Tag Archives: #Robust

How to?

Posted on by
Reply

How does one…

…position oneself…

…for what’s coming?

What’s coming?

Yeah.

Meaning the turbulence ahead?

What else. First up, we’re taking turbulence to be the norm, from this point onwards.

All right. Turbulence = norm. Baseline set.

Then, how do we maximally exploit our understanding, …

…simultaneously creating income…

…but then also allowing wealth to accumulate and compound?

Yeah, how do we?

You tell me.

We need to start with an asset class.

Right.

Which asset class?

Again, you tell me.

What we’re comfortable with.

Yes. Beautiful. And then we weaponize the asset class chosen, the one we’re comfortable with.

Weaponize?

Yeah. Otherwise it will be no good for these times. We need to make it time-befitting.

Example?

Let’s say you choose gold, ok? What good are your efforts in gold if after a point governments nationalize it and then confiscate it, paying you a reasonable price at that moment, and then, from that point onwards, in the hands of enough governments, gold turns a 100-bagger, for them, not for you?

Yeah, what good are my efforts in gold then?

No good. You need to trade gold, use some profits as income, and another portion of profits you invest in other asset classes, bought cheap, which the government has issues regulating harshly.

Like? Crypto?

Some think so. That’s their weapon of choice. Personally, I have problems with storing my entire networth on a pen-drive. That alone takes crypto off the table for me.

So where do you go?

Stocks. They come naturally to me.

Stocks can be harshly regulated.

In isolation, if we’re looking at stocks-stocks, yes, I’ll give you that. In a solid framework encapsulated within an income-generation cum wealth-creation mechanism operating with fundamental, evergreen principles like margin of safety, letting profits run, position-sizing and what have you, even stocks can be made to behave like the anti-fragile system they are a part of.

Would that not be valid for any asset classes, then?

Yes, provided the government can’t seize that asset class overnight from you.

Like cash?

True.

Gold?

True.

Silver?

Yeah.

Bonds?

Not sure. Risk of default though.

Real-estate?

Prices of real-estate follow demand and supply, and demand is reciprocally proportional to negative regulation. Governments can crash real-estate. So, yes.

Crypto?

I’m not so sure that crypto is beyond regulation. However, exchanges collapsing regularly are not my scene.

Stocks?

Have we heard of governments seizing stocks? As long as no illegal activity, all debts paid off, clear ownership and succession, I don’t think the government can do that. So stocks of companies, for me, remain in the fray. On top of that, we encapsulate them into a system. The system has an edge. It’s multi-faceted. It generates income, approximately when required, in cash. Otherwise, it creates wealth through compounding. Throw in 20 -30 models like margin of safety, letting most profits run, position-sizing, fine-tuned Fibonacci, income dynamos, etc. etc., and what we’re looking at is a unique entity, which behaves differently when compared to fragile stocks, or even to robust stocks.

So what you’re trying to say is that it all depends how you handle each asset class is what makes that asset class either fragile, robust or anti-fragile.

Exactly.

Is that your word?

Which word?

Anti-fragile.

No. It belongs to Mr. Taleb. In whatever way a word or a concept can belong to a person…

Like governments can crash real-estate, they can also crash stocks. What do you say to that?

Oh, that’s an anti-fragile part of this system, which leaves the user liquid enough to benefit greatly from such crash, seen from a 15 month perspective. User of such system is positioned to take huge advantage of temporary and large price dips. Stocks have a very low ticket size as compared to real-estate, and can be readily swooped up in a crash in bulk, unlike real-estate, which is heavy and is a huge liquidity-enemy.

Where do you stand with your system, personally?

As a whole, I’m working towards making my system with stocks, income-generation and wealth-compounding as antifragile as I possibly can.

What’s the critical mass, above which the system can be considered safe for the new world order?

I’m not sure. It’s all experimental.

So how will you know?

If I make the transition to the new world order whilst preserving a large portion of my portfolio, I’ll know that I’ve succeeded.

Any other method apart from the make or break one suggested by you?

No. Everything else is theory. Surviving reasonably well and then thriving is the only practical method that counts for me.

Thanks.

🙂

Sniffing Out Shareholder-Friendliness

Posted on by
Reply

Shareholder-friendly managements…

…are the need of the hour.

What are the signs that we need to look out for, to know that a management is benevolent towards its co-owner?

Frugality in lifestyle and attitude is worth looking at.

What I’m trying to say is…

…that one hates to see a promoter living it up on company funds, at the cost of the company’s health.

Living it up is ok. Have the balance-sheet to justify it – first – please.

Are you debt-free? Quasi debt-free will do too.

Does your company ooze free cash-flow?

Are your employees well-paid and automatons for growth?

NPM double-digit?

RoE in the 20s?

Fine.

Live it up for all I care.

Take a high salary. Throw in a hefty commission.

God bless you.

I still want to co-own your company.

Any or most of these metrics not present & living it up on company money – well, nice knowing you, but no thanks.

We’re then looking for shareholder give-aways, you know,…

…dividends, bonuses, buybacks and stuff.

Again, the balance-sheet should show enough robustness to justify a giveaway.

