems—letting the overextended companies go bankrupt, working to reduce deficit spending and strengthening the dollar, and putting in place regulatory reform to address dark markets, overleveraging, and naked short selling—we instead attempted to paper over the problems: prop up all the troubled companies with toxic assets, extend artificially low easy credit, inject massive amounts of liquidity thus further weakening the dollar.

Enter the Obama administration, whose leader had decried the policies of his successor. But ironically—and to our dismay—when it came to managing the economy, it’s been hard to tell that there’s been an election and change in control of the government. Here it is a year later, and we are still propping up the companies that had failed and should have gone bankrupt (AIG, Fannie and Freddie, Citibank, GM et al), still maintaining 0% interest rates, our debt levels are up since January 2009, the dollar is down 9% year-over-year, and we still await meaningful regulatory reform. Only the names have been changed to protect the…oh, wait…nevermind…Obama even has the same folks in charge of the economy that G. W. Bush did.

Until—perhaps—last week.

Last Thursday, Obama announced proposals to restrict banks with Federally-insured deposits from conducting proprietary trading and from owning or investing in private equity funds or hedge funds. While the details remain to be spelled out, it appears that this is an attempt to transform savings bank/mortgage writing activities into a utility-style of business—heavily regulated, with limited profitability and insulated from more aggressive financial activities. Given that we have consistently criticised Obama (and previous presidents) for essentially taking their cues from the same guys that got us into this mess, it is bracing to finally see a policy proposal from him that did not have a stamp of approval from Goldman Sachs sputniks Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner.

Now, we don’t actually think much of these particular proposals. Had they been in effect in 2008, they would have applied to Citibank and JP Morgan Chase, but not to Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers or AIG or Fannie or Freddie. And of course they would have done nothing to address the policies of easy money and easy credit that stoked the real estate bubble. And nothing to regulate the dark markets through which these bad loans were securitized and distributed. On the margins, it’s not a bad idea to insulate savings banks from what amounts to financial chicanery, but if on the other hand the government is still encouraging such chicanery…well, we can’t seriously expect to get healthier with this course of treatment; about the best we can hope for is to get sicker more slowly.

But when the car is going the wrong direction and you change drivers but keep going in the wrong direction, finally changing the navigator is a good sign.

So if this is (potentially) good news, why are we shorting the financials here?

Well, as much as we enjoyed watching Geithner squirm as he pretended to agree with these proposals, in the final analysis, we do not expect the Obama administration to substantively reverse course here. To truly put things right—reduce deficit spending, support the dollar, cease propping up zombie banks, enforce already-existing regulations limiting leverage, naked short selling, and other financial shenanigans which have largely been winked at for decades—would be painful. Painful in the short term for everyone, and in the longer term, for a lot of powerful folks from New York to Washington to London to Beijing. If Obama were of a mind to tackle that Sisyphean task, he should have started a year ago, when he could clearly have blamed everything on G.W. Bush and might have had a chance to make enough progress by 2012 to be re-elected. Now he has followed the same path as G.W. Bush for a year and we are a year further down the wrong road—whose fault is that? Even if he wants to reverse course, he lacks the moral authority and time to succeed.

So what is driving this conniption? We think it’s the loss of the Senate seat held by Ted Kennedy to the long-shot Republican challenger Scott Brown last week that has clearly energized the Obama administration to position themselves as less friendly to “Wall Street.” And folks, this is not positive energy we’re talking about here. The reality is that we have a capitalist system that is debilitated and the spectacle of the government vilifying the banks for no end other than political expediency is most definitely not a step towards healing. Politicians fighting for their (political) lives are not likely to make statesmanlike decisions and exhibit restraint; things are apt to get ugly. That is to say, more ugly.

And if we have misjudged Obama, and he truly does make an attempt to change direction here, then we will really see some economic and political turbulence.

Actually we think Bush-Obama troops have done a decent job, considering the size of the problems we have, sweeping them under the rug once again. Thus we could well get a continued overall market rally so long as job losses continue to slow and consumer spending does not decline further. But we don’t believe the financial sector is likely to lead such a rally. Thus it is a logical choice to short here, as insurance against a downturn sooner than we expect.

