Doc's Daily Commentary and Watchlist

Mind Of Mav

How To Avoid The Next BS Investment Trend

The Bear has a tendency to shed light on the Bull’s sh*t.

Bear markets would be way less extreme if people didn’t behave the way they do. But hey, is there really a way around it?

Economies are bound to slow down, but crashes mostly happen because big players follow unsustainable strategies that only work in the best conditions.

Unavoidably, when the growth slows down — mostly due to uncontrollable and sometimes unexpected macro factors — the strategists can’t take the hit.

“What bothers me isn’t that fraud is not nice. Or that fraud is mean. For fifteen thousand years, fraud and short-sighted thinking have never, ever worked. Not once. Eventually you get caught, things go south. When the hell did we forget all that?” — Mark Baum, The Big Short

“Well of course they’re trying to screw you! What do you think? That’s what they do. They can make up anything; nobody knows! “Why, well you need a new Johnson rod in here.” Oh, a Johnson rod. Yeah, well better put one of those on!” — George Costanza, Seinfeld

The investing industry is ridden with bullshit. The most common and insidious form is over-optimism: offers of tantalizing risk/reward that defy any notion of reality, often based on misinformation or deception. Less common but even more dangerous are outright frauds.

The problem is inherent to the product. Most consumer goods – apples, hotel rooms, laptop computers – are tangible objects or services that you can see, taste, feel, or experience, so you can judge how much they are worth to you. Investments represent claims about some future probability distribution of monetary outcomes which are not literally verifiable. The best an investor can do is form a reasonable judgment about the uncertainty around those claims, based on historical evidence and details about the mechanics of how those claimed outcomes are generated.

The packages can be familiar, fresh, or exclusive. Highly speculative futuristic investments are wrapped in ETFs or SPACs. Ponzi schemes are dressed up as sophisticated options strategies (Madoff) or technological revolution (Terra/Luna). Sophisticated institutional hedge funds masquerade as arbitrage when they simply sell catastrophe insurance. Both retail and institutional investors are targets.

The lines between over-optimism, deception, and fraud are not always bright, and investment schemes can move slowly between those categories over time. Common red flags include:

Projected returns far above historical equity returns

Claims of returns significantly exceeding bond yields with little or no risk

Extrapolation of recent extreme investment performance into the future

Overly complex investments with non-transparent sources of return

Perverse incentives for the people selling the investment

Bad actors’ tactics are sophisticated and rooted in psychology. They dangle the prospect of wealth and riches (“phantom fixation”). They launder credibility: legitimization via the backing of authoritative figures. They use social consensus and group psychology to normalize ideas and narratives and pressure people to stop asking questions. They use scarcity or immediacy as a pressure tool (you’re about to miss the big returns; the fund is about to close; ngmi). These are just a few of the techniques uncovered by the Consumer Fraud Research Group undercover investigation of sales transcripts. The FINRA Investor Education Foundation promotes basic diligence hygiene:  learn to recognize red flags, know which questions to ask, and independently verify answers.

Over-optimistic, deceptive or fraudulent investments are over-concentrated in areas of new technology. New technologies are characterized by their uncertainty of success. This requires selling potential investors a narrative about future possibilities as opposed to visible cash flows. That is natural! By definition any novel disruptive technology lacks a track record. Investors who avoid innovative technologies altogether because of this ambiguity ignore the inevitability of change.

However, this inherently ambiguous futurism also lends itself to bad behavior. For example, mutual fund manager Cathie Wood claimed that ARKK’s research showed imminent breakthroughs in artificial general intelligence could accelerate GDP growth from 3-5% per year to 30-50% per year. This is preposterous; the fastest sustained economic growth rates in any country in history are closer to 10%, or close to half that for advanced industrialized nations. Meanwhile, she projected compound rates of return over 50% for her portfolio of popular speculative technology companies, presumably in part based on research like that AGI bit. For a five-year period this implies a 7.6x gain, wildly implausible on an ex-ante basis. This is an example of wild over-optimism and misleading or deceptive investor information. Her mutual funds have generated hundreds of millions of dollars of risk-free fee income for herself while destroying billions of dollars of investor capital in abysmal dollar-weighted returns. Meanwhile, investor inflows into ARKK have continued at a rapid pace.  

