Wikinvest Wire

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Jim Rogers Says Watch It All

The crew over at Wall Street Cheat Sheet posted a quick interview they conducted with Jim Rogers. There was one line in there that really resonated with me and was something new (to me anyway) in terms of his usual message. More like an addition to his usual message.

Interviewer Damien Hoffman asked Jim what countries he watches to make sure the Greece situation doesn't get out of control. Jim gave an answer that was broader than the intent of the question in saying...

I’m trying to watch the whole world. We cannot be very successful investors if we don’t know what’s going on everywhere. All of a sudden you’ll something like Iceland will show up and you’ll get killed because you didn’t know that Iceland even existed.

He went on to note that often events start in places no one pays attention to. If you have been reading this site for a while you know that I try to 'watch the whole world' and write about that some. In the past I've mentioned some countries that are off the beaten path and obviously I devote a fair bit of time on trying to learn about certain narrow market segments where I think value can be added either through performance or dampening volatility.

The potential portfolio benefit should be obvious. As one example the troubles in Latvia caught my eye early on (read about it either in the FT or in Jyske Bank's research) and it became clear that Swedish banks were very heavily exposed to Latvia through loans made into the country. Part of Latvia's trouble came from unrealistically trying to maintain a peg to the euro. But now it is possible that they pulled off an internal devaluation (A Fistful of Euros has had a post or two about this) but that remains to be seen.

Every holding in a portfolio is risks but often those risks are not obvious without casting a wider net in what you study. The Latvia story might have steered you away from the the risks in Swedish banks.

Speaking of casting a wider net John Hussman had some interesting comments this week on the extent to which you can count on investor myopia resulting in behavior that is ultimately self destructive. He notes "it is impossible to ignore the rise over that same period of widely-viewed financial programming that is equally riddled with cartoonish content that encourages short-term thinking and speculation" all but mentioning Jim Cramer by name.

I don't watch Cramer or Fast Money (the afternoon version but I often see the 15 minute version during Power Lunch) but I can see where the shows might influence people to trade more frequently than is right for them. During that halftime report they go around the panel and call the close. I don't know but I have to think that the people who would be inclined to speculate on what the stock market might do in the last couple of hours in its day have no interest in what the Fast Money people think will happen. I also doubt that too many people really need to buy puts if the stock goes down another $0.50.

I also wonder how many people "have" to trade a stock ahead of the earnings, based on the earnings or based on the conference call. There is nothing wrong with this sort of trading on its face but there are not too many individual for whom this sort of thing is suitable. There are plenty of people engaged in exactly this type of thing who do not realize it is unsuitable for them and that is a problem in the making.

Another form of myopia; I guarantee that stock Medivation (MDVN) that dropped from $40 down into the teens on bad news from the FDA wiped out some person somewhere who owned only that name fully margined. In a less dramatic example, the next time emerging market stocks or commodity stocks go down a whole bunch there will be people that learn the hard way they had way too much exposure compared to what they should have had.

His point, I think, is that people do not learn from the mistakes they make. Everyone makes mistakes, you don't stop making mistakes but the repeating of the same mistakes hinders reaching the long term goal. Despite how obvious this should be, trust me when I tell you many folks lack the introspection to see this.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think the temptations to be a trader, as opposed to an investor, extend well beyond the programming on CNBC. It seems that the media culture has embraced and glorifies competition, whether it's American Idol, the Bachelor, the Great Race, or even the Biggest Loser.

More to the point, "all in" betting in Texas Hold'em poker and flipping houses on HGTV encourage speculative money management. Even the mainline media trumpet stories that buy and hold investing is dead.

Prudent investing isn't a game. I'm not a Boglehead, but I do miss Louis Rukyser. Thanks for a wise post, Roger.

Anonymous said...

http://tinyurl.com/yzm7a63

a good read

Paul said...

I've given up CNBC for Lent this season (unless of course you are on Roger) and flipped to Bloomberg TV. Much less hyperbole and Buffett!

