Dec 31, 2011

Commodities III - Chemicals

Natural gas prices are set to remain low due to the boom in shale gas extraction and the subdued economic growth (US Gov should start to tighten 1+% of GDP p.a. of its deficit after the elections. That could have an impact of up to 2% of GDP p.a.

Chemicals set to benefit from these low Natural Gas prices. US chem' firms have become the world's second cheapest producers Nitrogen fertilizers.

Ethanol demand will not decrease despite reduced subsidies. But if gasoline consumption would go down, ethanol would follow suite and corn with it (since it is the largest use of corn in the US.

Monsanto - MON at 70 usd
Mosaic - MOS at 50.4
Potash - POT at 41.3
Intrepid Potash - IPI at
CF Industries - CF
Agrium - AGU
Du Pont - DD



Commodities II - URanium

After Fukushima disaster on March 11, 2011, the nuclear sector has been battered by investors as increased regulatory risk and phase-out programmes from several countries (Germany, Switzerland, .... ) could pose a paradigm change in the generation mix of developed countries.
Emerging countries seem to be less concerned about tail-risks associated with nuclear plants (Hungary & Czech vs Austria & Germany).

The ETF for uranium miners, Global X Uranium, URA (closing 2011 at $ 8.1) has been among the worst performing ETFs in 2011. Nonetheless, 2012 and 2013 could be the years to see a come back of uranium, triggered by the destocking of the Russian military reserves and the c. 55 million lbs gap between supply and demand.
More info can be found in this article.

Uranium U3O8 has finished 2011 trading at $ 51.75 in the spot market (see graph). These levels are not much higher than the production costs and make the development of many projects unprofitable. Worldwide production is 130 m lbs, short of the ww demand of 180 / 190 m lbs required to fuel the 443 reactors currently in use; of which 104 are in the US; and 11 of will cease to operate as a consequence of political decisions taken in Germany and Japan sparked by the Fukushima accident.


If we combine these factors with the end of the Russian military stockpiles of HEU treatment carried out by Cameco, we can already envisage a much tighter uranium market in 2012 / 2013.

Furthermore, China, India, ... have .... reactors planned /
62 reactors are currently under construction.

The long-term demographic and economic (ie increased energy consumption) trends are supporters of high uranium demand in the future. And our expectation is that this demand will drive uranium prices significantly up, since the supply side is much more constrained.




Risks
... to the investment case could come from an increased momentum in the anti-nuclear policies, worse news-flow from Japan (e.g. EPA has closed down the US monitoring stations), and a long-term substitution trend towards Thorium -a byproduct in the processing of rare earth elements.

China, Japan and some other countries are increasing their efforts to develop nuclear energy using thorium because it is safer the mineral per se, and the reactors are also safer. Besides, it is x400 times more availability than Uranium.

... but even if there would a clear switch towards thorium, with 400+ operating plants the needs of uranium won't decrease, as reactors were made to last 40+ years, and some could be extended for as long as 100 years.


Gaining risk exposure
can be achieved via market-wide ETFs like Global X Uranium, URA ($8/sh) which owns established and mature producers like Cameco, Denison Mines but also junior producers like Fission (which has high grade -good quality- mines), Strathmore and / or Ur-Energy ($0.85/sh).

Most of these companies are based in the US or Canada, which reduces significantly the political / regulatory and economic risks.

Favorite picks:
Uranium Energy Corporation - UEC at $3.06/share; 231m; fwPE 15
Uranerz Energy - URZ at 1.82; 140m; fwPE 36
Ur-Energy - URG at 0.86; 89m
Uranium one - UUU, 3Q2011 webcast;
Cameco - CCJ at $18/share; 7.12bn; PE 15



known unkowns:
is the uranium market affected by the electricity prices?
... I am not an expert in this field, but I would assume that no, only in the very long run (ie 10+y).
My thesis is based on the lengthy construction process of a nuclear plant, and the no optionality in the degree of operations of a reactor (ie either they work at full capacity or they don't work). Therefore, I assume that the operations are not affected by the supply/demand of energy. ie, as long as they are in OK conditions, they will operate at full capacity, and therefore demand of uranium is very unelastic (at least in what concerns the energy prices).