Thus we are buying the ProShares Short Financials ETF (SEF) here. This ETF is managed with the intent of obtaining a return of -100% of the Dow Jones U. S. Financials Index each single day. Thus the value of each share of the ETF should go up when the index declines, and vice versa. We have shorted the financials twice previously, both times utilizing the Proshares Ultrashort Financials ETF (SKF; this fund seeks a return of -200% of the Dow Jones U. S. Financials Index each day)—we made compounded annual growth rate profits of 45% and 5% respectively on those trades, but in light of our analysis that leveraged ETFs don’t perform well over time, we are going with the SEF this time around.

Previous SEF-related posts:

Posted in A.1 Investment Recs | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Nov 08 Intelledgement Speculative Opportunity Portfolio Report

Posted by intelledgement on Wed, 10 Dec 08

Position Purchased Shares Paid Cost Now Value Change YTD ROI CAGR
VRTX 18-Apr-07 57 31.65 1,812.05 24.59 1,401.63 -6.18% 5.85% -22.65% -14.70%
NBIX 22-May-07 158 11.33 1,798.14 3.11 491.38 -24.70% -31.50% -72.67% -57.35%
GSS 19-Jul-07 451 4.19 1,897.69 0.73 329.23 -17.05% -76.90% -82.65% -72.33%
GSS 24-Aug-07 613 3.08 1,896.04 0.73 447.49 -17.05% -76.90% -76.40% -68.07%
BZH 24-Mar-08 -214 10.99 -2,343.86 1.81 -387.34 -20.61% -95.61% 83.47% 143.57%
BAC 8-Sep-08 -69 34.73 -2,388.37 16.25 -1,121.25 -32.77% -60.62% 53.05% 581.57%
GS 8-Sep-08 -14 169.73 -2,368.22 78.99 -1,110.76 -14.61% -63.27% 53.10% 582.44%
HBC 8-Sep-08 -30 79.11 -2,365.30 54.37 -1,658.10 -7.85% -35.05% 29.90% 225.29%
DUG 10-Sep-08 56 42.83 2,406.48 30.40 1,814.51 -17.95% -15.51% -24.60% -72.89%
BBY 19-Sep-08 -58 41.49 -2,398.42 20.71 -1,209.30 -22.95% -60.66% 49.58% 717.44%
MA 19-Sep-08 -11 225.18 -2,468.98 145.40 -1,601.05 -1.64% -32.43% 35.15% 381.54%
WMT 19-Sep-08 -40 59.70 -2,380.00 55.88 -2,235.20 0.13% 17.57% 6.08% 36.09%
CAB 19-Sep-08 170 14.08 2,401.60 6.25 1,062.50 -21.38% -58.53% -55.76% -98.58%
WFC 09-Oct-08 -73 33.06 -2,405.38 28.89 -2,133.79 -15.15% -2.89% 11.29% 118.47%
cash 16,906.53 31,396.20
ISOP 03-Jan-07 10,000.00 25,486.15 2.70% 16.67% 154.86% 63.50%
Global HF 03-Jan-07 10,000.00 9,271.73 -1.67% -16.57% -7.28% -3.90%
NASDAQ 03-Jan-07 2,415.29 1,535.57 -10.77% -42.10% -36.42% -21.18%

Position = symbol of the security for each position
Purchased = date position acquired (for long positions) or sold (for short positions)
Shares = number of shares long or short in the portfolio
Paid = price per share
Cost = what portfolio paid (including commission); note for short sales, the portfolio gains cash
Now = price per share as of the date of the report
Value = what it is worth as of the date of the report (# shrs multiplied by price per share plus—or minus for short positions—the value of dividends)
Change = Change since last report (not applicable for positions new since last report)
Year-to-Date = Change since 31 Dec 07
Return on Investment = on a percentage basis, the performance of this security since purchase
Compounded Annual Growth Rate = annualized ROI for this position since purchase (to help compare apples to apples)

Notes: The benchmark for the ISOP is the Greenwich Alternative Investments Global Hedge Fund Index, which historically (1988 to 2007 inclusively) provides a CAGR of around 15.1%. For comparison’s sake, we also show the NASDAQ index, which over the same time frame has yielded a CAGR of around 10.1%. Note that for the portfolio, dividends are added back into the value of the pertinent security—or subtracted from the value of short positions—and not included in the “cash” total (this gives a more complete picture of the ROI for dividend-paying securities). Also, the “Cost” figures include a standard $8 commission and there is a 2% rate of interest on the listed cash balance.

