Yawn!

To be blunt, I'm bored with following the real estate market.

It moves terribly slow and the human emotions involved are heated, to say the least, and can be largely irrational. This is frustrating so I've been taking a break.

During this break, I haven't been missing anything so I've concluded that it isn't worth very much effort or time for me to involve myself too much in this blog anymore. It was interesting and I still certainly hold my conclusion that real estate in the Vancouver area is grossly overpriced considering the rental yield.

Additionally, I have been enjoying being a dad to my two little boys and my work has been exceptionally busy so I just don't find I have the time to devote to doing a good job on the analysis part of the blog. There are others who have picked up the mantle of providing monthly charts and statistics so I feel my work in that respect is largely irrelavent.

Anyway, I'm not shutting the blog down. I'll be around and I still plan on posting interesting articles or videos that I stumble across. I just thought it was fair to post how I've been feeling lately.

Rational Thought Not a Factor in Home Purchases

By The Canadian Press

Referencing RBC Study.

TORONTO - Recent first-time homebuyers say they felt pressure to enter the market as they contended with jitters about rising home prices and higher mortgage rates.

The Bank of Montreal says as many as one-third of respondents in a homebuyers survey believe their expectation that housing prices would increase, and interest rates would soar, left an impression on their decision to make a purchase in the short term.

"There's definitely a sense of urgency among home buyers," said Lynne Kilpatrick, senior vice-president of personal banking at BMO.

"While we encourage Canadians to pursue their home ownership dreams we recognize it's easy to get caught up in the emotions of the purchase and this can lead to stretching one's budget too thin."

The results come as Royal Bank released its own homeownership survey on Wednesday which showed that a majority of Canadians expect to see higher mortgage rates over the next year.
RBC's annual homeownership survey said 64 per cent of Canadians expect high rates, with about the same number of mortgage holders concerned about higher rates.

Economists expect the Bank of Canada to raise interest rates by between half a percentage point and a full point over several months beginning this summer to fight inflationary pressures in the economy.

With many Canadians taking on larger and larger mortgage debt in expensive markets across the country, higher rates could create financial problems for some homeowners.

In the Royal Bank survey, three-quarters, or 73 per cent of homeowners, feel strongly that homebuyers need to think ahead to ensure they will still be able to make their mortgage payment if rates rise.

The bank says six-in-10 mortgage holders say they have taken advantage of current low interest rates to pay more principal on their loans.

Eighteen per cent of homeowners say they've made a lump sum payment on their mortgage and 16 per cent have doubled their payment to reduce their principal.

While 84 per cent of mortgage holders believe they are doing an excellent or good job of paying down their mortgage, 49 per cent say their mortgage is larger than they thought it would be at this stage in their life.

Marcia Moffat, RBC's head of home equity financing, says the best advice for homeowners is to review their mortgage holdings with a financial adviser to position themselves for any changes.
BMO's senior economist Sal Guatieri added that a cooler housing market is "just around the corner."

Underwater, but Will They Leave the Pool? NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/business/economy/24view.html

Economic View
Underwater, but Will They Leave the Pool?
By RICHARD H. THALER
Published: January 24, 2010
Even if they owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth, many people feel obligated to repay their loans. But what if those borrowers walked away?

The Confidence Game

con·fi·dence n.

• Trust or faith in a person or thing.
• A trusting relationship: I took them into my confidence.
• That which is confided; a secret: A friend does not betray confidences.
• A feeling of assurance that a confidant will keep a secret: I am telling you this in strict confidence.
• A feeling of assurance, especially of self-assurance.
• The state or quality of being certain: I have every confidence in your ability to succeed.
• adj. Of, relating to, or involving a swindle or fraud: a confidence scheme; a confidence trickster

Consumer Confidence
Business Confidence
Builder Confidence

It all seems like all anyone really has these days is Confidence. We wouldn't want real profits or growth, or sustainable behaviours; would we?

Every day that goes by, I get more of the distinct impression that big chunks of the economy are part of a confidence game that resembles at best, blind faith and at worst, a giant swindle.

In relation to our local real estate market, to me, it resembles the giant swindle, with realtors and mortgage brokers taking advantage of the uninformed masses who place great 'faith' in the value of real estate ownership. They are blindly pursuing ownership at all costs with little or no thought to the immense risks they are taking on by putting themselves into massive amounts of debt. with little or no money down. We shouldn't come down too hard on the realtors and mortgage brokers though, since they are providing a service to willing consumers and they are just do their darndest to get that eager debtor the right amount of financing and the house they they just 'have to have'.

