Archives: January 2010

Keeping Your Options Open (and Valuing Them)

It is often said that there is nothing new under the sun. Truly, economic events of late have demonstrated this in spades. There is little that is new, just different flavors of the same. So, in the absence of anything substantially new to add to the collection of events this week, I am going to take an opportunity to return to some of the analytical topics that I’ve had but a few precious chances to deal with over the past three and a half years. The last foray dealt with some hedging strategies involving options and inverse funds. This week I’m going to dig deeper into the options side of hedging and look at some of the various pricing models available for consideration. Then we’ll take the models for a spin and create ourselves a hypothetical situation and see how things play out.

As previously discussed, options can be used to hedge portfolios against moves that are contrary to that portfolio’s orientation. For example, buying put options can be used to hedge a portfolio that is on the long side of the trade. Oppositely, buying calls can be used to hedge a portfolio that is primarily focused on the short side.

The difficulty in assessing options is figuring their value at a given point in time since they lose part of their extrinsic value as their witching (expiration) day approaches. Fortunately, there are a couple different models we can use to make quantitative predictions.

Binomial Option Pricing Model

The Cox, Ross, and Rubenstein Binomial Model is probably the simplest of the mainstream models available, and is flexible in that it works both on options that can be exercised over a period of time such as American options, but also on options with specific exercise dates such as Bermudan options. The model is built on the simple assumption that a stock can move in one of two directions in a given time period. The price can move up Su with a probability of p or it can move down Sd with a probability of (1-p). The figure below shows 3 generations of such binomial possibilities at each stage. Once the binomial lattice is constructed, the probabilities at each time point can be calculated at various standard deviations from the mean.

Binomial Lattice

When pricing options, it must be considered that you’re really dealing with several axes; the first being the price of the underlying asset as it compares with the option’s strike price and the second being the time factor. Let’s look at some other models, and then run a few live examples.

Black-Sholes Option Pricing Model

The Black-Sholes Model applies to equities whose price follows Geometric Brownian Motion or a stochastic price process. For simplicity’s sake, the prerequisite for using the model is price action characteristics that are often observed in financial instruments such as equities.

There are several assumptions that the Black-Sholes model makes, some of which are not able to be met in the real-world investment environment, but similarly to the notion of the perfect competition / pure monopoly continuum, such constructs can be valuable despite the fact that they are seldom achievable in their purest forms.

• Borrowing can happen at will at a constant and known risk-free rate.

• The price follows a Geometric Brownian motion with constant drift and volatility. (This is extremely rare in our markets)

• Transaction costs are set to zero.

• There are no dividend payments to navigate. (Dividend harvesting strategies often upset predictable Brownian motion)

• All securities are perfectly divisible. (Fractional shares such as in a DRIP type setting are available)

• There are no restrictions on short selling.

• There is no opportunity for arbitrage.

There are several variations of the Black-Scholes model; one that deals strictly with the price of the equity security, and a partial differential equation (PDE) that deals with derivatives of an underlying equity. While the formula is shown only for reference purposes, the general idea is to understand that one can use this modeling process to estimate the value of the derivative security (in this case an option) at a specific known point in time.

Black-Scholes Partial Differential Equation

Bjerksund-Stensland Model

This model comes in handy if you happen to be dealing with options whose underlying securities pay dividends. It is a hybrid of the Black Model, the Black-Scholes Model, and the Garman-Kohlhagen Model. However, there are still some assumptions that are not realistic. The model depends on constant dividend yields, discrete dividends, and continuous dividends. While there is a negligible amount of securities (if any) that fit these assumptions entirely, the model has through repeated study shown itself to be more accurate than the Quadratic Approximation Formula in nailing the value of long-dated options.

I mention this model due to its applicability to dividend paying stocks and its affinity to long options for those interested in using it for analysis of LEAPS options.

Exercises

For the purposes of this piece we’re going to run two simulations; one with the Diamonds as our core investment and a single protective put option and the second (also with the Diamonds) using what is known as a Butterfly, which actually involves buying two options and selling a third. We’ll see how the various strategies predict gains at different price levels a year from now according to the three aforementioned models.

Let’s list our assumptions for the first exercise:

-We’re going to buy 1000 shares of DIA

-We’ll buy 25 puts on DIA, which expire on 12/21/2012 with a strike price of $90.

-We will setup our price point analysis as follows:

$140.00 (assumes the Dow makes a new high – bullish case)

+10%, live, -10% of today’s price

$65.00 (assumes a retest of 3/6/2009 lows – bearish case)

-Interest will be set to the “risk-free” (sic) rate of 4.56%, which equals 30-year Treasury Bond yields on 1/27/2010.

