Slope of Hope Blog Posts

Slope initially began as a blog, so this is where most of the website’s content resides. Here we have tens of thousands of posts dating back over a decade. These are listed in reverse chronological order. Click on any category icon below to see posts tagged with that particular subject, or click on a word in the category cloud on the right side of the screen for more specific choices.

Hedging Update — Stocks

By -

The Chicago Board Options Exchange Market Volatility Index (VIX) declined 2.56% Monday to close at 20.56. The table below shows the costs, as of Monday's close, of hedging 20 of the most actively-traded stocks against greater-than-20% declines over the next several months, using the optimal puts for that.

Comparisons

For comparison purposes, I've also added the costs of hedging the SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF (SPY), the SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF (DIA) and the Nasdaq 100-tracking ETF PowerShares QQQ Trust ETF (QQQ) against the similar declines. First, a reminder about what optimal puts mean in this context and why I've used 20% as a decline threshold.

Optimal Puts

Optimal puts are the ones that will give you the level of protection you want at the lowest possible cost. As University of Maine finance professor Dr. Robert Strong, CFA has noted, picking the most economical puts can be a complicated task. With Portfolio Armor (available in Seeking Alpha's Investing Tools Store and as an Apple iOS app), you just enter the symbol of the stock or ETF you're looking to hedge, the number of shares you own and the maximum decline you're willing to risk (your threshold). Then the app uses an algorithm developed by a finance academic to sort through and analyze all of the available puts for your position, scanning for the optimal ones.

Decline Thresholds

You can enter any percentage you like for a threshold when using Portfolio Armor (the higher the percentage though, the greater the chance you will find optimal puts for your position). The idea for a 20% threshold comes, as I've mentioned before, from a comment fund manager John Hussman made in a market commentary in October 2008:

An intolerable loss, in my view, is one that requires a heroic recovery simply to break even … a short-term loss of 20%, particularly after the market has become severely depressed, should not be at all intolerable to long-term investors because such losses are generally reversed in the first few months of an advance (or even a powerful bear market rally).

Essentially, 20% is a large enough threshold that it reduces the cost of hedging but not so large that it precludes a recovery. When hedging, cost is always a concern, which is where optimal puts come in.

How Costs Are Calculated

To be conservative, Portfolio Armor calculated the costs below based on the ask prices of the optimal put options. In practice, though, an investor may be able to buy some of these put options for less (i.e., at a price between the bid and the ask).

Hedging Costs as of Monday's close

The data in the table below is as of Monday's close. After the three ETFs listed for comparison purposes, the NYSE stocks are listed in order of their share volume in Monday's trading, with the most actively traded stock (BAC) listed first; the Nasdaq stocks are listed in a similar order, with the most actively traded Nasda stock (MSFT) listed first.

Symbol

Name

Cost of Protection (as % of position value)

Comparison Index ETFs

SPY

SPDR S&P 500

1.42%*

DIA SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Avg 1.17%*
QQQ PowerShares QQQ Trust 1.74%*
NYSE Stocks
BAC Bank of America Corporation 7.28%**
F Ford 4.83%*
S Sprint Nextel Corporation 6.60%**
GE General Electric Company 3.12%*
PFE Pfizer Inc. 2.43%*
JPM JP Morgan Chase & Co. 3.86%*
WFC Wells Fargo & Co. 5.25%**
NOK Nokia Corporation 13.9%**
C Citigroup Inc. 3.90%*
Nasdaq Stocks
MSFT Microsoft Corporation 2.62%**
CSCO Cisco Systems, Inc. 6.11%**
INTC Intel Corporation 4.45%**
MU Micron Technologies 15.9%**
ORCL Oracle Corp. 3.29%*
NVDA NVIDIA Corporation 8.83%*
DELL Dell Inc. 5.27%**
ALU Alcatel-Lucent 11.5%*
RIMM Research in Motion, Ltd 12.73%*
CMCSA Comcast Corporation 4.00%**

*Based on optimal puts expiring in December, 2011.