Transactions: Another crazy month in which the ISOP was a haven of sanity. Volatility was extremely high—seven trading sessions in which the NASDAQ finished up or down between 5% and 7%—but it was a bit less wild than October (when there were two days the market moved 10% or more and a third day it moved 9%). Meanwhile we stood pat…hmmm…perhaps when everyone around you is frenetically dashing about like a chicken with it’s head cut off, standing pat is no longer a reliable indication of sanity.

  • 5 Nov—paid out WFC dividend of $0.34/shr
  • 19 Nov—paid out HBC dividend of $0.90/shr

News:

Comments: If anyone was still thinking that “change we can believe in” would be any different from frontrunning for the-powers-that-be, it only took Barack Obama 20 days to put that concern to rest. The appointment of Timothy Geithner—one of the architects of the bailout under Bush aegis—is a clear signal. The import is that the new administration will be working just as assiduously as the old one—di rigueur objections from right-wing zealots that the agenda is focused on promoting socialist/statist solutions notwithstanding—to commit taxpayer money in support of the cabal of financial services leaches who crashed the system. Instead of cutting those bad boys loose and blaming the consequent chaos on W—which would have meant taking a lot of immediate pain, but also purged of the poison, a swift and healthy recovery by the economy—the Obama folks have evidently decided to take the path of least resistance and continue the policies of papering over the cracks in the walls. We can look forward to more easy credit, more bailouts of “too-big-to-fail” companies, more Keynesian stimulus, and—if this “works”—a Potemkin-village “recovery” just in time to support Democrats in the 2010 election.

Although the odds are improving, it is still not clear if the man behind the curtain can pull off the illusion that all is well again here or not. Reflecting the consequent uncertainty, the level of volatility this month was again—as in October—extremely high: an average daily change of ±3.8% as compared with the normal index change (up or down) an average of about 0.5% each day.

At the end of the month, we were +3%, the hedgies were -2%, and the NASDAQ was -11%. Another great month for the good guys! Overall after 23 months of operations, the ISOP is now +155% compared with -7% for the hedgies and -36% for the NASDAQ.

It was another heavy news month. Of our four retailers, two were flat and two were down big. Unfortunately, while we are short three of the four, the one we are long, CAB, was one of the ones down big (-21%) after reporting good 3Q08 results but providing very guarded guidance going forward. We still think CAB will shine for us in the long run. BBY was down 23%, MA was down 2%, and WMT was +0.13%, the only stock in the port to be up on the month. All four of our financial services shorts obligingly tanked: BAC -33%, GS and WFC each -15%, and HBC -8%. We did have a pang of regret over WFC’s victory over Citigroup (C) in the bidding to acquire Wachovia (WB) last month; had C won the bid, we most likely would have shorted their stock instead (we had previously been short WB) and they were down 39% this month. Actually, they were down 72% on 21 November before being bailed out by Treasury in yet another egregious misappropriation of taxpayer money. The next day—as referenced above—the Fed committed another $800 billion to bail out Fannie (FNM) and Freddie (FRE).

None of our other long positions had a good month. Golden Star (GSS) reported their worst-ever gold production costs and our patience with management is growing very thin; the stock was down another 17%. Neurocrine Biosciences (NBIX) tried making no news and that worked even less well, with their stock down 24%. We still think we need to give their GnRH antagonist candidate drug for fighting endometriosis, elagolix, more time. Vertex (VRTX) went to the other extreme of issuing good news—fresh positive results for their telaprevir anti-hepatitis C drug candidate—but ultimately, it did not save them from a drubbing late in the month over fears the Obama administration will limit the prices of new drugs. These concerns may be justified in the fullness of time, but are unlikely to be an issue for telaprevir in any case, as curing many otherwise uncurable patients of hepatitis C is extremely cost-effective (in that the cost of treating advanced cases of hepatitis C far exceeds the cost of telaprevir).

