Loading in 5 sec....

Managing Uncertainty In Portfolio Implementation David B. Loeper, CIMA, CIMC Chairman & CEOPowerPoint Presentation

Managing Uncertainty In Portfolio Implementation David B. Loeper, CIMA, CIMC Chairman & CEO

Download Presentation

Managing Uncertainty In Portfolio Implementation David B. Loeper, CIMA, CIMC Chairman & CEO

Loading in 2 Seconds...

- 98 Views
- Uploaded on
- Presentation posted in: General

Managing Uncertainty In Portfolio Implementation David B. Loeper, CIMA, CIMC Chairman & CEO

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Managing Uncertainty In Portfolio ImplementationDavid B. Loeper, CIMA, CIMCChairman & CEO

Let’s Start With A Simple Test…Write Down Your Answers…

- Would a Wealthcare Plan with 50-58% Confidence Be Sufficient?
- Nob) Yes
- Why?

QUESTION #2:

- Would you INTENTIONALLY mislead a client/prospect about their confidence level?
- Nob) Yes

QUESTION #3:

- If you were UNINTENTIONALLY MISLEADING THEM, would you want to correct it?
- a) Nob) Yes

- Would you consider it “misleading” if an advisor told a client they were in the comfort zone, but in reality had a 33-50% chance of being in “Sacrifice” or “Uncertainty”?
- Nob) Yes

QUESTION #5:

- Have you ever had a fund/manager that significantly underperformed the market?
- Nob) Yes

QUESTION #6:

- When you picked them, were you seeking an investment that would perform poorly?
- Nob) Yes
- If No, then why did you pick them and what went wrong?

- #1 – Is 58% Confidence Enough?
a) No

Why? – Because the stakes are too high, the client only has ONE LIFE

- #2 – Would you INTENTIONALLY mislead a client?
a) No – If you answered “Yes” you may be excused

- #3 – If you were UNINTENTIONALLY misleading clients, would you correct it?
a) Yes – If you answered “No” you may be excused

- #4 – Is it misleading to tell a client they should be comfortable with 33-50% odds of sacrifice or uncertainty?
a) Yes – If you answered “No”, you may be excused

- #5 – Have you ever had a fund/manager significantly underperformed the market?
a) Yes – If you answered “No”, you are either: Lucky, Inexperienced, Kidding Yourself, a Liar… or…..Brilliant

- #6 – Were you seeking an investment that would perform poorly?
a) Yes – you may be excused

b) No…Then What Went Wrong?

SOMETHING

- BOTH sides use the same “evidence” as support for their position:
- For Example: Universe Rank – Market at 40th%-tile:
- “Passive…therefore”
- - passive will outperform 60% (or so) of active managers
- “Active…therefore”
- - some managers have skill and we can pick them
- Who is right? Is the evidence PROOF or just data? What is the CAUSE?
- BOTH perspectives on the “evidence” require accepting other UNPROVEN premises if they are to be valid EVIDENCE:
- Passive – Requires that past performance is indication of future results
- This has not be proven…therefore the “passive therefore” is invalid
- Active - Requires that the CAUSE of out-performing to be skill and not luck
- Equivalent of saying that someone that flipped heads six out of ten coin flips is better than average at flipping heads!?
- In money management we do not know whether the cause was skill or luck…(in coin flips we know it is luck) therefore unless we can PROVE skill the “active therefore” is invalid

- BOTH sides use the same “evidence” as support for their position:
- Efficient Market Theory:
- Passive: Markets are efficient and any “incorrect pricing” is quickly corrected, therefore one cannot consistently find inefficiently priced securities.
- Active: Most money is actively invested, and people wouldn’t do that if markets were efficient, and “some” securities are not as efficiently priced (i.e. small cap, foreign).
- Sharpe’s Mathematics of Active Management:
- Passive: In the end, the market must equal itself! The average dollar invested must equal the market less expenses.
- Active: That’s why we don’t pick average managers…we pick above average!
- Growth & Value Run In Obvious Cycles…

Heads vs.Tails

RANDOMNESS

Heads vs. Tails

RandomnessDOES NOT appear to be Random!Growth and Value are just 1/2 of the market. Just like heads & tails are one half of a coin.

