Seeking Alpha

Alex Clifford's  Instablog

Alex Clifford
Send Message
  • INTERVIEW: How Monkeys Are Better Than Fund Managers – Pete Comley On His New Book

    Pete Comley was on his allotment last year listening to David Kuo's podcast for the Motley Fool. The host was discussing a share trading competition for schools, and how 61 of the 72 teams had failed to beat the index.

    David: "Do you know what? In the wider industry, in the professional fund management industry, these statistics are almost identical to what happens. Out of all the funds that are available for people to buy, approximately 15% of professional fund managers will beat the market, and 85% of them will not."

    As I forked over my vegetable plot, those words went round in my head. I then stopped and listened to it again. Had I heard it right - that virtually all professional fund managers, that were paid millions in bonuses - couldn't beat the market. Surely it wasn't true?

    Over the next few months, Pete researched the industry and wrote a book about it. Indeed it was true. A monkey with a pin who picked and held stocks at random beat the majority of investment 'experts'. Furthermore he argues that most people would be better of they just kept their money in the bank, rather than investing in funds.

    Here follows an interview with Pete - you can download his book, Monkey With a Pin, FOR FREE at his website

    Meet your new financial advisor

    Some people will read the book and think, isn't this a bit grim? Because if they're in cash they are going to be 'financially repressed' and if they are in shares many will pay large fees. Is there an optimistic view of what you've discovered?

    Yes, I think there are two optimistic views on it. The first is that once you understand what all your potential pitfalls are in a trading system, you can then effectively game the system. You know where not to lose your money so you can actually be a much better trader. For example if you had just bought passive ETFs [Electronic Traded Fund which follow the stock market], and you buy and hold them, and you were confident enough that the ETF will still be around in ten years, and you picked a low-fee platform - you could keep your costs down to maybe 0.5% a year. But you have to be actively thinking about the markets and have a strategy.

    The other reason to be positive, which is something I hadn't really appreciated until I did the research, was all this stuff about cycles in the market - which I had never really sort of twigged before. Should have done, but haven't. But I think it is quite likely that there will be some point in the next two years when the market declines to something worth buying, like the FTSE down to 4,000.

    If the FTSE goes near or below 4,000 I'm just going to convert all my cash into stock somewhere, because that - if you look into history there are usually 2 or 3 significant lows in a corrective, secular bear market - and if it were to do that one [4,000], it would be the last low before we start a huge bull run over the next decade or so. I want to be fully invested at that point.

    It seems as though individual investors are having to spend more time doing research into the shares to achieve better returns. Do you think there is a new gap in the market for fund managers, and people who do the research and do the legwork?

    The simple answer is I don't think there is a gap in the market. If you read the stories about a company and do the research, you will probably make the wrong decision. You remember in the book I talked about the 'turtle traders', the guys taught to be a bit like Eddie Murphy in 'Trading Places' where they took 14 people off the street and taught them to trade - and they made, whatever it was, half a billion pounds in a couple of years.

    One of the key things they were taught was to effectively never read a paper. Never read a news story. Everything you need to know is in the price already, in the graph, and you just need to trade the breakouts. You just look at it and you trade the breakouts, and don't read.

    I pick up my Investors Chronicle or Shares magazine - in fact I won't even read Shares magazine again - there's no point, because all it will tell me is something which it is too late to invest in.

    So is there a role for those fund managers [who just buy the news stories]? No, of course there isn't. I think they will just disappear really - when eventually people realise that.

    There are some people out there who are some quite clever traders - and if you want to spend a lot of time, I think you can do something and get some positive returns. But for the average Joe Bloggs in the street, it's a waste of time. So they should go for a simple thing like passive index trackers if they want to dabble in the stock market.

    But if you're going to dabble, you still have to think about whether you should get in here or there?

    I think the answer is, like Buffett, you should buy when the stock market is cheap. I think my strategy in the future will be one of being a bit like a panther. Just sitting there in the long grass, sleeping, and when some kind of injured animal comes along, I'll jump out and kill it and I'll eat it and then I won't bother to eat for a week or two. Wait for the injured prey to come by.

    I agree though, timing is the difficulty - that is where you need a set of rules. For me, I see that FTSE below 4,000 and I don't know at what point it is going to stop, but if I can get in anywhere below 4,000, I am going to be a happy bunny, long term. In the short term, I might be thinking, I could have got it cheaper, but I'll still be happy long term, because the potential to go lower isn't very likely. I might get my darts out as well, and pick ten shares at random - because I know how well that strategy works [i.e. the monkey with the pin]. Some of them will be dogs, but some of them will be stars. I will buy the monkey another banana.


    At this point, I talked to Pete about the effect of benchmarking on fund managers portfolios - how benchmarking encourages fund managers to strive towards mediocrity, and to not take risks. The implicit mentality is: "if we fail, we will fail together". The net effect is that everyone holds similar portfolios and the performance is very closely aligned. No one stands out for brilliance, nor does anyone stand out for shoddiness. For the second version of his book, Pete plans to add another section on this.


    You said that most fund managers can't really perform consistently, so should they exist?