I actually put the blame squarely on the government and inappropriate rules that fail to guard the CMHC and hence taxpayers from massive losses in the future. After all, requiring a 10% downpayment is so 1999. Perhaps a speculator tax and extended ownership requirements for principle residence capital gains tax exemption (currently 12 months) would be appropriate rule changes too. After all, in countries with these sorts of rules, home ownership isn't a confidence game based on ever increasing home values and massive debt burdens but rather an appropriate personal and financial choice based on financial sustainability and lifestyle preferences.

Yes Virginia, There is a Housing Bubble

Condo lineups return

Yes Virginia, There is a Housing Bubble

Total madness. People lining up to buy a small box in the sky on a busy street next to a polluted waterway. Awesome!! Sign me up!

Reminder - the interest only payments on $500,000 are $1350 / month at today's 3.25% or nearly $2,200 / month at 5.25%.

A Letter From Warren Buffett

From the NY Times.

THE financial world is a mess, both in the United States and abroad. Its problems, moreover, have been leaking into the general economy, and the leaks are now turning into a gusher. In the near term, unemployment will rise, business activity will falter and headlines will continue to be scary.

So ... I’ve been buying American stocks. This is my personal account I’m talking about, in which I previously owned nothing but United States government bonds. (This description leaves aside my Berkshire Hathaway holdings, which are all committed to philanthropy.) If prices keep looking attractive, my non-Berkshire net worth will soon be 100 percent in United States equities.

Why?

A simple rule dictates my buying: Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful. And most certainly, fear is now widespread, gripping even seasoned investors. To be sure, investors are right to be wary of highly leveraged entities or businesses in weak competitive positions. But fears regarding the long-term prosperity of the nation’s many sound companies make no sense. These businesses will indeed suffer earnings hiccups, as they always have. But most major companies will be setting new profit records 5, 10 and 20 years from now.
Let me be clear on one point: I can’t predict the short-term movements of the stock market. I haven’t the faintest idea as to whether stocks will be higher or lower a month — or a year — from now. What is likely, however, is that the market will move higher, perhaps substantially so, well before either sentiment or the economy turns up. So if you wait for the robins, spring will be over.

A little history here: During the Depression, the Dow hit its low, 41, on July 8, 1932. Economic conditions, though, kept deteriorating until Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in March 1933. By that time, the market had already advanced 30 percent. Or think back to the early days of World War II, when things were going badly for the United States in Europe and the Pacific. The market hit bottom in April 1942, well before Allied fortunes turned. Again, in the early 1980s, the time to buy stocks was when inflation raged and the economy was in the tank. In short, bad news is an investor’s best friend. It lets you buy a slice of America’s future at a marked-down price.

Over the long term, the stock market news will be good. In the 20th century, the United States endured two world wars and other traumatic and expensive military conflicts; the Depression; a dozen or so recessions and financial panics; oil shocks; a flu epidemic; and the resignation of a disgraced president. Yet the Dow rose from 66 to 11,497.

You might think it would have been impossible for an investor to lose money during a century marked by such an extraordinary gain. But some investors did. The hapless ones bought stocks only when they felt comfort in doing so and then proceeded to sell when the headlines made them queasy.

Today people who hold cash equivalents feel comfortable. They shouldn’t. They have opted for a terrible long-term asset, one that pays virtually nothing and is certain to depreciate in value. Indeed, the policies that government will follow in its efforts to alleviate the current crisis will probably prove inflationary and therefore accelerate declines in the real value of cash accounts.
Equities will almost certainly outperform cash over the next decade, probably by a substantial degree. Those investors who cling now to cash are betting they can efficiently time their move away from it later. In waiting for the comfort of good news, they are ignoring Wayne Gretzky’s advice: “I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been.”

I don’t like to opine on the stock market, and again I emphasize that I have no idea what the market will do in the short term. Nevertheless, I’ll follow the lead of a restaurant that opened in an empty bank building and then advertised: “Put your mouth where your money was.” Today my money and my mouth both say equities.

Warren E. Buffett is the chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, a diversified holding company.

EVERYBODY PANIC!

The TSX was down over 10% this morning for whatever reason fancies the average investor. The Toronto market is down over 30% in the past 4 months and the S&P500 is down over 30% in the past 12 months. I'm sure some new doom is sure to envelope our country, shuttering our businesses and turning us all into stark raving mad lunatics.

Well maybe it isn't quite that bad and to this observer of human behaviour, it seems a little overdone now. I have recognized that timing the market bottom is an impossible feat but there are two things that are common about market bottoms:

1) Despair and hopelessness. Check.

2) Massive redemptions of mutual funds. Check. See story here.

The Undercover Economist

The Wisdom of Crowds?

A single economic forecast is usually wrong. But groups of economic forecasts are often just as mistaken. Why?

By Tim Harford
Posted Saturday, Aug. 9, 2008, at 6:44 AM ET

When people discover that I am an economist, they rarely ask me for my views on subjects that economists know a bit about—such as how to respond to climate change or pay less at a supermarket. Instead, they ask me what will happen to the economy.

