Macro Tsimmis

intelligently hedged investment

Posts Tagged ‘dug’

SELL Ultrashort Oil & Gas ETF

Posted by intelledgement on Wed, 25 Mar 09

Well, this has certainly been educational.

This ETF is designed to doubly inversely track changes in the price of oil and gas. That is, if the price of oil goes up 1%, you’d expect the price of this ETF to decline 2%, and vice versa.

We bought this ETF last September with the price of oil around $110 and clearly declining, while the economy looked to be in trouble and energy demand also under pressure. Now, with the market rallying, we are reacquiring some energy plays and unloading this bearish position. The price of oil did dip as low as $31/barrel a couple of months back, but even here it is just about $50/barrel. So it’s nice to have been right in expecting the price of oil to decline sharply, and really nice to be unloading this hedge play here with a cool 100% profit (50% decline in the price of oil x 2 = 100%)…WHOOPS! WHAT THE HECK?!? We are DOWN 28% here!?!

This is a great example of the perverse nature of leveraged inverse ETFs. Because the funds are repriced on a daily basis, over the long haul moves down are more significant mathematically than moves up. We wrote about this effect in some detail a couple of months back, but essentially the problem is that if you start with $100 and lose 10%, that gets you to $90. Then if you gain back 10%, you end up with $99. So you lost 10% and gained 10% and ended up worse off than you started. Works the same way in reverse order: start with $100 and gain 10%; it puts you at $110. Then lose 10%: now you’re at $99, worse than when you started.

The price of oil has been very volatile since last September, and even though overall it has declined from $100/barrel to $50/barrel (and natural gas is down from $8/mmbtu to $4), there have been enough days with sharp up moves (which drive the price of DUG down) to cause the ETF to grossly underperform our expectations over the full six months.

Morale: eschew leveraged ETFs other than for short-term speculative plays.

Previous DUG-related posts:

Advertisements

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

Dec 08 Intelledgement Speculative Opportunity Portfolio Report

Posted by intelledgement on Tue, 13 Jan 09

Position Purchased Shares Paid Cost Now Value Change YTD ROI CAGR
VRTX 18-Apr-07 57 31.65 1,812.05 30.38 1,731.66 23.55% 30.78% -4.44% -2.63%
NBIX 22-May-07 158 11.33 1,798.14 3.20 505.60 2.89% -29.52% -71.88% -54.47%
GSS 19-Jul-07 451 4.19 1,897.69 1.00 329.23 36.99% -68.35% -76.23% -62.78%
GSS 24-Aug-07 613 3.08 1,896.04 1.00 447.49 36.99% -68.35% -67.67% -56.53%
BBY 19-Sep-08 -58 41.49 -2,398.42 28.11 -1,638.50 35.73% -46.61% 31.68% 165.39%
MA 19-Sep-08 -11 225.18 -2,468.98 142.93 -1,573.88 -1.70% -33.58% 36.25% 199.51%
WMT 19-Sep-08 -40 59.70 -2,380.00 54.77 -2,200.32 -1.99% 15.23% 7.55% 29.45%
CAB 19-Sep-08 170 14.08 2,401.60 5.83 991.10 -6.72% -61.31% -58.73% -95.67%
APWR 18-Dec-08 422 6.14 2,599.08 4.30 1,814.60 n/a -67.79% -30.18% 100.00%
SOHU 18-Dec-08 58 45.13 2,625.54 47.34 2,745.72 n/a -13.17% 4.58% 251.66%
cash -189.22 19,669.50
ISOP 03-Jan-07 10,000.00 24,923.44 -2.21% 14.09% 149.23% 58.12%
Global HF 03-Jan-07 10,000.00 9,340.35 0.74% -15.95% -6.60% -3.37%
NASDAQ 03-Jan-07 2,415.29 1,577.03 2.70% -40.54 -34.71% -19.25%

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 2008 inclusively) provides a CAGR of around 13.4%. For comparison’s sake, we also show the NASDAQ index, which over the same time frame has yielded a CAGR of around 9.6%. 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 1% rate of interest on the listed cash balance.