**Based on optimal puts expiring in January, 2012.

Hedging Update — ETFs (by Dave Pinsen)

By -

The table below shows the costs, as of Wednesday's close, of hedging 19 of the 20 most actively-traded ETFs against greater-than-20% declines over the next several months, using the optimal puts for that. First, a reminder about why I've used 20% as a decline threshold, what optimal puts mean in this context, and a quick note about why there were no optimal puts for one of these ETFs.

Optimal Puts

Optimal puts are the ones that will give you the level of protection you want at the lowest possible cost. As University of Maine finance professor Dr. Robert Strong, CFA has noted, picking the most economical puts can be a complicated task. With Portfolio Armor (available on the web, and as an Apple iOS app), you just enter the symbol of the stock or ETF you're looking to hedge, the number of shares you own, and the maximum decline you're willing to risk (your threshold). Then the app uses an algorithm developed by a finance academic to sort through and analyze all of the available puts for your position, scanning for the optimal ones.

Decline Thresholds

You can enter any percentage you like for a threshold when using Portfolio Armor (the higher the percentage though, the greater the chance you will find optimal puts for your position). The idea for a 20% threshold comes, as I've mentioned before, from a comment fund manager John Hussman made in a market commentary in October 2008:

An intolerable loss, in my view, is one that requires a heroic recovery simply to break even … a short-term loss of 20%, particularly after the market has become severely depressed, should not be at all intolerable to long-term investors because such losses are generally reversed in the first few months of an advance (or even a powerful bear market rally).

Essentially, 20% is a large enough threshold that it reduces the cost of hedging but not so large that it precludes a recovery. When hedging, cost is always a concern, which is where optimal puts come in.

How Costs Are Calculated

To be conservative, Portfolio Armor calculated the costs below based on the ask prices of the optimal put options. In practice, though, an investor may be able to buy some of these put options for less (i.e., at a price between the bid and the ask).

Why There Were No Optimal Puts for VXX

In some cases, the cost of protection may be greater than the loss you are looking to hedge against. That was the case with iPath S&P 500 VIX Short-Term (VXX). As of Wednesday's close, the cost of protecting against greater-than-20% declines in those stocks over the next several months was itself greater than 20%. Because of that, Portfolio Armor indicated that no optimal contracts were found for them.

Hedging costs as of Wednesday

The data in the table below is as of Wednesday's close. The ETFs are listed in order of 125-day exponential moving average volume, with the most actively-traded name (SPY) at the top.

Symbol

Name

Cost of Protection (as % of position value)

SPY

SPDR S&P 500

1.37%*

XLF Financial Select Sector SPDR 2.80%*
EEM iShares MSCI Emerging Markets 2.52%*
IWM iShares Russell 2000 Index 2.72%*
QQQ PowerShares QQQ 1.59%*
SLV iShares Silver Trust 6.62%**
EWJ iShares MSCI Japan Index 2.48%*
SDS ProShares UltraShort S&P 500 2.44%*
FAS Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X 16.9%**
XLE Select Sector SPDR — Energy 2.34%*
VXX iPath S&P 500 VIX Short-Term No optimal puts at this threshold
VWO Vanguard Emerging Markets 2.99%*
EFA iShares MSCI EAFE Index 2.82%*
XLI Industrial Select Sector SPDR 1.94%*
FXI iShares FTSE China 25 Index 2.53%**
GLD SPDR Gold Shares 0.38%*
USO United States Oil 4.45%**
EWZ iShares MSCI Brazil Index 2.90%*
XLB Materials Select Sector SPDR 2.62%*
SSO ProShares Ultra S&P 500 6.86%*

*Based on optimal puts expiring in December, 2011.

**Based on optimal puts expiring in January, 2012.

Hedging Update — Stocks

By -

On Bloomberg TV Monday afternoon, markets reporter Adam Johnson noted that put protection had gotten more expensive since a week ago. That has been the case, as the the Chicago Board Options Exchange Market Volatility Index (VIX) has been above 20 since late last week. You can see examples of put protection getting more expensive in the table below, shows the costs, as of Monday afternoon, of hedging 20 of the most actively-traded stocks against greater-than-20% declines over the next several months, using the optimal puts for that.

