Cost of Doing Business (Part 2)

I believe clients pay millions of dollars every year to have money invested less effectively than they could do themselves. Rather than seeing this as financial-industry brainwashing, however, it may be a simple cost of doing business.

Two necessary components must be in place if the financial industry has indeed perpetrated a brainwashing of the American public. Even if the vast majority of people believe in domain-specific expertise, “brainwashing” implies a widespread propaganda campaign run by the financial industry. I’ve had some casual conversations with investment advisers and I read financial journals regularly. The brainwashing assertion seems too far-fetched for me to accept.

Here is a more positive perspective: investment advisers work as intermediaries. If I am going to pay someone else to replace my brakes then I will pay more to have it done. Similarly, if I am going to hire an adviser or fund operator (by purchasing shares) to invest my money then I will pay more to have it done. The added cost comes in the form of management fees, operating expenses, and lower returns as a result of less-efficient strategies.

Neither financial professionals nor the financial industry are to blame in this new paradigm. The industry is doing what clients ask them to do: invest money. Compared to the alternative—leaving money in savings accounts or under the mattress where inflation-adjusted returns are negative—the industry is doing a good job. Financial professionals may not match the performance of self-directed investors but time is required to learn and to do it for oneself. What you gain from being self-directed is partially offset by the time and effort committed.

In the new paradigm, this is about sweat equity. Those skilled at the trades (e.g. carpentry, plumbing, electrical) are in a good position to invest in real estate because they can fix things cheaper and realize a lower cost basis on property. Those with a penchant or aptitude for math and finance can invest/trade and realize a lower cost basis as well. Those who don’t must leave it to the professionals. In doing so they will pay a premium to have done what they can’t do themselves.

And they will be willing to pay the premium because that is how our capitalistic society works. It doesn’t have to be about manipulative brainwashing; it can simply be about appreciation and gratitude for a service.

Cost of Doing Business (Part 1)

Long-time readers may not be surprised to hear that I am sometimes jaded and skeptical of the financial industry (e.g. optionScam.com). Seen differently, however, perhaps this is just the cost of doing business.

According to some of my teachers/mentors over the years, the financial industry has brainwashed the public at large. People believe investing is an important, responsible enterprise that is best left to the [financial] professionals. I agree with the former and disagree with the latter. I believe many financial/investment advisers are glorified salespeople who push products their firms are contracted to sell. I discussed this in detail here.

Along these lines of thinking, the financial industry has brainwashed society to pay more and expect less. A standard management fee has traditionally been 1% of assets under management per year. In exchange, savvy clients have expected to beat the benchmark.* This means when the benchmark loses money, clients should remain satisfied as long as they do not lose more. Paying someone to lose money that you could lose yourself is anathema to me.

Financial brainwashing also includes the acceptable sale of inefficient services. This involves getting clients to pay up for less-efficient investment strategies than what they could employ on their own (think long stock instead of trading options). Society seems to be comfortable with and accepting of this.

I occasionally seem so down on the financial industry! I feel like a closet conspiracy theorist and I do not like it. My preference is to be positive and encouraging about things.

The time has come to challenge the assertion that society has been brainwashed. A cursory evaluation reveals two components that must be present for this brainwashing to have taken place.

The first component would be a widespread belief that the financial industry has a proprietary edge. Truth be told, I have little understanding what the “public at large” thinks about financial matters and I doubt I’m alone on this. The issue to survey is whether investing success is a result of domain-specific expertise or simply a matter of having the right education. Domain-specific expertise might involve professional research teams able to cover a large number of companies/industries or professional stock pickers powered by innate talent and lengthy experience: forms of expertise no laypeople could develop on their own.

I will continue this discussion in my next post.


* This is changing with the promotion of passive/indexing investment strategies, which always fall a bit short.

Concannon on Stock Splits (Part 2)

Chris Concannon is CEO of Bats Global Markets. Today I will conclude analysis of his article “Stock Splits for the Middle Class,” which was recently published in Modern Trader magazine.