Transactions: The market calmed down considerably in December, and—following three consecutive months of unmitigated disaster—closed up. With the immediate risk of a financial meltdown reduced and the probability of a post-election “Obtimism” rally increasing, we liquidated our four financials sector shorts as well as our real estate short.

News:

Comments: To quote our IMSIP 4Q08 report, “Let’s hope for the best. The incumbent crew was most definitely leading us deeper into the morass; the new crew recognizes we are in a big hole…perhaps they will be smart and brave enough to stop digging. We subscribe to the injunction to make love, not war, but we still believe in being prepared for both.” Accordingly, while we do not believe it is likely we can avoid a crash, it does appear likely that the herculean efforts of the powers-that-be to paper over the cracks in the system are taking hold (for now) and that, combined with optimism that the new regime might work miracles is likely to buoy markets in the short-to-medium term. This we are still short retailers—because we don’t believe the American consumer has any spare cash or credit to spend—but have covered our financial sector and real estate sector shorts for now. Plus in congruence with our long-term belief in the prospects of China, we have filled a gap in the port with two Chinese-market acquisitions.

At the end of the month, we were -2%, the hedgies were +1%, and the NASDAQ was +3%. For 2008 overall, we were +14% while the hedgies lost 16% but still handily beat the NASDAQ, which was -41% (worst year ever!). Overall after two years since inception, the ISOP is now +149% compared with -7% for the hedgies and -35% for the NASDAQ. Please note we generally consider the purchase of individual stock equities to be speculation, rather than investment, because of the high risk associated with owning a particular stock…and we recommend that the ratio of funds under management be about 10:1 in favor of investment over speculation—which is why this speculative portfolio started with $10,000 while our Intelledgement Macro Strategy Investment Portfolio started with $100,000 back at the beginning of 2007. (Of course, speculative risk can be mitigated by owning large numbers of stocks; this is why we recommend investing in exchange-traded funds, which typically do just that.) While this order of volatility is not unusual for speculative positions, the ROI we have attained here is unrealistically high. Over 40% of our net profits after two years still derive from trading one stock and associated options—DNDN—in the first few months of 2007. So, we’ve been lucky and good so far…but it could just as easily go the other way in 2009-10.

While there was lots of macro news—mostly desperate (and ill-considered) attempts by the government to fend off immediate collapse, it was a quiet month for our stocks. Our gold miner Golden Star (GSS) was up big (+37%) mostly on a rebound in the price of gold and possibly also on an unusual lack of bad company-specific news. Vertex (VRTX) recovered nicely (+24%) from last month’s overblown concerns that the new Obama administration would be anti-biotech. Neurocrine Biosciences (NBIX), our other biotech stock, was up 3%. Of our four retailers, two were flat (Mastercard/MA and Walmart/WMT) while Cabelas (CAB) which we are long was down 7% and Best Buy (BBY) which we are short was up 36%. And despite the fact that the price of oil declined in December by 18%, our double inverse oil ETF (DUG)—instead of being up 36% as we might have expected—was down another 20%. Clearly something is wrong there. Finally, our Chinese newcomers were a mixed bag: Sohu.com (SOHU) was up 5%, but A-Power (APWR) was blown down 30% on revised guidance.

The risk of a serious downturn remains but appears to be less immediate, and consequently we reduced our short positions. Unfortunately, it still appears 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 we will be prepared for a “melt-up” as well. With systemic risk on the loose, the variation in plausible valuations for almost anything is very wide and consequently the risk of volatility—which reached record levels in 2008—remains high.