Finally, our oil short ETF, DUG, continues to disappoint, down 18% on the month despite a decline in the price of oil.

The risk of a serious downturn continues to be significant here, and consequently we remain net short. However, it does appear that the new administration is angling to establish continuity with the old one with respect to the policy of material intervention in the market to prop up insolvent “too-big-to-fail” enterprises. While we feel these policies are long-term disastrous, there is some “upside risk” should the collective wisdom of the market come to think otherwise. Generally, new political leaders get some benefit of the doubt. So far the the market has not rallied in reaction to the election results (except for the five days leading into the election), but it could still happen.

Posted in B.3 Spec Reports | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Oct 08 Intelledgement Speculative Opportunity Portfolio Report

Posted by intelledgement on Wed, 12 Nov 08

Position Purchased Shares Paid Cost Now Value Change YTD ROI CAGR
VRTX 18-Apr-07 57 31.65 1,812.05 26.21 1,493.97 -21.15% 12.83% -17.55% -11.79%
NBIX 22-May-07 158 11.33 1,798.14 4.13 652.54 -11.94% -9.03% -63.71% -50.40%
GSS 19-Jul-07 451 4.19 1,897.69 0.88 396.88 -42.11% -72.15% -79.09% -70.36%
GSS 24-Aug-07 613 3.08 1,896.04 0.88 539.44 -42.11% -72.15% -71.55% -65.28%
BZH 24-Mar-08 -214 10.99 -2,343.86 2.28 -487.92 -61.87% 69.31% 79.18% 162.20%
BAC 8-Sep-08 -69 34.73 -2,388.37 24.17 -1,667.73 -30.94% -41.42% 30.17% 515.49%
GS 8-Sep-08 -14 169.73 -2,368.22 92.50 -1,299.90 -27.73% -56.99% 45.11% 1201.23%
HBC 8-Sep-08 -30 79.11 -2,365.30 59.00 -1,770.00 -27.01% -29.52% 25.17% 369.76%
DUG 10-Sep-08 56 42.83 2,406.48 37.05 2,186.91 -4.63% 2.97% -9.12% -49.60%
BBY 19-Sep-08 -58 41.49 -2,398.42 26.88 -1,567.16 -28.32% -48.95% 34.66% 1230.08%
MA 19-Sep-08 -11 225.18 -2,468.98 147.82 -1,627.67 -16.64% -31.31% 34.08% 1180.79%
WMT 19-Sep-08 -40 59.70 -2,380.00 55.81 -2,232.40 -6.81% 17.42% 6.20% 68.75%
CAB 19-Sep-08 170 14.08 2,401.60 7.95 1,351.50 -34.19% -47.25% -43.73% -99.33%
WFC 09-Oct-08 -73 33.06 -2,405.38 34.05 -2,485.65 n/a 14.45% -3.34% -43.08%
cash 16,906.53 31,343.96
ISOP 03-Jan-07 10,000.00 24,826.77 7.70% 13.65% 148.27% 64.54%
Global HF 03-Jan-07 10,000.00 9,429.20 -6.01% -15.15% -5.71% -3.17%
NASDAQ 03-Jan-07 2,415.29 1,720.95 -17.73% -35.11% -28.75% -16.94%

Position = symbol of the security for each position
Purchased = date position acquired (for long positions) or sold (for short positions)
Shares = number of shares long or short in the portfolio
Paid = price per share
Cost = what portfolio paid (including commission); note for short sales, the portfolio gains cash
Now = price per share as of the date of the report
Value = what it is worth as of the date of the report (# shrs multiplied by price per share plus—or minus for short positions—the value of dividends)
Change = Change since last report (not applicable for positions new since last report)
Year-to-Date = Change since 31 Dec 07
Return on Investment = on a percentage basis, the performance of this security since purchase
Compounded Annual Growth Rate = annualized ROI for this position since purchase (to help compare apples to apples)

Notes: The benchmark for the ISOP is the Greenwich Alternative Investments Global Hedge Fund Index, which historically (1988 to 2007 inclusively) provides a CAGR of around 15.1%. For comparison’s sake, we also show the NASDAQ index, which over the same time frame has yielded a CAGR of around 10.1%. Note that for the portfolio, dividends are added back into the value of the pertinent security and not included in the “cash” total (this gives a more complete picture of the ROI for dividend-paying securities). Also, the “Cost” figures include a standard $8 commission and there is a 2% rate of interest on the listed cash balance.

