Category Archives: managing uncertainty

No nationalisation, more certainty and probably higher taxes

Posted on by
Reply

There are times when I’m impressed with elements of government and the ANC. It took them far too long, they allowed too much debate and uncertainty, but their ultimate conclusions on nationalisation and how to direct additional mineral wealth back into the fiscus, further develop a beneficiation industry around the mining industry are solid.

I always maintained that “nationalisation” isn’t necessarily appropriation of assets without compensation, although the popular views and worst fear-mongering viewed this as the only possibility. It’s refreshing to hear that “nationalisation” was considered on its merits against private operation of firms rather than just as a way to redistribute wealth. (Ok, at least one article wasn’t mad panic.)

The increase in taxes is also basically expected. Although new and changing taxes does add uncertainty, it provides a sense that the rules are being followed.  Tax rates on energy companies in many Middle Eastern countries is high – sometimes near 50%. So the government fiscus does benefit from the energy that belongs to all its citizens.

It’s also a, slightly sneaky, way of re-settting historical land ownership and mineral right royalties and licensing. If “we got it wrong and sold them too cheaply in the past, we can always recoup through higher or new taxes”. Maybe a little cynical but not surprising.

The real free market fanatics will no doubt be in uproar about higher taxes destroying jobs and misallocating resources. There is a debate here, but the free market fanatics all too quickly forget that it’s hard to argue that the value of the minerals under our country have been fairly priced. Those markets can easily be described as “failed markets” with a number of externalities involved.

Even the hardest neoclassical economist will recognise these are very real limitations on Adam Smith’s invisible hand.

Lose a Million

Posted on by
Reply

The Make a Million competition, as I’ve mentioned before, is an awful idea. It doesn’t promote investing or even “normal” trading, but rather massive, speculative risk-taking trading because the prize for performing well is nothing and the prize for performing best is significant.

I’m continually disappointed that Moneyweb continues to partner with this distraction.

As I’ve done in the past, I’ve analysed very quickly some of the results of the most recent competition. As background to that, the basic rules are:

  1. Put up R20,000 of your own money
  2. Trade over three months in currencies, commodities single stock futures and some index trackers.
  3. Whoever has the most at the end wins a million rand
  4. Everyone keeps what is left of their initial “investment”

So let’s be clear, there are no long-term investment learnings here.

The winner did return 165.5% over 3 months, which is not an impressive performance even though it might look like it.  The point is, given the volatility of the investment universe available for the competition and the encouragement towards rampant risk-taking, it’s entirely pedestrian performance.  It’s very likely an individual’s performance will be good given the wide range of possible outcomes.

Let’s look at some other statistics

Average performance -18.4%
Annualised average performance -73.4%
Proportion making a profit 26%
Total amount won -R1 020 762
Standard Deviation of performance 48.0%
Annualised standard deviation 96%

These are not performance statistics of which to be proud. They are similar to the losses incurred in prior competitions.

So in short, the competition cost the entrants in total just over a million rand. Losing a million rand is a great way to Make a Million.

Narratives vs facts

Posted on by
Reply

I don’t usually write about The Final Frontier, but this article has a great parallel to what I do write about.

It’s worth reading the entire article, but the main message is that we cannot use the dream or story or fairy tale of imminent migration into space and other planets as an excuse not to deal with the very real problems we have on Earth right now. The misconceptions, Hollywood induced and otherwise, about the ease of space travel or even the extent of our current capabilities, are massive.

As with so many things, the stories that fill our society can be very different from the harsh reality.

Hedge fund managers don’t know macro

Posted on by
Reply

Listen I know John Paulson made an enormous amount of money betting against the housing markets in 2007. He made some excellent calls and made a tonne of cash.

As Nassim Taleb would say though, that doesn’t necessarily mean he has skill or insight. He could just have been lucky. Most people lost money in that market; it would be almost impossible if nobody had the opposite positions and made large amounts of money.

I’m also not saying Paulson doesn’t have skills or insight.

But I am saying that there is no reason to listen to hedge fund managers as a guide to the economy.

Paulson’s hedge funds are in total down significantly this year.  He got it right and now he got it wrong.

Why S&P downgraded

Posted on by
Reply

I don’t think many serious investors care that S&P downgraded US debt. Bond yields are down (more on this in my next post), which means prices are up. US stocks are down, but that’s more about concerns about US and global economic prospects than the credit of the US government.

Nevertheless, S&P did downgrade. Why? I don’t think it is primarily to do with a materially increased estimated probability of default. It has more to do with a change in the payoffs in a ‘game’ (as in game theory) S&P is playíng.

Consider the quadrant of options. S&P downgrades or doesn’t and the US defaults or doesn’t. I’ve constructed totally hypothetically, but perhaps plausible scenarios below, for the S&P’s potential assessment of losses under each possibility given their views and external perceptions of them before and after 2008.

