Investing

A Hidden Measure of Investment Risk, Beyond Volatility

by

Quiz!

Which is a riskier situation?

  1. 1M invested in a stable investment that grows by 5% per year and never declines.
  2. 3M invested in a highly volatile investment that grows by an average of 8% per year and suffers significant frequent declines of up to 60% from the peak.

A Hidden Measure of Investment Risk, Beyond Volatility

This article debunks a conventional wisdom that equates volatility with risk, and ignores all other factors. The following example demonstrates a problem with this narrow focus. Compare the following two situations:

  1. 1M invested in a stable investment that grows by 5% per year and never declines.
  2. 3M invested in a highly volatile investment that grows by an average of 8% per year and suffers significant frequent declines of up to 60% from the peak.

By focusing on volatility alone, you would conclude that the first investment is less risky. This conclusion is wrong. The lowest balance that the stable investment can reach is 1M, since it never declines. The lowest balance that the volatile investment can reach is 1.2M, since it starts with 3M and can go down by up to 60% of the peak. The first investment is riskier for two reasons: (1) it grows more slowly on average, and (2) it has a lower worst-case balance. Your risk of running out of money with this investment is greater.

Since the starting investment amounts are different in the two cases, how can this apply to the real world? An example could help:

  1. Say you have 1M invested in a stable investment.
  2. The investments grow to 1.1M through a combination of investment growth and new savings. This allows you to shift your investments towards higher expected growth along with higher volatility. Specifically, the investments can potentially decline by another 100k (10%) during declines, to get you to the prior risk during declines.
  3. You repeat the step above, leading to higher and higher expected growth, while keeping the risk level the same.
  4. Your investments reach 2.5M, and you reached an allocation for maximum potential growth, along with potential declines of up to 60%. Your risk level is still the same with the lowest balance being: 2.5M x (1 – 60%) = 1M.
  5. Your investments reach 3M, and you keep the allocation the same, since you already enjoy the maximum potential growth. But now the lowest your investments can reach is up to 3M x (1 – 60%) = 1.2M, giving you higher security, despite the much higher volatility.

Notes:

  1. Risk is determined by spending/investments, not investments alone. To account for expenses going up or down, you should track spending/investments, not just the investment balance.
  2. Another risk factor is the valuations (P/B = Price/Book, or price relative to intrinsic value or liquidation value). In diversified portfolios, high valuations lead to higher risk (greater potential decline), and lower valuations lead to lower risk (lower potential decline).
  3. Some stable investments are exposed to inflation risk, making them riskier than seems.  On the other hand, there is no guaranteed maximum decline for any investment.  It is all a matter of odds.
  4. If higher volatility leads you to panic and sell low, that is another risk factor that can take away the financial benefits described above.
  5. While income from work can be lost at any point, some jobs are much more secure than typical (e.g. doctors), and can help your risk profile.

Implications:

  1. A plan that may be risky for someone else, may be conservative for you (and vice-versa), depending on your respective ratios of expenses/investments & valuations.
  2. A plan that would have been risky for you a few years ago, may be conservative for you today (and the reverse is potentially true if your expenses grow faster than your investments).

Quiz Answer:

Which is a riskier situation?

  1. 1M invested in a stable investment that grows by 5% per year and never declines. [Correct Answer]
  2. 3M invested in a highly volatile investment that grows by an average of 8% per year and suffers significant frequent declines of up to 60% from the peak.

Explanation: See article for explanations.

Disclosures Including Backtested Performance Data

Long-Term Protectionism is Unnatural and Not Likely

by

Quiz!

Which of the following are expected results of protectionism (e.g. taxes on imports, quotas to limit imports)?

  1. Saving jobs.
  2. Lowering costs of products.
  3. Better products.

Long-Term Protectionism is Unnatural and Not Likely

Protectionism (e.g. tariffs = taxes on imports, quotas to limit imports) is done for two reasons:

  1. Temporary: negotiations between countries on different topics, alternatives to wars.
  2. Long-term: protect local producers from competition from foreign producers.