Another recent example is the explosion of special purpose acquisition vehicles (SPACs). These are financial structures that enable their sponsors and bankers to sell a company to public market investors and walk away with millions of dollars from the promotion fee and merger fees, even if the investment itself performs terribly and the subsequent investors lose most or all their money. SPACs can merge with dubious companies like Nikola Motors, whose prototype electric truck was famously filmed rolling downhill in its promotional video, despite the CEO’s claims that it was fully functional.

Importantly, SPACs allow their promoters to sell shares to investors without the onerous restrictions on making wild financial projections before a traditional IPO. Research published this year found that SPACs project revenue growth at three times the rate of similar IPOs and public companies, at the 97th percentile of actual realized growth among those comps, and then mostly stop making projections altogether after the merger. Chamath Palihapitiya famously used SPACs as the exit liquidity vehicle for his venture capital investments, promoting them as “democratizing access to high-growth companies”. Meanwhile investors who provided the exit liquidity have lost most of their money as his post-merger SPAC share prices collapsed.

Add a new red flag to the list: use of anti-establishment language combined with selling something. This is a common tool used to manipulate ordinary investors who feel left out of Wall Street’s riches. Never trust a “democratizing X” investment pitch: they’re looking for new marks.

Speaking of ‘democratization’.

The nascent cryptocurrency industry is another area bursting with hype around interesting technologies. Again fertile ground for widespread deception and fraud. Algorithmic stablecoins paying eye-watering yields had all the classic red flags. TerraUSD offered 20% returns on a coin pegged to the dollar (and therefore optically low risk), via protocols like Anchor or startups like Stablegains. The protocols ostensibly created revenue to pay this yield via lending out the funds to eager borrowers. However, the demand for loans was much lower than the demand to invest at 20% yield, and the lending interest rate was much lower. In practice, the returns paid out to people exiting the protocol had to come from new inflows at an ever-increasing rate, in a classic Ponzi structure.

It should be self-evident that a 20% low-risk investment return cannot exist. The marketing machine around Terra/Luna deployed the standard playbook, on steroids. Widely followed financial promoters like Raoul Pal of RealVision described the protocol as essentially risk-free. The white paper for the Anchor protocol was written by Marco Di Maggio, a Harvard Business School professor, who purported to use complex mathematical simulations to show how Anchor was robust. Stablegains, a Silicon Valley startup that invested in DeFi tokens and stablecoins, was backed by Y Combinator, one of the most recognizable brands in technology.

Countless other protocols have offered stratospheric yields explained by complex schematic diagrams. Understand this: yield has to come from somewhere. If you can’t understand in simple terms where yield comes from, what risk you are being compensated for bearing, then the yield is likely not sustainable. It rests on temporary venture capital subsidies or from inflows into the protocol from other investors. As the recent crypto crash reminds us, one common source of yield is lending at high interest rates to other crypto investors for leverage. This is “real”, but is it sustainable, or does it require extrapolating past explosive returns in crypto into the future?

Bullshit investments are not only pushed to retail. Large institutional investors have shown repeated vulnerability to slick pitches. The flavor of deception may vary since the diligence committees are more sophisticated, but the red flags are familiar, albeit more subtle, typically relying on complexity to obscure the fraud.

Madoff, the patron saint of audacious fraud, claimed to be involved in complex option-based arbitrage strategies. His stated returns were very consistent, around 20% per year, on tens of billions of dollars, completely unfathomable to any professional derivatives manager. The size and scale of his supposed trading activities were huge, yet no one on Wall Street was trading with his firm, nor custodying his assets. This type of outright Ponzi scheme became more difficult in the institutional landscape after Madoff, as investors increased their operational due diligence standards. Such deception and fraud, urges as reliable as the ocean’s tides, would find more subtle forms.

The Allianz Structured Alpha funds managed tens of billions of dollars of money on behalf of conservative pension funds and foundations. They ran a complicated option-selling investment strategy purported to produce equity-like returns with low risk, hedged against a market crash. The strategy generated considerably higher total returns than any comparable limited-loss option selling strategy like the CBOE CNDR Index. It turned out they were using leverage and simply lying about buying insurance against a market crash while providing doctored risk reports to investors and management. The fuse was lit. They blew up spectacularly in March 2020. The key warning was a complex strategy delivering much better results than reasonably expected based on its description, without performance attribution data that could possibly have been reconciled. The most unsettling part of this horror story was how such a large scale deception could occur under the nose of trusted brand-name asset management firms.