Value Outperforms

TAILS

HeadsTails

Random Returns

Growth Outperforms

HEADS

Flip# 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96

Trailing 12 Flips

- “92% of drivers that caused car accidents ate carrots in the last six months, therefore, the consumption of carrots contributes to car accidents.”
- A high correlation in observations IS NOT the same as cause…most drivers also brush their teeth, kiss their wife, mow their lawn…that doesn’t prove causality!
- This manager fell in the top 18% and beat the market seven of the last ten years!

- “I’ve seen 1000 white swans and have never seen a black one, therefore all swans are white.”
- Everything that happened once, never happened until it happened!
- This manager NEVER lost more than 20% (until…), Green Bay NEVER lost a post season home game (until…)

- Arguments on either side lack:
- KNOWLEDGE, PROOF, RATIONALE, EVIDENCE, REASON, OBJECTIVITY
- Active & Passive Argument Flaws:
- Carrots cause car accidents, never seen a black swan, Heads & Tails (growth & value) run in cycles

- For the tilted odds to work in your favor

Number of Bets Per Gambler

- The Odds Are Tilted In Your Favor In EVERY Game
- Then why do you set table limits???
- Tilting odds ONLY WORKS when:
- The stakes at risk are low enough to risk gambling
- You have enough chances to make a sufficient number of “bets”
- For the tilted odds to work in your favor

Number of Gamblers

Can Mathematically PROVE house “Take”

Table Limits

# of Gamblers times Average Bet times # of Bets times Take=AVERAGE GROSS PROFIT

1000 Bets Per Gambler

- The Odds Are Tilted In Your Favor In EVERY Game
- Then why do you set table limits???
- Tilting odds ONLY WORKS when:
- The stakes at risk are low enough to risk gambling
- You have enough chances to make a sufficient number of “bets”
- For the tilted odds to work in your favor

100 Gamblers

5% Roulette “Take”

$10 Average Bet

100 Gamblers times 1000 Bets= 100,000 Bets times $10 Average Bet= $1 Milliontimes 5% Take= $50,000 AVERAGE GROSS DAILY PROFIT

1 Bet Per Gambler

- The Odds Are Tilted In Your Favor In EVERY Game
- Then why do you set table limits???
- Tilting odds ONLY WORKS when:
- The stakes at risk are low enough to risk gambling
- You have enough chances to make a sufficient number of “bets”
- For the tilted odds to work in your favor

1 Gambler

5% Roulette “Take”

$1,000,000 Average Bet

1 Gambler times 1 Bet= 1 Bet times $1,000,000 Average Bet= $1 Milliontimes 5% Take= $50,000 AVERAGE GROSS DAILY PROFIT

DO YOU TAKE THIS BET AND CLOSE THE CASINO JUST FOR HIM?

1 Bet Per Gambler

- The Odds Are Tilted In Your Favor In EVERY Game
- Then why do you set table limits???
- Tilting odds ONLY WORKS when:
- The stakes at risk are low enough to risk gambling
- You have enough chances to make a sufficient number of “bets”
- For the tilted odds to work in your favor

1 Gambler

5% Roulette “Take”

$1,000,000 Average Bet

1 Gambler times 1 Bet= 1 Bet times $1,000,000 Average Bet= $1 Milliontimes 5% Take= $50,000 AVERAGE GROSS DAILY PROFIT

It depends on what you are risking…

1 Bet Per Gambler

- The Odds Are Tilted In Your Favor In EVERY Game
- Then why do you set table limits???
- Tilting odds ONLY WORKS when:
- The stakes at risk are low enough to risk gambling
- You have enough chances to make a sufficient number of “bets”
- For the tilted odds to work in your favor