Comparisons

For comparison purposes, I've also added the costs of hedging the SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF (SPY), the SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF (DIA) and the Nasdaq 100-tracking ETF PowerShares QQQ Trust ETF (QQQ) against the similar declines. First, a reminder about what optimal puts mean in this context and why I've used 20% as a decline threshold.

Optimal Puts

Optimal puts are the ones that will give you the level of protection you want at the lowest possible cost. As University of Maine finance professor Dr. Robert Strong, CFA has noted, picking the most economical puts can be a complicated task. With Portfolio Armor (available on the web and as an Apple iOS app), you just enter the symbol of the stock or ETF you're looking to hedge, the number of shares you own and the maximum decline you're willing to risk (your threshold). Then the app uses an algorithm developed by a finance academic to sort through and analyze all of the available puts for your position, scanning for the optimal ones.

Decline Thresholds

You can enter any percentage you like for a threshold when using Portfolio Armor (the higher the percentage though, the greater the chance you will find optimal puts for your position). The idea for a 20% threshold comes, as I've mentioned before, from a comment fund manager John Hussman made in a market commentary in October 2008:

An intolerable loss, in my view, is one that requires a heroic recovery simply to break even … a short-term loss of 20%, particularly after the market has become severely depressed, should not be at all intolerable to long-term investors because such losses are generally reversed in the first few months of an advance (or even a powerful bear market rally).

Essentially, 20% is a large enough threshold that it reduces the cost of hedging but not so large that it precludes a recovery. When hedging, cost is always a concern, which is where optimal puts come in.

How Costs Are Calculated

To be conservative, Portfolio Armor calculated the costs below based on the ask prices of the optimal put options. In practice, though, an investor may be able to buy some of these put options for less (i.e., at a price between the bid and the ask).

Hedging Costs as of Intraday Monday

The data in the table below is as of Monday afternoon.

Symbol

Name

Cost of Protection (as % of position value)

SPY

SPDR S&P 500

1.49%*

DIA SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Avg 1.26%*
QQQ PowerShares QQQ Trust 1.90%**
NYSE Stocks
BAC Bank of America Corporation 8.18%**
F Ford 3.77%*
AMD Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 19.4%**
GE General Electric Company 3.19%*
WFC Wells Fargo & Co. 6.03%**
NOK Nokia Corporation 16.3%**
C Citigroup Inc. 4.47%*
PFE Pfizer Inc. 2.37%*
S Sprint Nextel Corporation 11.2%**
ALU Alcatel-Lucent 11.5%*
Nasdaq Stocks
RIMM Research in Motion, Ltd 12.7%*
CSCO Cisco Systems, Inc. 6.01%**
MSFT Microsoft Corporation 3.14%**
LVLT Level 3 Communications, Inc. 11.6%*
INTC Intel Corporation 4.74%**
YHOO Yahoo! Inc. 8.34%**
MU Micron Technology Inc. 12.6%**
AAPL Apple, Inc. 3.90%**
ORCL Oracle Corporation 3.35%*
NVDA NVIDIA Corporation 8.56%*

*Based on optimal puts expiring in December, 2011.

**Based on optimal puts expiring in January, 2012.

Hedging Update — ETFs

By -

With weak economic data and renewed risks from the Euro zone, the Chicago Board Options Exchange Market Volatility Index (VIX) ticked up again Thursday to 22.73, its highest level since March. The table below shows the costs, as of Thursday's close, of hedging 18 of the 20 most actively-traded ETFs against greater-than-20% declines over the next several months, using the optimal puts for that. First, a reminder about why I've used 20% as a decline threshold, what optimal puts mean in this context, and a quick note about why there were no optimal puts for 2 of these ETFs.

Optimal Puts

Optimal puts are the ones that will give you the level of protection you want at the lowest possible cost. As University of Maine finance professor Dr. Robert Strong, CFA has noted, picking the most economical puts can be a complicated task. With Portfolio Armor (available on the web, and as an Apple iOS app), you just enter the symbol of the stock or ETF you're looking to hedge, the number of shares you own, and the maximum decline you're willing to risk (your threshold). Then the app uses an algorithm developed by a finance academic to sort through and analyze all of the available puts for your position, scanning for the optimal ones.