InfinityQ is yet another recent example of sophisticated fund managers duping investors with complex, non-transparent strategies. The firm was involved in the trading of highly complex exotic derivatives with banks, and had both hedge fund and mutual fund products. The types of “risk transfer” trades the firm was known for in the derivatives community – geometric dispersion baskets, corridor variance swap spreads, skew locks – would have typically been expected to lose money during periods of market stress, but reported performance was always strong and consistent. Investors took comfort that David Bonderman’s family office had incubated the firm. It turned out that CIO James Velissaris manipulated computer code in internal valuation models, lied about independent third-party valuation, and forged documents for fund administrators and auditors to avoid discovery. The funds were liquidated in 2021 at a massive loss to investors. Here the red flags were a highly complex and nontransparent investment strategy, which was understood by those in the space to have significant short volatility characteristics, with a track record that was far too consistent.

Bullshit in investing, be it wild over-optimism, deception or fraud, is as old as time, precisely because it is hard to resist the promise of easy returns and to tell the difference between innovation and make-believe.

The first step in avoiding being taken for a ride is to recognize that you are a mark for people trying to get rich off your money.

Burn the principle into your brain that financial markets are large and competitive and have a lot of smart people in them.

Easy money-making opportunities are almost never real; professional mercenaries would have found and exploited them first.

High returns with low risk explained away by complicated and nontransparent strategies deserve great scrutiny.

On the institutional side, keep in mind that the world is a relatively small place and tremendous value can be gleaned by asking the views of people close to a particular market or strategy.

Ask questions; be skeptical; do not assume that just because brand-name firms or authority figures are involved that all is well.

 
 

The ReadySetCrypto "Three Token Pillars" Community Portfolio (V3)

Add your vote to the V3 Portfolio (Phase 3) by clicking here.

View V3 Portfolio (Phase 2) by clicking here.

View V3 Portfolio (Phase 1) by clicking here.

Read the V3 Portfolio guide by clicking here.

What is the goal of this portfolio?

The “Three Token Pillars” portfolio is democratically proportioned between the Three Pillars of the Token Economy & Interchain:

CryptoCurreny – Security Tokens (STO) – Decentralized Finance (DeFi)

With this portfolio, we will identify and take advantage of the opportunities within the Three
Pillars of ReadySetCrypto. We aim to Capitalise on the collective knowledge and experience of the RSC
community & build model portfolios containing the premier companies and projects
in the industry and manage risk allocation suitable for as many people as
possible.

The Second Phase of the RSC Community Portfolio V3 was to give us a general idea of the weightings people desire in each of the three pillars and also member’s risk tolerance. The Third Phase of the RSC Community Portfolio V3 has us closing in on a finalized portfolio allocation before we consolidated onto the highest quality projects.

Our Current Allocation As Of Phase Three:

Move Your Mouse Over Charts Below For More Information

The ReadySetCrypto "Top Ten Crypto" Community Portfolio (V4)

Add your vote to the V4 Portfolio by clicking here.

Read about building Crypto Portfolio Diversity by clicking here.

What is the goal of this portfolio? 

The “Top Ten Crypto” portfolio is a democratically proportioned portfolio balanced based on votes from members of the RSC community as to what they believe are the top 10 projects by potential.
This portfolio should be much more useful given the ever-changing market dynamics. In short, you rank the projects you believe deserve a spot in the top 10. It should represent a portfolio and rank that you believe will stand the test of time. Once we have a good cross-section, we can study and make an assessment as to where we see value and perhaps where some diamonds in the rough opportunities exist. In a perfect world, we will end up with a Pareto-style distribution that describes the largest value capture in the market.
To give an update on the position, each one listed in low to high relative risk:
SoV/money == BTC, DCR
Platforms == ETH, XTZ
Private Money == XMR / ZEC / ZEN
DeFi == MKR / SNX and stablecoins
It is the most realistic way for us to distill the entirety of what we have learned (and that includes the RSC community opinion). We have an array of articles that have gradually picked off one by one different projects, some of which end up being many thousands of words to come to this conclusion. It is not capitulation because we all remain in the market. It is simply a consolidation of quality. We seek the cream of the crop as the milk turns sour on aggregate.

Current Top 10 Rankings:

 

 

Move Your Mouse Over Charts Below For More Information

Our Discord

Join Our Crypto Trader & Investor Chatrooms by clicking here!

Please DM us with your email address if you are a full OMNIA member and want to be given full Discord privileges.