Transactions: The ISOP was a bedrock of stability this month; with the market going totally insane in terms of volatility, we felt constrained to make only one transaction…and that was essentially a move to bring the port more into congruence with the way it used to be, in that we replaced our Wachovia (WB) short position (covered last month) with a short position in the stock of the company that acquired WB, viz. Wells Fargo (WFC). A big contrast from last month, when we had a portfolio-record 14 transactions in moving to a net short stance. Speaking of our shorts, we did cheerfully pay out several dividends for our financial services and retailing stocks (when you are short a stock that pays a dividend, you have to pony it up).

  • 3 Oct—paid out BBY dividend of $0.14/shr
  • 8 Oct—paid out MA dividend of $0.15/shr
  • 9 Oct—Sold short 73 WFC for $33.06/shr
  • 23 Oct—paid out GS dividend of $0.35/shr

News:

Comments: LOL you might think that the amount of effort that goes into managing portfolios in a month with one transaction would be a lot less than the effort expended in a 14-transaction month…but when the market is going insane and repricing everything from day-to-day, just about the same degree of close attention is required, regardless of whether or not anything is being bought or sold. On average, the NASDAQ goes up about 10% a year…well there were two DAYS in October where the NASDAQ index was up 10%+…and this in a month were overall, the index was down 18%, the two gigantic up days notwithstanding.

The level of volatility this month was positively staggering. Normally, the index changes (up or down) an average of about 0.5% each day. The average daily change in October: ±3.7%…more than seven times normal!

Obviously, when the level of systemic risk is high, the potential variation in the value of any given company is extremely high, depending. For example, if the economy recovers, then Best Buy (BBY)—which we are short—is worth, say, $15+ billion. But if we fall into a depression where no one can afford to buy big flat screen TVs, then maybe they go out of business. Pretty big range in valuation! Add to that the complexities of the economy, and the impossibility of instantly and accurately calculating the impact of the latest government actions, the inevitable result is a wildly gyrating consensus.

Be that as it may, when the dust settled, we were +8%, the hedgies were -6%, and the NASDAQ was, as we said, -18%. A great month for the good guys! Overall after 22 months of operations, the ISOP is now +148% compared with -6% for the hedgies and -29% for the NASDAQ.

It was a bull market for news this month. On 3 October, W signed the bank bailout bill (after rejecting it last month, the House took another vote after some fig leaves were applied and enough Republicans changed their votes to “yes” to pass it). Also on 3 October, Wells Fargo (WFC) outbid Citigroup (C) for our former short, Wachovia (WB). On 6 October with the market tanking, the Fed announced an emergency $900 billion in short-term loans to banks (this is in addition to TARP funds). On 7 October with the market tanking still more, the Fed announced an emergency move to lend $1.3 trillion to non-financial services companies. On 8 October with the market still on the express elevator headed for the sub-basement, the Fed cut interest rates in a move coordinated with other prominent central banks including those of China, the ECB, the UK, and Switzerland. Overall, the S&P 500 dropped 18.2% for the week ending 10 October, its worst week ever. On 14 October, the US Treasury announced distribution of $250 billion of the TARP funds in the form of loans to several large banks, including our shorts Bank of America (BAC), Goldman Sachs (GS), and Wells Fargo (WFC) as well as C and others. On 21 October, the Fed announced another emergency short-term loan program, this time to money market mutual funds, which had stopped lending to banks in the wake of a huge wave of redemptions.

