A new finance minister for Japan

The Democratic party took office in Japan last year as the result of an overwhelming rejection of the ruling Liberal Democratic party by Japanese voters.

The Democrats’ platform was a hodge-podge of different policies, to me anyway, with the one connecting element in the pledge that the government would be run for the Japanese people, rather than for special interests–namely, the government bureaucracy, export-oriented manufacturing companies, and multi-generational political “machines” spawned by the long rule of the LDP.

One of the pleasant surprises of Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama’s cabinet has been the presence of seventy seven-year old Hirohisa Fujii as finance minister.

Mr. Fujii made early waves by announcing that the new government intended to let the yen settle where the currency markets led it.  In other words, it did not intend to adhere to adhere to the LDP policy of intervention to help smooth the profits of exporters.  Mr. Fujii also earned praise from domestic economists for his efforts to craft a government budget that tried to set limits to new bond issuance.  But his efforts appear to have earned him the enmity of long-time political fixer and one-time leading light of the LDP, Ichiro Ozawa, who is now the secretary general of the Democratic Party.

In late December, right after the budget had been set, Mr. Fujii checked into the hospital, suffering from high blood-pressure and fatigue.  Reports differ on whether Mr. Fujii is actually ill, or (more likely, in my view) whether this was a conventional signal of his disagreement with party policies.

Mr. Fujii tendered his resignation a few days ago and has been replaced–not by his assistant and fellow budget hawk, Yoshihiko Noda–but by one of the founders of the Democratic Party, Naoto Kan, who has little financial expertise.

Almost immediately, Mr. Kan announced that the government was considering intervening in the currency markets to weaken the yen in order to enhance the results of exporters.

What’s wrong with that?

It sounds like a return to the failed policies of the past twenty years and the cycle of self-reinforcing economic weakness that has gripped Japan over that period.  The steps:  discourage companies from becoming profitable on their own, so that they become dependent on government assistance and produce little economic growth.  Avoid outright deflation by public works construction projects.  But no growth and the threat of deflation keep nominal interest rates near zero, so the government is not overwhelmed by sharply rising interest expense and can continue to issue new debt.  Citizens continue to buy government bonds, since there aren’t other viable investment opportunities.

Great for political fixers, great for the establishment, bad for citizens who believed the Democrats’ campaign promises.

Mr. Hatoyama has rebuked Mr. Kan publicly, but so far Mr. Kan appears unrepentant.  Stay tuned.

Without structural change, I think Japan will remain a marginal stock market.  There will be very focused small-cap investment opportunities, but it seems to me these stocks will be swimming against the tide.  Given that they will stand out so starkly from the overall bleak economic background, such stocks may end up trading at much higher multiples than they would elsewhere.  The ideal strategy for them, then, would likely be to raise capital in Japan and invest it elsewhere–sort of a non-hedge fund carry trade.

Japan today–the selfish generation

I’ve been watching the Japanese economy and stock market since the mid-Eighties.  (I’ve written my take on the post-WWII reindustrialization of Japan in an earlier post.)

I want to write about the recent switch in finance ministers by the recently elected Democratic Party and, in a wider sense, lessons for the US from the Japan of today.  As the first step in doing this, though, in this post I want to give a thumbnail sketch of how I think the Japan of today–which is just completing its second consecutive “Lost Decade”–came to be.

Recapping my earlier post

It seems to me that the first, and most essential, step in any successful economic leap forward by an emerging country is an implicit or explicit political pact:

–the current generation agrees to create a favorable environment for both technology transfer from abroad and the development of local industry–all with an eye toward building export-oriented manufacturing.  This means long working hours, low wages, deferring consumption and a loss of current national wealth through an undervalued currency.

People do this so their children and grandchildren will have a better life.  Post-WWII Japan is the standard example of the success of this strategy.  The sacrifice of workers of the Forties-Seventies has created the immense wealth of today’s Japan.

