How Madoff did it
Posted by: investment-scientist on: July 3, 2009
This week, Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison by New York District Judge, Denny Chin. With the trial now over, Madoff’s victims are still fighting over what little is left of his fund. They want to know: Where was the SEC?
More appropriate questions should be: How did Madoff do it? What human frailties did he exploit? How was he able to con $65 billion out of the most sophisticated members of our society? Here’s how his scam worked:
Affinity
We humans lower our guard when we believe other people are similar to us. Madoff exploited this one masterfully. Much like Charles Ponzi, who looked for his prey among Italians, Bernie Madoff focused on exclusive Jewish social clubs and Jewish foundations.
Do you have “cancer” in your portfolio?
Posted by: investment-scientist on: June 7, 2009
- In: Uncategorized
- Leave a Comment
“They are the cancer of the institutional investment world.” – David Swensen
Would you consider forming a partnership with someone you don’t know, in which you would contribute the money and that someone would conduct a business that you don’t understand, and do the accounting as well?
Most business owners would respond with a resounding “No!” The reason is obvious: such an arrangement is the surest way to lose money.
Reading tea leaves from Harvard’s portfolio changes
Posted by: investment-scientist on: May 20, 2009
- In: Uncategorized
- 2 Comments
The Harvard Management Company, which oversees the $26 billion Harvard University Endowment, recently filed a 13F-HR quarterly report with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) disclosing its portfolio of publicly traded securities as of the end of Q1 2009.
Here are the most significant changes to Harvard’s portfolio:
Three dropouts
IShares MSCI UK Index Fund, iPath MSCI India Index Fund, and Western Asset Claymore Inflation-Linked Opportunities & Income Fund are no longer in the top 10. In fact, Harvard completely sold its UK index fund holding during Q1 2009.
Three additions
Lessons from Harvard’s timely bet on emerging markets
Posted by: investment-scientist on: May 7, 2009
- In: Uncategorized
- Leave a Comment
During the last quarter of 2008, the Harvard University Endowment quietly overhauled its public equity investment portfolio. By the end of the overhaul, the top 10 positions in the portfolio looked like this:
Chart credit: Paul Kedrosky
Most strikingly, seven out of the top 10 are emerging-market exchange trading funds (ETFs), with emerging-market index fund EEM and China index fund FXI the largest and second largest holdings, respectively. Year to date, EEM is up 24.55%, and FXI is up 20.85%. Comparatively, the S&P 500 is flat.
The complete list of Chinese ADRs (with Piotroski ranking)
Posted by: investment-scientist on: April 22, 2009
- In: Uncategorized
- Leave a Comment
The following link contains the complete list of Chinese ADRs with fundamental scores calculated based on Piotroski’s methodology. Chinese ADRs listed in OTC markets not having financial statements are omitted. For more information about Piotroski’s methodology please read his research paper – “Value Investing: The Use of Historical Finanical Statement Information to Separate Winners from Losers.”
Why doctors don’t get rich
Posted by: investment-scientist on: April 17, 2009
- In: Uncategorized
- 2 Comments
“Physicians have a significantly low propensity to accumulate substantial wealth.” – Thomas Stanley, author of The Millionaire Next Door
How come doctors fail to get rich?
I’ve identified six reasons based on observations working with my physician clients, and supported by Stanley’s book.
A late start
By the time doctors finish medical school and residency they’re typically in their middle or late thirties. Many have families to feed, and substantial student loans to pay off. It will be years before they can even start accumulating wealth.
Lifestyle expectations
Society expects a doctor to live like a doctor, dress like a doctor, and drive like a doctor. Meeting social expectations uses resources that could be otherwise invested.
Time and energy
The staggering cost of conflicts of interest: a true story
Posted by: investment-scientist on: April 8, 2009
- In: Uncategorized
- 5 Comments
“Avoid conflicts of interest.” – David Swensen, Yale Endowment CIO.
Jose is a multi-millionaire. He has a number of accounts with Merrill Lynch (ML), the storied brokerage firm that paid their senior executives $4 billion in bonuses last year. Three of his accounts lost a great deal of money, not due to the market crash but to conflicts of interest.