Jim Rogers was on all morning yesterday and it was refreshing to hear his thoughts without interruption and "yell-overs." But, how the hell can anyone know with any accuracy know what is going on everywhere? I appreciate the idea that we need to know, but this speaks to the need of a good network of information and reliable information. Roger, would it be possible for you to share a few of your sources? Thank you in advance!

Roger Nusbaum said...

not real easy to list what i read insomuch as there are often links out to sites that i might only read once a month because someone links to them.

regular reads in the order i think of them and i won't think of all of them;

seeking alpha
wsj
index universe
FT
bloomberg
marketwatch (occasional)
credit writedowns
naked capitalism
barry ritholtz
mish
yahoo (the retirement stuff)
fistful of euros (not everyday)
michael panzner
jyske bank (haven't looked at it in a while though)
24/7 wallstreet
abnormal returns
bespoke's premium content
HAI

That is most of them but I know there are others but they are not coming to me at the moment

Roger Nusbaum said...

one example of one i do not read daily but stumble across a link to every so often w/b John Hempton at Bronte Capital.

Anonymous said...

Paul,

Bloomberg is better.

Rodgers, like many other knowledgeable people, do not want to answer some questions. So do not look down on them when they give a nonanswer like I am looking everywhere or other such silly answer. What do you think they want, for you to front run their ideas?

Stephen Drone said...

Wow, that's a heckuva daily reading list. I'm an internet hog who even has time to browse while on conference calls at work and I don't think I could keep up with that.

Roger Nusbaum said...

SD my life=

reading stuff 60 hours a week, other work stuff (very little client contact, very little compliance or marketing--my colleagues do these things)10-15 hours per week, writing five hours, fire department 5 hours, working out and hiking 5-8 hours a week and the rest divided between sleep and watching sports.

RW said...

Couldn't watch everything even if I wanted to which is why I hedge my broader, strategic portfolio. Do watch closely and/or set trailing stops on plays in my tactical portfolio as these are often unhedged, leveraged or both and can move fast; e.g., when I was shorting the mortgage lenders and home builders in '07/08 there were some real nose bleeders.

Although my tactical and strategic work rely upon different models an asset tested in one may find its way into the other and sometimes a good investing idea pops out of the mix too. For example my focus on the wreckage and consolidation of financing firms while shorting made it clear that surviving firms had severely impaired balance sheets and this included the TBF megabanks who all continue to be miserly WRT extending loans and credit lines to businesses in need of operational capital.

Given all the money pumped into the system there ought to be easier credit but a lot of that money is clearly going into speculation and/or balance sheet repair w/ banks unwilling or unable to pass along all the dough they're getting in the meantime. This creates a market for anyone able to fill the credit gap and provides a source for any business in need of capital who would rather not deal with loan sharks or banksters who want bad terms.

Sure enough some banged-up private equity firms had "gotten religion," revising their mission to focus on business loans rather than control, and some interesting "micro-lending" start-ups were hitting the screen too, firms focusing on providing credit to small businesses and single proprietorships.

I suppose this is what Roger would refer to as a theme but, IAC, I have been investing in some of these issues with some success and thought the process might be of interest.

Anonymous said...

After one year from the low, I found this video from CNBC: http://tinyurl.com/ybrhbp2 . Perhaps one should review what he has been watching and reading to know that trusting one's own study is far better than someone else openion. I started in 2007 knowing nothing today I know it is far better to do the homework. Like SEG that has set up his monetary model or RW that has his cycle studies or you Roger that has country and sector and top down model investing. To survive in this business one has to stand on his owen two feet. I came to this blog with nothing and have build some reliable indicators. Want to thank you Roger, and RW, and SEG and the rest for helping in many ways understand the market. Roger your 200 day moving avg is lot better than this video, and many other systems out there.
Best,
Jeff from Milan, Italy

Proud Member Of