Sunday, July 30, 2017

Jeremy Grantham GMO LLC


GMO LLC - Home
GMO-Quarterly-Letter-image_trim GMO Quarterly Letter The 1Q2017 GMO Quarterly Letter features Ben Inker's "Up At Night" and Jeremy Grantham's "This Time ...

Jeremy Grantham - Wikipedia
Robert Jeremy Goltho Grantham CBE (born 6 October 1938) is a British investor and co-founder and chief investment strategist of Grantham, Mayo, & van ...

Iconic Value Investor Jeremy Grantham's GMO Loses $40 Billion In ...
Jan 9, 2017 - Iconic Value Investor Jeremy Grantham's GMO Loses $40 Billion In AUM Over ... 

Grantham's quarterly investing letter, which he co-authors with ...

GMO's Grantham: Stocks 'Decently Different This Time'
Apr 3, 2017
Jeremy Grantham, co-founder of Boston investment firm GMO, doesn't expect valuations to drop back to ...

Value investing isn't what it used to be, says Jeremy Grantham ... › Markets › U.S. & Canada › The Tell
Jun 3, 2017 - Value investing has worked for decades, but may no longer be a sound strategy due to massive shifts in how markets operate, according to ...

Grantham says higher valuations will persist - Financial Times
Jun 1, 2017 - The US stock market has entered an era of higher valuations and probably has further room to rise, according to Jeremy Grantham, the founder ...

Jeremy Grantham puts down a marker on climate change investing
Apr 2, 2017 - To Jeremy Grantham, co-founder and chief investment strategist of the Boston asset manager GMO, the earth's changing temperature is an ...

Jeremy Grantham: The Rules Have Changed for Value Investors ...
Jun 30, 2017 - GMO Co-founder Jeremy Grantham recently did an interview with in which he discusses how the world has changed ...

These three investing legends are warning of another crash
From left: Stanley Druckenmiller, Jeremy Grantham and A. Gary Shilling. (Neilson Barnard/Getty; Steve Mack/Getty; Scott Eells/Bloomberg/Getty).

Jeremy Grantham, environmental philanthropist: 'We're trying to buy ...
You've probably never heard of him, and for years Jeremy Grantham liked it that way. But now the man who made billions by predicting every ...

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Jim O'Shaughnessy: "What Works on Wall Street" | Talks at Google

Published on Apr 5, 2017

What it takes to be a successful active investor. Hint, it’s much harder than you think.

Contrast active and passive equity investing. Risk/rewards.

Conclusion—Investors who do not have the following traits and emotional quality should index
their portfolios. I find they are the majority of investors today.

Also discussion of points of failure for passive and active investors.

What traits and emotional characteristics are required to succeed as an active investor?

A true long-term perspective on their investments.

Discussion of Evolution and why it hampers long-term thinking.

Discussion of behavioral biases that hamper successful long-term active investing.

Power Point illustrations.

Successful active investors value process over outcome.

Short-term focus of investors is killing returns.

Why you need access to truly long-term data to make intelligent choice.

Successful active investors generally ignore forecasts and predictions.

Discussion of studies proving forecasts and predictions are virtually worthless;
illustrations documenting the failure of forecasts; both within markets
and in outside professions.

Successful active investors are patient and persistent.

Discussion of great investors who may have very different styles, but all share the trait of patience and persistence.

Successful active investors have a strong mental attitude.

Successful investors are made, not born. Discussion of how successful active
investors have a mental attitude bordering on stoicism; how they control
how they interpret the world.

Tools to use to help you succeed as an active long-term investor.

Long-term data uncovered by What Works on Wall Street that you can use to guide your investment strategy.

The importance of value; momentum; financial strength and earnings quality in putting together your portfolio.

A highlight of stocks with high versus low shareholder yield (Cash dividend %+Bet Buyback %); it’s efficacy since the 1920s

What NOT to own, lottery stocks versus the market.

The importance of a stock’s market capitalization—the most profitable
stocks come from the smallest part of the market (Micro cap stocks)

Putting it all together—should you be an active or passive investor?

Weight of the evidence for passive and active investing

Which type of investor are you? Getting the best out of the style you choose.

Discussion and Q/A.

This talk moderated by Saurabh Madaan.

Thursday, March 9, 2017

Occam's razor
William of Ockham 
Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case, the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is.
 Occam's razor applies especially in the philosophy of science, but also more generally.
William of Ockham, a Franciscan friar who studied logic in the 14th century, first made this principle well known.[1] In Latin it is sometimes called lex parsimoniae, or "the law of briefness".

William of Ockham supposedly (see below) wrote it in Latin as:
  • Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
This translates roughly as:
  • More things should not be used than are necessary.
This means that if there are several possible ways that something might have happened, the way that uses the fewest guesses is probably the right one.