There is a concern about long-term protectionism (#2 above), that can affect stock prices. Long-term protectionism is unlikely for the following reasons:

  1. Unintended consequences: While higher prices save jobs in one industry, it costs jobs in other industries. It does so in two ways:
    1. Consumers have to pay a higher price for products, leaving them with less money to spend on products and services of other industries.
    2. When the consumer is a company, it has to raise its own prices to make up for the higher input cost. This makes the company less competitive with foreign producers that have lower input costs.
  2. Net loss: The higher cost to the consumers goes to benefactors beyond retaining jobs in the protected industry, including company profits (investors), manager bonuses, and higher pay to employees. For example, it cost consumers $826,000 per year for every saved job in the sugar industry in 2002 (Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas).
  3. Online Shopping promotes globalization: The coronavirus accelerated the transition to online shopping, where comparing prices is much easier than going to multiple physical stores. This gives a boost to cheaper products that are imported from countries with cheaper labor.
  4. Improved Quality: There was a time where buying from China involved a tradeoff – lower quality for lower price. The quality of products improved significantly and is no longer a concern, improving their exports.
  5. Economies of scale: Protectionism limits trade and reduces the number of buyers from each company. This hurts the scale of companies, leading to lower efficiencies.
  6. Specialization: Protectionism limits the market for each company, and reduces the opportunities to specialize.

Quiz Answer:

Which of the following are expected results of protectionism (e.g. taxes on imports, quotas to limit imports)?

  1. Saving jobs.
  2. Lowering costs of products.
  3. Better products.

None of the answers is correct. Specifically:

  1. Protectionism saves jobs in the protected industry, but takes away jobs from other industries. The overall effect is lost jobs.
  2. Protectionism artificially inflates the prices of the product coming from abroad, leading to a higher price.
  3. Protectionism limits the market of companies, leading to lower specialization and lesser economies of scale. At best, the quality of products stays the same, and at worst it is hurt.
Disclosures Including Backtested Performance Data

2 Hidden Risks of Selling Stocks Temporarily Now

by

Quiz!

During a big decline, is selling stocks until the storm passes conservative?

  1. Yes.
  2. It is conservative at the moment, and likely riskier beyond that.
  3. No, it is risky to sell low.

2 Hidden Risks of Selling Stocks Temporarily Now

It may seem appealing to sell stocks now, and buy lower, when seeing signs of the end of the coronavirus damage. There are two hidden risks in such a strategy:

  1. Hidden Risk #1: A decline never comes, so you buy 10%+ higher. After the gain, the portfolio turns much lower. Now your investments bottom at an even lower point than without the temporary selling.
  2. Hidden Risk #2: Fast forward to the next peak. Another big decline follows. During the entire decline – from peak to bottom – you have less money.

A variation is to sell stocks now, and wait to buy until we are completely done with the coronavirus impact. This is likely to eliminate Hidden Risk #1, but it makes Hidden Risk #2 far worse. By the time we are completely done with the coronavirus impact, your investments could potentially be 100%+ higher. The impact on all future declines can be devastating.

You may be desperate for some relief from the stress of staying invested at a low point, and are still tempted to sell. The relief is an illusion:

  1. If you are stressed now, imagine the stress after selling, reinvesting higher and then going to the bottom with less money.
  2. You may be tempted to sell and not buy until far into the future. As strong as it is at relieving the current stress, it is devastating at the depths of the next decline – lowering its bottom dramatically.

By holding onto your investments, you ultimately get the portfolio returns. While stocks may face long periods with poor returns, it is much better than risking making future declines deeper and longer.

Mirroring the risks above, if you still have income and are able to invest at today’s low levels, you can boost your financial security in future declines for the rest of your life.

Quiz Answer:

During a big decline, is selling stocks until the storm passes conservative?

  1. Yes.
  2. It is conservative at the moment, and likely riskier beyond that. [Correct Answer]
  3. No, it is risky to sell low.