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

Ultra inverse ETFs fall short of expectations

Posted by intelledgement on Mon, 05 Jan 09

Aide: We’ve analyzed their attack, Sir, and there is a danger. Should I have your ship standing by?
Grand Moff Tarkin: Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

Intelledgement’s strategy is macro-based, which means we analyze broad trends and make investments designed to align with them. Thus if we expect energy and China and Brazil to do better than average in the long run, we will seek to go long (buy) securities that are likely to reflect those successes. Conversely, if expect an economic reversal that will hurt real estate values and depress consumption, we will seek to go short (sell) securities that are likely to decline in price.

Generally, we do not recommend owning (or shorting) individual stocks for most of our clients, because it is easier to be right with a more broadly targeted mutual fund or exchange-traded fund (ETF)—which invest in numerous stocks—than trying to divine the fate of a single company (which could run into accounting problems and tank even if the industry they are in does well overall, for example). And very few of our clients are comfortable with margin accounts and short selling, which is inherently more risky than buying stock (as we have explained elsewhere). Therefore, the tactic we employ to invest money on the short side when the macros so dictate is buying so-called “inverse” ETFs, such as our current position in the the ProShares UItraShort S&P 500 ETF, which is designed to “correspond to twice (200%) the inverse (opposite) of the daily performance of the S&P500® Index,” using short sales, options, derivatives, and other relatively arcane maneuvers. This enables us to take a virtual short position without employing margin or undertaking the theoretically unlimited risk associated with an actual short position.

Now, while ETFs have been around for 20 years, it wasn’t until 1998 when State Street introduced “Sector SPDRs” that it became possible to employ a robust macro strategy using exchange-traded funds. And even then, it was not possible to bet against sectors or national indexes or commodities other than by selling the requisite ETF short. Until 2006, that is, when Proshares introduced their line of inverse ETFs, that go up when the targeted index goes down, and vice versa. So inverse ETFs, including “ultra” inverse funds—which aspire to double (or triple) inverse performance—don’t have a long performance track record.

Ultrashort ETFs—along with their ultralong cousins—have commonly been regarded as the Deathstars of exchange-traded fund investing. Afterall, it stands to reason, if you are absolutely convinced that the price of oil is going down, why be content with an mere inverse fund oil fund when you can buy an ultrashort fund that tracks 2x the inverse of any change in the price of oil?

One concern that commentators have pointed out is that the design of the funds—to reflect the inverse of fund performance on a daily basis—gives them an inherently bearish bias in a volatile environment, because mathematically, an x% move down always trumps an x% move up. That is, if you start at 100 and have a 10% up day followed by a 10% down day, you end up at 99; and by the same token if again starting at 100 you have a 10% down day followed by a 10% up day, again you end up at 99. A slow and steady move in either direction minimizes this effect, but it is likely to be augmented when volatility is high, as demonstrated by Eric Oberg in his thestreet.com article last month.

Of course, we don’t have a lot of performance data to analyze—as the inverse ETFs are so new—but let’s take a gander at the data we do have:

Security Symbol Inception Cost Value ROI Index Index ROI Rating
Cons Svs Ultrashort SCC 02-Feb-07 46.47 84.78 82% DJUSCY -39% +3
S&P500 Short SH 21-Jun-06 55.81 72.02 29% GSPC -28% +1
DOW30 Short DOG 21-Jun-06 57.69 68.55 19% DJI -21% -2
QQQ Short PSQ 21-Jun-06 60.43 73.03 21% IXIC -26% -5
Cons Goods Ultrashort SZK 02-Feb-07 52.92 74.01 40% DJUSNC -24% -8
Oil & Gas Short DDG 22-Jul-08 57.72 68.16 18% DJUSEN -35% -17
S&P500 Ultrashort SDS 13-Jul-06 57.28 70.94 24% GSPC -27% -31
DOW30 Ultrashort DXD 13-Jul-06 51.33 53.56 4% DJI -19% -34
QQQ Ultrashort QID 13-Jul-06 60.79 57.35 -6% IXIC -23% -52
Financials Short SEF 22-Jul-08 68.32 76.03 11% DJUSFN -66% -54
Financials Ultrashort SKF 01-Feb-07 66.74 103.01 54% DJUSFN -55% -57
Oil & Gas Ultrashort DUG 22-Jul-08 26.45 25.04 -5% DJUSEN -35% -75
R/E Ultrashort SRS 01-Feb-07 62.07 50.71 -18% DWRSF -60% -138

