Bill Miller and the Legg Mason Capital Management Value Trust mutual fund

Last week, Bill Miller of Legg Mason announced that he is stepping down as portfolio manager of that firm’s Capital Management Value Trust fund after 20+ years at the helm.

Mr. Miller was once the envy of equity portfolio managers everywhere for the fame and fortune his beating the S&P 500 for 15 years in a row brought hi.  In recent times, he has become the embodiment of very pm’s worst nightmares, however.

His previously hot hand–which had earned him designation by Morningstar as a “Manager of the Decade” turned icy-cold in 2006.  Ensuing weak performance erased the gains in relative performance his portfolio had made since “the streak” began in 1991.  The assets in his fund fell by almost 90% from the peak of $21 billion +.

my thoughts

I should say at the outset that I don’t know Mr. Miller and that I haven’t studied his portfolio composition carefully.  And I’m not interested enough to look up his past SEC filings to try to document my impressions.  With that warning, here’s what I think:

1.  It took Legg Mason a very long time–and the loss of the vast majority of Value Trust’s assets–before it made the change.  At the asset peak, the fund was generating management fees for LM at a $140 million annual clip.  It’s now generating under $20 million.

Why not act sooner?

Part of the reason is likely that after sagging in 2006-2008, the Value Trust outperformed in 2009.  More important, I think, is that the fund’s marketing has been all about “the streak” and the extraordinary investing prowess of Mr. Miller.   It’s a good story and an easy sell.  But it’s a risky strategy.  If it’s all about the numbers, and someone with even better results comes around–and invariably someone will–what do you do? You’ve already made the argument to your client to switch into the Value Trust because of the numbers; how can you now argue against numbers that tell him to switch out?

This selling direction also gives the manager himself a huge amount of power.  What’s the Bill Miller show without Bill Miller?  So if Mr. Miller wants to continue to run a concentrated portfolio with a strong emphasis on financials, despite steady underperformance, how do you stop him not to?

2.  I’ve never regarded Mr. Miller as a typical value investor, although he’s always described as one and the Value Trust (note the name) is classified with other value vehicles by rating services.  I have two reasons:

–Value investors are belt-and-suspenders kind of guys.  They run highly diversified portfolios, typically with 100-200 names–sometimes more.  Growth investors, in contrast, typically hold 50-60.  Looking up the Capital Management Value Trust on Google Finance told me it has only 46 names. (By the way, in my experience ratings services never pick up high concentration as a source of risk.)

–Both value and growth investors look for “undervalued” securities (only shortsellers want to find overvalued stocks).  That isn’t what the “value” in value investing signifies.  It means a certain approach to finding undervaluation.

Value investors look at the here-and-now.  Their holdings are typically asset-rich companies that have encountered temporary difficulties, which have been crushed by Wall Street and which are now trading at unduly depressed valuations as a result.  Growth investors, in contrast, look for companies whose future earnings prospects are being underestimated by the market.

In this sense, too, I don’t think Mr. Miller is a plain-vanilla value investor.  He has been happy to hold large positions in stocks like Amazon or AOL (in its heyday)–names I think other value practitioners wouldn’t give a second look because the whole story has been the rate of future earnings growth.

I have no idea how Mr. Miller squares this circle.  (The fund’s largest positions are now in technology, according to Google Finance.  But it’s not the same thing.  Today’s stocks are eBay and Microsoft.  Apple, the largest holding, is still a growth stock, unlike the others.  But AAPL trades at a very low PE multiple of current earnings.)

3.  Despite this flexibility, and the issue of heavy concentration aside, it seems to me that classic value behavior has been the Value Trust’s recent problem.  Relative to history, financials were trading at low price to book value (i.e., the balance sheet value of shareholders’ equity) ratios when Mr. Miller bought them.  In hindsight, that was a mistake.

There may have been a second.  If the stocks a growth investor buys underperform, he typically stops buying or lightens up.  Value investors tend to do the opposite.  They regard such stocks as being even cheaper than when they initially bought–and double up.  I suspect the latter is what Mr. Miller did.

two oddities

1. In the early part of my career, alternating cycles of outperformance by value and growth stocks were relatively brief.  Given a year, or two at the most, there would be little to chose between the numbers generated by one style or the other.  The 1990s, however, saw a multi-year value cycle in the early part of the decade, followed by a massive multi-year growth cycle–culminating in the Internet Bubble–at the end.  Despite the fact that the tide was running strongly against value during the latter years, Mr. Miller continued to outperform the S&P 500.  If he did so with value stocks, that’s his crowning achievement.