Explanation: See this month’s article.

Disclosures Including Backtested Performance Data

8 Principles for Happiness in the FIRE Movement

by

Quiz!

Imagine this simplified case: You make 100k net income per year starting at age 30, put your savings in an investment with 8% annual growth, and spend 3% per year in retirement. Compare the following 2 scenarios:

  1. You work for 40 years, save 10k per year (and spend 90k), and enjoy 20 years of retirement.
  2. You work for 20 years, save 50k per year (and spend 50k), and enjoy 40 years of retirement.

Scenario #1 involved doubling the number of working years + spending an extra 40k per year during 40 years of work. How much extra lifelong spending was provided, and what was the extra ending investment balance?

  1. +8M lifelong spending, with -8M investments left.
  2. +4M lifelong spending, with -2M investments left.
  3. +1M lifelong spending, with +1M investments left.
  4. Nearly equal lifelong spending, with +1M investments left.
  5. -3M lifelong spending, with -9M investments left.

8 Principles for Happiness in the FIRE Movement

FIRE stands for: “Financial Independence, Retire Early”. People aiming for FIRE save aggressively, as much as 50%-75% of their income, aiming to retire at a young age. They typically retire once they reach enough savings to support 3%-4% annual spending.

While the result may sound very appealing, the plan can result in an unhappy life or be abandoned, if not done right. Here are 8 principles that helped me in my process, and may help you:

  1. Spend for happiness: Drop all expenses that won’t make you much happier in life today or in the future, but keep and emphasize the expenses that are important to the core of your happiness, or to build a good future.
  2. Experiment and adapt: Keep dropping additional expenses, even if everyone tells you that the expense is as important as drinking water. Question every conventional wisdom, and you are bound to enjoy some pleasant surprises. When needed, reintroduce expenses.
  3. Keep low-frequency & lower-scale expenses: Eating out once a week (or month) instead of never can add to your happiness far more than the 5th weekly meal out. Going on a road-trip to a national park off season, and sleeping outside the park costs a small fraction of a flight to another continent with a stay in a nice hotel. Such a trip still gives you time away, with family or friends, nature, and relaxation – providing the bulk of the happiness.
  4. Save most when your spending/investment ratio is high: You will save more (1) early, compounding every dollar saved exponentially for longer – giving you free extra money, and (2) when your investments are low, and expected returns are higher.
  5. Invest for high growth: High growth helps reach independence earlier. In addition, high growth investments tend to be more volatile, providing excess gains to a consistent saver (read https://www.qualityasset.com/2018/07/31/how-to-use-volatility-to-make-money/ to understand). Two caveats: (1) Stay highly diversified across sectors and countries; (2) Be prepared to stay consistent through multi-year declines – something that comes with all high-growth investments.
  6. Aim for a conservative outcome: Aim for a 3% annual spending rate, to support a potential of many decades in retirement. Spending includes non-recurring and surprise expenses, including car upgrades, major home repairs, and healthcare costs, to name a few.
  7. Keep working at what you love: Once you reached financial independence, keep working at something you love. It can be your current job, a new lower- or higher-paying job, or a new business.
  8. Maintain 3% spending: As your investments reach higher peaks, you can raise your spending proportionately to enjoy the fruit of the optimizations leading to that point. You can call this modification the FIRES movement = Financial Independence, Retire Early, then Spend, Save or whatever makes you happiest. Whatever you choose, the compounded growth of investments is expected to grow the benefit exponentially over time.

There are several benefits to these principles:

  1. Maximum happiness gained from every dollar spent.
  2. Enjoying work in retirement from a position of power with no pressure.
  3. Decades of financial independence + growing spending. You are likely to enjoy far greater lifelong spending than the typical person.

Quiz Answer:

Imagine this simplified case: You make 100k net income per year starting at age 30, put your savings in an investment with 8% annual growth, and spend 3% per year in retirement. Compare the following 2 scenarios:

  1. You work for 40 years, save 10k per year (and spend 90k), and enjoy 20 years of retirement.
  2. You work for 20 years, save 50k per year (and spend 50k), and enjoy 40 years of retirement.