Double dealing in Treasury
Jose has a Treasury account where his ML wealth manager![[picture of double dealing, enable image to view]](http://investmentscientist.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/financial-advisor.jpg?w=240&h=160&h=160)
purchases Treasury bills, notes and bonds for him. Last year was a great year for Treasury securities – the market turmoil caused investors to flock to them, driving prices up more than 10%. Jose’s account, however, lost 3%. How could this happen? Conflicts of interest. ML is a primary dealer in the Treasury market. They buy Treasury securities and resell them to their customers at a markup. It looks like the markup is so high it takes away all the customer profit.
Churning stocks
Stock market just had worst 10 years in history
Posted by: investment-scientist on: April 1, 2009
- In: Uncategorized
- 4 Comments
Out of curiosity, I took the S&P 500 annual return data since 1926, calculated the index’s moving 10-year returns and produced the chart below. Two things are worth noting:
1. The 10 years ending 2008 are the worst ever for the index, with a total return of -13%.
2. The S&P 500’s 10-year return dynamic seems to follow a periodic pattern. The second worst 10-year period ended in 1938 (-9%); and the third worst 10-year period ended in 1974 (13%）, almost right in the middle of 1938 and 2008. Serendipity?
S&P 500 10-year return dynamic
Steven Leuthhold, CIO of Grizzly Short Fund, argued in a Bloomberg interview that the next 10-years will be good for the market since the last 10-years were not. I am not ready to draw that conclusion from two historical precedents. It’s food for thought though.
David Swensen ups allocation to emerging-market
Posted by: investment-scientist on: March 25, 2009
In his book Unconventional Success: A Fundamental Approach to Personal Investment, Swensen recommends the following allocations, for individual investors who want a “well-diversified, equity-oriented portfolio”:
30% Domestic stock funds
20% Real estate investment trusts
15% U.S. Treasury bonds
15% U.S. Treasury inflation-protected securities
15% Foreign developed-market stock funds
5% Emerging-market stock funds
In an interview with Yale magazine, Swensen said, economic conditions might call for a modest revision. He now recommends that investors have 15 percent of their assets in real estate investment trusts, and raise their investment in emerging-market stock funds to 10 percent.
What to learn from Ivy League endowments’ investment success
Posted by: investment-scientist on: March 18, 2009
University endowments are important institutions. They play a critical role in maintaining the academic excellence of the universities that rely heavily on their income. Recently, these endowments have drawn much attention because of their superior investment returns compared to other institution investors, such as investment banks and insurance companies.
There is much diversity among university endowments. Ivy League endowments such as those of Yale and Harvard are well ahead of the pack in terms of investment returns.
Between 1994 and 2005, Ivy League endowments returned an average of 14.9% per year, compared to 11.7% for all university endowments and 9.7% for the S&P 500. Surprisingly, this high average return was achieved with less risk! The return volatility of Ivy League endowments was 8.8%, compared to 9% for all university endowments and 16.9% for the S&P 500. Clearly, these endowments have done something right!
Chart: Comparing the returns of Ivy League endowments, all university endowments and the S&P 500. “All Return” denotes the returns of all university endowments. “All Bench” denotes the returns of mimicking all university endowments using asset class indexes. “Ivy Return” denotes the returns of Ivy League university endowment. “All Bench” denotes the returns of mimicking Ivy League university endowment using asset class indexes.
Data source: Lerner, Schoar and Wang, 2008, “Secrets of Academic: The Driver of University Endowment Success.”
Ivy League endowments derive their superior returns from two sources: asset allocation and investment selection. Ordinary investors can mimic their asset allocation, which is public information, to some extent. If investors buy each asset class index fund in proportion to the Ivy League endowment allocation, they may be able to achieve the Ivy Benchmark Return of 9.8% with 12.1% volatility. This is clearly superior to the S&P 500.
Ordinary investors, however, should not attempt to mimic Ivy League endowments’ investment selection. They do not have the knowledge, rigorous investment process, and access to highly-skilled investment managers to be successful.
