Quantcast
WHAT'S NEW? Our Latest Updates!

Merrill Lynch: Suckers For A Bubble

There seems to be quite a bit of surprise among Wall Street today at how much money Merrill Lynch (MER) lost in the great housing bubble:

Merrill Lynch & Co., the world's largest brokerage, lost nearly $10 billion in the last three months of 2007, its biggest quarterly loss since it was founded 94 years ago, after writing down $14.6 billion of investments slammed by the ongoing credit crisis….Merrill Lynch posted a net loss after preferred dividends of $9.91 billion, or $12.01 per share, compared to a profit of $2.3 billion, or $2.41 per share, a year earlier….Wall Street analysts had been forecasting a loss of $4.93 per share…"

This shouldn’t surprise mutual fund investors: Merrill Lynch is a sucker for bubbles.

Sure most investment banks are guilty of letting irrational exuberance get in the way of rational analysis, but Merrill Lynch has earned a special place among big money managers as the firm that thinks rising tides that lift all boats never recede.

One gem is this New York Times editorial by Bruce Steinberg (then chief economist for Merrill Lynch) penned in October 1999, countering the growing belief among skeptics that the stock market had become a dangerous bubble:

But the doomsayers are looking for signs of disaster where none exist. The American economy has performed better in the 1990's than at any time in history, and there is no end of that success in sight….The bubble theory rests on arguments that the stock market is overvalued…Assets are said to have become overvalued, leading to overconsumption and an overheating of the economy that will inevitably end in a violent correction -- a stock market crash. But this argument will not stand up to a careful analysis…

The pessimists' misinterpretations begin with stock prices, which have indeed grown rapidly... However, values are highest in the sector where growth prospects are highest and demand is accelerating: technology. With the technology stocks excluded, the price-earnings ratio for the rest of the companies in the index is around 19. Adjusted for interest rates, that's comfortably in line with the experience of the past few decades."

This was less than five months before the S&P 500 peaked and then promptly fell around 50%. The S&P 500 today is almost exactly at the level it was over eight years ago when this cry for more insanity was penned (Merrill Lynch stock is currently lower than it was then, but that hasn’t stopped hundreds of millions in bonuses from being paid). Steinberg was fired in 2002 at the very bottom of the market.

december 2007 performance review

In the end, 2007 produced a lot of volatility but not much in returns. The S&P 500 was up just 5.5% for the year. Keep in mind no risk low fee money market funds returned about as much - Vanguard Prime Money Market returned 5.17% in 2007. The story was better for Dow and tech stocks. The Dow was up 8.89%, the Nasdaq was up 9.82%. Small cap stocks were the real losers, down 1.57% for the year, though this doesn't tell the story of how smaller cap value stocks underperformed, down almost 10% in 2007 (small cap growth was up 7.05%). Safer bonds were a decent place to be in 2007, with longer term government bonds returning just shy of 10% and the total bond market up about 7%.

A Reformed Broker Exposes Wall Street

01/15/08 - Watch Out

Michael Lewis tells a wonderful story in the new Portfolio magazine – a coming of age piece if you will – of a successful stock broker who slowly realizes the (ahem…) shortcomings of his business.

‘Seven months in at Lehman, I was one of the top rookie producers,’ Blaine says, ‘but every stock I bought went down.’ His ability to be wrong about the direction of an individual stock was uncanny, even to him. At first, he didn’t understand why his customers didn’t fire him, but soon he came to take their inertia for granted. ‘It was amazing, the gullibility of the investor,’ he says. ‘When you got a new customer, all you needed to do was get three trades out of him. Because one of them is going to work. But you have to get the second one done before the first one goes bad.'

It wasn't exactly the career he’d hoped for. Once, he confessed to his boss his misgivings about the performance of his customers' portfolios. His boss told him point-blank, ‘Blaine, you're confused about your job.’ A fellow broker added, ‘Your job is to turn your clients' net worth into your own.’ Blaine wrote that down in his journal."

The story first attacks the notion of beating the market with stock picks then moves on to picking wining mutual funds:

SmartMoney’s cover story ‘Seven Best Mutual Funds for 1996,’ whose selections later underperformed the market by 6.7 percent. In 1997, SmartMoney found seven new best mutual fund managers. They finished 3.4 percent below the market. In 1998, the magazine’s newest best funds came in 2.2 percent below the market. Soon after, Wellington says, ‘SmartMoney stopped its annual survey of the best mutual fund managers.’

Eventually our hero moves his clients and his conscience to Dimensional, proprietors of the successful DFA (which stands for Dimensional Fund Advisors) funds.

DFA, an early pioneer of low fee index funds, has $152 billion under management. Unlike Vanguard, DFA does not have actively managed funds or ETFs. DFA indexes are not just market cap weighted or based on well known indexes like the S&P 500, Nasdaq, or Russell 2000, but involve custom screens that remove some individual holdings that would ordinarily show up in a straight market cap screen.

DFA funds are institutional funds sold though advisors, who tag their own fees on top of the underlying fund fees.

In addition to learning some great sales techniques used to con prospective brokerage clients into paying full service commissions for stock bad stock picks, the article focuses on the benefits of low fee indexing over more expensive and inconsistent active management. What the article doesn’t do is question the logic of dozens of different asset classes – too much of a good thing perhaps.

If a broker’s stock picks tend to underperform broad indexes, why won’t an advisor’s sector or style picks using DFA funds do the same?

LINK