Concannon suggests targeting “buy and hold” investors (for which he provided no evidence) is somewhat classist:

     > While it’s nice for a company to say it
     > wants to attract long-term buy and hold
     > investors, failing to split a high-price
     > stock encourages small investors to avoid
     > a stock altogether or causes them to pay
     > a substantial penalty when they trade
     > such a security… One could argue that a
     > company’s refusal to split its stock is
     > a refusal to embrace middle class retail
     > investors with less investable wealth.

Concannon qualifies himself nicely here by saying “one could argue.” The argument would be stronger if he could provide some evidence that higher-priced stocks are eschewed by a significant number of retail investors. Maybe it doesn’t make a meaningful difference given the dominance of institutional traders but I would at least like to see some effort to offer more than empty claims, which I consider speculative and meaningless.

Concannon closes with the following:

     > When debating… the goal of making stock trade
     > better, we should also focus on… stock splits.
     > While this is self-serving to a degree, given
     > our per-share revenue model, the evidence is
     > clear that many investors would save money and
     > more investors could participate.

This, along with many ideas in the article, makes logical sense. Unfortunately many logical ideas in finance do not bear fruit. I am baffled as to why he says the evidence is clear because he provided no evidence in the article. If there is clear evidence then please show us! As written these are nothing more than hollow claims.

What is clear from this final paragraph is Concannon’s agenda, which I believe helps to categorize this article. As the CEO of a major stock exchange, his corporate revenue is proportional to share volume. I consider this article a marketing piece to encourage greater use of the stock split. I also consider this an editorial since it includes no supporting evidence. A table showing number of stock splits per year seems like a no-brainer to include. I probably walk away more skeptical since such simple data is not presented.

I believe we should always read critically for the most complete understanding. Reading critically includes understanding the writer’s agenda. Writers aim to persuade, which is in their best interest. Being persuaded is not always in the best interest of the audience, however. Critical thinking is a very useful tool to defend against being persuaded by lower-quality [sometimes false] information.

Concannon on Stock Splits (Part 1)

Chris Concannon is CEO of Bats Global Markets. He wrote an interesting article recently in Modern Trader magazine called “Stock Splits for the Middle Class.”

Concannon begins by presenting some data to suggest current stock trading is weak and depressed:

• Average share volume for the 12-month period ending April
  30, 2016, is down ~9% from the same period four years ago
• Notional volume during this period is up 15%
• Share volume in January 2016 is up 1.92% while
  notional volume is up 42% compared to January 2010

Weak/depressed trading is seen by a lack of significant share-volume growth. More notional value traded on equal or lower share volume suggests stock appreciation is outpacing stock splitting. I would have liked to see how these numbers compare to other historical periods for a stronger case, though.

Concannon believes the refusal of corporations to split stocks is one limiting factor on share volume:

     > In an ill-conceived effort to attract “long-term
     > investors” and detract “speculators” from trading
     > their stocks, a number of popular U.S. companies
     > have kept their nominal stock prices above $200,
     > $500 or even $1,000 per share.

This is an interesting claim but no evidence is given to support it. If he is referencing a conversation(s) or quote by directors or C-level execs then he should most assuredly cite them! The use of quotation marks implies credibility but a critical reader cannot assume these to be actual words spoken by others.

Concannon goes on to explain the psychological impact of higher stock prices. He begins:

     > An average individual investor may avoid a $500
     > stock as being too richly priced but change his or
     > her view when that security is split 10-for-1 and
     > then trades at $50 [emphasis mine].

This makes sense but the actual impact is unspecified and I’m not sure it could really be measured. Concannon qualifies the statement well.

He then goes on to suggest the wider bid/ask spread is a significant drawback when trading more expensive stocks. He argues stock splits, while leading to higher per-share commissions, would more than make up for this by improved liquidity. In theory this makes sense but it is just that: theory. Why not interview some big institutional traders to see if they agree? This would be compelling evidence. Without any evidence it remains an empty claim.

I will conclude with my next post.

Perspectives of a Financial Adviser (Part 5)

Today I conclude discussion of an e-mail correspondence I recently had with a financial adviser. What she said about a lack of peer-review in the industry has been quite the eye-opener for me.