The fix is clearly in, with Democrats in Congress and working hand-in-glove with the Republican Secretary of the Treasury and Republican appointee Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to “stablize” the current broken-down system. It appears that none of the broken financial services companies—not even AIG, Freddie Mac (FRE), or Fannie Mae (FNM), who are in the worst shape—will be allowed to fail so long as the Fed’s printing presses are still able to pump out funds to loan them to “tide them over.” W has practically turned invisible during the crisis but evidently has no objections (if any opinions whatsoever). Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic party nominee for President, has pretty carefully avoided saying much of anything, but on 1 October he voted for the bailout (as did his running mate, Senator Joe Biden). The GOP standard bearer, Senator John McCain, has been somewhat more vocal and way more incoherent; in the event, he, too, voted for the bailout on 1 October. We believe this approach is both morally wrong—bailing out wealthy bankers with taxpayer money—and shortsighted, in that it will only delay the day of reckoning and ensure both that the eventual nadir will be lower and the recovery therefrom harder and longer.

Speaking of hard, that it was for our portfolio, as ever single equity was down in October. (WFC, which we are short, was up between the day we bought it—9 October at the open—and the end of the month but we obviously sold it short too late because it was down overall for the month.) Fortunately, we are now short eight positions and long only six so on balance, a down market is a good thing for our portfolio. Among the long positions, our two biotech companies (VRTX down 21% and NBIX down 12%), our gold miner (GSS down 42%), and our relatively new retailer (CAB down 34%) were no help whatsover.

We also own DUG, which is an ETF that is supposed to move twice the inverse of the price of oil…well crude was down sharply in October, but on extremely volatile trading, and DUG somehow managed to lose 5%, declining more on the days that the price of oil increased sharply that it gained on the days oil declined. We need to keep this one on a short leash as it is evidently poorly designed and not behaving as we expected it to.

Aside from the aforementioned WFC, we were very happy with the performance of our shorts. Our real estate short (BZH) was down 62%! The other financials shorts were all down sharply (BAC -31%, GS -28%, and HBC -27%). All three retail-related shorts were down big (BBY -28%, MA -17% and WMT -7%).

Clearly, the risk of a serious downturn continues to be significant here, and consequently we remain net short.

Posted in B.3 Spec Reports | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Sep 08 Intelledgement Speculative Opportunity Portfolio Report

Posted by intelledgement on Sun, 12 Oct 08

Position Purchased Shares Paid Cost Now Value Change YTD ROI CAGR
VRTX 18-Apr-07 57 31.65 1,812.05 33.24 1,894.68 23.75% 43.09% 4.56% 3.11%
NBIX 22-May-07 158 11.33 1,798.14 4.69 741.02 -9.28% 3.30% -58.79% -47.87%
GSS 19-Jul-07 451 4.19 1,897.69 1.52 685.52 -0.65% -51.90% -63.88% -57.14%
GSS 24-Aug-07 613 3.08 1,896.04 1.52 1,606.06 -0.65% -51.90% -50.86% -47.48%
BZH 24-Mar-08 -214 10.99 -2,343.86 5.98 -1,279.72 14.08% 19.52% 45.40% 105.36%
BAC 8-Sep-08 -69 34.73 -2,388.37 35.00 -2,415.00 n/a -15.17% -1.11% -16.99%
GS 8-Sep-08 -14 169.73 -2,368.22 128.00 -1,792.00 n/a -40.48 24.33% 3617.53%
HBC 8-Sep-08 -30 79.11 -2,365.30 80.83 -2,424.90 n/a -3.44% -2.52% -34.54%
DUG 10-Sep-08 56 42.83 2,406.48 38.85 2,287.71 n/a 7.98% -4.94% -60.32%
BBY 19-Sep-08 -58 41.49 -2,398.42 37.50 -2,175.00 n/a -28.77% 9.32% 1824.79%
MA 19-Sep-08 -11 225.18 -2,468.98 177.33 -1,950.63 n/a -17.60% 20.99% 55900.91%
WMT 19-Sep-08 -40 59.70 -2,380.00 59.89 -2,395.60 n/a 26.00% -0.66% -19.62%
CAB 19-Sep-08 170 14.08 2,401.60 12.08 2,053.60 n/a -19.84% -14.49% -99.45%
cash 14,501.15 28,890.43
ISOP 03-Jan-07 10,000.00 23,051.87 -6.22% 5.52% 130.52% 61.55%
Global HF 03-Jan-07 10,000.00 10,032.13 -5.76% -9.72% 0.32% 0.18%
NASDAQ 03-Jan-07 2,415.29 2,367.52 -11.64% -21.13% -13.39% -7.92%