Dec 29, 2011

Commodities I - PGMs
























Palladium price (dec 2011)














Platinum price: 1138.5 eur/troy ounce (dec 2011)















PGMs, especially palladium, seem to be an attractive asset to own in the medium to long term.

Platinum, palladium and rhodium are used primarily to coate the autocatalysts in order to reduce emissions. Technology improvements can increase the efficiency of the autcatalysts and reduce the loads of PGMs. On the other hand, more stringent regulation has compensated this factor.

The three precious metals are used to coat autocatalysts of gasoline engines, while only the former can be used for diesel engines.

The cheaper price of palladium may lure autocat manufacturers like Johnson Matthey and increase their loads of this metal at the expense of platinum. This strategy may narrow the price gap between the two metals and we could see palladium prices at 0.7 to 0.9 of those for platinum.

Rhodium is a byproduct of platinum. Used mostly for autocatalysts, catalysts, and glass manufacturing. DeNOX (gasoline engines). Mined in SA

IRidium is also a byproduct, it's price has sky-rocketed due to its usage in tech gadgets.


These are some insightful comments from SWC's CFO, Greg Wing, about their acquisition of a copper and gold property, and about their view on PGMs, which has been their core area so far.


Hard Assets Investor: Why has copper held its price so well while other industrial metals seem to have taken a hit?

Wing: Well, if you were talking to my boss [CEO] Frank McAllister, he would say that copper is the fifth precious metal. But let me set that aside and say that I think my understanding of it links to the dynamics of the world economy.

If you went back to around 1900 and you looked at the intensity of copper use in the United States, you would see that it was rising very steeply at that point. And that intensity of use, say, per unit of GDP or something like that, was indicative of the fact that the United States was industrializing at that point. Copper demand had grown and was growing very significantly. And, by the way, if you looked at the price of copper in 1910 compared to today in real dollars, it was up around $8 a pound, up substantially from where it is now [about $4 a pound].

In the 1930s, you not only saw the Great Depression, but you also saw the completion of that major industrialization phase in the U.S. The intensity of copper use dropped off in the U.S. It came back, to some extent, during World War II. Following the war, you saw similar spikes in intensity of copper use in Japan and in Germany. That was the rebuilding of those economies.

And then prices fell off somewhere around 1970 and languished from the early 1970s until the early 2000s, about 2003. And all of a sudden, you see another major economy starting to emerge at that point. And that obviously is China, and, to a lesser extent, some other countries. Underlying the strength in the copper price is the fact that China is still very actively industrializing. There is a lot of demand for copper coming out of there.

The demand for copper is exceeding the supply and is probably on trend to do that for a while, or at least is tight against supply. Copper is looking good for the next decade or 15 years, maybe.

HAI: Let’s talk about platinum. What’s driving demand in platinum right now?

Wing: If you look at platinum — and this is true of palladium as well — there aren't very many places in the world where you produce significant quantities of platinum. South Africa produces probably 70 percent. Russia, as a byproduct, produces 20 to 25 percent. And the balance sort of comes out of companies like us. That’s just about it. So, on the supply side, there aren't huge tracts waiting to be developed. The cost curve drives platinum. In South Africa, the marginal producers are right up against the cost curve. On top of that, you’ve got the South African political scene, where people are talking about nationalization. It’s just really tough to make those investment decisions. And then you’ve got limited electricity and limitations on water. In effect, you’ve got platinum pretty well locked against the cost curve.

Obviously, palladium is the principal metal in gasoline catalytic converters. There still is a lot of platinum used in diesel catalytic converters, and a little more than 50 percent of European production is diesel. So that market is there.

The other growing application is in big on-road and off-road diesel applications, both stationary source and construction equipment, over-the-road diesels. So there’s some growth in demand there. And again, platinum supply isn't growing.

HAI: What is the recycling percentage a year of supply?

Wing: It’s probably about 1 million to 1.5 million ounces a year, on top of about 6 million ounces of native production.

HAI: So less than 20 percent?

Wing: That’s right. Others said they can see that going up to 2 to 2.5 million ounces over the next, well, let’s say five to 10 years. Hard to tell, exactly.

HAI: What about palladium?