-We assume the trades are made today at market prices and we’re looking at P/L one the trades one year from today.

Here are the results:

Black-Scholes Model

Black-Scholes Results

Binomial Model

Binomial Model Results

Bjerksund-Stensland Model

Bjerksund-Stensland Model Results

What all three of these models are telling us is that the best way to make money with this setup is if the Dow moves big in one direction or the other. If the Dow maintains the status quo and stays within +/- 10% over the next year, this allocation will lose money. The tools are predictive, but the user has to provide the assumptions. If you have a strong belief that the market is going to go down and retest those March 2009 lows, then you can use these models to build yourself a hedging program and then predict the results of such a program. You can tweak the variables, interest rates, etc as well. You can even add additional positions and see how the scenarios play out. This is one of the techniques that we’ve used over the past few years to mitigate periods of market downturn in our newsletter’s portfolio model.

Changing the Strategy

Obviously the first exercise provided a significant amount of risk and depended greatly on us being right in our prediction. If we’re wrong, we could lose a significant amount of money. Clearly there has to be a better middle ground; and there is.

Let’s change up the variables a bit and see if we can’t get something a little more balanced. For this comparison, we’ll use what is known as a Butterfly. Essentially what a Butterfly does in our case is purchases 1000 shares, buys 10 puts at $100 strike price, buys 10 more puts at $80 strike price and sells 10 puts at $90.

Let’s look at the results; again. We have added some price levels between the $65 and the $92 range to give a better illustration, however, all computational variables are the same as before.

Black Scholes – Butterfly

Black Scholes Butterfly Results

Binomial – Butterfly

Binomial Butterfly Results

Bjerksund-Stensland – Butterfly

Bjerksund-Stensland Butterfly Results

Obviously the butterfly strategy worked very well in terms of smoothing the returns across a wide variety of prices. Keep in mind in both cases we were working with around a $100,000 corpus of capital and limiting the action to +/- 1% is especially beneficial if that capital happens to yield more than the Diamonds and you’re collecting significant dividend income.

So, depending on your intentions and purposes, you can either use your option strategy to make a bet on the overall direction of the market and try to make a profit off of it or use an option strategy that allows you to collect dividends without worrying so much about a major market downturn diminishing the value of the underlying assets.

Some Potential Pitfalls

If you decide to investigate any of these types of strategies, you are going to want to keep your eye on a few things:

1) Does the derivative security appropriately represent what it is you’re trying to protect? For example, in our newsletter’s model portfolio, we have 21 dividend producing assets. Obviously, creating a butterfly strategy might be to our advantage. Not all of our components are equities, and many don’t have option chains so we’ll need to find something that does. But what options should we use? Using the Diamonds puts discussed above might work IF the relationship between my portfolio and the Diamonds is somewhat analogous. If it isn’t, then I might not end up where I should be even if the models happen to be spot on. The importance of this issue cannot be emphasized enough.

2) Use options that come from well defined option chains and are not thinly traded whenever possible. If you are working with an option that has just a few hundred contracts of open interest and low volume, authentic price discovery can be a problem because of wide bid/ask spreads. This is not to say it is impossible if the options are thinly traded, but it makes life more complicated.

3) The options pricing models are not always correct; especially in times of acute distress in the markets since the normal Brownian, stochastic oscillations of securities are disturbed and therefore, a portion of the predictive value of the models is lost.

Conclusions

It must first be pointed out that you don’t need fancy trading platforms or expensive financial software to use these models. While it is exceedingly complicated to do the calculations manually, there are websites on the Internet where you can download Excel Macros and add-ins that will allow you to enter the parameters and the custom software will do the rest. Go to your favorite search engine and key in the name of the model you’re interested in and you’ll quickly find a plethora of potential solutions.

We have presented two approaches to hedging, both with options and with drastically different results. For our purposes here at the firm, the Butterfly strategy obviously makes a lot of sense since a growing portion of our work centers around income investing. Being able to mark time with capital while raking in stellar dividend income is obviously something every fixed income investor would like to be able to do. In this era of near-zero interest rates, which just got stretched out by at least another month by the Fed today, it is not always an option to bail out of a sick market, especially when the income is needed to finance someone’s standard of living.

Corporations are People Too??

Published on: 01/22/2010
Comments: No Comments

Thursday’s landmark Supreme Court decision has been called everything from proper to despicable and misguided. Clearly in the historical realm, every nation, empire, and circumstance of human organization has clear signposts that mark first progress, then the eventual destruction of the entity. That is not meant to be melodramatic; it is simply the natural progression of societies. If you don’t agree, ask the Greeks, Romans, and British. So where does Thursday’s decision fit into America’s progression?