Security = the name of the exchange-traded fund (ETF)
Symbol = the symbol of the ETF
Inception = date the ETF started trading
Cost = closing price of the ETF on the first day it traded
Value = closing price of the ETF on 31 December 2008
ROI (Return on Investment) = on a percentage basis, the performance of this ETF from inception to 31 Dec 08
Index = the market index the ETF is tracking (inversely)
Index ROI = on a percentage basis, the performance of this index from inception of the associated ETF to 31 Dec 08
Rating = how well the ETF has performed relative to expectations (see notes below)

Notes: our rating is derived by comparing the ROI of the inverse ETF with the ROI of the index it is tracking and calculating how the ETF has performed relative to expectations. For example, if the underlying index declined 10% since the inception of the fund, we would expect an inverse fund to be +10%, and an ultra inverse fund—which, you will recall, strives to log 2x or 3x the inverse performance of the underlying index—to be either +20% or +30%. So, if the index has declined by 10% and an inverse ETF is up 10%, that yields a rating of 0 (zero), as it matches our expectations. For example, as of 31 December 2008, the Proshares S&P 500 Short fund (SH) was up 29% since inception while the S&P 500 index itself (GSPC) was down 28%…so that ETF has a rating of +1. In contrast, Proshares Real Estate Ultrashort fund (SRS) is down 18% since inception while the index it tracks is down 60%…we would expect SRS to be +120% and thus it has a rating of -138.

In general, the news is bad for the “ultrashort” 2x funds. Every single one of the eight ultrashort funds we analyzed are tracking an index that was down through 31 Dec 08…and therefore we would expect them all to be up twice as much as their respective index was down. This was true of only one: the Consumer Services Ultrashort ETF (SCC), which was up 82% while the Dow Jones US Consumer Services Index (DJUSCY) was down 39%. Four of the remaining seven ETFs were up, but only one of them was close to expectations: the Consumer Goods Ultrashort ETF (SZK), was up 40% while the underlying index was down 24%. The Financials Ultrashort ETF (SKF) was up 54%, but that was less than half what it should have done relative to its index, which was down 55%. And the S&P 500 Ultrashort ETF (SDS) was up 24%, less than half what it should have done relative to the GSPC, down 27%. The DOW 30 Ultrashort was up 4%…way lower than it should have been with the DJI down 19%.

From there, it gets really bad. The other three ultrashort funds were all down, even though with their respective index down, they should have been up sharply. We would have expected the QQQQ Ultrashort ETF (QID) to be up 46%…but it was down 6%. We would have expected the Oil & Gas Ultrashort ETF (DUG) to be up 70%…but it was down 5%. And the SRS was discussed above (should have been +120%, was -18%).

And it gets still worse! In every case where there are both an inverse ETF (targeting mirror image performance of the underlying index) and an ultra inverse ETF (targeting 2x inverse performance), the performance of the inverse ETF is relatively better than that of the ultra inverse ETF:

Index Short Fund Ultrashort Fund
S&P 500 +1 -31
DOW 30 -2 -19
QQQQ -5 -52
Oil & Gas -17 -75
Financials -54 -57

In absolute terms, the SKF ultrashort financials ETF still outperformed SEF, the inverse ETF (as you would expect when they both underperformed their expectations by about the same degree). But in the other four instances, the four inverse funds not only did relatively better, but beat their ultrashort cousins in absolute ROI. The DUG and QID ultrashort ETFs actually lost money, even though their respective indices each was in the red.

While this does not prove Oberg is correct in his analysis that volatility is doing in the ultrashort ETFs, it does constitute prima-facie evidence that his conclusion—the ultrashort ETFs are underperforming—is on target.