Wing: Palladium is kind of a parallel story. The big producer, 50 percent or so of the market on palladium production is Norilsk Nickel of Russia. They produce it as a byproduct of nickel. The South Africans produce it as a byproduct of platinum. And obviously we produce it, and North American Palladium produces it, and, to a limited extent, the nickel producers in Canada produce some of it as a byproduct. And again, that’s about it, other than recycling.

The Russian angle to palladium isn’t discussed much. When Norilsk Nickel started large-scale production, which would have been around 1940-41, they also produced palladium as a byproduct. But in those days, there wasn’t really any market for palladium. So they stockpiled it until the fall of the Soviet Union. And estimates, at that point, had about 30 million ounces of palladium sitting in that stockpile.

When the Soviet Union became the Russian Federation and opened up to a freer market structure, the government began gradually selling off that inventory. They never quite said publicly how much is in that inventory. But just kind of working backwards, we’ve estimated that it’s somewhere between 25 and 35 million ounces. Since those sales began, about 30 million ounces have come out. Not much has come out in the last 18 months to two years.

There have been statements by Norilsk and by Russian Finance Ministry officials without attribution that that resource is about gone. The Russian agency that’s responsible for those sales came out earlier this year and said, “We are going to be selling some in 2012 as well.” But they also commented that, to do that, they would be reprocessing to get it up to quality.

Also, China is becoming key to the palladium story. Obviously, at the end of 2008, you saw worldwide auto production fall off fairly steeply. It’s been gradually recovering. In 2010, it was — on a worldwide basis — at record levels: somewhere around 75 million vehicles produced. And the big growth is not in the U.S. or America and Western Europe, it’s China. China is now the largest-producing and the largest-consuming country of vehicles in the world.

HAI: Does China have the same requirements for catalytic converters as the U.S.?

Wing: The requirements are a little bit lighter. But all vehicles produced there have to have catalytic converters. The engines probably, on average, are a little bit smaller. The requirement for platinum and palladium is a little bit lower, and in particular, palladium, because they're mostly gasoline catalytic converters. But again, the projections are that by 2015, we could be producing 100 million vehicles in the world; a one-third increase over where it is today. And obviously, that dynamic suggests that, against limited supply, price is attractive over time. I would quickly add that we think those underlying long-term dynamics are significant. But that’s not to say there won't be cycles in the price superimposed on top of that supply/demand dynamic.

HAI: What do you think of this new catalytic converter that uses gold?

Wing: Well, to the extent that technology is available to study, we’ve looked at it. It looks like it primarily is displacing a certain amount of platinum. At today’s prices, with gold right sort of neck-and-neck with platinum, I'm not sure there’s a whole lot of economic advantage to it. It doesn’t do very much to palladium, at least as we understand it. It’s mostly the platinum that it affects. And the platinum in gasoline catalytic converters is a pretty small component. It would be less than 5 percent.



With the acquisition of the copper and gold property, SWC ceases to be a pure play on PGMs.
Needless to say, the move has not been received cheerfully by the investment community. Here their arguments:

Hard Assets Investor: Why did Stillwater buy Peregrine Metals?

Greg Wing: There are several reasons. We have been concerned about the fact that we are not particularly diversified; that is, we specialize in platinum and palladium. And those are wonderful products to specialize in, but they’re also somewhat cyclical. And if you look back over the last decade or so, there have been about three occasions where the price of palladium, in particular, has cratered.


Elsewhere, platinum production in South Africa is subsidised via lower energy prices (which are even below generation costs).

There are also several macro headwinds
Mr. Savouri mentions several here in his interview in reuters

Toscafund sees South Africa "blow-up" in 15 years
* Consequences more serious than Libya
* Cites emigration, government failure to tackle problems
* Higher commodity prices to benefit Russia, Australia

And here, 'South Africa's election battle vs. markets', by Sid Verma, FT Tilt

Here the 2011 bloomberg ranking of analysts.

