David Snowball's
New-Fund Page for October, 2008


[Open for business | Coming attractions | Stars in the shadows]


"So . . . how are you doing?"

That quiet question, heard so often after funerals, divorces and break-ups, is never easy to answer. For investors, at least, that question used to be provoke a pretty straightforward response: "doin’ okay, up about 4%" or "suckin’, I’m up about 4%" or something like it. Lately, the answer has had to be "it’s complicated. Very, very complicated. And confusing. Had I mentioned scary?"

Perhaps some combination of perspective and fun(d) facts to know and tell might help?

Where was the safest place to hide during September’s financial turmoil?

In the midst of sky-high volatility, the implosion of Wall Street and the subsequent days of panic and euphoria, and substantial losses – Vanguard’s Total Stock Market fund dropped by about 5% (through 9/27), about a third of its year-to-date loss – there was one oasis of calm and hope. One place to go and recoup some of your losses.

Financials.

Yep . . . who would have guessed, but the best performing stock or bond sector in September were the financials. Funds in the group rose an average of 3.5% (again, through 9/27) while the most conservative "balanced" funds actually declined by that same amount. Nine funds posted double-digit gains, led by a leveraged sector fund and followed by JHancock Regional Bank (FRBAX).

Weirder still, they’ve been the fourth best-performing slice of the market over the past quarter, bested only by health care, real estate and long-term government bond funds.

One wonders if it has anything to do with that whole "blood in the streets" adage. About the scariest place to be has been financials. (Had I mentioned that Warren Buffett just invested $5 billion there and sold reinsurance protection on another $4.5 billion?) And about the worst place to be – in terms of one-month and three-month returns – has been energy and natural resources. (Had I mentioned that Warren Buffett just invested $3.5 billion there?) Had I mentioned that Mr. Buffett’s Berkshire-Hathaway stock is up 17.5% in the past month? Do you think there might be a pattern here?

Where was the scariest place to be during September’s financial turmoil?

It’s rare to hear "money market mutual funds" and "hedge funds" as the answer to the same question, but there you go.

The woes of money market investors were small, but terrifying in their implications. For the first time, a major money market mutual fund – the Primary Reserve Fund – "broke the buck" and posted a net asset value below $1.00. This wasn’t the first time that a money market fund lost money; whenever short-term interest rates are lower than a fund’s expense ratio, the fund loses money. That was reasonably frequent back when Mr. Greenspan flooded the market with liquidity, but then the funds’ sponsors sucked it up and underwrote the funds’ losses in order to avoid breaking the buck. In June of 2003, for example, some 200 money market funds were yielding less than 0.25%. Those were mostly high expense funds that maintained a $1.00 NAV only because of their sponsors’ largesse.

This wasn’t even the first time that a money market broke the buck – that happened to the Community Bankers Mutual Fund in late September, 1994. That fund immediately liquidated, though two other money market funds run by the same adviser stayed afloat when the adviser chose to absorb the funds’ losses.

The Primary Reserve case was different because the fund was large ($67 billion), prominent (it was run by the inventor of the money market fund), and unexpected. Nervous investors began wondering who might be next and pulled $200 billion from money market funds in third week of September alone ("Money market funds suffer huge outflows," FT.com, 9/22/08). Putnam announced the closing of its institutional money market fund while the Colorado Surplus Asset Fund Trust, a money fund for local governments there, restricted redemptions. In response, the feds hastily extended insurance guarantees to the sector.

The losses suffered by hedge funds were far more spectacular, but oddly less interesting, than those of the lowly money markets. There are supposedly about 10,200 hedge funds in the market today, managing almost $2 trillion dollars. But not for long. One site now sponsors a "hedge fund implode-o-meter." Pensions & Investments just headlined "Boodbath ahead" (9/29/08). The Wall Street Journal foresees the prospect that the volatility, for which hedge funds bear substantial blame, could "decimate hundreds of players" (9/30/08 – it’s nice to know that they’re just playing). One of their sources prophesies: "There's going to be a death spiral for a number of these funds."

All of this over losses which average 10% year-to-date which was enough because, as hedge fund manager John Rigas, "It’s difficult with hedge funds because they are very fragile. By their nature they’re fragile instruments because investors can ask for their money" ("Hedge Funds Are Bracing for Investors to Cash Out," NYTimes.com, 9/28/08). Oh, no! "Investors can ask for their money"! Who could have designed a system which would expose these poor delicate flowers to such abuse?

Sigh.

777 used to be just the designation of a Boeing jet

On September 29th, the number entered stock market history as the largest point drop ever recorded for the Dow Industrials. There are two possible explanations for the size of the drop: one rational, one likely. As we look at the possibilities, you need to remember that economics often distinguish between two entities: (1) the real world a.k.a. "Main Street" and (2) the financial world a.k.a. "Wall Street."

The rational possibility: the real world is coming to an end. You know, Depression, despair, dustbowl. All that stuff that the Colorful Crowd likes to write about: The Great Depression of 2010-2012, America’s Financial Apocalypse, Financial Armageddon, How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse. Governor Palin agrees (see her comments on 9/24), but relatively few economists share her insight.

The likely possibility: the financial world is getting squeezed, badly. President Truman offered this bit of economic insight: "It's a recession when your neighbor loses his job; it's a depression when you lose yours" (4/13/1958). The folks on Wall Street are a cool and calculating about money. They know the market is risky and that investing entails the risk of losing money. And they’re well experienced in coolly losing your money without panicking. But I suspect that no one told them they were going to be losing their money this time. A few nuggets from the New York State Controller, which may be keeping Wall Streeters awake at night:

The drop in Wall Street's bonuses "could rival" the 50 percent fall seen in 2003, with the current market crisis cutting the total amount paid by banks and brokerages to $16 billion, the state comptroller said on Monday.

New York's securities industry could lose even more jobs than first estimated as the 13-month old global credit crunch grinds on. Some 40,000 bankers and brokers could be laid off, which would be 15,000 more than initially forecast, Democratic Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli said in a statement. ("Wall Street bonuses may fall 50 percent," Reuters, 9/29/08)

And that would be on top of 30,000 layoffs at brokerage firms in 2007. And even the bonuses that were so well-deserved (for example, Barclays and Nomura budgeted $3.5 billion in bonuses for the New York staff of Lehman Bros., whose collapse precipitated last week’s panic) are subject to retribution from a mean-spirited Congress.

Could you blame them for a panicked response? After all, would life even be worth living if your bonus was trimmed to $90,000 this year?

Is there anything you could do about it?

More importantly, is there anything you should do about it? There are some funds which are making money steadily through the mess. In the face of the 777 drop, Hussman Strategic Growth (HSGFX), Nakoma Absolute Return (NARFX) and Hussman Strategic Total Return (HSTRX) all made money. And long-term Treasuries continue to be an exercise in futility: so many people have flocked there because they won’t lose money that they’re no longer capable of making money.

For folks still in the accumulation phase of their investments, I guess I’d offer two possibilities:

Fidelity’s Market Analysis, Research and Education group identified the best five-year periods for investment returns in the 20th century. They started:

The most horrendous losses have come in the emerging markets. Fidelity Latin America (FLATX) dropped 14% on 9/29/08 and the travails of the group-as-a-whole are described below. All of which is leading really smart and grouchy people – Jeremy Grantham and Ben Inker of GMO and Mohamed El-Erian of PIMCO – to conclude that there’s now a case for moving money into those markets which are, by some estimates, growing at 15% and selling for P/Es in the single digits ("It’s Time to Revisit Emerging Markets," Barron’s, 9/29/08).