This is a history, global conflict and grand strategy podcast series that changed the way I see the world (hyperbolic but stick with me).
There is a 10 min taster here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEahPLq1qBU
And a link to the full playlist here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLd7-bHaQwnthnOed1a85mF7L-Ki3kdiqp
-For anyone not interested in global politics and history, Dwarkesh’s podcast is also a great shout for learning about the cutting edge of AI.
Whilst I’m no macro investor, in the vein of Charlie Munger’s mental models and having a simple but working understanding the big ideas across big disciplines; this was my internet post grad in global affairs and grand strategy. It’s helped me think about and somewhat rationalise all the bad stuff going down in the world, and take a more pragmatic view, as opposed to the catastrophic and helpless world view I’d latched onto prior.
I’ve restrained myself from sharing it on the forum as it’s only tangentially upstream of being a finance/investing topic. With recent global events (Ukraine/Iran/South China Sea) it feels more relevant lately though as it provides a framework for thinking about the macro, specifically ongoing conflicts and global politics, which is looking likely to be an ongoing contributor to global prosperity and therefore share-holder returns.
It’s Sarah Paine unpacking the big ideas she’s come across or invented over her career as a historian, lifelong learner and deep thinker, most recently as the Professor of History and Grand Strategy at the U.S Naval War College. She studied the interplay between Russia, China and Japan from the early 1900’s up until WW2, as well as their neighboring countries concentrating on explaining key decisions and grand strategy. She's the clearest voice I've heard on "why Putin might do x" or "why would China and Xi Jinping care so much about Taiwan" or why putting U.S boots on the ground and pushing for regime change in Iran takes the U.S from having "limited goals" to "unlimited goals" and puts them in a whole different ball game from a grand strategy point of view
The pitfalls of playing “half-court tennis” are particularly interesting. That is, teaching history, developing strategy and perusing a plan having only thought deeply about your side of an issue. Having an understanding of the last 100 years from the points of view of countries like China, Japan, India and Russia are fascinating and enlightening, as we’re usually exclusively focused on the Aus/UK/US side of the tennis court.
Dwarkesh interviews Sarah at the conclusion of each lecture and is a Silicon Valley Tech Bro type (seemingly in a really good way), a voracious reader and podcaster on all things AI, science and history.
Anyway, it’s the most impactful thing I’ve come across in recent years (maybe 2nd only to a little Aussie bi-weekly investing podcast) and is becoming increasingly relevant to both the general state of things and to portfolio returns.
Aaaand it's closed again:
However in good news, Japan has finally answered Trump's call for aid in the Strait:
This blows my mind.
https://x.com/i/status/2042678993229324777
Almost half of the US$1.1 trillion borrowed by the US government in the last 6 months was to pay the interest on its debt.
It's a can the has been kicked a long way down the road, and maybe it can be kicked a lot further still. But I just cant imagine lending the US government money for a nominal ~4.3%.
Seems I'm not the only one either:
Well, another month or two goes by and now we have a whole new Macro threat to worry about. Gotta love the Donald. He keeps you on your toes.
I've spent the last couple of days in a deep funk. You see, the timing stinks: I'm 100% exposed to equities in my Super, and have a significant chunk of equities outside of Super. 6 months ago I made the decision to retire and the spreadsheets looked great: not exactly a turn left on every aeroplane, but the occasional treat, and no major concerns about cashflow or outliving my finances.
Now I'm not so sure.
The issue, is of course, sequencing risk. I know Ive banged on about this before, but this time its personal:
Possibly one of the worst sequels of all time.
Although Chatty has re-made this in a more contemporaneous fashion:
Anyhoo, heading into retirement with an imminent share market crash and the labour government about to kibosh my super top up plans (by selling an investment property) with a change in the capital gains tax, has made me reflect:
"Where should I be parking my funds now?"
Now, if I was 20 years younger it would still all be in the MSCI world index. But I'm not. My knees and back remind me of this every time I get out of bed in the morning. My prostate reminds of this every night at 03:30. I could go on.
For those of you that are as old as I am, there is probably a dim memory of sitting in Dad's car aged about, 6 lining up in the hours-long queue to get petrol at the servo. That was the 1973 oil shock. Back then the whole world was in a stagflationary environment which lasted many years. You might think this could never happen nowadays, the world is not so oil intensive, The Don can just stop the war and everything will go back to normal, and surely ...umm ... AI will fix it, won't it?
Sadly, I'm not sure any of the above holds true.
Firstly, the Straits of Hormuz are shut. Not priced into markets at all. They will remain shut for weeks, and potentially months. The decision to re-open them does not lie with the Don, but with Iran. The Houthis manage to stop oil tankers with a budget of 4 rials and about seven homemade drones, despite the greatest superpower's best efforts. Although its being flattened, Iran and the Revolutionary Guard possess a lot more firepower.