Position = symbol of the security for each position
Purchased = date position acquired (for long positions) or sold (for short positions)
Shares = number of shares long or short in the portfolio
Paid = price per share
Cost = what portfolio paid (including commission); note for short sales, the portfolio gains cash
Now = price per share as of the date of the report
Value = what it is worth as of the date of the report (# shrs multiplied by price per share plus—or minus for short positions—the value of dividends)
Change = Change since last report (not applicable for positions new since last report)
Year-to-Date = Change since 31 Dec 07
Return on Investment = on a percentage basis, the performance of this security since purchase
Compounded Annual Growth Rate = annualized ROI for this position since purchase (to help compare apples to apples)

Notes: The benchmark for the ISOP is the Greenwich Alternative Investments Global Hedge Fund Index, which historically (1988 to 2007 inclusively) provides a CAGR of around 15.1%. For comparison’s sake, we also show the NASDAQ index, which over the same time frame has yielded a CAGR of around 10.1%. Note that for the portfolio, dividends are added back into the value of the pertinent security and not included in the “cash” total (this gives a more complete picture of the ROI for dividend-paying securities). Also, the “Cost” figures include a standard $8 commission and there is a 2% rate of interest on the listed cash balance.

Transactions: Well, following three months of almost no activity transaction-wise, the market has been crazy, with valuations all over the place—but trending down, big time—and consequently we felt constrained to make major adjustments to the portfolio, mostly moving to the short side. First we shorted a bunch of financial company stocks. Then we sold all our oilers and our one mining stock and bought an ETF that goes up when the price of oil declines. Then we shorted a cohort of retail-related stocks, and—partly as a hedge—bought a fourth retailer. Finally, we covered the WB short. Not surprizingly, the month set a new portfolio record for the most transactions ever: fourteen (the previous record was five)!

News:

Comments: Sheesh…this month required an awful lot of work to produce a 6% loss! The silver lining was that the hedgies also lost 6% and the NASDAQ was down 12%, so it could have been worse. Overall after 21 months of operations, the ISOP is now +131% compared with ±0% for the hedgies and -13% for the NASDAQ.

So we did have a lot of company-specific news this month, but it was pretty much overshadowed by the macro-level proverbial excrement hitting the fan. We had the government takeover of Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) on 7 Sep. A week later we had the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers (LEH) and the acquisition of Merrill Lynch (MER) by BAC. Then we had a run on the money market funds ($140 billion withdrawn in one week), and the emergency $85 billion loan by the Fed to AIG to avoid a bankruptcy there. To close out the month, you have the spectacle of Republican Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke begging the GOP-controlled House for a $700 billion emergency bailout fund to be used to purchase so-called “toxic” assets that have plummeted in value and threaten multiple financial institutions who own them with insolvency…and being turned down! (Oh, and we almost forgot, the arrangement for Citibank (C) to buy our own troubled asset, WB.)

Clearly chickens are coming home to roost here. As we keep saying, this economy has serious fundamental flaws—too much debt and entitlement obligations, too much energy devoted to unproductive-to-fraudulent financial transactions, an unsound currency, underfunding of infrastructure investment—and the cultural focus on taking the path of least resistance and maximizing the immediate return on investment is impeding us from addressing these long-term flaws. While it would be painful, a collapse of the current Ponzi-based financial system would clear the decks for the creation of a healthier, sounder approach, and the resultant crisis would be resolved a lot faster than is likely to be the case if we just kick the can down the road again here. So we were cheering when the House voted down the Troubled Assets Relief Program, even though the markets tanked on the news. (Of course, by then we were mostly short. LOL)