Scenario #1 involved doubling the number of working years + spending an extra 40k per year during 40 years of work. How much extra lifelong spending was provided, and what was the extra ending investment balance?

  1. +8M lifelong spending, with -2M investments left.
  2. +4M lifelong spending, with -2M investments left.
  3. +1M lifelong spending, with +1M investments left.
  4. Nearly equal lifelong spending, with +1M investments left.
  5. -3M lifelong spending, with -9M investments left. [Correct Answer]

Explanation:

The frontloading of spending created a disadvantage that was impossible to recover from, despite doubling the number of working years. Details:

  1. The extra spending in the first 20 years of scenario #1, led to a balance of 460k relative to 2.3M in scenario #2.
  2. 7 years later, with 13 years of work remaining for scenario #1, the annual spending of 90k was lower than the spending level of the person who retired already 7 years earlier.
  3. By the end of the working career, the 90k spending compares to 173k for the person retiring 20 years earlier. The investment balance grew nicely to 2.6M, but short of the 6.1M of the early retiree.
  4. By the end of retirement, the spending jumped to 196k relative to 460k for the early retiree. The investment balance reached nearly 7M vs. 16M for the early retiree.
Disclosures Including Backtested Performance Data

How Much Should You Spend? A Rule of Thumb for All!

by

Quiz!

Which rule of thumb for spending can be useful for all personality types?

  1. Save 10% of your income and spend the rest.
  2. Save 10% of your income for incomes up to $200k, and 20% for incomes above that. You can spend the rest.
  3. Keep your spending as low as needed to avoid chronic financial stress.
  4. Save as much as needed to allow you to retire by a reasonable age such as 65 or 70. You can spend the rest.

How Much Should You Spend? A Rule of Thumb for All!

This article offers a rule of thumb for a healthy spending level for all personality types.

Full sustainability: No matter your preferences, you can feel comfortable to spend an amount that is likely to be sustainable for as long as you live, whether you work or not. This is: your current social security payments, pensions and other guaranteed income, plus a sustainable withdrawal from your investments (e.g. 3%-4% for many globally diversified stock portfolios, reduced enough to account for surprise expenses).

Rule of thumb for all: Early in your career, full sustainability is rarely possible. A rule of thumb is to keep your spending as low as needed to avoid chronic financial stress. The benefit of this rule is that it can apply equally to different personalities. Here are a few examples:

  1. Risk averse: If you are risk averse, you may become stressed by any income instability or large surprise expenses. It may be worth keeping your spending as close as you can to 3%-4% of your portfolio. It may involve a large initial adjustment, but in return you will get many rewards. You will take the fastest road out of financial stress. You will enjoy the extra savings, plus the compounded growth of the extra savings. This will lead to a positive snowball effect of fast growing sustainable income along with relaxation.
  2. Time-sensitive spending: Some expenses lead to benefits that may not be available if delayed. Examples include children’s education & healthy eating. If you are risk averse, a compromise may be delaying most expenses, but still retaining your time-sensitive expenses.
  3. Instant gratification: If you are averse to delaying gratification, and don’t get too stressed without much of a safety net, you may choose to spend the bulk of your income, no matter how limited your investments are. Any loss of job, and many surprise expenses will require quick adjustments and potential stress. With low total savings to enjoy compounded growth, you will likely have a lot less money to spend in your lifetime, and your dependency on work will stay consistently high. But if immediate gratification is your top desire, and the consequences don’t stress you, it may be worth the tradeoff.