Why is it that people won't take "I don't really know" for an answer? People often chuckle about the forecasting skills of economists, but after the snickers die down, they keep demanding more forecasts. Is there any reason to believe that economists can deliver?

One answer can be gleaned from previous forecasts. Back in 1995, economist and Financial Times columnist John Kay examined the record of 34 British forecasters from 1987 to 1994, and he concluded that they were birds of a feather. They tended to make similar forecasts, and then the economy disobligingly did something else, with economic growth usually falling outside the range of all 34 forecasters.

Perhaps forecasting technology has moved on since then, or the British economy is unusually unpredictable? To find out, I repeated John's exercise with forecasts for economic growth for the United Kingdom, United States, and Eurozone over the years 2002-08, diligently collected at the end of each previous year by Consensus Economics.

The results are an eerie echo of John Kay's: For 2004, for example, 20 out of 21 nongovernmental forecasts made in December 2003 were too pessimistic about economic growth in the United Kingdom. The Pollyannas of the U.K. treasury were more optimistic than almost any commercial forecaster and closer getting their forecast right. So, one might suspect that systematic pessimism is to blame.

But, no, in 2005, the economy grew more slowly than 19 out of 21 forecasters had expected at the end of the previous year. The Pollyannas of the U.K. treasury were yet again more optimistic than anyone and thus more wrong than anyone. A year later, all but one of the forecasters were too pessimistic again. Yet at the end of 2001, three-quarters of the forecasters were too optimistic about 2002.

2003 is an interesting anomaly: the one year for which the average U.K. forecast turned out to be close to reality but also the year where the spread between highest and lowest forecast was widest. The rare occasion that the forecasters couldn't agree happened to be the occasion on which they were (on average) right.

Recent U.S. forecasters have done a little better: The spread of forecasts is tighter, and the outcome sometimes falls within that spread. Still, five out of six were too pessimistic about 2003, almost everyone was too pessimistic about 2002, three-quarters were too optimistic about 2005, and nearly nine-tenths too optimistic about 2006. Perversely, the best quantitative end-of-year forecasts were made in December 2006, despite the fact that the credit crunch materialized eight months later to the surprise of almost everybody.

In the Eurozone, forecasting over the past few years has been so wayward that it is kindest to say no more.

The new data seem to confirm Kay's original finding that economic forecasters all tend to be wrong in the same way. Their incentives to flock together are obvious enough.

What is less clear is why the flight of the flock is so often thought to augur much—but then, some astrologers are also profitably employed.

The curious thing is that forecasters often have something useful to say, but it is rarely conveyed in the numerical forecast itself on which so much attention is lavished. For instance, in December 2006, forecasters were warning of the risks of an oil price spike, a sharp rise in the cost of credit, and a dollar crash. The quantitative forecasts are usually wrong and not terribly helpful when right, but forecasters do say things worth hearing, if only you can work out when to listen.Tim Harford is a columnist for the Financial Times. He is the author of The Undercover Economist, and his latest book is The Logic of Life.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2196827/

Shareholder Letter from Bill Miller

The following is a letter to shareholders of Legg Mason Value Trust: Second Quarter 2008

Dear Shareholder,

A group of us were standing around a few weeks ago when Warren Buffett wandered over. Chris Davis had dubbed us the Value Support Group, as we all adhered to that approach to investing. we were commiserating over how badly we had done in this market, how valuation appeared not to matter and had not for the past couple of years, how it was all about momentum and trend, and how we were all losing clients and assets over and above our losses in the market. It seemed like we needed a 12-step program to cure us of our addiction to buying beaten-up stocks trading at large discounts to our assessment of their intrinsic value.

Mason Hawkins said, "Warren, I'm an optimist. I think this whole thing can turn quickly, and surprise people. Are you an optimist?" "I'm a realist, Mason," the sage replied. Warren went on to say he was optimistic long term, and backed that up in a talk the next morning on the remarkable history of growth, innovation, and wealth creation the U.S. had produced over the past 200-plus years. He also offered a sober assessment of the current challenges we face, and said it would take some time to work through them.

He then made the perfectly sensible point that as we are all net savers, we should be happy if stock prices declined a lot more, so we could buy even better bargains. That is a point Charlie Ellis elaborated on in his fine book, Investment Policy, a few years back. As a matter of logic,
it is irrefragable. As a matter of psychology, I think most of us value investors think we have plenty enough bargains already, and may not be able to handle that many more. Or more accurately, our clients may not be able to. We are value investors because we are persuaded of the logic of buying shares of businesses when others want to sell them, and we understand that
lower prices today mean higher future rates of return, and high prices today mean lower future rates of return.