Oct 17, 2011

Acciona - Sell

Spain:

1. Highly exposed to changes in regulation

a. After elections, the elected government will have to tackle the eur 3bn/year deficit that already amounts to 20bn

2. Exposed to the (wholesale) energy prices

a. Most of its generation capacity is unhedged, ie, top-line exposed to the wholesale price fluctuations

b. Expected GDP contraction due to the economic slowdown and the additional austerity measures to be taken by the new government (defitic has to be reduced from 7ish% currently to under 3% to comply with the European mandate.

c. Expected lower energy consumption as the electricity bill continues to rise to close the tariff deficit (3bn/year, a burden to be shared between consumers and producers –and especially clean tech generators among the latter

3. Higher O&M costs going forward due to older wind farms and worse WT technology (acciona

4. Higher country risk premium yet to be fully incorporated in the discount rate. And getting worse

International

1. Lower world GDP growth to be felt in the infrastructure division

2. Regulatory overhang in the US. Little visibility over the extension of the cash grants and PTCs

3. Energy prices in a long-term downward trend, as fracking continues to expand and a higher percentage of the energy generation and consumption is switched towards natural gas.

Capital Structure

1. Despite high leverage (Net Debt/EBITDA over 5x), management initiated share buy-back programme during the last quarter (1.5mn shares at c.66 eur/share for 100mn)

… a price above our fair value / target price

The outlook on Spain and the US, in both regulation and energy prices is negative. In Spain, the PP has not yet disclosed what will be the Energy Policy going forward, but most likely it will take a less benign approach to the renewable energies sector than the incumbent socialist government.

The conservative party has always had a penchant towards lower costs of generation and lower energy bills rather than to subsidy and increased generation share of the clean energies. Several articles appeared in the Spanish press (eg.: expansion / libertad digital) in the latter months have called attention to the dramatic increase in the costs of generation caused by the subsidies to the renewable energies, and how they have destroyed c. 2.2x more jobs than created, due to the industrial sector sensitivity to higher energy costs.

Furthermore, J.M. Entrecanales, CEO and Chairman of Acciona is a close friend of the Prime Minister Rodriguez Zapatero. This does not auspicious a more lenient regulation framework if the government changes, given that Acciona is the biggest national wind farm developer, with a different tariff regime from that of other peers (like EDPR), operating in a market that currently has 3bn euro deficit p.a., already amounting to eur. 20bn.

All these factors call for prudence in relation to the future tariffs in Spain. Besides, the upside potential embedded in the current tariff structure won’t be triggered. As energy prices in Spain won’t reach the level at which pool prices (market price+premium) will become more attractive than the current tariff. The gap stands currently at 7? eur/MWh, and the required increase in demand to close the gap is simply not there.

Elsewhere, PPAs in the US will also remain depressed in price levels and duration for two factors. First, policy makers continue to favour a strategy of energy independence. Shale gas extraction (known as fracking) has been the method gaining more market share and is indeed lowering the prices of natural gas in America. As a consequence, an increasing proportion of the generation and consumption of energy in the US is switching towards natgas. Second, the subdued economic outlook is dragging down the energy prices and the inflation expectations of the US, the two factors that determine the pricing of the PPAs. The alternative to not signing PPAs is to sell the energy directly in the wholesale market, but this exposes them to the price fluctuations.

Acciona has been investing heavily in wind energy projects with low IRR-WACC margins during the early stages of the development cycle of this technology. So far, a reality check about the growth prospects for wind, in combination with the worsening of the macroeconomic variables have dragged this margin to negative territory, with a spread of c. 140bp. We expect that higher-than-expected O&M costs will increase this spread further.

Furthermore, the company has very poor disclosure within its Energy division. It has only mildly improved the disclosure on its non-generating Energy activities (which include the loss-making WT manufacturing facilities), but overall remains far from sufficient for valuation purposes.

Given the few opportunities to achieve a project specific-IRR above its cost of capital with a comfortable margin, we think that the management strategy going forward will be to increase FCF by reducing CapEx even further. On the other hand, management appears to be comfortable with the current gearing of the firm at xx D/E, for that reason we think that a flattish debt evolution and a gradually declining Debt/EBITDA is the most likely capital structure scenario.

The company could certainly dispose assets above book value realising capital gains, but most of the value that could have been rescued by disposals in the appropriate geographies (mostly Spain) has already been lost, as the market has re-priced the sovereign risk accumulated throughout the last economic and political period, and a government of the PP conservative party seems would be committed to improve the economic stability (which would reduce the cost of capital in the long-term).