    Well, I think that whole industry will get disintermediated. I've seen it in my industry, I'm a market researcher, in fact I partly helped disintermediate it. I was one of the first people doing online surveys in this country. The industry tried to take me to Professional Standards, for bringing the industry into disrepute by running an online survey. They really were fearing what it would do to their business. They didn't in the end. Since then the industry has radically changed and the same is going to happen in the fund management industry. People have realised we don't need most of them.

    What I am expecting is that the number of fund managers will shrink substantially, I think we both agree on this, but presumably there will still be a place for good fund managers.

    I think there are genuinely people out there who are better than the average and it would be great to know who they are. They are never going to be perfect all the time, but even if they can only do it better than chance, they are worth following. At the moment though there probably aren't the incentives in the system for them to be able to follow their own real style because of the reasons you were saying. They are being benchmarked all the time. They might have a personal style like mine where they hold cash for a while, and invest at the right time. If you had that kind of style as a fund manager you couldn't survive the system. But it probably is a more successful strategy.

    You make an important point about incentives and I think that it what this industry boils down to. Because if you are an average fund manager, you just need to have an average portfolio, make it similar to your peers - then you get paid your management fee. Is the solution to this to say - you may not charge an annual fee and you can only charge based on your performance?

    I agree - the incentives aren't right. I think there is a lot of logic to that because at the moment the system doesn't work. If they fail, the punter pays, and if the thing succeeds the punter pays and is also charged an extra performance fee. It's not very equal is it? They should receive only a payment if they beat the average - that would wipe out most of them.

    The other point is to avoid drawdowns. For example, if a fund manager loses 50% of your portfolio like many did in 2007/8, then you need to have 100% return just to get even again. There needs to be an incentive there to limit the downside risk of these portfolios. Say, if the managers lost you money they would have to make it good themselves.

    That would be nice. But wasn't that the concept of with-profits policies? The life insurers used to sell them a decade or two ago, they said they would smooth out the returns so that if the markets turned down they would chip in some reserves. They weren't as generous as thought because they were just pocketing most of the profits during good years - so they had big reserves to chip into during the bad years. There's something unequal about it.

    I'd just like to thank Pete for his time and for writing his brilliant FREE book, Monkey with a Pin

    May 07 11:42 AM | Link | 1 Comment
  • UK Shale Gas Industry Set To Boom - How To Profit From It

    The UK's energy future?

    As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, the US is benefiting from a booming shale gas industry. So much has been invested in the drilling of shale that the US now faces a glut of natural gas and depressed prices. But if we were to look the other side of the Atlantic, the UK has barely touched its shale resources. There are two main visible players in Britain, and those are Cuadrilla Resources and IGas - but IGas is the only one publicly traded.

    Recently IGas upped its estimates of recoverable shale gas at their Ince Marshes site to 10TCF (Trillion Cubic Feet). To put that in perspective, the UK uses 3.3TCF every year (Source: NoHotAir). That means that IGas owns fields which have the potential to power the UK's gas needs for 3 years. No North Sea resources, no tankers coming from dodgy Middle-East states, no pipelines from Norway... for 3 years!

    My question then was: why is this company only trading at roughly £100M?

    My first thoughts were the controversy surrounding shale drilling and the misunderstandings about it. Will nimbyism and local politics get in the way? Concerns were raised about earthquakes caused by fracking operations near Blackpool and the government had suspended Cuadrilla's drilling, pending an investigation. That DECC investigation last week concluded that Cuadrilla should continue, so this bodes well for IGas' holdings.

    Secondly I wondered if that because it is a small company and barely discussed in the newspapers... it has garnered little attention. Its low market capitalisation could be due to this.

    Thirdly, I wondered whether the fact that they are not planning to develop their shale gas resources was weighing on its valuation. Instead of drilling themselves, IGas announced that they would be looking for partners to exploit the gas for them.

    After attempting to contact the CEO this morning, I was sent towards their PR department who told me very little beyond what I already knew. Except that the woman who I spoke to implied that they would be looking to sell their shale gas acreage, as opposed to other options.

    According to their recent investor report IGas own 384,249 acres. In the US, where commercial production has taken off, transactions in 2010/11 valued each acre at $7,468 (according to the same report). Now correct me on my back of the envelope maths, but that makes an estimate of their shale assets worth $2.9 billion or £1.76 billion at today's exchange rates. Even if only a fraction of those assets are retrievable, exploitable and sellable - IGas' share price should be a multiple of where it is today.

    What also gave me faith in the company is the fact that its management own a significant portion of it. Francis Gugen, the chairman, owns 17.03% of the company, whilst Andrew Austin, the CEO, owns 6.57%. Those two will know more about the company than any freelance researcher like myself can find out - so that should be a strong signal to buy in.

    All in all, the company owns shale gas fields which may be worth several times its current market value. The company appears to have had minimal attention paid to it, so it is trading at low prices. Furthermore the management have put several million pounds of their own money into the business. What's not to like?

    Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

    Additional disclosure: I own some IGAS shares which I bought today. IGAS is traded on the London Stock Exchange's AIM (Alternative Investment Market)

    Tags: commodities
    May 07 4:13 AM | Link | 1 Comment
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

Latest Comments

Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.