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
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.