In this sense, we also see the political environment in Chile as stable and favourable to investments (as in all the other geographical areas in which Acciona is invested: US, Canada, Mexico, Australia and Poland -infraestructure), and do not find much added value in the disposal programmes carried away in Chile.

Corporate Governance details

Does the company have a combined chair/CEO? Yes

Percent Independent Directors 58.30%

Does the company disclose its corporate governance policies or guidelines? Yes

Do all executive board members own shares after excluding options held? Yes

Is the company currently under investigation for accounting irregularities? No

Do all common or ordinary equity shares have one-share, one-vote, with no restrictions? Yes

Do shareholders have a right to convene an EGM with 10% or less of the shares requesting one? Yes

Do shareowners have a right to act in concert through written communication? No

Potential Dilution from Stock Options Outstanding + Not Yet Granted Under Old or New Plans 0.00%

Is there a single shareholder or shareholder group which controls a majority of the voting power of the company? Yes

Has the company adopted a shareholder rights plan ("poison pill")? No

Links to practice French

http://w3.restena.lu/amifra/exos/index.htm


http://www.francaisfacile.com/exercices/


http://www.francaisfacile.com/exercices/index.php?go2=audio&gototal=6861&niveau=1 (avec audio)

http://platea.pntic.mec.es/~cvera/ressources/recurfr39.htm (activités audio)

http://platea.pntic.mec.es/~cvera/hotpot/exos/index.htm (exercices)

http://platea.pntic.mec.es/~cvera/ressources/recurfr37.htm (jeux)

http://www.lepointdufle.net/ressources_fle/exercices_de_prononciation.htm (exercices prononciation)

http://flenet.rediris.es/phonetique.html (audio)

May 8, 2011

What I Have Learned

What I Have Learned: "

An investment program or a trading system must be specifically tailored to each and every individual. Risk tolerances, return targets and cash flow needs are critical in structuring a program of capital allocation for investors. All programs and systems are unique based upon our own biases and requirements.


I do believe, however, that there are broad-based investing maxims that can assist individuals in navigating the financial markets. These are the investment maxims I follow.


Human nature never changes.


My favourite investment quote is from Jesse Livermore who said


Wall Street never changes. The pockets change, the suckers change, the stocks change but Wall Street never changes because human nature never changes.


Knowing human behavior is a critical to successful investing. It does not matter if one is trading short-term or investing long-term, any trade or investment is an explicit or implicit bet on human behavior.


Understand history.


History is a guide. It is a road-map to the future. It does not predict what is going to happen exactly because structural shifts occur, but the forces of economic history shift slowly over time. I first read Reminiscences of a Stock Operator in 1998, and I was amazed at how accurately Livermore (through Edwin Lefevre) was describing our time. In the same way that officers are taught military history to understand the mistakes of past battles and the evolution of strategy, investors should understand financial history to understand the mistakes and context of financial markets. Mark Twain said history doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes. Karl Marx said history repeats itself, first as tragedy than as farce. Twain and Marx could have been talking about financial markets.


Hubris kills.


The words I cringe the most upon hearing are "can't" and "won't." When people say something "can't" or "won't" happen as it pertains to investments, I become very wary. In investing, anything can happen. Do not think in certainties. Think in probabilities. Banish the words "can't" and "won't happen" from your investing vocabulary. People with a high degree of certainty about the future are the ones most likely to get wiped out. Confidence is good. Hubris is not.


Most people cannot invest successfully. You are probably one of them.


You are hardwired to fail at investing. Literally. Your brain and neurological system are wired in such a way to separate you from your money. It is why your feel euphoric when your stocks are rising and why you feel revulsion when your stocks are falling. It is why you feel you have to buy something when it appears to be running away from you, and why you feel fearful when stocks are falling. Learning to deal with your natural instincts may be the single most important aspect to investing success. Fortunately, there have been significant advances in understanding behavioral finance and neuroeconomics over the past decade. I have listed books on the subject in my book log. Read those books ASAP.


This is not a part-time job.