My view of the Japanese “bubble economy” (1986-1989)

During the “bubble economy” of the second half of the Eighties, Japan took two steps that proved to be horribly misguided:

1.  The banks raised tons of cash in the Tokyo stock market to satisfy international capital adequacy requirements.   But the banks were never designed to be anything more than conduits for national saving to support industrial conglomerates.  They ended up making highly speculative real estate and other loans, and basically lost all the money.

2.  Manufacturing companies, perhaps anticipating the aging of the workforce, made large capital investments in productivity-enhancing machinery.  Unfortunately, a lot of it was wasted.  It was not spent on genuinely new products or processes, but instead just increased the amount of Eighties-era equipment on hand, making the firms more vulnerable to competition from Korea, Taiwan and China–or to innovation from Silicon Valley or elsewhere.

Popping the bubble

In late 1989, Mr. Yashshi Mieno became governor the Bank of Japan.  He quickly raised interest rates in order to pop the speculative economic bubble.  This action stopped the speculative fever.  In short order, it also laid bare problems 1 and 2 for all to see.

Government reaction

What was the reaction of government and industry?–not to fix the problems but to cover them up!!

Banks were encouraged to continue to lend more money to prop up what became known as “zombie” companies, chronically loss-making and insolvent firms.  Legal and administrative roadblocks were thrown up to prevent competent outside managers from–domestic or foreign–from stepping in to take control of foundering enterprises and restructuring them.

This destructive behavior regarding the banks continued until Prime Minister Koizumi appointed Heizo Takenaka to address the problem in 2002.  Although limited change of control of industrial firms has been allowed from time to time, the government policy of denial of the problem continues to today.

Rather than deal with the causes of flagging economic performance, Japanese government policy under the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has consisted mostly in enacting successive debt-funded public works stimulus packages.  Much of the “stimulus” has been distributed along political lines rather than economic, however, resulting in lots of “bridges to nowhere” in the rural constituencies of powerful politicians–which are of little help in an increasingly urbanized Japanese society.  The net result of this policy has been a mammoth increase in Japan’s government debt.

Three tries to reject politics-as-usual

There have been three attempts by Japanese voters to remove the entrenched legislative apparatus from office.

The first, in the early Nineties, resulted in the Socialist Party taking power.  The Socialists managed to get election rules changed to limit the LDP’s ability to gerrymander election districts, but soon descended into partisan squabbling and were swept out of power.

The second was the election of LDP reformer Junichiro Koizumi in 2001.  Koizumi was able to fix the banking problem and start the process of removing the Japanese Postal System, long a source of pork-barrel finance, from the control of the legislature.  But the LDP resisted further reforms and Koizumi withdrew from office.

The third is ongoing, with the resounding defeat of the LDP in last year’s election its replacement in power by the Democratic Party (an offshoot of the old Socialists).

Why “selfish”?

Not only has the current generation in Japan enjoyed the economic prosperity created as a gift by the sacrifices of its parents, but it has financed its own consumption by running up a huge unpaid tab which it is leaving for its children to repay.  Japanese government debt, which was about 60% of GDP in 1990, has steadily risen to the point where it is now fast closing in on 200% of GDP.  If we ignore Zimbabwe, this number puts Japan in a league of its own in terms of debt.

Japanese government borrowing is almost totally funded by domestic buyers.   That’s bad if you’re a Japanese citizen being saddled with this obligation.  That’s “good” only in the sense that there would doubtless have been a financial crisis long ago if the country needed foreign buyers.


More on hedge funds

2009 hedge fund results are maybe +13%, not the +19% reported

I found an article on hedge funds in the New York Times (the information appears to have originally come from Reuters) the other day.  It argues that reported hedge fund industry investment results for 2009 are, at +19%–which is not so hot in any event, much higher than the industry as a whole has actually achieved.  +13% is more like the real number.