Secondly, even if the war stopped tomorrow, it will take months to re-open oil wells, repair infrastructure, fire up (or is that chill down) LNG plants to get back to BAU.
Thirdly, the risk that Iran can hold the world to ransom will still exist if the war is stopped. If it doesn't stop then we have likely months of interrupted supply of 15% of the worlds oil and perhaps more importantly 20% of the world's LNG. Leading to...
Fourthly, the knock on effects of reduced global hydrocarbons. Fertilisers, plastics, travel, food supply, the cost of everything that requires transporting etc etc etc. So profoundly inflationary. Inflation equals higher interest rates. Western governments are already heavily in debt and struggling to pay the interest. What happens next?
It's difficult to see that markets have priced in the downside correctly, atm. I think we are in for a bit of a crunch on Monday (or the Monday after that) as the reality sinks in.
So, back to "the question at the top", as US podcasters love to say.
Bonds - screwed
Gold - should be good, but already expensive
BTC - who knows
Infrastructure - probably safe but leveraged and exposed to interest rates
Cash - safe in the very short term but with rising inflation, not a good option
Stocks - probably going to take a big hit. obviously depends on sector. Could be a flight to safety eg healthcare, quality, value, commodity Co's etc. Growth stocks do badly - note to self, just bought a whole bunch of growth stocks....
Commodity ETFs - likely to do well, both soft and hard.
Private credit - I'm way too cautious and find the whole thing opaque
Listed Property - usually highly leveraged and exposed to interest rates, but historically have done well in stagflationary environments.
There are some other left-field options, which is kind of where I started, but as often happens I ended up having a bit of ramble:
Aluminium. Who knew 10% of global supply comes through Straights of Hormuz? Cheap energy = cheap refining. S32 would be a good play, and more generally as a commodity buy.
Fertilisers,
Cement.
Here's a little table of possible ASX listed wins:
“Ray Dalio once described the “Holy Grail of Investing” as assembling fifteen good, uncorrelated return streams. Most equity portfolios fall short of that standard at the best of times, but in a higher-inflation, higher-rate environment the problem compounds: the assets that dominate most portfolios tend to move in the same direction, and it’s usually down. We don’t know for sure what the RBA will do next week, but a hike is well and truly on the cards, and we should be live to the possibility that more could follow. Having some exposure to businesses with an intrinsic interest rate hedge, and there aren’t many on the ASX, makes good sense.” from MS.
Be really interested in other's opinions on opportunities that this mess might throw up. Could be some rough times ahead for emerging markets, Ive sold out entirely.
Best
C
An interesting article on LiveWire from Auscap pointing out discrepancies between the ASX 20 and the ASX 200 (They're particularly keen on LOV, NCK, AUB and SDF):
Undervalued ASX stocks from the recent market dislocation - Tom Stelzer | Livewire
A timely article from the Economist about portfolio construction for the retail investor. I know others are comfortable using derivatives, but I have the distinct feeling I would make some catastrophic beginners error and lose an arm and a leg.
I’ve been exploring Australian Government inflation linked bonds and global infrastructure ETFs as a way to give me some AUD income and capital protection plus some currency hedged income for spending overseas during early retirement. I’m still dithering, I mean carefully assessing my options.
Perhaps the outlined plan, below, is simpler; and kind of what I’m doing already.
On February 8th sports fans watching the Super Bowl, an American-football game, will be treated to an advert for Claude, an artificial-intelligence chatbot. Those viewers who are investors with long memories might feel an unsettling sense of déjà vu. The Super Bowl held in 2000 passed into market folklore as the epitome of internet-stock mania: no fewer than 17 “dotcom” firms paid millions of dollars each for 30-second advertising slots. Within weeks share prices had fallen into a brutal bear market.
Back in the present investors’ confidence in today’s emerging technology—AI—has already begun to wobble, just as companies prepare to spend jaw-dropping amounts of money to develop it. Over the past fortnight Alphabet, Amazon, Meta and Microsoft have said they will spend a combined $660bn on AI in the coming year. Investors who a year ago might have cheered such plans are getting cold feet. Each firm’s stock price has fallen since its announcement. Meta’s shot up but then tumbled below where it had been. Microsoft’s is down by 18%
It is no wonder that markets feel jittery. Everyone knows that shares are expensive—especially in America, but increasingly elsewhere, too. When stock prices are high relative to underlying earnings, expected returns are low and shareholders have more to lose from a crash. The trouble is knowing which other assets might offer refuge. The price of gold, investors’ time-honoured safe haven, has swung wildly in recent weeks. In recent days so has that of bitcoin, a digital pretender. Just as investors are searching for ways to hedge their equity risk, hedging opportunities seem few and far between.