Framing the Discussion

Once again it becomes necessary to properly define terms and concepts since failure to do so will almost certainly result in the forthcoming analysis being misconstrued.

The establishment of the corporation as an ‘artificial person’ by the Supreme Court in 1819 was used to give the corporation (an assembly of individuals of indeterminate size) certain rights that were normally reserved for individual people or ‘natural persons’. For example, a corporation can enter into contracts, file suit, and be sued. Corporations can even be charged with and convicted of criminal offenses, although generally, criminal charges often pass through the corporate veil to members of management as well. The corporation as it were cannot commit a crime of its own volition, but only by the action or inaction of someone entrusted with making decisions for it. One right that has not been conferred to corporations is the right to physically vote in political elections, however, corporations have been able to financially support political candidates for quite some time now.

Until the mid 1800’s, the government issued all corporate charters, and the applicant had to demonstrate that what they were doing or proposing to do would be in the public interest (a novel idea). How many corporations today do you think would fail this acid test? Even in the era of the public interest doctrine as we’ll call it, there were many folks including Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller who sought to skirt the public-interest doctrine by organizing as limited partnerships or Trusts.

The Issue

At issue for the Supreme Court to decide was a 20-year old ban on corporations and labor unions providing money for campaign advertising. The Supremes took it a step further and also struck down part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law that banned corporate and union-paid ads in the closing weeks of political campaigns. While on the surface, this looks like a victory for the First Amendment; I think it does little more than pave the way for corporations to buy even more politicians; and to do so under the protection of the law.

The entire issue comes down to the corporation as a person. Is the corporation entitled to all the same rights as a natural person? The very fact that the Supreme Court in 1819 designated corporations as artificial persons rather than natural ones indicates that they are not. Keep in mind that the spirit of corporate law is largely centered on limited liability, not enabling the corporation to wield disproportionate power in the political process (which arguably was already happening anyway). Take our largest corporations, with billions of dollars in quarterly profits. They are generally controlled by a Board of Directors and major shareholders; the number of which is comparable to those in attendance at a typical Little League baseball game. It is naïve to think that the American people can muster as much financial influence in Washington as even one large company, let alone all of them. The bottom line here is that a corporation is a creation of man and is not entitled to all of the same rights that are imbued in us by God. The framers of the Constitution, following along this line of reasoning, focused the founding documents on individual liberties rather than commercial ones.

Detractors of this line of thinking will accuse me of being hypocritical because on one hand I urge government to get out of the affairs of business, yet on this issue I encourage it to do the opposite. To reconcile these two disparate positions, one must understand the intended purpose of government. Our government was designed to protect the rights of the individual and to prevent people from running roughshod over each other. With that in mind, it would stand to reason that government shouldn’t be telling firms the maximum amount they can pay employees. It shouldn’t be bailing those companies out when they fail either. But it certainly should be preventing companies from stampeding the American people by making the electoral and legislative processes available to the highest bidder.

In conclusion, it is my opinion that what happened yesterday was misconstrued as being a First Amendment issue when it really is an issue of equal protection. Granted, groups like the NRA and other issue-specific groups have been shut out of certain political advertising in the days leading up to elections. That is wrong because those groups are speaking (hopefully) on behalf of their members as a cooperative. A corporation really can’t make that claim at the same level. The White House immediately issued a statement decrying the ruling, and although I agree in this instance, it must be pointed out that every single President in the corporate era has gotten money from corporations for their campaigns. That generalization can be extended to nearly every other political office in the country as well. The bottom line is that this activity was already going on anyway, but now the way has been paved for it to accelerate and increase in magnitude.

Yesterday’s ruling will allow corporations to dump unlimited funds into the coffers of political candidates and overtly buy the legislative process, using the government as a tool to enrich corporate bosses. It is easy to see why the power elite who controls the major corporations was most dissatisfied with the public interest doctrine in place in the 1800s. They greatly prefer that their companies be held to the doctrine of shareholder interest since any action that increases shareholder value is deemed appropriate and acceptable even if it encroaches on the rights of other citizens. Make no mistake about it; the government has already largely been purchased by the highest bidder. Yesterday’s decision legitimizes this previous illegitimate activity and gives the green light to a complete takeover of our government by large corporations.

I’d like to close with two quotations by Thomas Jefferson:

“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”

“I have the consolation of having added nothing to my private fortune during my public service, and of retiring with hands clean as they are empty.”