2.  After creating a strong business franchise under the Miller name, neither he nor Legg Mason did much to protect it.

 

 

Citigroup, Jed Rakoff, MF Global and the SEC

There’s an odd asymmetry to the way the SEC works.

For example, it put Martha Stewart in jail but ignored Bernie Madoff.   It pursued Michael Milken vigorously after the junk bond market collapsed.   But it has, so far, left the heads of the major commercial and investment banks untouched, despite the fact that the toxic derivative securities they created were much more widespread and–as we continue to see–have damaged the world financial system much more severely than anything Milken did.

Raj Rajaratnam’s insider trading recently drew an 11-year prison sentence and a $93 million fine.

But the other side of the SEC has come to light again recently in the court of gadfly judge Jed Rakoff.  Judge Rakoff is being asked to approve a settlement of a case in which buyers of a Citigroup mortgage product lost $700 million.

The deal the SEC is offering?

–pay back $160 million, plus $30 million in interest and a $95 million fine;

–Citi doesn’t admit it did anything wrong;

–only low-level Citi employees are sanctioned.

–oh  …and the SEC wants to include an admonition to Citi not to do stuff like this again.  But, as Judge Rakoff points out, Citi appears to have violated such orders issued in prior settlements at least twice in the past decade and the SEC has done nothing.

You’d take a deal like that all day long.

A cynic might say that this behavior is related to the fact the current head of the SEC used to be in charge of the brokerage industry trade association.  On the other hand, I believe much of the toxic derivative activity was deliberately organized by the banks out of London because that put them out of the reach of US prosecutors.  So there’s not much the SEC can do.

…which brings me to MF Global.

There’s certainly a danger to generalizing from a small number of instances.  But, to me, what connects Martha Stewart, Michael Milken and Raj Rajaratnam is tha: t the issues are easy to understand, the names are high-profile, none were deeply plugged into the financial industry establishment and, although wealthy, none had the near-infinite resources of the large investment and commercial banks.

One of the issues that the Occupy Wall Street movement gives voice to is that after nearly destroying the world economy and forcing a high-cost financial rescue that all of us will be paying for for many years, no high-level financial commercial bank or brokerage executive has been prosecuted for anything.

What this adds up to, I think, is that the SEC will be scrutinizing the role Jon Corzine played in the demise of MF Global very carefully.  He’s a former head of Goldman Sachs but no longer an industry insider;  he’s an ex-senator and ex-governor; he’s wealthy–but not Bill Gates.   And, the question of whether the firm illegally took money out of customer accounts and used it to stave off margin calls is pretty clear-cut.  It may also be hard to say you didn’t notice an extra $600 million plopping into a portfolio you manage–especially so if you really needed it.

It will be interesting to see what happens–both whether the SEC finds a reason to prosecute and whether that will satisfy OWS.  My guess on the second count is that it won’t.

what I find strange about MF Global

who MF Global is

In mid-2007 the glow of a multi-year bull market had not yet begun to fade.  That’s when the Man Group, the London listed hedge fund group, divested itself of its brokerage arm, which was renamed MF Global.

Looking back, this seems to me to be a standard move of a firm that is in both a fast-growing business (hedge funds) and a slow-growing one (brokerage):  split them apart to create two pure stock market plays.  That allows the strength of the fast-growing business to be seen more clearly, and hopefully gets that stock a higher PE multiple as a result.

As for the mature business, who knows.  There may be investors who want to hold it.  And in any event, the timing of the split-up seems to have gotten MF Global an initial valuation that was relatively high.

Sometimes these splits work out well for the apparent ugly duckling.  Coach, for example, was a spinoff from cakes and tee shirt maker Sara Lee, where it was starved of capital.  Free of a bureaucratic parent, that company has been a rocket ship ride for a decade.

Not the case here, however.  (For anyone who knows the Man Group well (not me), it might be interesting to go back and see how the management talent was apportioned between Man and MF Global.  My hunch would be that, if anything, MF Global was stocked with lesser lights.)

spreading its wings

MF Global appears to have intended from the outset to reinvent itself as an investment bank.  An early trading stumble highlighted management control deficiencies and brought in private equity firm, J C Flowers, as a shareholder.