Before 2008, the fallout that would come from downgrading the US and the US not defaulting would be significant and cries of “un-American” might be heard again. Even if the US were downgraded, default would still be a blow for S&P since anything above a BBB rating really shouldn’t ever default if there models are “correct”. I’ve thrown in another hypothetical, a 0.01% probability of default – in other words very low, and as you’ll see in the next scenario, not necessarily higher now for S&P to change their view.

Now, either on a traditional minimax (minimizing the maximum cost) or an expected value basis, before 20008 S&P wouldn’t downgrade the US. This is an important calibration, since S&P didn’t downgrade the US.

After 2008, even if we leave the assessed probability of default unchanged, the world is different and therefore we have different costs.  If S&P doesn’t downgrade the US – even if the US doesn’t default, there will be a cost to S&P since might share the view that the US could default now. The dent in credibility since 2008 means that S&P has to try harder to convince the skeptics that they don’t rate risky instruments as AAA. Along with this goes a massive hit if the US does default and S&P hasn’t downgraded the US. The good news is that at least now a downgrade is viewed more with more understanding even if the US doesn’t default (although be sure Obama’s White House is not happy at the moment).

After 2008, even if the assessed probability of default is unchanged, the minimax and expected value rules both suggested a downgrade is the better option for S&P.

Before 2008

 Don’t downgrade

 Downgrade

 PD

0.0001
Default

-500.0

-50.0
No Default

0.0

-1,000.0
Expected

-0.1

-999.9
After 2008

 Don’t downgrade

 Downgrade

 PD

0.0001
Default

-10,000.0

-50.0
No Default

-10.0

-10.0
Expected

-11.0

-10.0

Now the example is contrived – I chose a set of parameters that demonstrates the point I’m trying to make. This isn’t a problem since I’m not saying this is what happened. I‘m saying it is plausible that S&P made a perfectly rationale (for them) decision to downgrade even if they didn’t think the US was more likely to default now than before.

In truth, the US might be more likely to default now than before, although the change is probability not sufficient on its own to merit a downgrade at this point. Especially since S&P have their maths wrong.


Medical Schemes, discrimination and the CPA

Posted on by
Reply

The Consumer Protection Act (CPA) protects consumers from abuse by enforcing fair practices, improved disclosure and added minimum warranties etc,

It’s a good piece of legislation, even if at times some aspects of it may result in greater costs than benefits.

TimesLive has a story about the alleged noncompliance of medical schemes with the CPA.

Some of the issues may have merit, but this struck me as particularly troubling:

According to the act, it is unfair when a consumer is discriminated against on the grounds of age.

Our constitution explicitly allows discrimination on actuarially sound rating factors that have both a statistical and causal link. This is how insurance is South Africa still uses underwriting to select homogenous groups of risks and to limit anti-selection by policyholders. If widespread anti-selection were to occur, then life insurance would not be viable.

Medical Schemes in South Africa have only very limited underwriting options in order to provide as many citizens as possible with fair health coverage. “Late joiners” are charged a premium since they haven’t contributed to the societal risk pool since they were most healthy and therefore haven’t paid “their fair share”. This has to do with a specifically identified risk rather than general discrimination based on age. These restrictions are important to maintain the solvency and viability of medical schemes.

Some schemes prevent women who fall pregnant within nine months of joining the scheme from claiming for the pregnancy even though they pay full premiums

This point is more tricky, but it does again reflect a misunderstanding. “Full premiums” on an actuarial sound basis have probably not been paid, since the fair premium for a member who joins just to get pregnancy benefits and hasn’t contributed at other times would be much higher than the premium that is charged. This one is a little more grey and while I feel the rules are entirely fair, they may not be viewed that way by a particular judge on a particular day.

Some schemes require that members give three months’ notice when terminating their membership, whereas the act deems 20 business days to be reasonable

This might reflect the desire to not have members leave a scheme immediately after having utilized the maximum benefit available to them before joining another scheme. I don’t know how much of this behavior would ever happen, so this might also ultimately be changed.

Many schemes don’t enforce the allowed waiting periods for members joining. If some of these other changes were to be made, I would expect these provisions would be more regularly used. Of course, that is another of the problems cited with medical schemes arising from the CPA.

All in all, we may see some changes, but by and large these comments reflect a lack of appreciation for the actuarial realities of managing a health scheme with community rating.

Have all the World Cup expenses been counted?

Posted on by
1

Airports Company SA, “ACSA”  now has some of the highest fees  in the world. Apparently they need to fund the huge “investment expenditure” incurred  in upgrading on our airports recently for the World Cup.

This begs the questions:

  1. What business plans were used in determining investment on our airports?
  2. How did actual experience compare to those budgets?
  3. What can we and ACSA learn from the difference between expectations and actual?
  4. Did the marketing benefit of the World Cup more than offset the de-marketing impact of higher costs of travel to (and inside) South Africa?
  5. Have these “investment expenditures” been capitalised on ACSA’s balance sheet and has the resultant asset been impaired or not?
  6. Have these additional costs been added to the official costs for the World Cup (and why not?)

Who am I kidding -  huge sums of money were spent on the gut feel that it was a good idea and because spending other people’s money is easy and it’s self-glorifying to build grand airports.