1 Gambler

5% Roulette “Take”

$1,000,000 Average Bet

But your return on capital stinks ($50k daily profit is $18 million a year/ $1 billion is 1.8% annual return on your capital)

1 Gambler times 1 Bet= 1 Bet times $1,000,000 Average Bet= $1 Milliontimes 5% Take= $50,000 AVERAGE GROSS DAILY PROFIT

If you had $1 billion in capital…the STAKES are worth the bet…

1 Bet Per Gambler

- The Odds Are Tilted In Your Favor In EVERY Game
- Then why do you set table limits???
- Tilting odds ONLY WORKS when:
- The stakes at risk are low enough to risk gambling
- You have enough chances to make a sufficient number of “bets”
- For the tilted odds to work in your favor

1 Gambler

5% Roulette “Take”

$1,000,000 Average Bet

And your return on capital is good ($50k daily profit is $18 million a year/ $100 million is 18% annual return on your capital)

1 Gambler times 1 Bet= 1 Bet times $1,000,000 Average Bet= $1 Milliontimes 5% Take= $50,000 GROSS DAILY PROFIT

If you had $100 million in capital…the STAKES are also probably worth the bet…

1 Bet Per Gambler

- The Odds Are Tilted In Your Favor In EVERY Game
- Then why do you set table limits???
- Tilting odds ONLY WORKS when:
- The stakes at risk are low enough to risk gambling
- You have enough chances to make a sufficient number of “bets”
- For the tilted odds to work in your favor

1 Gambler

5% Roulette “Take”

$1,000,000 Average Bet

You would have a 47.4% chance (18 blacks/38 numbers=47.4%) of closing your doors for good!!

1 Gambler times 1 Bet= 1 Bet times $1,000,000 Average Bet= $1 Milliontimes 5% Take= $50,000 GROSS DAILY PROFIT

BUT, if you had only $1 million in capital…the STAKES are too high…

- What are the odds of the Casino Roulette losing $1,000,000 with:
- One $1,000,000 bet?= 1 in 2.1 or 47.4%
- Two $500,000 bets? = 1 in 4.5 or 22.5%
- Ten $100,000 bets? < 1 in 1,000
- Twenty $50,000 bets? < 1 in a million

- What are the odds of the Casino Roulette losing $1,000,000 with:
- One $1,000,000 bet?= 1 in 2.1 or 47.4%
- Two $500,000 bets? = 1 in 4.5 or 22.5%
- Ten $100,000 bets? < 1 in 1,000
- Twenty $50,000 bets? < 1 in a million
- This is a lot different though than the odds of your casino LOSING money…
- One $1,000,000 bet?= 1 in 2.1 or 47.4%
- Twenty $50,000 bets? = About 1 in 3 or 33%
- One hundred $10,000 bets? = About 1 in 3.6 or 27.6%

This isn’t the main reason they have table limits

This is…

For investors with odds tilted in their favor (same as casino roulette odds) it is the equivalent of 20-100 years of investing (20-100 bets)

IS 67-72% CONFIDENCE ENOUGH?

- 1- What does making the bet buy?
- Presumably a better lifestyle
- BUT, do you actually get that benefit if you do not plan on winning the bet?
- If you always plan your future based on EQUALLING market returns…
Your lifestyle will always be limited to about what a passive implementation would buy

- If you plan on BEATING the market, and after that 20-100 years you ended up losing even though the odds were tilted in your favor (28-33% chance), what happens?

- If you always plan your future based on EQUALLING market returns…

In other words…what is at risk?

- Tilting odds ONLY WORKS when:
- The stakes at risk are low enough to risk gambling
- You have enough chances to make a sufficient number of “bets”
- For the tilted odds to work in your favor

And what do we get if we win our bet?

What’s at risk?

Their ONLY Life

- Tilting odds ONLY WORKS when:
- The stakes at risk are low enough to risk gambling
- You have enough chances to make a sufficient number of “bets”
- For the tilted odds to work in your favor

20-100 Years of Active Bets

Do you KNOW your active odds?