The best time to buy our funds or to open an account with us has always been when we've had dismal performance, and the worst time has always been after a long run of excess returns. Yet we (and everyone else) get the most inflows and the most interest AFTER we've done well, and the most redemptions and client terminations AFTER we've done poorly. It will always be so, because that is the way people behave.

John Rogers, the founder of Ariel Investments, came in to see us last week. John has been an outstanding investor for 25 years or so, but like almost all value types, is going through one of his toughest periods now. His assets are down, similar to the experience we've had. He said it was the most difficult market he'd seen, a judgment I would have given to the 1989-1990 market, up until the frenzy erupted over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which sent financials to what looks like a capitulation low on July 15th. I am now in John's camp. A point he made that I have likewise noted to our staff is that this is the only market I have seen where you could just read the headlines in the papers, react to them, and make an excess return. I have used the mantra to our analysts that if it's in the papers, it's in the price -- which used to be correct. Indeed, it borders on cliche in the business that by the time something makes the cover of the major news or business publications, you can make money by doing the opposite. There is solid academic research to back this up. But in the past two years, you didn't need to know anything except to sell what the headlines were negative about (anything related to real estate, the consumer, or finance) and buy anything that was going up and that everybody liked (energy, materials, industrials).

I am reminded of what John Maynard Keynes, himself a great investor, said once about investing, "It is the one sphere of life and activity where victory, security, and success is always to the minority and never to the majority. When you find anyone agreeing with you, change your mind. When I can persuade the Board of my Insurance Company to buy a share, that, I am learning from experience, is when I should sell it." It has been explained to me that it was obvious we should not have owned homebuilders, or retailers or banks, and that I should have known better than to invest in such things. It was also obvious that growth in China and India and other developing countries would drive oil and other commodities to record levels and that related equities were the thing to own. "Don't you even read the papers?" was a common comment.

While I am quite aware of our mistakes, both of commission and omission, when I ask what is obvious NOW, there is little consensus. If there is something obvious to do that will earn excess returns, then we certainly want to do it. Is it obvious financials should be bought now, having reached the most oversold levels since the 1987 Crash, and the lowest valuations since the last great buying opportunity in 1990 and 1991? Or is it obvious they should be avoided, since the credit problems are in the papers every day and write-offs and provisioning will likely continue into 2009?

Is it obvious energy stocks should be bought on this correction in oil prices from $147 to $123, a correction that has wiped 25 points off the prices of companies like XTO Energy and Chesapeake Energy in just a few weeks? Or is it obvious that oil had reached bubble levels at $147, and that buying the stocks here, down 30% from their highs, is akin to buying homebuilders down 30% from their highs in 2005? If you had bought Tesoro Petroleum or Valero Petroleum when their prices broke late last fall -- remember the Golden Age of Refining story that took Tesoro from under $4 to over $60? -- you would be looking at losses in this year greater than if you had bought Citibank or Merrill Lynch. I do think some things are obvious: it is obvious the credit crisis will end, and it is obvious the housing crisis will end, and that credit markets will function satisfactorily and house prices will stop going down and then start moving higher. It is obvious that the American consumer will spend sufficiently to keep the economy moving forward long term. It is obvious that the U.S. economy, already the most productive in the world, will get even more productive and will adapt and grow. It is obvious stock prices will be higher in the future than they are now.

Sir John Templeton died a few weeks ago, full of riches and honors, as he so deserved to be. The legendary value investor got his grubstake by famously buying shares of companies selling for $1 a share or less when war began in 1939. He didn't know then that the war in Europe would spread to engulf the world, nor how long it would last, nor how low prices would ultimately go. He always said he tried to buy at the point of maximum pessimism, but he never knew when that was. He was, though, a long-term optimist, as is Mr. Buffett, as am I.

Bill Miller
July 27, 2008

How to Control Your Fears In a Fearsome Market

WallStreet Journal
How to Control Your Fears In a Fearsome Market
Saturday July 19, 1:05 am ET
By Jason Zweig

What goes on inside your head when your portfolio implodes?

One of the fear centers in your brain, the amygdala, can respond to upsetting stimuli in 12 milliseconds, or one-25th the time it takes to blink your eye. These brain cells fire when an attack dog snarls at you, a spider drops down your shirt or the Dow Jones Industrial Average takes a dive.

Merely reading the words "market crash" in this sentence can instantaneously jack up your pulse and your blood pressure, the output of your sweat glands and the tension in your muscles. Stress hormones will flood your bloodstream. Your eyes will widen and your nostrils flare, making you hypersensitive to any further danger. All this occurs automatically, involuntarily and unconsciously. You can't be an intelligent investor if, without even knowing it, you are thinking with the panic button in your brain.

The countless people who bailed out of the market in the horrifying plunge of October 2002 missed out on the generous returns of 2003 through 2007, when stocks returned 12.8% annually. The same is likely to be true of those who cut and run in today's turbulent market.

Fortunately, you can train your brain to stay calm when the markets are gripped by panic. Last week, I spent an afternoon in Kevin Ochsner's neuroscience lab at Columbia University in New York, practicing what he calls "cognitive reappraisal."

I sat at a computer and viewed a series of photographs, each preceded by one of two words: look or reappraise. look was my cue to respond naturally without trying to change my feelings. reappraise told me I should "actively reinterpret" the photo, using my imagination to spin another, less emotional scenario that could have resulted in the same image.

Dr. Ochsner had warned me to eat an early, light lunch, and I immediately realized why: I gasped at the sight of a man's hand from which most of the fingers had been freshly hacked off. But my instruction had been to reappraise, so I forced myself to ask whether this image might actually be a still from a horror movie. Magically, the moment I imagined it was a film prop, the raw flesh seemed to look a bit like plastic, and I felt myself exhale.

If I can think away blood, you can calmly face the red arrows on a market Web site. "Emotions are malleable," Dr. Ochsner said, "but people often don't realize how much [of what you feel] is under your own control."

Here are some ways you can control your fears.

Reappraise. Forget what you paid for that stock or fund; instead, imagine it was a gift. Now that it is priced, say, 20% more cheaply than in December, should you want to return the gift? Or should you buy more while it is on sale? (If rethinking a fallen price this way doesn't make you feel better, maybe you should sell.)

Step outside yourself. Imagine that someone else has suffered these losses. Think of questions you might ask to give that person advice: Other than the price, what else has changed? Is your original rationale for this investment still valid?

Control your cues. Even witnessing someone else's pain, or glancing into another person's frightened eyes, can fire up your amygdala. Because fear is as contagious as the flu, quarantine yourself from anyone who obsesses over the momentary twitching of the Dow. Tear yourself away from the computer or television; better yet, while the market is closed, make an advance date with friends or family to get your mind off stocks during market hours.

Track your feelings. Fill in the blanks in this sentence: "Today the Dow closed down [or up] ___ points, and that made me feel __________." Your emotions shouldn't be hostage to the actions of the roughly 100 million other people who compose the collective beast that Benjamin Graham called "Mr. Market." You need not be miserable just because Mr. Market is.

Finally, if the market is open, your portfolio should be closed. Sleep on any sell decision until the next day, when your fears may have faded. Intelligent investors act out of patience and courage, not panic.

Hindsight bias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hindsight bias is the inclination to see events that have occurred as more predictable than they in fact were before they took place. Hindsight bias has been demonstrated experimentally in a variety of settings, including politics, games and medicine. In psychological experiments of hindsight bias, subjects also tend to remember their predictions of future events as having been stronger than they actually were, in those cases where those predictions turn out correct.

Prophecy that is recorded after the fact is an example of hindsight bias, given its own rubric, as vaticinium ex eventu.

One explanation of the bias is the availability heuristic: the event that did occur is more salient in one's mind than the possible outcomes that did not.

It has been shown that examining possible alternatives may reduce the effects of this bias.

Classic studies

Paul Lazarsfeld (1949): Lazarsfeld gave participants interpretive statements that seemed like common sense immediately after they were read, but in reality the opposite was true.
Karl Teigen (1986): Teigen gave participants proverbs to evaluate. When participants were given the proverb "Fear is stronger than love", most students would rate it as true; when given its opposite ("Love is stronger than fear"), most would also rate that as true.

Phrases

The following common phrases are expressions or terms for hindsight bias:
- "I told you so!"
- "With the wisdom of hindsight."
- Retrospective foresight
- 20/20 Hindsight
- Monday morning quarterback

How Thinking Costs You

Behavioral Economics Shows That When It Comes to Investing, People Aren't That Smart
By Michael S. Rosenwald, Washington Post Staff Writer, Sunday, May 25, 2008

Four months ago, judging myself to be the next Warren Buffett, I logged on to my Charles Schwab account and did something that in hindsight was astonishingly stupid, even for my own very long roster of financial screw-ups. I clicked over to the trading page and bought shares of Citigroup.

The company, like most of the big Wall Street banks then staring down the subprime meltdown, was limping along. The headlines were bad. The chatter on CNBC was pessimistic. I saw a bargain. I saw a company whose credit card bills and offers show up in millions of mailboxes every day. Just as soon as the banks got their write-offs out of the way, optimism would return to the sector. There would be more buyers of the stock than sellers. I would profit.

Now here I am today: My investment is down 22 percent. And I'm still holding on to the stock. Am I, as my wife and closest friends sometimes insist, the dumbest man walking the Earth?
"You are human," said Russell Fuller, chief investment officer of Fuller & Thaler Asset Management in San Mateo, Calif. His firm uses behavioral economic theories of Nobel Prize winners and university economists to profit from the mistakes made by everyday investors and the pros on Wall Street. Humans, no matter how hard we try, act in ways that cause us to make the wrong investment decisions almost all the time.

We are -- as I was four months ago when I logged on to my Schwab account -- absurdly overconfident about what we think we know. We are -- as I am now -- reluctant to part with our losers, even though the tax code rewards us for doing so. We sell winners too soon, then we buy stocks that perform worse than the ones we sold. We get anchored on certain opinions about stocks and react too slowly to information that should change those beliefs. We believe things will happen based on how easily we can think of recent examples. (A hurricane just hit. Another one will come soon.)

The world of the behavioral economics, which melds psychology, finance and emotion, seeks to explain and sometimes exploit why we do what we do when it comes to investing. It is a field that has become more accepted lately, particularly since 2002, when Princeton University psychologist Daniel Kahneman was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for, as the Swedes put it, integrating "insights from psychology into economics, thereby laying the foundation for a new field of research."

Kahneman is a director at Fuller & Thaler, a firm whose other namesake is Richard Thaler, a prominent University of Chicago behavioral economist and a frequent collaborator with Kahneman. Two of the funds the firm manages that use behavioral methods have beaten Russell benchmarks from their inception through the first quarter of this year. Not surprisingly, Fuller & Thaler is not the only firm using such techniques. Firms ranging from J.P. Morgan to AllianceBernstein say they seek to capitalize on the faulty investor mind.

For instance, Fuller & Thaler likes to pay close attention to analysts who may be anchored on a stock, not raising their earnings-per-share estimates enough even though positive information has come out about the company. Fuller & Thaler's investment team pounces before the analysts realize they were wrong. As Kahneman said in an interview, "I think that betting on mistakes of people is a pretty safe bet."

Good for them. My interest in talking to the likes of Kahneman, Thaler and other behavioral economists and personal finance advisers -- besides confirming that I am not dumb -- was to understand these mistakes and what there is to do about them. "I don't think you can fix what's in your head," Thaler said. "What you can do is train yourself to say, 'This is a risky situation, and this is the kind of situation where I get fooled.' "

I asked Kahneman what fools us most frequently. That was simple, he said: overconfidence. "It's the idea that you know better than the market, which is a very strange idea," he said. "Individual investors have no business at all thinking they can do better."

Why do we? "It's because we have no way of thinking properly about what we don't know," Kahneman said. "What we do is we give weight to what we know and then we add a margin of uncertainty. You act on what you think will happen." That's what I did by buying Citigroup. But Kahneman added, "In fact, in most situations what you don't know is so overwhelmingly more important than what you do know that you have no business acting on what you know." Oops.
Barbara Warner, a financial planner with Warner Financial in Bethesda, said she sees a lot of overconfidence among two groups of people: relatively new investors to the market (me), particularly recent business school graduates (not me), and retirees (never, with my investment sense). The latter group can be exceptionally frustrating. "Now they have entirely too much time on their hands to devote to CNBC and Money magazine," she said. "People suddenly think they are smarter than they used to be because they have more time to pay attention to it."

That's a disastrous situation, Kahneman said: "The more closely you pay attention, the more you do things. And the more you do things, the worse off you will be." For proof, he pointed to groundbreaking research done by one of his former students, Terrance Odean, now a professor at the University of California at Berkeley. Odean has written that "overconfidence gives investors the courage of their misguided convictions."

He has gathered trading records from discount brokerage houses for hundreds of thousands of investors, and in several published studies, he has shown that when people had a choice of two stocks to sell, more often than not they sold the stock that did better in the future and held on to the one that did worse. And when they bought something new, they tended to buy a stock that did worse than the stock they just sold. As Kahneman once told Odean, "It is expensive for these people to have ideas."

It is particularly curious when investors hold on to losing stocks, as I have done with Citigroup. This is a function of something called loss aversion, a discovery that helped Kahneman win the Nobel Prize. Thaler, Kahneman's close colleague, put it this way: "Loss aversion refers to the fact that we're wired in such a way that losing money hurts more than getting money feels good." So let's say a hundred bucks falls out of my wallet, lost forever. Under loss aversion, this hurts a lot more than it feels good to find $100 that somebody else lost.

When it comes to trading, this helps explain why we would want to hold on to losers. Selling the loser, even though it gives us a tax write-off, causes us to admit we have lost. So we do something that makes us feel better: We sell the winners. This feeds our overconfidence. But as Odean's research has shown, we often sell winners that still have some winning to do. That puts stocks with upward momentum on the market for less than they are really worth long-term, allowing savvier investors to snap them up.