Decline Thresholds

You can enter any percentage you like for a threshold when using Portfolio Armor (the higher the percentage though, the greater the chance you will find optimal puts for your position). The idea for a 20% threshold comes, as I've mentioned before, from a comment fund manager John Hussman made in a market commentary in October 2008:

An intolerable loss, in my view, is one that requires a heroic recovery simply to break even … a short-term loss of 20%, particularly after the market has become severely depressed, should not be at all intolerable to long-term investors because such losses are generally reversed in the first few months of an advance (or even a powerful bear market rally).

Essentially, 20% is a large enough threshold that it reduces the cost of hedging but not so large that it precludes a recovery. When hedging, cost is always a concern, which is where optimal puts come in.

How Costs Are Calculated

To be conservative, Portfolio Armor calculated the costs below based on the ask prices of the optimal put options. In practice, though, an investor may be able to buy some of these put options for less (i.e., at a price between the bid and the ask).

Why There Were No Optimal Puts for VXX and FAZ

In some cases, the cost of protection may be greater than the loss you are looking to hedge against. That was the case with iPath S&P 500 VIX Short-Term (VXX) and the Direxion Daily Financial Bear 3X (FAZ). As of Thursday's close, the cost of protecting against greater-than-20% declines in those stocks over the next several months was itself greater than 20%. Because of that, Portfolio Armor indicated that no optimal contracts were found for them.

Hedging costs as of Thursday

The data in the table below is as of Thursday's close. The ETFs are listed in order of 125-day exponential moving average volume, with the most actively-traded name (SPY) at the top.

Symbol

Name

Cost of Protection (as % of position value)

SPY

SPDR S&P 500

1.64%*

XLF Financial Select Sector SPDR 3.44%*
EEM iShares MSCI Emerging Markets 2.82%*
IWM iShares Russell 2000 Index 2.82%*
QQQ PowerShares QQQ 2.13%*
SLV iShares Silver Trust 7.71%**
EWJ iShares MSCI Japan Index 3.21%*
SDS ProShares UltraShort S&P 500 3.87%*
FAS Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X No optimal puts at this threshold
XLE Select Sector SPDR — Energy 2.72%*
VXX iPath S&P 500 VIX Short-Term No optimal puts at this threshold
VWO Vanguard Emerging Markets 3.87%*
EFA iShares MSCI EAFE Index 3.72%*
XLI Industrial Select Sector SPDR 2.57%*
FXI iShares FTSE China 25 Index 2.99%**
GLD SPDR Gold Shares 0.40%*
USO United States Oil 4.57%**
EWZ iShares MSCI Brazil Index 3.61%*
XLB Materials Select Sector SPDR 3.12%*
SSO ProShares Ultra S&P 500 7.89%*

*Based on optimal puts expiring in December, 2011.

**Based on optimal puts expiring in January, 2012.

Are Women Better Investors?

By -

Are women better investors than men? That's what David Weidner argued in his widely-tweeted MarketWatch column Tuesday, "Women are better investors, and here's why".

From Sex Scandals to Investing

After reminding readers of recent sexual scandals involving male politicians, Weidner actually made a broader argument, that women are better at pretty much everything:

Why is it that men so often self-destruct? In the political world, Weiner joins Eliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton, John Ensign, Arnold Schwarzenegger and John Edwards as hypocritic slimeballs who let their pants set their personal policy.

[…]

Women, on the other hand, do almost everything better. We’ve known this intuitively for a long time. If you didn’t, just ask your wife or your mother. But now there’s a raft of evidence that suggests women are better at everything — including investing.

Women take fewer risks

Weidner went on to cite studies by Barclays Capital, PLC (BCS) and Ledbury Research, and Merrilly Lynch, respectively, that found that women were more likely to make money in the market, because they take fewer risks, as well as Dan Abrams's new book, “Man Down: Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt That Women Are Better Cops, Drivers, Gamblers, Spies, World Leaders, Beer Tasters, Hedge Fund Managers, and Just About Everything Else.” This sort of cheerleading about the superiority of women, particularly in the context of financial decision making, isn't new.