     > And then, take it one step further and pretend that
     > you are not the investor, and instead are an advisor
     > for a relatively unsophisticated (in the field of
     > finance) client (or 200-300+ people as is usually
     > the case). Which would you rather be responsible for
     > advising a client to do… or, would you choose some
     > other option that you have available? Keep in mind
     > that advisors bear responsibility, not just legally,
     > but personally (emotionally) for knowing that they
     > may lose their clients’ retirement, education, or trust

Having so many clients is no excuse for using sub-optimal investment methods—methods that any individual could execute for him/herself given a healthy dose of education.

With regard to options, I have heard advisers complain about the excessive time/cost it would take to get regulatory clearance. Perhaps regulators are somewhat behind the curve but I’m not convinced. Some investment advisers do employ option strategies for their clients. Given my belief that many advisers don’t know options I wonder if those complaining have even tried? And if the compliance firm is to blame then find one that is option-friendly!

     > money. And, remember that they have to implement their
     > investment strategy for not just one or two families, but
     > hundreds. Given these conditions, do you think advisors
     > will be overly risk-averse (compared to the purely
     > logical choice they might otherwise make based on
     > economics) in their decision making? Statistical inference
     > matters less to investors/clients who have lost any
     > percentage of wealth, especially if they don’t fully
     > understand why the risks were taken/decisions made.

To me, the omission of statistical significance is like off-label drug usage. Physicians occasionally prescribe medication for reasons not mentioned in the package labeling. If this is not standard of practice and if peer-reviewed data do not support said off-label indication then the physician could be susceptible to legal action should adverse events occur.

Given that evidence-based medicine has done well to advance medical practice in this country, why aren’t financial advisers held to the same standard? Do good statistical research that can be authenticated and replicated and use those methods to manage money for the public. Without this, I struggle to view the financial industry as delivering anything more than quackery to unsuspecting retail clients.

Perspectives of a Financial Adviser (Part 4)

I feel I sometimes give financial advisers short shrift so I decided to do a blog series focusing on the words of one adviser who I respect. It hasn’t been going well.

     > My previous points about compliance and legal
     > concerns are intended to highlight the idea
     > that even if he wanted to include a statement
     > about [statistical] significance, he couldn’t
     > because it would be an overstatement of
     > confidence/create more misunderstanding
     > among relatively uneducated readers than is
     > acceptable by industry standards.

As stated previously, I believe statistical significance is necessary to evaluate the possibility of fluke occurrence. I also think this allows for apples-to-apples comparison with other statistically significant data. Since the author is the only one capable of doing the analysis, why not include a disclaimer(s) that clears the way for statistical reporting?

     > I know it’s frustrating not to be able to apply
     > experimental methods directly in this field, and

I disagree. I think it is possible to undertake the laborious task of trading system development but most advisers/traders are not educated about the methodology and/or capability of the process.

     > to some degree it is that frustration and lack of
     > predictability that compels people to work with an
     > advisor. Sometimes this is because they feel that
     > someone with more experience and education would
     > be able to take better bets than they would, but
     > sometimes it is because they want to outsource the
     > stress of the unpredictable returns. They want
     > someone to take the blame (other than themselves)
     > if their portfolio doesn’t do what they want it/expect
     > it to, which is inevitable at some point. Both of

She makes really good points here.

     > these reasons to work with an advisor are
     > legitimate, and on top of those, concerns about
     > continuity and consolidation of household wealth
     > mean that individuals rarely manage their own
     > portfolios/trusts for their entire lives. At some
     > point, they decide that someone else should be
     > the fiduciary keeper of that burden/process/role.

My dispute is with what people don’t know they don’t know. The cost to offload said burden amounts to much more than the 1% (or less) management fee because most advisers employ relatively inconsistent investment vehicles.

I will conclude with the next post.

Perspectives of a Financial Adviser (Part 3)

I have been presenting some excerpts from an e-mail correspondence I had with a financial adviser a few months ago.

She continued:

     > The status quo is to calculate the return by
     > acceptable methods… and report it “as is” for
     > investors or advisors to interpret as they see fit.