However, Occam's razor only applies when the simple explanation and complex explanation both work equally well.

If a more complex explanation does a better job than a simpler one, then you should use the complex one.

Occam's razor is a principle, not an actual razor: the word 'razor' is a metaphor.
Occam's razor gets rid of unnecessary explanations just like a razor shaves off extra hair.


Further ideas

A problem with Occam's razor is that the sentence is not really about things (entia = entities), but about explanations or hypotheses

So other thinkers have come up with other versions:

"We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible". Ptolemy. Not only is Ptolemy earlier than Occam, but Occam's supposed wording cannot be found in any of his existing works.
"We are to admit no more causes of natural things other than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes". Isaac Newton.
"Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities". Bertrand Russell.
In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists.
 Read More:

Occam's razor - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Valur Investing



There Are No Bad Assets Just Bad Prices: Exploiting Market Anomalies with Overlooked Underappreciated Ignored Data
Joined May 2009

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Politics, Policy Uncertainties Likely to Sway Markets in 2017


Politics, Policy Uncertainties Likely to Sway Markets in 2017

January 9, 2017

Download PDF

Barbeau: We think headlines, rhetoric and speculation will continue to spark global mkt volatility in '17. Here’s why:

For fans of surprise endings, especially in political contests, 2016 was a banner year. Unexpected election outcomes swung global equity markets both up and down and continue to influence the outlook for many sectors and companies. And Coleen Barbeau, director of portfolio management, Franklin Equity Group, says the volatility likely will continue into 2017. In fact, she believes this year may be even more unpredictable, as additional elections are held and policy changes play out across the globe. While these events may sway equity markets, Barbeau maintains that stock fundamentals should—eventually—resume their place as the key determinant of stock value.
Download PDF
For fans of surprise endings, especially in political contests, 2016 was a banner year. Unexpected election outcomes swung global equity markets both up and down and continue to influence the outlook for many sectors and companies. And Coleen Barbeau, director of portfolio management, Franklin Equity Group, says the volatility likely will continue into 2017. In fact, she believes this year may be even more unpredictable, as additional elections are held and policy changes play out across the globe. While these events may sway equity markets, Barbeau maintains that stock fundamentals should—eventually—resume their place as the key determinant of stock value.
Coleen Barbeau
Coleen Barbeau
Coleen Barbeau
Senior Vice President, Director of Portfolio Management
Portfolio Manager
Franklin Equity Group

After the UK Brexit vote and the US presidential election, international equity markets should be accustomed to the unexpected by now. 

And as 2017 unfolds,
we believe uncertainty is likely to persist. Instead of trading on underlying corporate fundamentals, we think this uncertainty creates the potential for markets to trade on news headlines as well as on rhetoric and speculation about policy changes coming from a number of Western capitals.
We believe the potential for significant policy change in the United States is what has largely driven the surge in equities since the presidential election in November. Growth stocks have drastically underperformed value stocks, as investors favored financial and energy names while selling what had been strong performers in the information technology and health care sectors. Bank stocks, in particular, have moved in dramatic fashion—rerating not on a near-term change in profit outlook, but simply on optimism about possible industry deregulation and a more rapid pace of interest rate increases.

Also, hopes for greater fiscal spending in the United States, along with the subsequent rise in bond yields, have led to a move into stocks that could benefit from faster growth and greater inflation—the so-called “reflation trade.”

Infrastructure and defense-related names—especially those sporting low valuations as measured by price-to-earnings ratios—surged at the expense of what we view as higher-quality stocks that generally offer more sustainable earnings growth, cash flows and dividend streams.
While these moves may mark the dawn of a new period for global equity markets, in our view, not much has changed fundamentally. According to the International Monetary Fund, the pace of global economic growth is likely to remain steady in 2017, with global gross domestic product growing a projected 3.4% after a 3.1% expansion in 2016.1

Underpinning these forecasts is relatively robust growth in emerging markets and more modest expansion in developed economies, including somewhat faster growth in the United States, a slowdown in Europe and the United Kingdom and continued sluggishness in Japan.
Although the US Federal Reserve may continue to raise interest rates modestly over the course of 2017, the European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan are likely to continue asset purchases as they look to support growth and bolster inflation in their respective economies. 

We anticipate that this liquidity should continue to buoy international equity markets, even as the ECB begins to taper bond purchases in April 2017. Additionally, a stronger US dollar is likely to put a cap on US equity markets, after the recent move higher has left them trading at the top of their historic valuation range.
With many US stocks potentially at their peaks, we see greater opportunities to seek best-in-class, non-US companies that are positioned to take advantage of growth opportunities around the world. 

Moreover, unlike US stocks, many of these companies have traded sideways over the past few years, and their valuations look more compelling to us. 

For instance, our bottom-up research has led us to individual opportunities more recently in the United Kingdom and Japan. 