Not a new argument

In his New York Times column two years ago ("Mistresses of the Universe"), Nicholas Kristoff made a similar argument:

At the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, some of the most interesting discussions revolved around whether we would be in the same mess today if Lehman Brothers had been Lehman Sisters. The consensus (and this is among the dead white men who parade annually at Davos) is that the optimal bank would have been Lehman Brothers and Sisters.

Wall Street is one of the most male-dominated bastions in the business world; senior staff meetings resemble a urologist’s waiting room. Aside from issues of fairness, there’s evidence that the result is second-rate decision-making.

Blaming men

Kristoff seemed to be unaware that the former Chief Financial Officer of Lehman Brothers (LEHMQ.PK) wasn't a "dead white man" at all, but the live woman pictured below, Erin Callan. This photo, which appeared in a Wall Street Journal article from May, 2008 ("Lehman's Straight Shooter: Finance Chief Callan Brings Cool Jolt of Confidence To Credit-Rattled Street") was captioned as follows: "Erin Callan is known for being frank, fashionable".

Original caption: "Erin Callan is known for being frank, fashionable"

Kristoff continued,

“There seems to be a strong consensus that diverse groups perform better at problem solving” than homogeneous groups, Lu Hong and Scott E. Page wrote in The Journal of Economic Theory, summarizing the research in the field."

Gender diversity and risk management

Perhaps Mr. Kristoff would have been a little more skeptical were he aware that gender diversity at high levels of financial firms didn't seem to help the problem-solving processes at those firms. In addition to Callan, other women held high roles at major financial firms that stumbled during the financial crisis, including  Sallie L. Krawcheck, former CFO at Citigroup, Inc. (C); Zoe Cruz, former head of trading and risk operations at Morgan Stanley (MS); and Amy Woods Brinkley, chief risk executive at the time at Bank of America Corporation (BAC).

Are women really better investors?

How to reconcile the studies cited by David Weidner, which showed that among individual investors, women tend to have higher returns, with the paucity of women on "greatest investors" lists (e.g., this one from Investopedia, which lists 19 men and 0 women)? Perhaps investing is a field where women are better on average, but men are better represented at the far ends of the bell curve. One thing seems clear though: women aren't better at everything than men. Men are clearly better at pandering.

Hedging costs of stocks discussed above

The table below shows the costs, as of Tuesday's close, of hedging four of the stocks discussed above against greater-than-20% declines over the next several months, using the optimal puts for that. First, a reminder about what optimal puts mean in this context, and why I've used 20% as a decline threshold.

Optimal Puts

Optimal puts are the ones that will give you the level of protection you want at the lowest possible cost. As University of Maine finance professor Dr. Robert Strong, CFA has noted, picking the most economical puts can be a complicated task. With Portfolio Armor (available on the web, and as an Apple iOS app), you just enter the symbol of the stock or ETF you're looking to hedge, the number of shares you own, and the maximum decline you're willing to risk (your threshold). Then the app uses an algorithm developed by a finance Ph.D. to sort through and analyze all of the available puts for your position, scanning for the optimal ones.

Decline Thresholds

You can enter any percentage you like for a threshold when using Portfolio Armor (the higher the percentage though, the greater the chance you will find optimal puts for your position). The idea for a 20% threshold comes, as I've mentioned before, from a comment fund manager John Hussman made in a market commentary in October 2008:

An intolerable loss, in my view, is one that requires a heroic recovery simply to break even … a short-term loss of 20%, particularly after the market has become severely depressed, should not be at all intolerable to long-term investors because such losses are generally reversed in the first few months of an advance (or even a powerful bear market rally).

Essentially, 20% is a large enough threshold that it reduces the cost of hedging but not so large that it precludes a recovery. When hedging, cost is always a concern, which is where optimal puts come in.

Hedging costs as of Tuesday's close

The data in the table below is as of Wednesday's close. I've added SPDR S&P 500 (SPY) for comparison purposes.

Symbol Name Cost of Protection (as % of position value)
(BAC) Bank of America Corporation 6.94%**
(MS) Morgan Stanley 4.91%**
(C) Citigroup, Inc. 3.33%*
(BCS) Barclays, PLC 5.19%*
(SPY) SPDR S&P 500 1.28%*

*Based on optimal puts expiring in December, 2011

**Based on optimal puts expiring in January, 2012