So far, while things could have worked out better for MF, nothing so out of the ordinary.

the strange stuff

1.  the Corzine hire

In early 2010, MF installed a new CEO.  The new guy had built a reputation as a very aggressive and successful bond trader during the 1980s.  He’d been booted out of his two previous management jobs, reportedly for being unable to get along with others.  The most memorable moment of his public service career was when he survived a 90 mph crash in his New Jersey state car, which he habitually rode in without using a seat belt.

Tidbits of gossip aside, Mr. Corzine had been an individual star in a young man’s business.  But he’d been out of the industry for over a decade.  And whether he possessed any management talent was at least open to question, though New Jersey voters rendered their verdict forcefully in 2009.

Picking him, it seems to me, is like selecting a 60-something ex-athlete to be the star player on your team, not the manager.  The broad of MF seems to have had no problem with this.  Mr. Corzine himself appears to have been blissfully unaware that it might take some time to shake the rust off talents he hadn’t employed in the current century;  he appears to me to have committed the cardinal sin of underestimating the other side of the trade.

According to Reuters, MF paid Mr. Corzine $14 million + to drive the company into bankruptcy in under two years.

2.  the “Goldman” recipe

Robert Rubin, former Goldman partner, advised Citigroup to dive into proprietary trading when he joined the company board.  Disastrous results.

John Thain, former Goldman partner, expanded Merrill Lynch’s proprietary trading when he took over as CEO.  Disastrous results.

Jon Corzine, former Goldman partner,…     Sense a pattern here?

3.  where were the compliance people, or the CEO for that matter?

Press reports, including this FT post, indicate that a last-minute deal to save MF Global by merging it into another financial firm foundered when MF couldn’t account for large amounts of customer money.  As I’m writing this on Thursday morning, it sounds like someone in MF diverted $633 million out of customers’ accounts and into its own last week in order to cover trading shortfalls.

It’s hard to believe this is true.  Things like this might happen in Madoff- or Enron-land but they simply don’t occur in reputable firms.  Nevertheless, this is what the CME Group, MF’s regulatory supervisor is accusing MF of.

I also find it hard to believe, although I guess it’s possible, that Mr. Corzine didn’t have a detailed daily (if not real-time) report of MF’s overall trading positions.  It seems to me that the “magic” appearance of over half a billion dollars in the company’s accounts should have been evident to MF management almost immediately.

 

I don’t think the entire story has been disclosed yet.  The Wall Street Journal, for example, is pointing out the mismatch between Wall Street analysts’ research and Mr. Corzine’s public statements vs. what we now see as the underlying reality.  Stay tuned.

 

 

 

portfolio checkup

A friend who’s studying in the Netherlands and just starting out as an investor emailed me a question about what a portfolio checkup/cleanup is supposed to do.  I thought I’d reply in this post and in tomorrow’s.

two objectives

Basically, you analyze your portfolio carefully and at regular intervals to do two things:

–so you know for sure how your portfolio plan is working and what quantify which stocks or ideas are adding to or subtracting from your performance, and

–so you gradually learn about your investing personality.  By this I mean what things you typically do well and which ones you aren’t so good at.  You want this information, as painful as it may sometimes be to find out, so that you can emphasize the former and minimize the latter.  After all, the main goal is to earn/save money–not to massage your ego.

#1  figuring out performance

There’s a purely mechanical aspect to this.  You have a benchmark like the S&P 500, by which you judge your performance (you could achieve this return by buying an index fund.  You should only spend time and effort to select individual stocks or focused ETFs/mutual funds if you expect a return higher than the index fund will give you).

Over the past three months, the S&P 500 is down about 7.5% (ouch!).  Over the past month, it’s up about 9%.

Your first task is to calculate how your portfolio has performed vs the S&P over the interval you’re studying–both as a whole and each individual issue.  (For what it’s worth, after a long period of doing well, my stocks have been clobbered over the past month.)

what to do with this data, once it’s collected

a.  look for outliers, especially big losers.  Everyone has losers.  Everyone, even the most seasoned professional, also has an almost infinite capacity for denial.  My first mentor as a portfolio manager used to say that it took three winners to offset the damage that one big loser can do if it’s left to run amok and not caught early. So finding losers and eliminating them is important.

b.  ask if your plan is working.  This presupposes you have a plan.  A checkup may well bring out that you’re not bringing your intelligence, knowledge and experience to the party but are, so to speak, mailing it in and hoping that’s good enough.  (We all find out quickly that it isn’t.  Although individual market participants may not be the sharpest pencils, the collective entity is extremely acute.)