It is difficult to do well investing and trading over the long-run without being dedicated to it. It is difficult to invest profitably by dedicating a half hour of study in the evening. Investing and trading is not a hobby. Investing is a profession, a craft, a systematic pursuit. If you are not willing to put the time and resources needed to be successful, you should not do this yourself. Pay someone else who does this for a living to invest for you. Or give the professional most of your money and invest in small amount yourself.


Protect your capital.


You cannot play the game if you have nothing to play with. For an investor, that means buying a stock with a significant margin of safety. For a trader, that means cutting your losses quickly. An investor can average down if they have purchased a stock with a significant margin of safety, a trader cannot. A trader must cut his losses. An investor must be certain there is a margin of safety in his investment. Otherwise, capital could become permanently impaired.


Be patient. You do not always have to be involved.


I am an impatient person. I do not like waiting for a minute. I get bored easily and want to do something. Plus, I am greedy and feel that if I am not doing something, I am not accomplishing anything. But this works against me. Patience is a virtue when investing. I have found that I have done really well being patient, and I do much less well being impatient. You do not always have to be involved. Sometimes it is best to just step aside and not buy or sell anything.


Do not invest or trade something you do not understand.


Is this not obvious? You do not need to know Microsoft’s code to invest in Microsoft, but you should know what Microsoft does. If you are trading symbols, know your process cold.


Have a process and keep an open mind.


All great investors and traders have a process. Some great investors are great visionaries with nerves of steel. Some great traders flit in and out of markets successfully. However, all have a process. Different processes are often a function of differing emotional temperament and intellectual curiosity. Everyone is different and different processes will appeal to different people. But the important thing is to have a process. Your process will evolve over time. You will not do things perfectly. Thus, keep an open mind on what works for you and what does not. If there is a weakness in your process, be willing to change it.


Process and strategy are a function of time.


Whether a trade or investment is right or wrong is often a function of time. I both trade and invest. When I trade, I look out a few months. When I invest, I look out a few years. How each strategy plays out is dependent upon time. In the short-term, what matters most is momentum. In the long-term, what matters most is economics. In the short-term, news flow, sentiment and emotion are all the matters. In the long-term, what you pay for a stock relative to the long-term prospects for a stock is all that matters. If you are an investor, the crowd is usually wrong in the long-run. If you are a trader, the crowd is usually right in the short-run.


Time frames matter.


Wall Street tells its retail clientele that stocks are for the long-run. This is true, over generations. If you start methodically and systemically investing in stocks when you are 20 or 25 years of age, you can weather the volatility of the market and buy at almost any valuation and end up with a nice nest egg when you retire. But this is not necessarily true for most people. Most people do not start saving significantly until their mid-40s or later. If someone starts a saving plan at 45 with the goal of retiring at 65, plowing money into the stock market expecting to earn the historical return to equities of 10%, the results can be devastating if stocks bought at the wrong valuation. A 10% annual return over 10 years equates to a 159% gain compounded. But the US stock market has declined since the beginning of 2000. For the 55 year-old who started investing in stocks a decade ago, this is a huge hole in his retirement account compared to what he expected.


Do not base your actions on the opinions of others.


There are a lot of smart people doing stupid things in the world. Simply because someone sounds smart does not mean they are necessarily correct. I can remember just starting out as a portfolio manager, reading an extensive industry analysis by a well-respected Wall Street analyst, thinking “That doesn’t make sense.” I liked the thesis but could not get around this aspect regarding inventory that kept nagging me which the analyst had brushed off. I thought “Well, he knows more than I do,” and invested despite my reservation because everything else sounded good. Turns out, I was dead right, and I lost money because I trusted someone else's argument rather than my own instincts.


Take more risk when you are younger. Take less risk as you get older.


When you are younger, you rely primarily on income from your job. When you are older, you rely primarily on income from savings. Thus, you can take more risk with your savings when you are younger and less risk when you are older. When you are older, a sustained dip in the value of your savings can significantly alter your lifestyle. Thus, your primary goal should be to avoid losses. Conversely, a mistake many young people make is not taking enough risk. The corollary in investing is that, over time, higher risk means higher returns. Since younger people have more time before needing to draw on retirement savings, they should take more risk, and vice-versa.


Risk is however you define it.