How so?  Reporting results to index providers is voluntary.  Hedge funds having a bad year simply don’t send in their numbers and are not included in the index.  The evidence?  The large majority of non-reporters drop off the radar screen after a period of poor performance.  Almost no one racks up a history of outperformance and then suddenly disappears.

More research by Malkiel

Anyway, in an (unsuccessful) effort to find the original research article, I turned up some earlier analysis by the same Princeton professor, Burton Malkiel, and a colleague, Atanu Saha of the Analysis Group.  Their paper, which appeared in the Financial Analysts Journal, talks about two factors that bias hedge fund index results upward.  They are:

incubation bias

1.  backfill bias.  The equivalent in the mutual fund world is the “incubator fund,” created using practices common in the Seventies but now banned.  The idea was to create a mutual fund not open to the public, seed it with a small amount of money and run it very aggressively in the hope of achieving a spectacular one-or two-year record.  The fund may well have been given large allocations of “hot” IPOs in an additional attempt to supercharge performance.  If the fund showed off-the-charts returns, it would be offered to outside investors.  If not, it would quietly be closed.

Although now illegal for mutual fund companies, this practice is alive and well in hedge fund land, according to Malkiel and Sana.  Their evidence?  –large numbers of hedge funds with good results that only begin to report results after they’ve been around for over a year.

survivorship bias

2.  survivorship bias. This is the idea that the weak-performing competitors eventually lose their clients and are forced to shut down.  In investing’s version of 1984, their results are then scrubbed from the records–making the “historical” performance of the industry progressively better than what was actually achieved.

Survivorship bias is also present in the mutual fund industry, where unsalable, poor-performing funds are regularly merged with stronger peers in the same fund family.  But during the period they studied, Malkiel and Sana found the upward bias to hedge fund results from this factor was almost 4x the effect on mutual funds.

The researchers also found that a staggering 75%+ of the hedge funds that their database contained had disappeared by the end of the  seven-year period they studied.  No explanation for why this occurred.

the effect of performance fees

I have one thought about this phenomenon–performance fees.  Perhaps the single characteristic all hedge funds have in common is their fee structure: 2% of the assets and 20% of  profits.

Suppose Smith and Jones decide to create a hedge fund, which they call “S&J.”  They raise money and start to operate.  In year 1, they’re down 30%.  If they started with 100, they now have 70.

They won’t be able to collect the 20% of profits until they have some, that is, until they get back over 100, 43% higher than they are now.  That may take two or three years, even in an uptrending market.  What do they do?

One option is to close the fund, return the money and reorganize as “J&S.”  That way they collect performance fees from the outset (assuming they don’t repeat their S&J performance).  Who would fall for this trick, you may ask?  A lot of people, apparently.  Look at the case of John Meriwether, the Salomon Brothers bond trader made famous in Liar’s Poker.

Interestingly enough, the FAJ article drew a critical comment from a hedge fund manager.  I would have expected something along the lines of Mr. Malkiel’s having no actual investment experience or that practitioners of academic finance have about the same relevance–or maybe less–to the real world as deconstructionist literary theorists do to creative writing.

But the critic’s interesting point is that Malkiel doesn’t disclose that he has a conflict of interest.  For about 25 years he was a paid advisor to Vanguard, whose main marketing message has been the superiority of passive over active management.


A 2010 equity portfolio: what I think it should look like today

Before we start, remember what we’re trying to do.

We’re not trying to analyze (much less solve) all the world’s problems.  We’re not trying to have a lot of opinions about different stuff.

We are trying to figure out what the most significant factors influencing stock market performance will be this year.  We’re going to divide these factors into ones we have very strong conviction about–or, alternatively, ones we want to build into your portfolio–and the ones we don’t.

Then, we’re going to construct a portfolio that will outperform if the things we have the strongest conviction in turn out to be correct.  At the same time, to the extent that we can, we’re going to neutralize (index-weight) the areas where we’re relatively clueless, so that we don’t get hurt by fooling around with things we don’t know much about.

Here’s what I think: Continue reading