Speaking of which, the market was extremely volatile this month—it was ±3% on two days, ±4% on three days, ±5% on three days, and -9% on 29 Sep (the day the House voted down the $700 billion bailout bill). Ofttimes the market does not move as much as 9% in an entire year! In that light, it is not a shocker that we felt constrained to make a few moves…such as closing more than half the positions we started the month with and then opening up even more new ones. Among the few holdovers were our two biotech companies (VRTX up 24% and NBIX down 9%), our gold miner (GSS down 1%), and our housing industry short (BZH -14% by virtue of which we gained). As for the newcomers, two of our three financials short were up (BAC +1% and HBC +3%) but GS was down 24% in only three weeks. Two of our three retail-related shorts were down big (BBY -9% and MA -21%) in only two weeks while the other gained a point (WMT +1%). Our oil short ETF (DUG) was down 5% and the retailer we went long on (CAB) manifestly should have been a short as it was down 14%. You can help both yourself and the ISOP by going to their website and stocking up on ammo and fishhooks as insurance against a potential collapse of the system.

Clearly, the risk of a serious downturn is now greater than a month ago, and we are about as short as we are going to get. Fasten your seat belts; it’s going to be a bumpy night.

Posted in B.3 Spec Reports | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Bank of America (BAC) update #3—SEC Extends Short Selling Ban

Posted by intelledgement on Thu, 02 Oct 08

Late last night, the SEC announced an extension of the ban on short selling financial services firms, which was supposed to end today. The ban is now expected to last through the earlier of three trading days after Congress passes the bailout plan or 17 October.

We still get to hold on to our existing short positions on Bank of America (BAC), Goldman Sachs (GS), and HSBC Holdings (HBC). However, given the high continuing level of systemic risk here—which the SEC evidently consider to be problematic—we would like to replace our recently covered Wachovia (WB) short by selling short Citibank (C) (who are buying Wachovia) or Morgan Stanley (MS)…but, alas, no such luck.

Posted in B.2 Spec Equity Updates | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

BUY TO COVER Wachovia (WB)

Posted by intelledgement on Mon, 29 Sep 08

Wow.

Amid the sturm and drang of the bailout vote and the market crash after the U.S. House decided “no,” an important subplot today was the demise of Wachovia (WB), the fourth-largest USA bank, shares of whom we have been short intermittently since last November.

Although WB stock traded as high as $24/share intraday just ten days ago on misplaced optimism, it became evident over the weekend that the weight of the toxic paper WB acquired when they purchased Golden West two years ago—compounded by bad loans and other inauspicious financial transactions the company made on their own—were dragging Wachovia into insolvency. Following emergency weekend negotiations, Wachovia issued a joint announcement with Citibank (C) this morning detailing an agreement for C to purchase WB’s retail bank, corporate and investment bank, and wealth management businesses for $2.1B.

As part of the transaction, Citibank will assume Wachovia’s $53B in senior and subordinated debt. Citi will acquire more than $700B of assets of Wachovia’s banking subsidiaries, and related liabilities. The catalyst for the deal is a government guarantee (reportedly U.S. Treasury officials inveigled Citibank to participate in the negotiations). The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has agreed to provide loss protection in connection with approximately $312B of mortgage-related and other Wachovia assets. Citibank is responsible for the first $42B in losses; the U.S. Treasury is responsible for anything beyond that. U.S. taxpayers get $12B in preferred stock.

WB will be left with their minor player brokerage business and their Evergreen Asset Management subsidiary. The deal was announced just before the market opened  and it was unclear how investors would value the remaining Wachovia entity. The stock opened at $1.26—down from the $10 close last Friday—and rose as high as $5 before crashing down with the rest of the market following the failed bailout vote, sinking as low as one cent(!!) before settling at $1.84.

Wish we had been nimble enough to score that one cent price, but with the effective demise of Wachovia here, there’s no reason to maintain this short position, and we are putting in a buy-to-cover limit order for tomorrow at $3.68 (twice today’s close). This will result in us covering our short position if WB opens at or below $3.68 tomorrow. If it opens higher, then we will still cover if it trades at or below $3.68 during the day tomorrow. If our position is still open after trading closes tomorrow, then we will reconsider what to do after the close.

Posted in B.1 Spec Recs | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »