.png)
Imagine every adult has 10% of their savings invested in “the global stock market”, and that each of them also invests 2% of their income in the stock market. The entire market consists of 10 stocks, and there is a known upside and downside for each stock. It is a binary setup, and each stock is either going to move to its upside price or its downside price. Importantly, and fortunately, there is a known probability of upside and downside for each of them. In other words, we know expected returns (for both the portfolio, and the market).
Imagine these four scenarios, in progression:
- For firm-specific, truly idiosyncratic reasons, the known upside and downside and probabilities for just one security change for the worse, in other words, expected returns for that single name deteriorate.
Easy question: What happens to that stock?
Less easy question: What happens to the other nine names in the stock market?
- Then, for macroeconomic reasons, the known upside and downside and probabilities for all securities worsen, and they each change in exactly the same proportions. In other words, expected returns for all ten names deteriorate equally.
Easy question: What happens to the stock market?
- Subsequently, every citizen decides to stop investing more in the stock market. The 2% of income goes to 0%.
Easy question: Do expected returns change?
Less easy question: What happens to the stock market?
- Thereafter, every citizen decides to “raise cash” and reduce his or her investment savings from 10% to 5%.
Easy question: Do expected returns change?
Less easy question: What happens to the stock market then?
Hard question: Where is the “cash” to buy the securities coming from if everyone is simultaneously cutting exposure?
Then imagine there is every other citizen, and then there is you. You are independent. You’re a free-thinker. You don’t have to follow-suit, but you can if you want to. So when the other global citizens decide to stop investing more, or when the others decide to simultaneously raise cash, how will you behave? How should you behave?
Then imagine that the upsides and downsides actually aren’t known, and that the probabilities of each aren’t either. Do you know how to play this game?.
FOOTNOTES
DISCLAIMER
The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the post’s author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Albert Bridge Capital, or its affiliates. This post has been provided solely for information purposes and does not constitute an offer or solicitation of an offer or any advice or recommendation to purchase any securities or other financial instruments and may not be construed as such. The author makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information in this post or found by following any link in this post.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
If Growth Stocks Sell Off Will They Bring Value Stocks Down with Them?
Growth stocks crushed just about everything from 2017 through 2021. Not that they necessarily will, but if they do give back some or all of their gains, given their weightings, times will be tough for broader indices. But what about the value names within them, will they sell off in sympathy as well? Of course no one knows, including ourselves, but we take a quick look at behavior of value names as the tech bubble sold off from 2000 through 2002. This example may be worth some consideration.
Read MoreDo Short Term Flows Permanently Affect Share Prices?
I’d like to think that prices can get out of whack for some period of time, and in that window, the nimble, unbiased, fundamental stock picker can take advantage of overreactions and underreactions. If they don't, then the M&M propositions truly hold, and I don’t have a meaningful job. However, if this paper is right, and it is only flows that matter, then while the M&M theorems are overturned, I don't have a meaningful job either. If it is all about flows, then I shouldn't play the game.
Read More
