Seeking Alpha

Tom Armistead's  Instablog

Tom Armistead
Send Message
I'm a well-informed retail investor and post on SA in order to expose my thought process to critical examination and comment from readers. It makes me a better investor. I'm particularly proud of bullish macro articles posted in 2009 and later, in which I presented ideas that encouraged me to... More
My blog:
Tom Armistead's Instablog
View Tom Armistead's Instablogs on:
  • High Beta Value Isn't Working Right Now

    As 2012 drags toward a close, I'm looking at a modest 6% level of outperformance for the year to date, hardly consistent with the risk assumed. Using a screener, I've developed a number of strategies that backtest well, and involve less risk than what I usually do.

    A portfolio of low beta, high quality dividend payers would have done extremely well over the past ten years. An article on the screen collected a lot of page views, and a fine stream of comment and discussion. That leaves me with a decision to make: should I change basic strategy, or continue with my normal approach, which hasn't been working?

    This article is about using a screener to backtest a simulation of my basic investment style, in an effort to develop an opinion as to whether I should continue with it.

    High Beta Fundamental Value Investing

    Looking back at over ten years of investing, I've always looked for value in the sense of low multiples on common metrics, primarily P/E and P/B, or the similar P/CF and P/TanB. For whatever reason, I have a history of favoring high volatility, reflected in an average beta well above 1 for my portfolio. Here's a screen:

    • In S&P 500
    • Beta > 1
    • Long term debt < 50% of Capital
    • Rank by (PtanB*1.5)+(P/CF), select best (lowest) 30
    • Rebalance every 3 months

    Taking the maximum period available for the back-test, from 1/2/1999 to the present, this portfolio returns 10.3% annually, with a maximum drawdown of 69% and alpha of 7.7%. Risk and reward are in balance, and there's nothing wrong with doing it like that if you can stomach the volatility.

    Here's the rub: this same approach, backtested from 4/1/2011 to the present, returns -10.3%, annualized, and provides alpha of -17.5%. My results for both time frames are similar, so the screen is useful as a general description and model of how I invest my discretionary portfolio.

    How Fast Does It Snap Back?

    This approach is not designed to track the market, and it will underperform from time to time. Here's a chart of its relative 1 and 2 year performance against the S&P:

    (click to enlarge)

    Periods of outperformance and underperformance alternate, with underperformance lasting for 2 years or more. Just looking at the chart, the relative 1 year performance has been rising, and if it maintains its trajectory and reaches previous highs of 40% or better, good things will happen.

    The going up will be worth the coming down.

    Oct 29 10:59 AM | Link | 4 Comments
  • Dealing With A Declining Market

    Today is not developing favorably, with the S&P (NYSEARCA:SPY) down 1.4% as I type this. Naturally my high beta value stocks are underperforming, so the screen is awash in a sea of squiggling red numbers.

    There is one green number, that would be my hedge, some puts on SPY that I picked up while the market was serenely floating upward to 4 year highs.

    Here's a link to a nice song, on youtube, I think I'll play it one more time and go for a nice walk in the woods, very pretty this time of year.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMio4oCndXk&feature=related

    Tags: SPY, Market
    Oct 23 10:33 AM | Link | 1 Comment
  • MetLife Resorts To Regulatory Arbitrage - And Rightly So

    MetLife (NYSE:MET) filed an 8-K on the 21st, announcing that the pending deal to sell its depositary business to General Electric (NYSE:GE) has been revised to make the transaction subject to approval by the OCC, rather than the FDIC. From the filing:

    On September 21, 2012, MetLife, Inc. and MetLife Bank, N.A. amended the Purchase and Assumption Agreement dated as of December 23, 2011 with GE Capital Bank (formerly known as GE Capital Financial Inc.) and General Electric Capital Corporation regarding the sale of the depository business of MetLife Bank. Under the new structure, MetLife Bank's deposit business would be assumed by GE Capital Retail Bank, rather than by GE Capital Bank.

    The key terms of the agreement, whereby a GE Capital affiliate will acquire approximately $7 billion in MetLife Bank deposits, including certificates of deposit and money market accounts, remain unchanged. The transaction, as amended, will now be subject to approval by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the primary regulator of GE Capital Retail Bank, and other customary closing conditions. The approval of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) will no longer be required for the transaction.

    Upon completion of the sale, MetLife Bank would take the remaining administrative steps with the FDIC to terminate its deposit insurance and MetLife, Inc. would deregister as a bank holding company.

    The Fed has held MET back from repurchasing shares and increasing the dividend. The company didn't pass the stress test, because the test is bank-centric and doesn't take the characteristics of life insurance into account. In order to escape regulation as a bank, MET is in the process of exiting the bank business by selling it to GE, a transaction that previously required FDIC approval.

    The FDIC has held a number of meetings since the two parties applied for approval, but no action was taken.

    As a practical matter, life insurers, when sticking to their core business, are not a source of systemic risk and are very capably regulated in the US by the States. MET sailed through the financial crisis without the kind of government assistance that the big banks required. Under the circumstances, the company's frustration with the Fed's incompetent regulation is understandable.

    Confronted with incomprehensible dilatory behavior on the part of the FDIC, a change of regulator seems in order.

    Regulatory Arbitrage

    Regulatory arbitrage played a big role in the financial crisis. Bank regulators vied with each other to attract clients by providing extremely lenient oversight. The hapless OTS won AIG's business, and distinguished itself by watching passively as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and WaMu sent themselves down the tubes.

    I'm on record as opposing regulatory arbitrage. Lax regulation was one of the primary causes of the financial crisis. More and better regulation is needed.

    But in this case, the FDIC had no reason to deny approval, or to defer action. The whole situation is an example of arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion. MET is doing the right thing.

    Investment Implications

    The inability to reward shareholders with dividend increases and buybacks has kept a lid on MET's share price. The company, by its reckoning, has substantial excess capital and has announced its determination to do something for shareholders. The stock will increase in price as soon as the company escapes from regulation as a bank.

    It is widely expected that both MET and Prudential Financial (NYSE:PRU) will be classified as SIFI's (Systematically Important Financial Institutions) and will fall under Fed regulation for that reason. Given the record so far, it's very possible that MET will be exposed to more regulatory harassment.

    However, in the long run, MET's profits will build up as retained earnings, and in due course persistence and perseverance will lead to relief, most likely by an Act of Congress. Patience will be required, and will be rewarded.

    Disclosure: I am long MET, PRU.

    Sep 23 9:43 PM | Link | 1 Comment
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

More »

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.