Important notes:

  1. Be realistic about upcoming expenses. Many types of non-recurring expenses are bound to happen. Examples include medical costs, house repairs, car repairs, new cars, loss of job and business downturns. I’ve heard people refer to these as bad luck. Switching your mindset, and seeing them as expected non-recurring expenses, can significantly increase your happiness and success in life.
  2. The benefit: The rule of thumb of avoiding chronic financial stress can be helpful regardless of your priorities. If your spending creates ongoing stress, you are probably not living an authentic life, and the price could be greater than any benefit you are getting by the spending. This is true whether you think you are spending very little or a lot.
  3. Stable jobs with guaranteed pensions. Because most jobs are far from guaranteed, the ultimate way to avoid chronic financial stress is to depend on sustainable withdrawals from actual money in the bank (investments). If you are lucky enough to have a very stable job that has a guaranteed pension, the pressure to reduce the dependency on work is lower. Please remember, though, that such jobs are rare, and pensions may not be as guaranteed as they used to be.
  4. If you are married, it is worth discussing spending, with a clear goal of resolving and preventing chronic financial stress. To motivate the talks, realize that one person’s stress typically hurts both members of the couple – even the person who is less risk averse and eager to spend more.
  5. Perspective: You can maximize your happiness by comparing yourself to people living in a basic structure with no running water and no electricity, and realize how fortunate you are. No matter how much you lower your spending, you are very fortunate in life.

Quiz Answer:

Which rule of thumb for spending can be useful for all personality types?

  1. Save 10% of your income and spend the rest.
  2. Save 10% of your income for incomes up to $200k, and 20% for incomes above that. You can spend the rest.
  3. Keep your spending as low as needed to avoid chronic financial stress. [The Correct Answer]
  4. Save as much as needed to allow you to retire by a reasonable age such as 65 or 70. You can spend the rest.

Explanations:

  1. Your saving rate depends on how much you have saved, how soon you desire to retire, your spending rate, your income level, your job stability, and a number of other factors. There isn’t one percentage that applies to everyone.
  2. All else being equal, you should save a greater percentage of your income, the higher it is, since it is tougher to replace higher incomes, and your basics are more likely to be covered already. But, spending and saving rates depend on many other factors, some of which are mentioned in #1 above.
  3. Stress is a protection mechanism that tells you that you are not acting in an authentic way. If you are chronically financially stressed, you are acting against your internal beliefs. This rule of thumb can help everyone.
  4. There are many problems with this advice. A few of them: You cannot count on a specific growth rate on your investments to know when you can retire, you cannot anticipate health problems, loss of job, volatile business income, and the list goes on.
Disclosures Including Backtested Performance Data

Do Rising U.S. Interest Rates Hurt Emerging Markets?

by

Quiz!

Would you expect emerging markets investments to go up or down when interest rates go up in the US?

  1. Up.
  2. Down.

Do Rising U.S. Interest Rates Hurt Emerging Markets?

There is a widely held belief that when the US Fed (Federal Reserve) raises interest rates, emerging markets investments should decline.

Why do people expect emerging markets to get hurt when US rates go up?

  1. Stronger dollar: When US rates go up relative to rates in other countries, people can earn a higher rate on savings in the US. This would lead to money flowing from other countries to the US, which would strengthen the dollar.
  2. Higher borrowing costs for emerging markets: Many emerging markets companies borrow in dollars. If a Chinese company earns money in yuans and borrows in dollars, a stronger dollar would make the loan more expensive in yuans, hurting the company.

Reality is the opposite!

While the logic seems sound, reality in the past 20 years has been the opposite. The table below tracks the returns of ET (Extended-Term Component), a portfolio focused on emerging markets, in periods of rising and declining rates in the US:

Period Start

Period End

Change in US rates

ET Returns

12/31/1998

5/16/2000

+1.75%

+58%

5/16/2000

6/25/2003

-5.50%

-11%

6/25/2003

6/29/2006

+4.25%

+169%

6/29/2006

12/15/2015

-5.25%

+20%

12/15/2015

9/28/2018

+2.00%

+50%

Observations & notes:

  1. In all rising-rate periods, ET gained substantially.
  2. In declining-rate periods, ET had much worse results, with negative to low-positive returns.
  3. Market tops and bottoms didn’t coincide perfectly with the borders between the periods. Measured from the turning points in the portfolio, the results are substantially stronger.