For example, in general my plan is:

–world economies are still expanding, although slowly.  So I’m still positioned for an up market.  The EU has me worried.  I’m thinking about shading toward larger, stodgy sort-of-growth stocks as a defensive measure but haven’t done anything much yet.

–there will continue to be a sharp separation between haves (mostly meaning having a job) and the have-nots (the 10% or so long-term unemployed in the US).  I want to own stocks that cater to the former and want to avoid stocks whose market is the latter.

–Asian, especially Greater China, exposure is a good thing, because that’s where most of the world’s economic energy is centered

–I think the continuing proliferation of smartphones, tablets and e-readers plus the rapid development of cloud computing mean there’s money to be made in at least some tech stocks.

For me, the relevant question is how this is working out for me overall.  The answer is:  great, until about a month ago.

A second aspect of figuring out performance is to look, stock by stock, at plan vs. performance.  Reading any of my posts about TIF will get you my stock-specific plan since I bought the security about a year ago.  Again, until about a month ago, things were working well  …since then, not so much.

c.  acting on this information

Even in the best of times, the stock market is always a process of two steps forward, one step back.  Also, all stocks, even the long-term winners, have periods of underperformance.  There’s a real experience-and temperament-based art to deciding how to react to the data that show your stocks are underperforming.

In my case, I’m thinking so far that this is a temporary adjustment phase.  But I’ve also got to at least begin to consider how I’d rearrange my holdings if the underperformance persisted.  This thought process–and the possible move to action–is partly a question of risk tolerance, partly of conviction in the correctness of my analysis of individual stocks, and partly a judgment, based on experience, of what is a normal trading pattern vs. a fundamental change in market direction.

More tomorrow.

a view from fixed income land

My first boss on Wall Street, who taught me securities analysis in the late 1970s, switched to the fixed income arena in the early 1980s.  He runs Jamison and McCarthy Investment Advisors LLC, which manages money for institutions and high net worth individuals.  His most recent quarterly letter to clients gives a polished industry veteran’s view of the current global economic situation.  It’s very worthwhile reading.  (Sans charts), here it is:

Where We Are

Economic setbacks come in many different forms. Some are self inflicted – like those caused by over-investment in business assets (inventories, plant
and equipment) or excess spending by individuals. Others are caused by higher interest rates and tighter lending practices in response to inflation
fears or credit risks. Over a relatively short time, the excesses can be worked off and, as inflation and credit fears abate, credit begins to expand again.
The economy recovers. Wealth and the total value of goods and services quickly surpass their old high water marks.

Then, there are economic declines that fall outside the realm of the usual business cycle downturns. These are the ones that occur after a debt-
fueled boom goes bust – the bubble pops. We have just experienced such a pop – caused largely by over investment in housing, not just in the U.S.
but in many other countries. The resulting credit losses and credit contraction will persist over an extended period. And while the root cause can be
traced to one sector of one economy, the resulting credit contraction will trigger shocks in unexpected places. So, the collapse of the U.S. sub-prime
housing market causes banks in Iceland to default. Then, investors worry whether the financial extended countries around the edges of Europe will be
able to pay their debts. Maybe, you shouldn’t even put much faith in paper currencies at all.

It takes a long time to clean up the aftermath of credit cycle bubbles. For example, in the wake of All-Time Depression, it took over a decade for
Gross National Product to reach the level recorded in 1929.   Japan experienced a credit crisis in the late 1980’s caused by over expansion in the
manufacturing sector. Since 1990, that economy has grown on average 0.8% a year and ten year Japanese government bonds yielded just 1.3%. So, it should come as no surprise to investors that ten-year U.S. bond yields recently dipped below 2% especially since the Federal Reserve recently stated that they plan to keep short term interest rates near zero for two more years.

Few are predicting a Japanese style period of malaise for the U.S. economy. They cite the flexibility of the U.S. labor market, the willingness of
American consumers to borrow to support spending, an entrepreneurial spirit, and actions by the federal government and central banks to spur
spending. Perhaps they’re right but the jury is still out.

Housing

At the core of the recent economic collapse is housing – or specifically, housing speculation that encouraged people to leverage in order to
maximize their gains from rising home prices. Buyers had both solid reasons and strong incentives to play the game. According to data from the
National Association of Realtors, housing prices rose 85% between 1996 and 2005. The Case-Shiller Index of home prices advanced 12% a year from
2001 to 2005. Interest rates were low, home ownership received favorable income tax breaks, and the government mandated rules that made it
easy to qualify for mortgages regardless of income level, assets, or down payment amount.