And accordingly, it is time to consider evacuating the Deathstar.

Posted in A. Investment Strategy, General | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 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 »

May 08 Intelledgement Speculative Opportunity Portfolio Report

Posted by intelledgement on Thu, 12 Jun 08

Position Purchased Shares Paid Cost Now Value Change YTD ROI CAGR
TMY 03-Jan-07 300 3.30 998.00 0.45 135.00 -13.46% -77.16% -86.47% -75.93%
ELN 04-Apr-07 129 13.90 1,801.10 25.04 3,230.16 -4.75% 13.92% 79.34% 65.79%
VRTX 18-Apr-07 57 31.65 1,812.05 28.63 1,631.91 12.19% 23.25% -9.94% -8.95%
NBIX 22-May-07 158 11.33 1,798.14 4.93 778.94 -9.21% 8.59% -56.68% -55.82%
BQI 13-Jul-07 565 3.35 1,900.75 4.57 2,582.05 5.06% 12.01% 35.84% 41.55%
GSS 19-Jul-07 451 4.19 1,897.69 2.96 1,334.96 -10.84% -6.33% -29.65% -33.41%
GSS 24-Aug-07 613 3.08 1,896.04 2.96 1,814.48 -10.84% -6.33% -4.30% -5.57%
SLT 5-Oct-07 111 19.75 2,200.25 22.14 2,457.54 6.49% -15.07% 11.69% 18.50%
BZP 19-Nov-07 245 9.77 2,401.65 22.74 5,571.30 16.74% 103.40% 131.98% 391.59%
BZP 30-Jan-08 186 11.27 2,104.22 22.74 3,623.28 16.74% 103.40% 101.01% 722.76%
WB 1-Feb-08 -57 39.99 -2,271.43 23.80 -1,414.46 18.35% 37.42% 37.42% 167.12%
BZH 24-Mar-08 -214 10.99 -2,343.86 6.95 -1,487.30 37.22% 6.46% 36.54% 446.33%
cash -4,194.60 7,672.15
ISOP 03-Jan-07 10,000.00 28,536.37 7.96% 30.63% 185.36% 110.98%
Global HF 03-Jan-07 10,000.00 11,148.64 1.84% 0.32% 11.49% 8.05%
NASDAQ 03-Jan-07 2,415.29 2,522.66 4.55% -4.89% 4.55% 3.15%

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: In the long run, we like oil, as the continuing buildout in Asia will ensure demand tends to challenge supply, and it also serves as a hedge against the declining dollar. Be that as it may, $125/barrel seems too high, too soon to us, and accordingly we took a position in an inverse ETF that goes up 2x any daily decline in the price of crude (and vice versa). However, the market disagrees, and it only took six days and a high print of $132.78 to decrement our position by 10%. Mindful of John Maynard Keynes’ famous oberservation that “Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent,” we hit the silk. In March, Goldman Sachs analysts forecast a spike as high as $200/barrel. While we still think that is unlikely anytime soon, we’re no longer willing to bet on a near-term decline.

News:

Comments:

Another excellent month, up 8%. We beat both the NASDAQ (+5%) and the Global Hedge Fund Index (+2%) for the fourth time in five tries this year. The big picture for banking and housing clouded up in May, and our short positions lead the port for the month: BZH up 37% and WB up 18%. On the energy front, BZP was up 17% on continued strength in the price of oil and improved reserves data, BQI was up 5% and the outlier was TMY, which produced nothing but more bad news and sank another 13%. Our biotech plays were mixed: VRTX was up 12% on no particular news, ELN lost 5% and NBIX shed 9%. On the mining front, SLT was up 5% but GSS was decimated (approximately) by 11%.

We still think the market holds it together through the Olympics at least and the USA election most probably. By around then we will have to review the energy plays and possibly the mining and biotech plays, and we could be looking for more shorting opportunities.

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