Why do emerging markets go up when US interest rates go up, and vice versa?

The Fed reacts to the world economies when setting the interest rates. It focuses on the US, but considers the rest of the world as well. Specifically:

  1. When the economy shows signs of weakness after a period of expansion, the Fed lowers rates, to support the economy.
  2. When the economy turns around after a period of contraction, the Fed raises rates to moderate the expansion.

While I wouldn’t count on emerging markets to go up perfectly whenever US rates go up, the data is useful in avoiding expecting the opposite.

Quiz Answer:

Would you expect emerging markets investments to go up or down when interest rates go up in the US?

  1. Up. [The Correct Answer]
  2. Down.

Explanations: Read this month’s article for an explanation.

Disclosures Including Backtested Performance Data

How to Use Volatility to Make Money

by

Quiz!

If you add annually to a portfolio that drops 50% in one year and recovers the next year, what penalty or benefit do you get when compared to a portfolio with the same returns (0%) and no volatility?

  1. -50%
  2. No impact.
  3. +50%

How to Use Volatility to Make Money

Investment volatility is the investment’s movements up and down away from its average growth. It is commonly viewed as a negative, but for a disciplined long-term saver, it is typically a positive. A hypothetical example can demonstrate it. Let’s compare 2 portfolios with identical returns, and different volatility:

Portfolio 1

Portfolio 2

Year 1

0%

-50%

Year 2

0%

100%

Average

0%

0%

If you start with $100, both portfolios will be worth $100 after 2 years. Specifically, Portfolio 2 will go through the following values: (Year 1) $100 – 50% = $50. (Year 2) $50 + 100% = $100. The portfolios have identical average growth, but Portfolio 2 is far more volatile.

Let’s see the final balance if you add $100 in the beginning of each year:

Portfolio 1

Portfolio 2

Year 1

($100 + 0%) = $100

($100 – 50%) = $50

Year 2

($100 + $100) + 0% = $200

($50 + $100) + 100% = $300

Even though both portfolios have the same average growth, when adding to both portfolios identical amounts each year, the more volatile portfolio ended up 50% higher ($300 vs. $200).

How is this possible? The percentage going back up is greater than the original percentage going down. When a portfolio recovers from a 50% decline it goes up 100%. This is because the percentage going up is relative to a lower starting amount. While old money simply recovers, new money that was invested low goes up $100 – double the -$50 impact of the decline.

Notes:

  1. Some investors lose faith in their portfolio after declines, and hold off on investing (or even sell). If you do that, you can negate the entire benefit of volatility and even hurt your returns.
  2. Even with discipline, there is a special case that can lead to a negative effect. The case involves no up period after a down period, for example, only up years followed by only down years. This is not a concern for disciplined lifelong investors, because such a sequence is limited to one cycle or less.

Quiz Answer:

If you add annually to a portfolio that drops 50% in one year and recovers the next year, what penalty or benefit do you get when compared to a portfolio with the same returns (0%) and no volatility?

  1. -50%
  2. No impact.
  3. +50% [The Correct Answer]

Explanation: See this month’s article for an analysis of this scenario.

Disclosures Including Backtested Performance Data

The Winners and Losers of Tariffs

by

Quiz!

Who are the winners when a country increases taxes on imports (tariffs) from another country?

  1. The country taxing imports.
  2. The other county (the exporter).
  3. Neither country.
  4. Both countries.

The Winners and Losers of Tariffs

Tariffs hurt specialization across borders, limit global trade, and increase the costs to consumers – it’s a losing proposition for everyone involved. So, why would the US seek to increase tariffs? I believe that it is a negotiation tactic by the US, to try to reduce the trade imbalance with other countries (the US imports more than it exports). If I am correct, this can go on while each country involved figures out the extent of its power. I believe that once all the information is available and the negotiations are complete, any buildup in bilateral tariffs would be removed to everyone’s benefit.