I would argue without knowledge of statistics and system development, neither investors nor advisers are in any position to interpret that return. The adviser is usually the one left to do the interpretation and I can only hope s/he has a thorough understanding of scientific methods and statistical testing like those publishing in peer-reviewed journals.

     > …I’m not suggesting that he cherry-picked returns.
     > He cited his sources in the usual way (where the raw
     > data came from, and that it was manipulated). This is
     > all that is required to be in compliance… This
     > strategy avoids the appearance of overstating the
     > performance as [statistical] significance might do for
     > readers who don’t understand the limitations of
     > [statistical] significance. It’s the job of the
     > compliance officer and the publishers of the magazine
     > to protect… from law suit[s]. “Average” is perceived
     > as a less complex and therefore less dangerous term.
     > Averages don’t assert anything, they simply get
     > reported, and readers make meaning for themselves.
     > “Significance” is a term that may implicitly overstate
     > findings to a degree that may mislead unsophisticated
     > readers, putting the writer/magazine at risk.

This was shocking to me. Advisers should not publish statistical analysis because they may overstate importance to the uneducated reader? In my opinion, statistical analysis is necessary to suggest a difference might be meaningful. And only the author can do the statistical analysis since the entire data set is rarely (if ever) presented in the article itself.

     > This fear of overstatement runs through everything
     > from professional signatures to performance reporting.
     > Implied guarantees or overstatement are very common
     > compliance concerns across the industry. It would be
     > for these reasons that I would guess Craig kept his
     > calculations so simple…

This tells me that the compliance officers give advisers (authors) carte blanche to publish anecdotal information rather than statistically tested, validated data. It’s like optionScam.com everywhere. I find this extremely disconcerting…

…but I will continue next time, nonetheless.

Perspectives of a Financial Adviser (Part 2)

I recently had an e-mail correspondence with a financial adviser about a lack of inferential statistics provided by Craig Israelsen in the article I wrote about here. Today I will discuss more of her points.

In an e-mail, the adviser continued:

     > And yet as indicated above, even the most rigorous
     > methods of behavior modeling or predictive algorithmic
     > trading may not remain valid… in the real world of
     > traders and cheaters and wars and unpredictable storms
     > or droughts or inexplicable shortages of sugarcane.
     > The environment in which the science is applied is not
     > static nor predictable. They will allow you to “play a
     > better hand of poker” so to speak, but are not a
     > formula in the strictest sense. Finance as a science
     > is not yet, (and may never be) well-developed enough
     > to agree on basic assumptions about the environment
     > of application…

I consider this a cop-out. The disclaimer “past performance is no guarantee of future results” is cliché and factored into any valid system development methodology. Historical events will never replicate in the future but every interval of time has its own set of potentially market-moving elements. The implementation of statistics is to chop, dice, and recombine a comprehensive survey of the past in a sufficiently large number of ways to allow for study of net returns and drawdowns distributions for comparison—all with the implicit understanding that this is a game of probabilities rather than certainties.

And in most cases, I believe some effort to do this modeling is better than no effort at all.

     > If you’re asking, should he report the outperformance
     > if it’s not found to be statistically significant… I
     > will say that it is not commonplace in retail investing
     > (non-institutional and non-academic) to report
     > outperformance with statistical significance measures.

The lack of peer review rears its head once again.

In my opinion, a lack of statistical significance means the data cannot be used to formulate reliable conclusions (perhaps excepting conclusions to the contrary). Retool the study and do what it takes to get statistical significance so we can at least quantify the possibility of fluke occurrence.

This lack of peer review and conventional reporting of conclusions without statistical analysis brings me back to the question asked in my last post: is this the “knowledge” that filters out to the retail public or does the public get what the academics publish in peer-reviewed journals? If it’s the former then my gut reaction is to be scared while at the same time reaching the epiphany that this may be why I perceive so many flaws in reasoning when I review financial material.

Perspectives of a Financial Adviser (Part 1)

While my last post stands alone without any need for a sequel, I did mention correspondence with one particular financial adviser about Israelsen’s comments. I think her perspective is quite insightful and worthy of more blog time.