The Search for Income Continues…

One thing that is unlikely to change as we begin a new year and decade is the fact that savers continue to sit in the corner wearing the proverbial dunce cap. They’re an often unmentioned casualty in a world of bailouts, big government spending, and general financial irresponsibility. In a normal, healthy economy, savers would be the focus of attention. In our deviant economy, however, where more people are employed by government than goods-producing industries, savers are disregarded. Harsh words? Absolutely. Certainly no one in charge has actually come out and said it, but as the old adage goes, actions speak much louder than words.

However the news is not all bad. As I chronicled in the first piece of this series, there are ways to find income – even in this environment. And contrary to the popular investing misinformation you don’t have to take on a boatload of risk to get it. The goal of this essay is to discuss in generic terms some of the methods I’ve used to find income over the past few years and introduce one of the more obscure income vehicles for those investors who might be interested in a little risk. With CD rates still in the basement, and investors in US Government bonds losing 3.5% in 2009, most people are probably looking for some new ideas to make money in our brave new financial reality.

Preferred Stocks – A Well-Kept Secret?

If you’re willing to spend a little time doing research, you will find literally hundreds of preferred stocks from food companies to manufacturers to financial and insurance companies. Many are eligible for 15% tax treatment making their comparative yields even higher. Speaking of yields, they will vary greatly based on both the type of company offering the preferred stock, the rating, and the supply and demand dynamics for the security. The following is not meant to be an inclusive, exhaustive description of all the characteristics of preferred shares, but is intended to provide some basic information about preferred shares to frame the discussion.

Preferred stocks are really a hybrid of common stock and bonds. Preferred stockholders generally don’t get voting rights in company matters, but are first in line for dividend payments. Some are cumulative some are non-cumulative. Cumulative preferred shares accumulate dividends in the event payments are suspended for any reason. In the event payments are reinstated, preferred shareholders are paid first and they’re paid for any dividends accumulated during the payout stoppage. The preferred stocks of major companies are generally listed on exchanges, but there are also many that are available Over-the-Counter (OTC).

Preferreds are like bonds in that their stated yield is based on the face value of the stock. For example, a preferred that pays $1.00/year and has an face value of $25.00/share would have a yield of 4% and be designated as such. If you discover this stock a year later at $26.00/share and buy it, your yield based on the purchase price would be a bit lower at 3.85%. Conversely, if you buy in at $24.00/share, your yield would be higher at 4.17%.

Two ‘Preferred’ Model Portfolios

Let’s look at two ‘model’ portfolios. These have been constructed over the past few years when it became obvious that we were heading into a period of near-zero rates due to the Fed’s propensity for putting the liquidity hammer to the floor.

The first consists of just 4 issues – all preferred stocks of utility companies in equal proportions:

Model1 Standard Deviations

Due to the fact that one of the components was only issued less than 2 years ago, we only have that period of time to compare the model to the benchmark S&P500 and Dow Jones Industrials. From a risk and volatility perspective, the model comes in with a standard deviation of 12.82% while both the Dow and S&P comes in at nearly twice that with the S&P at 23.87% and the Dow at 24.32%. In terms of return, the Dow and S&P both lost around 7.5% annually for the period while the model gained nearly 9% annually during the same time. So to frame the comparison, the model beat the indexes by roughly 33% with about half the volatility during the worst financial crisis in recent memory. The chart below graphically displays the returns:

Model1 - Return

Admittedly, during the ongoing bear market rally, the indexes have beaten the model soundly, but remember the purpose of the model – income. The model yields just over 6%. The charts above show that the model did an excellent job of protecting capital while providing stable income. And it was done with very little in the way of volatility except for a 2-month period in late 2008 when the globe’s financial system stood on the precipice. It must be noted that many investors have chosen to use this type of investing strategy for growth as well, opting to use their cash distributions to purchase more shares. Compounding at 6% sure won’t win many awards on CNBC, but in the real world where people are trying hard to protect their savings, it is a valid construct to consider.

Let’s now take a look at a second model: one that has a bit more history behind it. It consists of 2 utility company preferred stocks, a telecom preferred, a no-load special purpose mutual fund, and a preferred stock ETF – in equal proportions. As a general rule I don’t favor mutual funds because of excessive fees, confusing sales charge structures, black-box management, and high expense ratios, but there are a couple of funds that exist for a single purpose, don’t have the other detriments listed above, and as such are suitable for inclusion in portfolios.

Model2 - Standard Deviation

Much like the first model, this one has a much lower volatility than the benchmark S&P/Dow. Annualized Std Deviation is 9.44% compared to 22.01% for the S&P and 22.57% for the Dow. On the return side of the ledger, the model provided an annualized return of 7.02% while the Dow and S&P were both around -9%. The data on this model goes back to August 2007 – before the market’s top. The chart below graphically illustrates the comparison between the model and the benchmarks.