If it doesn’t, it means that the management is trying to appease shareholders at the cost of the balance-sheet, and that’s an avoid in my book.

Look for simplicity in the annual report.

If one is getting lost in fancy words and hi-fi design, without being given the nitty-gritty at a glance, one is probably knocking on the wrong door.

Free cash-flow is a good thing. It allows for leverage to act upon opportunity and without incurring debt, among other things.

Look at deployment of net cash-flow generated from operating activities also. Deployment should be healthy. Shows growth.

Instead of looking for fad-stuff like synergy, let’s look to see if promoter action adds to the balance-sheet and makes it stronger.

These are just examples.

Sniff out shareholder-friendliness.

Put your own metrics together, to do so.

Making Equity Antifragile

Posted on by
Reply

Yeps, Taleb’s the famous one. 

Moi, je ne suis pas célèbre.

Néanmoins, j’aime le terme “antifragile” de Taleb.

Also, Taleb has termed equity as robust.

I do equity. 

I’d like my interaction and future with equity to be antifragile.

Let’s first look at Taleb’s definition for antifragile.

He says that anything that has more upside than downside from random events (or certain shocks), is antifragile; the reverse is fragile.

Robust equity will eventually crack when subjected to shock.

We are aware of that.

What do we do now?

Firstly, we take time, and put it in infinity mode. Meaning, that we stay invested, for a long, long, long time. 

We’re now allowing equity amply sufficient time to recover from not one shock, but many shocks.

Also, each time there is a shock, and equity tanks, we go in and buy some more.

How can we do this?

We are sufficiently liquid, all the time. 

Our small entry quantum approach is ensuring that. 

Also, we’ve chosen such equity first-up that is minimally susceptible to cracking. That’s the best we can do. 

We have either avoided debt altogether or chosen debt-levels that are adding value to the stock and can be easily taken care of in the short-term. 

We have chosen equity with decent quick and current ratios. 

We have chosen adaptable managements that function as optimal human capital, fighting inflation, showering shareholder-friendliness and adding value at all times. 

However, crack they do, eventually, and we keep picking up more. 

Since we’ve kept ourselves “infinitely” liquid as per our small entry quantum approach, we are then also “infinitely”poised to benefit from the cracks. 

As we keep getting more and more opportunities to buy with meaningful margins of safety, markets show us more upside than downside. 

Thus, antifragility comes to us as a function of falling price, given that the underlying has sound fundamentals, low to nil debt and benevolent, versatile and diligent management. 

Now, let the shocks come. 

In fact, let 20 shocks come. 

We want shocks to come…

…so that we can continue to buy at rock-bottom prices, which work in an antifragile manner for us, because of the characteristics of the equity and management we have chosen. 

Profiting from shocks?

More upside than downside? Owing to the effects of a shock?

What kind of behaviour is that?

That’s antifragile behaviour.

Handling a Long-Long Trading Portfolio During a Market Correction

Posted on by
Reply

You’re probably laughing at the use of the term “long-long”!

Hahahahaha, I laugh with you, 🙂 !

In India, we like to get our point across without caring too much for terminology, and / or how funny it may sound. 

What I mean is, and you’ve obviously gotten the drift, that the average trader is normally long in a trading portfolio.

Now, how is the trader to deal with his or her trading portfolio and its dwindling valuation during a long-drawn out market correction?

Sure, there are many options. 

One is to hold and sit it out. 

No good. 

This is not investing. This is trading. Trading means that once a stop is hit, you’re out. Period. 

Second option – bludgeon it. Cut the entire portfolio. 

Hmmmm, that’s not trading. 

Many stocks will not have their stops hit yet. Why are you cutting these? This would mean losing your position. What if the reversal starts right now? You did the right research, you entered, and now you’ve lost your position. 

Not good. 

We’re not bludgeoning it all. 

Of course we are continuing to cut those stocks whose stops are hit. 

No question about that. 

Now comes a kind of a “pointe”. 

You’ve hit a stop during the correction. You’ve gotten out of this stock, as per your trading rules. Look for another stock with a northwards chart that is not getting so affected by the correction, but has fallen a tad so as to allow margin of safety during trading entry. 

You’ve done three things here. 

You’ve entered a robust stock. 

Simultaneously, you’ve benefited from a slight price advantage. 

Thirdly, your trading portfolio is still going. Its contents are getting robust. Come the rally, and the robust contents are going to zoom. 

You’re trading on surplus. You’re not afraid to lose till your stop. You’re not afraid to reenter. So why cut it all? 

There’s no telling about turnarounds. 

However, when they happen, you are positioned. 

Optimal positioning while trading leads to big profits.

What’s the worst case scenario?

Stop after stop being hit, and eventually you being out of the whole portfolio?

Remember, the other side of the coin promises big profits, were the turnaround to happen now, with your portfolio full of robust stocks.

Are you willing to make the trade-off?

No?

Well, then don’t trade an entire portfolio. You’re better off trading one underlying, like an index derivative. Cut it when you like, no questions asked. 

Yes?

Well, then, what’re you waiting for? Make the trade-off. Go for it!

🙂