Risk is usually defined in two ways – volatility and loss of capital. Academics, quantitative investors and consultants tend to define risk solely as volatility. Investors, usually value investors, tend to define risk solely as the loss of capital, particularly the permanent loss of capital. In truth, the answer depends upon your own circumstances. Some people do not want to see their capital fall, ever. To them, they do not care if an investment they purchased is worth 60 cents on the dollar that falls to 30 cents on the dollar. They care that it fell, period. To someone living off savings, volatility can be devastating, given that a fall in savings means relatively more capital is drawn down when savings are being tapped. This same affect occurs with an endowment or a pension fund that is required to disburse funds at periodic intervals, whereby volatility in itself can result in the permanent loss of capital to the fund. However, if one does not need to draw on capital for an extended period of time, and one has the fortitude to withstand the ups and downs in the market, volatility is irrelevant, and the only thing that matters is the permanent loss of capital.


The only thing that matters is how much money you make. Or, the only thing that matters is how much risk you take.


We do not trade nor invest to test dogmatic philosophies. We trade and invest to make money. In the end, what matters is the size of your account. Having the most logical or most elegant system means nothing if you cannot make money from it. Making money, however, is a matter of taking risk. Over time, the more risk you take, the more money you will make. At times, you want to take lots of risk, at other times, you want to take no risk at all. Understanding your risk profile and managing risk is perhaps the most important aspect of all in money management.


The only (other) thing that matters is price.


You invest and trade to make money. You should not invest or trade for any other reason. For example, you do not invest or trade a stock because it is a great company. I do not know how many times I have heard an investor say that they were investing in a stock because it was a great company. Cisco was a great company in 2000 when it was trading at 118x earnings. It was a great company when it was trading at 7x earnings. Investors who bought at 118x earnings lost 90% of their money top to bottom. A great company can make you great losses if you buy at the wrong price. For traders, if the price is working against you, get out! Get out now! If the price action is poor, the market is telling you are wrong. In the short-term, arguing against the market is a losing proposition. Do not do it.


Focus on what is going to happen, not what has happened.


This may sound trite but investors are often focused on what has already happened, not what is going to happen. People want to focus on what has made them money in the past. Nobody cared about homebuilders before the housing bubble, but you still see a disproportionate amount of commentary on homebuilders today, even though they have been crushed. After the tech bubble collapsed, investors focused on tech stocks for years and ignored, at least initially, basic materials and industrial stocks. And when the bull market inevitably ends in commodities, investors will focus on commodities for years afterwards.


Do not ignore the macro environment.


One does not have to be a macro trader to understand that the macro environment matters. Self-avowed stock pickers often brush aside macro issues, stating that no one can forecast the economy so you should not pay attention to the macro economy but instead focus on valuation and quality of the company. However, if one looked at the banks in 2006, one would have seen many great companies with stocks that appeared reasonably valued. But the edifice upon which the banks had built their businesses was dependent upon housing prices. Having a view on the banks meant having a view on housing prices. If one was bearish on the banks, one was bearish on housing prices and the concurrent collapse of the financial system, which was a macro call. The KBW Bank Index (the BKX) fell 86% peak to trough, which was greater than the Nasdaq’s decline of 78% after the collapse of the Tech Bubble. High quality banks like Wells Fargo and US Bancorp fell 75% or more. Yes, they have recovered, due in large part to government largesse - a political call even more disconnected from individual company fundamentals - but the volatility has been enormous, and most bank stocks have returned nothing over the past seven years.


It is much easier to make money in a bull market than a bear market.


It should be obvious that it is much easier to make money in a market that goes up 200% over a decade than one that is flat during that same time. For example, you would have been much better investing in commodities over the past decade than stocks, just like you would have been much better investing in stocks rather than almost everything else over the prior two decades.


Things can go on for longer than seems reasonable.


I remember thinking that technology was getting nutty in 1996. I thought housing was getting stupid in 2003. Boy, was I wrong. Both were just beginning. Trends tend to last a long time. Do not underestimate the strength of a trend.


Eventually, all bull markets and all bear markets end.


It is difficult to know exactly when bull and bear markets begin and end. However, they eventually do. You might be late in making that determination but understand that the end is an eventual certainty. Structural bull markets tend to last 10 to 20 years, so you have time in determining whether or not a bull market has begun or ended.

"