The adviser and I corresponded with regard to the Craig Israelsen article I wrote about here. I met this adviser at a recent Meetup and she seemed to be interested in trading approaches. I critiqued Israelsen because he presented performance information without any inferential statistics to demonstrate significance.

The financial adviser wrote:

     > The primary issue is that finance is not a hard science.
     > Yes, when someone gets a degree in finance, especially
     > quantitative finance, they have to do a lot of math and
     > receive a B.S. or M.S. However, methods of valuation,

I wonder how many financial/investment advisers actually have a degree in finance?

     > pricing, analysis, data processing and algorithmic
     > trading are all implemented imperfectly because people
     > are the instruments by which these experiments are
     > translated into real world. And yes, these research
     > methods use statistical significance and attempt to
     > demonstrate validity, but application is its own art.

I certainly would not dispute that statistical application can be subjective. I have seen some high-level debates among statisticians about particular application of methods, requisite levels of significance, and other important details.

I do not, however, interpret the subjectivity to mean statistical analyses should not be done. I lean more toward the other side in believing without such analysis, the data are incomplete.

     > Secondarily, Financial Planning is not a peer reviewed
     > scientific publication. As is the case in most fields,
     > the level of methodological rigor varies across
     > publications. Financial Planning is maybe analogous
     > to Scientific American in the health and science world?
     > SA is very different than the New England Journal of
     > Medicine. Financial Planning is meant to be a digest
     > of thought in the field, grouping data and opinion
     > together for consumers who don’t have the time and/or
     > skill to read the peer-reviewed journals but want to
     > stay current with the field’s thought leaders.

I thought this was a brilliant point. This also makes me wonder what level of rigor filters up to the retail customer in terms of financial product offerings, approaches to money management, and outright financial advice? Is it the content discussed in the peer-reviewed journals or the concepts discussed by advisers in non-peer-reviewed magazines like Financial Planning? If it’s the latter then is the average client safe in the hands of a financial adviser?

I will continue in the next post.

Peer Review

Steven Lord wrote a recent article for Modern Trader magazine about dormouse [sic]: a managed futures fund founded by Martin Coward et al. This paragraph really jumped out at me:

     > Eventually, the center will be staffed with scientists,
     > mathematicians, and programmers, with little emphasis
     > on finance per se and a significant emphasis on the
     > results-driven, peer-reviewed scientific approach to
     > the world. “Hedge fund managers don’t typically
     > operate in a peer-reviewed environment,” Coward says.
     > “But it’s what we live. It is much easier to strip
     > egos when each member of a group is subject to peer
     > review all the time. In science, merit wins, and it
     > is always anchored on data that is both provable and
     > repeatable. No one gets their nose out of joint if a
     > team member points out a flaw in a data set or suggests
     > a tweak to an assumption—it’s a necessary part of the
     > process. We sharpen our pencils and try again.
     > Everyone knows the approach ultimately results in a
     > stronger end product.”

Imagine me running out to the crest of the highest mountaintop and shouting this paragraph at the top of my lungs.

Peer review: everything that is missing in the world of finance.

I believe the academicians continue to participate in peer review on a regular basis but what filters to the surface and gets sold to the public in terms of investment/financial advisers and money managers absolutely does not.

Peer review is critical analysis: the most important logical tool applied for every post I have written falling in the optionScam.com category.

The subject of peer review with regard to finance first crossed my path when discussing Craig Israelsen’s article that I blogged about in August. He gave numbers without statistics. A financial adviser I spoke with, who seemed to have a solid academic background, mentioned that most writings in finance are not peer reviewed.

The lack of peer review is the reason salespeople, which most people recognize as “financial professionals,” get away with selling products like target date funds that may or may not be quality merchandise.

The lack of peer review (critical analysis) is what leaves the average Joe/Jane highly susceptible to fraud, which runs amok throughout the financial industry.

The most common question I ask when traders/investors start to sound arrogant is what data exists to support their claims?

First and foremost should be the financial engineers, statisticians, and the evidence to cut through the spin, the speculation, the advertising, and the marketing that leads people astray

Where Edge is to be had in this industry, I believe peer review would be the way to find it.