We are focused on companies which garner most of their revenues abroad, as they leverage their robust business models to capture growth opportunities in faster-growing regions like the United States or emerging markets.

Politics remain the wildcard. What a combination of lower taxes, looser regulation and potentially greater protectionist policies in the United States may mean for the economy and global trade remains to be seen. 

Increased protectionism, in particular, could upend supply chains and make doing business globally more challenging. The populist rhetoric might also increase across Europe in 2017 as French, German and Dutch voters head to the polls.

Although political rhetoric, a changing regulatory regime and potentially more protectionist policies may influence how markets trade from day-to-day in 2017, we believe fundamentals will ultimately matter. As markets get more clarity on the emerging policy backdrop, we believe companies with strong growth potential that the market has overlooked will likely fare well over the longer term.

Get more perspectives from Franklin Templeton Investments delivered to your inbox. Subscribe to the Beyond Bulls & Bears blog.
For timely investing tidbits, follow us on Twitter @FTI_Global and on LinkedIn.

1. Source: International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook, October 2016. There is no assurance that any estimate, forecast or projection will be realized.


Trumponomics gets the thumbs down from Nobel-winning economists

Inline image 1

Trumponomics gets the thumbs down from Nobel-winning economists

A pack of Nobel Prize-winning economists gave Donald Trump and his policy plans the thumbs-down on Friday, with one saying the president-elect's programs could lead to a deep recession.
Speaking on a panel during the first day of the annual American Economic Association meeting in Chicago, the Nobel laureates voiced a variety of concerns about the billionaire developer's stance, from his haranguing of US companies about their outsourcing plans to the risk that his tax and spending proposals could lead to run-away budget deficits.

"There is a broad consensus that the kind of policies that our president-elect has proposed are among the polices that will not work," said Joseph Stiglitz, summing up the views of the panel that included his fellow Columbia University professor Edmund Phelps and Yale University's Robert Shiller.
Such disapproval though is likely to fall on deaf ears. Trump rode to victory on the back of an unconventional campaign that was short on advice from PhD economists -- relying more on a team of wealthy businessmen -- and there's no indication that's about to change.
He pledges to accelerate growth and create millions of well-paid jobs through spending hikes and tax cuts as well as reduced regulations and renegotiated trade deals.

Discouraging newcomers

Phelps was particularly critical of Trump's singling out of individual companies for abuse and praise, saying such interference could end up discouraging newcomers from entering markets and bringing with them much-needed innovation.
"The Trump government is threatening to drive a silver spike into the heart of the innovation process," he said.
Phelps also voiced concern about Trump's plans for big tax cuts and spending increases. "Such a policy runs the risk it could lead to an explosion of public debt and ultimately cause a serious loss of confidence and a deep recession," he said.
That also has the University of Chicago's Roger Myerson worried. While other presidents have run big budget deficits in the past, they depended on foreign purchases of US debt to do so.

'Confidence and trust'

With Trump threatening to renegotiate US trade agreements and shift to an "America First" policy, the willingness of foreigners to keep buying US government securities can't be taken for granted, Myerson said.
America's interaction with other countries "has to be based on confidence and trust," Stiglitz said. "That's being eroded."
Angus Deaton of Princeton University said he was less worried about the US economy under Trump than he was about international relations, particularly when it comes to China.
The Asian nation was facing difficult economic problems and sounding more bellicose in the region even before Trump won the presidency on a vow to take it on, Deaton said.
Yale's Shiller was the only Nobel Prize winner on the panel discussion who didn't take a shot at Trump. "I'm a natural optimist and I would not like to speculate on how bad it could get," he said. "Maybe one of the other panelists wants to do that."
They certainly did.

Sunday, November 6, 2016

The Psychology of Human Misjudgement - Charlie Munger Full Speech


"Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Rober Cialdini"

"Poor Charlie's Almanack Expanded Third Edition"

Audio of the often referred to speech by Charlie Munger on the psychology

of human misjudgement given to an audience at Harvard University circa Jun 1995.

Mr. Munger speaks about the framework for decision making and the

factors contributing to misjudgements. c. Jun 1, 1995



Friday, November 4, 2016

A Moment in Time

Photographer spent 6 years and 720,000 attempts to capture this | by ©AlanMcFadyen

Kingfisher, by Koson Ohara

  Image result
  Color Woodblock Print / Allen W. Seaby:
 Image result
 Image result
 Image result
 Matsumura Keibun (Japanese, 1779-1843).[Japanese kerria and kingfisher]
 Image result for japanese wood block print of kingfisher

Wednesday, May 11, 2016




Breaking & evergreen news on -hedge funds, value investing. Free newsletter underrated small caps send annon tips
New York
Joined January 2010
Value Investing News is a community driven value investing news site. You can submit links to news items, rate stories, and leave comments.