"What I believe is that individual investors probably as a group create the dynamics by which they lose money and institutions make money," Odean said. "They create mispricings."
Along with several co-authors , he has published a somewhat depressing study about just how much wealth can be lost by everyday investors just because they trade. Looking at data from every trade made by all investors in Taiwan from 1995 to 1999, Odean discovered that the "aggregate portfolio of individual investors suffers an annual performance penalty of 3.8 percentage points," which includes trading costs. If investors had simply bought the index and not traded at all, they would have done about 3.5 percent better. The amount of money lost was equivalent to 2.2 percent of Taiwan's gross domestic product.

So what should mere humans do about all of this?

Like most things human, it depends on which one you ask. Odean said he saw two options: Be dumb and let others make money off you, or just buy a no-load index mutual fund and stop focusing on beating the market. Kahneman said there was no one-size-fits-all advice, but he liked the idea of having one sure thing and one long shot. The personal finance planners say investors should stick with them -- they get paid to understand this stuff, and to win. Of course, they are humans too, which means they could be prone to the same problematic behaviors.

As for me, I'm taking some responsibility for myself, which is probably where everyone should start. Earlier this week, I logged in to my Schwab account. I sold my Citigroup shares, at a loss. I'm going to push the money into an index fund. The move felt bad, no doubt about it. I didn't fix what was in my head, but I did fix what my head had done.

300th Post and I'm at Housing Bubble Ground Zero

Happy 300 posts and nearly 300,000 visitors!

I sat back today and assessed how my personal housing situation has changed in the past few years. My wife and I bought a condo in 2004 for a reasonable price that made our mortgage payments plus strata and property taxes less than the cost of renting. We were happy with our purchase and paid down our mortgage quickly, starting with a 15 year amortization and making double payments until we sold the unit last August for nearly double what we paid.

Needless to say we were happy with the profits and would have gladly purchased a reasonable townhouse to accomodate our growing family but no such suitable unit was found after a fairly extensive search.

We are now renting a larger condo in a brand new smaller building and we enjoy our location close to work and amenities. Our cost of renting this unit is half the cost of purchasing on a monthly basis and we are socking away our savings for an even larger down payment once we find a suitable home at a reasonable price. This extra monthly savings combined with the earnings from our extracted home equity is very substantial by any account and make these renters quite satisfied with our lowly renting status!

Now I find myself at Vancouver Housing Bubble Ground Zero

The building we live in has 32 units and currently 20 of these units are listed on the MLS website. Yes, that is right, no typo - 2/3rds of the units in our building, including the one we rent are for sale at this very moment. My landlord was hoping for quick profits by flipping this condo and realizing no quick sale he franticly sought a renter to help cover his costs while trying to sell the unit. His asking rent was ridiculous but was easily bid down by 25% with some fairly convincing arguments and some stiff competition.

The parking garage is empty and we have watched the poor realtors hold open houses all spring long with no traffic and no bids. Reluctantly the sellers lower their prices by $2000 and $4000 at a time but still no takers. Nobody realizes the game is over yet and there are a declining supply of greater fools to buy mediocre houses at inflated prices.

I am happy with my spectator status. It is going to get real interesting so grab some popcorn and a cold pop!

Work Hard, Buy Good Stocks, Lose Money Anyway

By: Mike Goodson, CFA

"Dread of disaster makes everybody act in the very way that increases the disaster. Psychologically the situation is analogous to that of people trampled to death when there is a panic in a theatre caused by a cry of 'Fire!'" -- Bertrand Russell

One the greatest assets I have acquired during my years on Wall Street is perspective. We all say that we understand the concept of risk; that equities provide better returns than other assets on average, over time precisely because they contain higher risk, and yet on days like today, we tend to wring our hands and wonder what in the world is wrong with the world. Welcome to Riskville, baby.

I have worked hard nearly every day this year searching for those good companies trading at what I thought were attractive valuations. As of today, my fund is roughly flat for the year. In other words, I have made no money for myself despite nearly 7 months of work. So how do I feel about this? Well, I must admit that I dislike losing money about as much as anyone I know. And yet, I think I can put today's trading action in perspective.

During my career I have seen many crashes, breaks and panics. In every single case, the market eventually recovered and went on to new highs. I suspect that this will happen again. The talking heads will be debating for days the implications of today's market development. They will talk (in breathless tones, no doubt) about the causes and reasons for the big move down and will roll out the "experts" who, by the way, were telling us to be cautious about the markets. You don't remember those guys? Funny thing, eh? What am I going to do?

Some of the stocks that I liked but felt were a bit expensive look a lot more attractive to me today. I will likely shift some of my funds into some of these names. I am unlikely to make any actions that would be considered reactive to today's movements. I do not feel compelled to make my portofolio more or less defensive. I do not think that the fundamentals for companies like Kraft or Amgen have measurably changed in the last 24 hours.