The cumulative return for the model was 16.94% over the 2.3-year period as compared to a loss of 20.44% for the S&P and a loss of 19.74% for the Dow. The model beat the benchmarks by 36% on average yet sported less than half the volatility of those benchmarks.

Model2 - Return

There are countless other combinations that can be explored. These two models were focused on utilities. Truth told, we construct similar models across a variety of industries that would perform similarly, and in fact do so on a regular basis to provide effective portfolio diversification.

ELKS – Hidden Income or High Risk?

A rather obscure income vehicle that generates high levels of income, but unfortunately, also carries significant risk is the ELK or Equity Linked Security.

ELKS are derivatives of the first degree in that their performance is directly linked to that of an underlying security – usually a stock. The main selling point of ELKS is that they generally sport much higher distributions than the underlying shares and mature in a year.

So what’s the catch? Terms will vary depending on the particular issue, so you will want to be sure to read and thoroughly understand the prospectus before clicking the ‘Buy’ button. The size and nature of the principal repayment for an ELK is linked to the share’s performance during the time period before the ELK matures.

Let’s say for example you purchased an ELK that was linked to Company ABC’s stock. Let’s say the ELK was issued when the price of the shares was $20/share. The ELK might be structured that you will receive back 100% of your principal (plus the distributions, which are received regardless) if the price of ABC’s stock is at all times at least 90% of what it was when the ELK was issued. In this case, you will want ABC’s stock to stay above $18/share. If this condition is not met and the stock drops below $18 (even before maturity), you will receive a pre-determined number of shares of ABC stock for each ELK you own as opposed to your principal in cash.

Sounds like a rip-off doesn’t it? Not necessarily. Let’s say you really wanted some shares of ABC stock because they pay a solid dividend. You buy the ELK, collect the enhanced dividends for a year, and if the stock does drop below the threshold, you have your shares. If not, you have your cash and a stellar return and can go share hunting later or buy another ELK. If this is your intention, then make sure you’ll be adequately compensated in shares in the even you don’t get your principal back in cash.

There certainly are drawbacks. First, ELKS are issues of Citigroup Funding, Inc. and as such you are dependent on Citigroup’s solvency for your payments. Right now no one seems to be concerned about bank liquidity, but that is likely to change moving forward. Secondly, due to the structure of the ELKS, there is an incentive for Citigroup to issue ELKS for those shares it holds in its various dealer accounts that it wants to unload and has a belief will go down during the time the ELK is active. This may not be true in every case or even at all, but it needs to be mentioned regardless. That is why, as a general rule, I don’t consider ELKS unless I’m interested in owning the underlying shares because ending up with them is a very real possibility. Another drawback is that if the price of the underlying shares skyrockets, you don’t get to participate fully in the move. You just collect your distributions, and then your principal at maturity. Obviously, if the underlying shares tank, as can happen, you could theoretically end up with shares that are worth much less than your initial payment for the ELK – even with the distributions included.

From a taxation perspective, ELKS are often subject to favorable tax treatment. First, part of the distribution payments are considered as option premium payments and as such don’t need to be declared until the ELKS mature. So you get deferred tax status on a portion of your distributions, which is nice. Secondly, if the price threshold is broken and you receive shares instead of your principal at maturity, then the portion of the payment associated with the distribution (treated as an option premium) reduces the stock basis and isn’t counted as income.

In conclusion, it is possible to find income in this environment without taking on inordinate amounts of risk. Granted, preferred stocks and ELKS carry more risk than a bank CD, but given the graphs shown above, the two models registered little more than a slight bump during the worst crisis in 100 years yet outgained CD’s by several fold. ELKS are a bit more complicated and carry some additional risks, but the potential rewards are commensurate with those risks. Investors should always seek a thorough understanding of the nature of any investment and consult with a qualified adviser before making any investment decisions.

Uncle Sam Tops the Goods-Producing Sector

Published on: 01/07/2010
Categories: Uncategorized
Comments: No Comments

Yes, you read it right. I’ve been railing on this point for years now. We’ve needed to rebuild our crumbling manufacturing and goods-producing sector, yet it is Big Government who is doing all the hiring. So much so that there are now more people working for Big Government than there are in all goods-producing industries – COMBINED.

What does this mean? It means more reliance on foreigners for everything from food to fuel, to consumer trinkets. It means larger trade deficits (since you can’t export government – although it would really be nice to export the whole doggone thing right now!), and further pressure on the US Dollar.

page 1 of 1

Welcome , today is Sunday, 02/05/2012