Supporting my opinion is the fact that the world is very interconnected economically. Let’s view two big players in these negotiations: the US and China. I will point out several mutually beneficial connections in the table below.

Action

Benefit to the US

Benefit to China

The US imports from China a lot more than it exports

US consumers get cheaper products, thanks to cheaper labor in China.

China gets more buyers for their products

China loosely pegs the yuan (its currency) to the dollar. They get dollars from exports to the US, and buy US treasuries to keep the dollar’s value high enough relative to the yuan.

The US government gets cheap loans from China, to support its huge budget deficit. China is the largest lender to the US government.

By buying dollars, China keeps its currency low, to make its exports cheaper in dollars, and be more competitive.

Quiz Answer:

Who are the winners when a country increases taxes on imports (tariffs) from another country?

  1. The country taxing imports.
  2. The other county (the exporter).
  3. Neither country. [The Correct Answer]
  4. Both countries.
Disclosures Including Backtested Performance Data

Warren Buffett’s Strategy vs. Quality Asset Management’s

by

Quiz!

Which of the following are common to Warren Buffett and Quality Asset Management?

  1. Value investing
  2. Home bias
  3. Profitability bias
  4. Reduced volatility

Warren Buffett’s Strategy vs. Quality Asset Management’s

Warren Buffet is one of the greatest investors of all times. Given that his fund, Berkshire Hathaway, holds a small number of stocks, you may think that his strong performance was the result of superior stock selection (a.k.a. alpha). A study that was published in 2013 (https://www.nber.org/papers/w19681) found that the benefit of his stock selection was statistically insignificant, attributing virtually the entire performance to structural decisions. Below I review the sources of his performance that are in common with Quality Asset Management (QAM), and those that are different.

In common:

  1. Value: Both invest in companies with a low price relative to the company’s book value (low P/B).
  2. Quality: Both invest in profitable companies.
  3. Reduced Volatility: Buffett buys low volatility stocks that historically resulted in excess returns. QAM achieves similar results (reduced volatility, excess returns) by excluding extremely small and expensive (high P/B) stocks as well as stocks experiencing negative momentum.

Buffett’s benefits:

  1. Leverage: Buffett employs leverage of 1.4 to 1.6, with very low costs of borrowing thanks to using capital from his insurance business (premiums received until claims where paid), and interest-free loans: differed tax on depreciation, accounts payable and option contract liabilities. QAM helps clients use home mortgages & HELOCs (home equity lines of credit) to generate leverage, when desired, possible (the client can qualify for the loans) & subject to a risk analysis. In addition, it invests deferred obligations, including income taxes until due (e.g. when the client pays 110% of past year’s taxes in estimated taxes, and enjoys faster growing income). QAM uses very low cost margin for loans backed by unused HELOCs, and other sources. While there are some similarities, this strategy is not used for all of QAM’s client’s, and the leverage level declines with the growth of the portfolio relative to the client’s home value. In addition, the interest rate that Buffett gets from his insurance arm is lower than the interest rates that QAM’s clients get. Therefore, this is usually a benefit to Buffett relative to QAM.

QAM’s benefits:

  1. Size: Early on, Buffett focused on small companies. Given the size of his fund, he cannot practically focus on a small number of small companies, and he developed a bias towards large companies. QAM has a bias towards small companies that is likely generate a return premium relative to Buffett. This benefit is likely to be sustainable for a very long time, given QAM’s strong diversification.
  2. Country: Buffett has a bias towards American companies. QAM doesn’t have this bias, and it focuses on companies from less developed countries. This is likely to generate a return premium.

Quiz Answer:

Which of the following are common to Warren Buffett and Quality Asset Management?

  1. Value investing [Correct Answer]
  2. Home bias
  3. Profitability bias [Correct Answer]
  4. Reduced volatility [Correct Answer]

Explanations: Please read the article above for explanations.

Disclosures Including Backtested Performance Data