Month: February 2009

Davidson has a very thoughtful pieces on markets, the government’s roles, investors and traders vs value investors.

Under the Bush Administration it would appear that “Fair Markets” which was the theme of Securities Act of 1934 and other responses to the events that produced the Great Depression became “Free Markets”. Free Markets which have little restraint become dominated by the avarice of the marginal investors who are bright enough to skirt all the laws then enforced to take undo advantage of all other investors who being responsible and in the view of these few operate within the doctrine of “Fairness”. The “Free Market” syndrome simply missed the fact that there are always individuals who will “game” the system and because they have greater resources manipulate markets for their own advantage knowing that most will follow a sense of “Fairness”. These few are not stupid people. They are very bright. Bright enough to understand the system, see its flaws and acquire the means by which to enrich themselves at the expense of others who believe in the concept of “Fairness” as originally conceived.

It would appear the April 28, 2004 SEC regulatory meeting much discussed today at which investment banks were freed to lever up to 40-50X was simply part of a general belief that “Free Markets” self-correct and self-monitor. Unfortunately what was missed is that this is only possible in a medium of complete and utter transparency. In fact, while we gradually forced Warren Buffett to expose his holdings thus taking away some of his freedom to move about the market place, we gave HF’s invisibility. We also gave these folks invisibility as to the new securities contracts they created with the incredibly wrong belief that they would self-monitor. Many including Alan Greenspan supported this construct.

“Free Markets” will never be completely transparent as individuals will always find a means to game the system dishonestly. This is why rules are necessary to make markets “Fair Markets” to all with the individual investors who are the fundamental base of all investing through their daily effort, their labor and creativity, to produce GDP. We lose sight that our economy and the stock and bond markets rest on the efforts of people earning a living. We lose sight of the fact that the investment markets are not a world unto themselves that can be mathematically analyzed and thrown in to formulas by which to create wealth. The investment markets are simply a representation of the productivity of our society. I like to think of the markets as a console full of dials. It simply measures the results of all the inputs to society as it pertains to our productivity. The markets reflect our hopes, our generosity, our legal system and our political system. The markets reflect our entire value system and how we organize our efforts to self improve.

Markets need to be “Fair” not “Free”. Transparency of every contract, every levered position, every trade and every association of one contract holder with another should be paramount. If there is an ability of one investor to gain advantage over another with secrecy, then there should be rules that forces this into the light of day so that we can determine if it is “Fair to Individual Investors”.

There should also be a “Recourse Rule”. If you buy a house today it is non-recourse to the buyer. It is up to the bank to have performed the underwriting to the level that assures safety of principle and interest. This lets single buyers own multiple homes to speculate without personal risk. We are all suffering today from the fallout of housing speculators who have walked away from recent transactions leaving our financial institutions with the losses. All obligations should carry some form of recourse to the parties involved. It would add personal risk to speculation and reduce the risk to us all. How this can be done regarding investment contracts and investment firms can be left up to them to develop a fair solution. The concept is that there should be some recourse to the individual who created the contract till the contract has terminated.

“Fairness” should be the rule-personal responsibility of behavior should be the goal. “Free Markets” leads to avoidance of responsibility. I liked Pres. Bush, but he simply got it wrong. This mess will be his legacy.

We have Traders and Value Investors. The former believes that price accounts for all information, Efficient Mkt Hypothesis. The latter believe in understanding a business and buy with cash flow, Owner’s Earnings and etc.

First, the Traders support Mark-to-Market while the Value Investors scream that it is a bogus benchmark. The Traders sell stock and if it goes down they say, “See!! If it goes down, it was meant to go down to find its real “value”!!” It is an amazing set of mental gymnastics that Traders use to convince themselves that “emotional pricing” of securities represents a valid method of “fair value accounting” for which Mark-to-Market was designed to effect.

Second, there are many, many more Traders with their simplistic approach and strong self belief/confidence than there are true Value Investors. It is easy to see that Value Investors do not by their selling create tops nor by their buying create bottoms. It appears to be more a factor that Traders simply exhausted their fire power. Where this level is I do not know. Unfortunately, “Mark-to-Market” is a destructive feed-back device. It supports erroneous contention reinforcing it’s own effect. It goes in the wrong direction till you reach such a silly level that eventually some percentage of Traders see the folly and an apparent “Value” becomes obvious. The snap back becomes very sharp.

I don’t know where that level is. Obviously this past week was not that level.

Disclosure (“none” means no position):

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books