The most obvious way to protect yourself from a stockmarket crash is to sell your stocks. Yet for most professional investors this is not an option. Some swashbuckling hedge funds can allocate their portfolios however they please, but most money managers face strict limits. When someone entrusts their capital to an equity fund, for example, they expect it to be invested in equities. Often, the portfolio manager’s mandate will prevent them from sitting on a pile of cash; if not, doing so would still invite angry calls from clients, followed by withdrawals. They can keep cash in their bank accounts, after all, without paying the manager’s fees.
Individual investors have no such restrictions, but selling up because stocks look pricey can still be a bad strategy. During the dotcom bubble, the valuation of the tech-heavy NASDAQ index relative to expected underlying earnings rose to multiples of its current level. In the five years to its peak in March 2000 the index suffered corrections of 10% or more on at least a dozen occasions. Any of these might have prompted the nervous to cut their losses. Over the same period, however, it ultimately rose nearly 12-fold. Even at the bottom of the subsequent plunge, investors who had simply bought at the start of 1995 and held on would have doubled their money.
A good strategy for hedging stockmarket risk is one that does not suppress returns too much on the way up, while cushioning losses on the way down. Sifting through the wreckage of the dotcom crash is a helpful way to think about how the various candidates might perform today. Broadly, they fit into three categories: the classic split between stocks and bonds; exotic strategies involving derivatives; and the use of alternative diversifiers for stocks.
For asset allocators with the freedom to do so, buffering stocks with bonds would have worked well during the late 1990s. The borrowing costs of rich-world governments were trending downwards as high inflation of the 1970s and 1980s faded into memory, granting windfall gains to bondholders (since prices move inversely to yields). From early 1995 to the NASDAQ’s March 2000 peak, Bloomberg’s index tracking the total returns from a basket of American Treasuries rose by nearly 50%. As share prices plummeted, central bankers slashed interest rates and bondholders benefited from falling yields again. As the NASDAQ fell from peak to trough, the Bloomberg Treasury index rose by another 30% (see top chart).
It is not clear, however, that government bonds are still as useful for hedging equity risk today. During the last prolonged bear market, in 2022, both asset classes suffered together as inflation rose sharply and interest rates followed (see bottom chart). Ask investors today what might end stockmarkets’ bull run, and resurgent inflation—and the hawkish response it would require from central bankers—will top plenty of lists. That would mean share and bond prices falling in tandem once more.
Others will recall the short-lived panic that followed the unveiling of President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs last April. Then, for a brief spell, Treasuries and stocks also dropped together as investors worried that the White House’s erratic policymaking would endanger the bonds’ status as a haven asset. It is easy to imagine the next leg down in share prices being triggered by similar concerns, or by questions over the sustainability of rich-world governments’ vast borrowing. In either case, stocks and bonds would both be in the firing line
A second category of hedging strategies involves derivative contracts called options. These have long been used by hedge-fund managers and other professional investors, but are increasingly sold by retail brokers, too. “Overlaying” a stock portfolio with options allows an investor to harvest profits when share prices are rising, then to restrict their losses once the cycle turns
A “put” option on a stock, for example, confers the right but not the obligation to sell the stock at a pre-agreed “strike” price on some specified future date. If you also own the underlying stock, the effect is to cut off your potential losses beyond a certain point. Set the strike at 90% of the current price, say, and the option to sell at that strike means you cannot lose more than 10% of your initial holding. A put option on the S&P 500 share index that limits losses to 10% over the coming year currently costs 3.6% of the underlying amount to be protected. In other words, an investor who agrees to give up 3.6 percentage points of their returns can be protected from a crash.
The trouble is that the performance of such hedges depends heavily on the choice of strike price and expiration date. Analysts at Goldman Sachs, a bank, compared how two strategies using put options on the S&P 500 would have performed from 1996 to 2002. One involved buying a series of one-year options, each limiting losses to 10%; the other, a series of one-month options limiting losses to 4%. Though both would have offered protection as the dotcom bubble burst, costs would have snowballed. Overlaying a stock portfolio with the one-year options would only have resulted in roughly the same annualised return as an unhedged stock portfolio (albeit with less volatility). Overlaying it with one-month options would have generated a substantially worse return, despite the crash.
Some of the most effective hedging strategies the Goldman analysts found fell into the third category: combinations of stocks and non-bond diversifiers. In fact, the best diversifiers were mostly filtered baskets of stocks, such as the S&P 500 “low volatility” subindex, which includes the 100 least volatile stocks in the main index. A 50/50 split between this and the S&P 500 would, from 1996 to 2002, have generated nearly twice the annualised excess returns (over cash) of the S&P 500 index alone. So would a similar split with the S&P 500 “dividend aristocrats” index, which includes only companies that have increased their dividends every year for the past 25. Diversifying into “quality” stocks (with high returns on equity, stable earnings and low net debt) would have brought similar returns.
Today, the idea that the best way to hedge equity risk is with equities feels unsatisfying. Considering the alternatives, though, it might just be the best shareholders can do