The U.S. housing sector is very cyclical. In fact, by raising interest rates and choking mortgage credit, the Federal Reserve used housing as a swing
factor in regulating economic growth during most of the post-World War II period. But this housing downturn was different. It wasn’t caused by a
contraction of credit and a reduction in building activity. It was caused by a price collapse. The Federal Housing Finance Administration produces an
index of housing prices based on same home sales extending back to 1975. While there have been slight price declines over a short period, the 16%
decline that occurred during the four years ended June 30, 2011 is an anomaly.

Real estate is a major component of household wealth in the United States. It totaled $18.1 trillion on June 30, 2011. As per statistics compiled
by the Federal Reserve, owners equity in household real estate was $13.2 trillion in 2005.  By June 30, 2011, the equity in homes had fallen to $6.2 trillion. Meanwhile, stock prices were tumbling and interest rates were falling. Both factors eroded the value and earning power of most consumers’
financial assets, like their 401k’s.

The natural reaction to these forces was to curtail borrowing. And that’s just what happened. The borrowing binge of the early 2000’s has been followed by the borrowing bust of the last few years. Since the consumer accounts for two-thirds of the total economy, it’s no surprise that this new found spirit of frugality produced first, a sharp recession and second, a weak recovery.

The housing sector led the way into the current financial quagmire and that’s the place to look for the route out. Higher home prices would do much
to improve consumer sentiment and balance sheets. Recent data from Case/Shiller indicate the price decline in housing is moderating, but we have
seen false signs of a recovery before.

A New Twist

…on an old theme. The Federal Reserve’s got a new dance and it goes like this. They plan to sell a bunch of the $1 trillion worth of notes they bought
during Quantitative Easing I and QE II. With the proceeds, they will buy a bunch of longer term government bonds. The plan was announced on
September 21st, but was rumored to be in the works since August. The goal is to drive down the spread between yields on long term securities –
those with maturities beyond ten years – and those on shorter dated items. They figure this will stimulate economic activity. (It’s more likely to
stimulate speculative activity and push up the price of “risk” assets like stocks. But the Fed probably would settle for that, too.)

Based on a Federal Reserve study of an earlier twist operation in the early Sixties, they estimated the new twist would narrow the spread by fifteen basis points (the study) or thirty basis points (Chairman Bernanke’s comments in September). The market – ever the efficient discounting mechanism – took the guess work out of these estimates. Between mid-August and the end of September, it narrowed the yield spread between 10- and 30-year U.S. Treasury bonds by forty basis points, helping to spur a huge rally in longer dated bonds.

This occurred even as the year over year increase in core CPI reached 2.0% compared with 0.8% last December. In fact, core inflation has risen every
month this year. The same is largely true if you add back food and energy to get the full inflation picture. The year over year total consumer price
index is up 3.8% through August. These inflation numbers compare with zero yields on money market securities, a 2% yield on ten-year notes, and a 3% yield on thirty year government bonds. Obviously, the goal of Federal Reserve policy is to push investors into riskier assets by creating negative yields in safe securities. They hope such investments will promote stronger economic growth. It might – or it might just create another mini-bubble somewhere.

Still Lost in the Woods

In the last few weeks, there has been some encouraging news. Recent employment data in the U.S. have put to rest fears of a renewed economic
contraction. Based on the number of new hires and hours worked, we’ll probably see 2% GDP growth for the third quarter. In Europe, the French
and Germans have put together a number of plans to keep Greece from defaulting and dragging the European banks with them. One Belgium bank
has been successfully pulled from the brink – even as that meant splitting it apart. When the positives became news, investors flocked to risky
assets – like equities and industrial commodities – and sold safe investments – like U.S. Treasury bonds and the Swiss franc.

Unfortunately, many of the positive developments are rooted in an ever growing mountain of public debt. It remains to be seen whether this is
sustainable either politically or practically. Some reversal of the recent bond price gains is likely before year end and there may be an opportunity
to profit from such market volatility. But any significant rise in long term interest rates will require a turnaround in consumer sentiment and home
prices in the U.S.

Note:  This Market Environment reflects the views of the Investment Advisor only through the date of this report. The Investment Advisor’s views are subject to change at any time based on market and other conditions. September 30, 2011.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 97 other followers