The Client’s Goals & Lifestyle

You only get the PAYOFF IF you PLAN ON beating the market…otherwise your life is limited to what PASSIVE would buy…if we win, what does the gamble buy?

With tilting the active odds the same as Roulette for the Casino, we still had a 1 in 3 chance of losing the bet…AFTER 20-100 YEARS

- 67%- 72% Confidence you will win (odds tilted like Roulette for 20-100 years)
- You never enjoy your winnings (plan built based on equaling market)
- BUT:
- If these odds are sufficient, then we shouldn’t need any higher confidence levels in our plans, would we?
- Do we really KNOW the odds are tilted that way?
- Prove it or gamble our client’s lives on it?

- We could plan on beating the market to enjoy the reward of the bet
- That might increase the risk if we are wrong though, wouldn’t it?

- The Bet On Active:
- IF management is FREE, AND our selection discipline tilts the odds in our favor (like Roulette)THEN after 100 Years we have 72% confidence we die with a bigger estate and have a 28% chance of needing to alter our lifestyle along the way PLUS
- - ANOTHER 20% chance (assumes 80% comfort/confidence level) the market fails us

Active (with no fees & odds tilted in our favor for our selection discipline) has about a 25% chance of an extra $21k of income

And a 25% chance of it costing the client $15k of their incomePLUS the 20% chance of the market failing us…

Passive represents near certainty of 80% chance of $75,000 income (only risk is market risk)

- = Market 84%
- Under by 0.2%= 83%
- Under by 0.5%= 81%
- Under by 1.1% =74%
- Over by 1.3%=92%
- What is the risk of the Under by 1.1%? (1 in 4?)
- What are the odds of the Over by 1.3%? (1 in 4?)
- What is risk of being outside of COMFORT with active?
- 50%! (2 in 4 = 50%)
- Tell the client 81-84% confidence, but the way you implement the portfolio really makes it a 50% chance of being between 74-92% and a 50% chance OF IT BEING OUTSIDE OF THAT RANGE!

- BUT
- We completely ignore the UNCERTAINTY of our active IMPLEMENTATION(1 in 3 chance of losing the bet with odds in our favor and NO FEES)
- We ignore that active returns will vary from the market average
- (Just as we used to ignore that market returns will vary from the average)
- We misrepresent the client’s confidence & comfort
- (Tell them 82% confidence based on market returns, then invest in a way that makes that number meaningless…include market uncertainty but evade implementation uncertainty)

- Isn’t one of the MAIN premises that we will avoid UNNECESSARY RISK?
- We accept a RATIONAL amount of risk…
- Accept risk that buys us something we value
- With fairly high confidence
- WITHOUT seeking to avoid all risk (psychotic paranoia…too much sacrifice)

- If you can confidently achieve your goals with market returns (less nearly certain passive expense…the 84-81% confidence difference at 50 basis pts) leaving you with only one 20% chance of market failing you…
- Why would you subject yourself to two 20-28% chances of failing?
- One 20% chance the market fails you
- PLUS another 28% chance your managers fail you
- And the risk is this low ONLY IF….
- The odds really are tilted in my favor
- And the additional active expense makes no difference

- Which would you pick? Which avoids unnecessary risk? Which has confidence of producing results the client values? Which avoids undue sacrifice to the only life the client has?
- True confidence & comfort…the only risk we accept is the uncertainty of the market and we accept this risk to make the most of our life: PASSIVE
- Or uncertainty in our confidence, additional risk of failing (28-33%) for a 25% chance of it buying something we value and all of this ONLY IF we CAN tilt the odds and fees do not matter: ACTIVE

- The reason we invest passively is to:
- Confidently achieve the goals each client values
- Without undue sacrifice to their lifestyle
- Avoid unnecessary investment risk
- So we can DELIVER, making the most of the one life our client hasQUESTIONS?