So, my bottom line for today remains the same as nearly everyday --find good stocks trading below fair value, buy them and sell them when they become more fully valued. Boring I know, but that's how I roll...

Greater Fool Theory

From Investopedia.com

A theory that states it is possible to make money by buying securities, whether overvalued or not, and later selling them at a profit because there will always be someone (a bigger or greater fool) who is willing to pay the higher price.

When acting in accordance with the greater fool theory, an investor buys questionable securities without any regard to their quality, but with the hope of quickly selling them off to another investor (the greater fool), who might also be hoping to flip it quickly. Unfortunately, speculative bubbles always burst eventually, leading to a rapid depreciation in share price due to the selloff.

From Wikipedia:

The bigger fool theory or greater fool theory (also called Survivor Investing) is the belief held by one who makes a questionable investment, with the assumption that they will be able to sell it later to "a bigger fool"; in other words, buying something not because you believe that it is worth the price, but rather because you believe that you will be able to sell it to some one else for an even higher price.

It might be on some occasions a valid method of making money in the stock market -- however, the market participants eventually realize that the price level is too outrageous and the speculative bubble pops. The bigger fool theory relies on market optimism concerning a particular stock, an industry, or the market as a whole.

The opposite of the bigger fool theory is value investing, which tries to discount market psychology. Value investors such as Warren Buffett believe that it is corporate profits which are the normal returns from stock investments, and any higher return is only possible due to the bigger fool theory.

The bigger fool theory holds for any pure value transaction, not just speculative ones. When a commodity with a universal value is traded then, no matter how the situation is interpreted, either the seller or the buyer has made a mistake.

However, the majority of transactions are not pure value transactions: the value (or utility) that a given product has is dependent on a wide variety of factors, which will often be very different between the buyer and the seller.

For instance, in a bartering economy, there might be a tomato farmer living next to a cherry farmer. The tomato farmer has a large supply of tomatoes, and very little demand, so for him tomatoes have very little value; but he has a small supply of cherries and a higher demand, so for him they are much more valuable. The situation is reversed for the cherry farmer, so a trade of tomatoes for cherries would be a profitable transaction for both parties.

Who took the 'fun' out of fungible?

fungible
"Of or relating to assets that are identical in quality and are interchangeable. Commodities, options, and securities are fungible assets. For example, an investor's shares of Xerox left in custody at a brokerage firm are freely mixed with other customers' Xerox shares. Likewise, stock options are freely interchangeable among investors, and wheat stored in a grain elevator is not specifically identified as to its ownership."


Related stories:
Bank of Canada Provides Liquidity
Banks and Pension Funds Band together to provide liquidity to ABCP market


Notably, the TSX is down over 4.5% so far today in what I would term panic selling at this point in one of the most volatile days that I can remember. From the year's highs in July, the TSX is down approximately 14%. For comparison purposes, the Canadian Value Index is down approximately 11%.

The Cycle of Market Emotions

I have seen a variety of renditions of this chart popping up and I thought I would post it here for interest sake. I think this piece has value in two respects:

1) It educates us that our emotions play a role in how we evaluate investments.
2) It educates us that most people's emotions go through a variety of phases regarding their investments.



What do you think? Can you relate? Have you had an investment experience that caused you to feel these emotions?

Debt Slave or Financially Free

The Breakup

This goes out to all the financial planners, banks, and insurance companies out there who don't get that "IT'S ABOUT THE CONVERSATION."

Personal Budgeting

As a financial planner I meet many different types of people, single, married, with children or without, seniors, and anyone else you can think of. Everyone has a different personal budget it seems whether its a conscious choice about how much they spend money in different categories or a 'fly by the seat of the pants' approach which is also a budget of sorts - its just really short term budgeting!

As a general rule, when I find people are in financial trouble, it is likely I will find overspending in some categories and a general lack of savings to help smooth out life's bumps and irregularities. This can be a habitual problem with many people - they spend too much and don't save enough. Many times I recommend that these people start a more rigorous budgeting procedure and a more disciplined approach to spending and consumption.

I was curious as to the average Canadian's budget so I dug up some StatsCan data and put it into a chart. The numbers are for 2005 - click to enlarge.


Generally speaking, Canadians don't save enough and they pay a lot in taxes.

And for interest sake here is my personal family budget.


I know the categories aren't the same but it is interesting to compare. I would roughly fall into the "Couple with Children" category. I spend significantly less on taxes, food, and transportation than average. I also invest and donate far more than average and I pay more on my mortgage than average. This is likely because 1) I live in the most expensive real estate market in the country and 2) I have a very short amortization period. Other differences are that I don't gamble or smoke and I don't have any education expenses.