There are a couple lessons here. The first one is risk management, and the second is the setting yourself up to adapt quickly and pivot.
US hedge funds Melvin Capital and Light Street suffer further losses via @FT on.ft.com/3iuvVsb
When a position goes against you, especially one with the potential of unlimited loss, you need to quickly identify the driver of the adverse movement, and strategize your exit or next step. My bias is that if you can't control the risk, better to exit than torture yourself.
Adapt- you don't want to bind yourself to a certain style of investing or trading. As the world and the financial markets continue to evolve, you need to as well. The ability to quickly adapt and ride the new tide is key to long-term success.
More on adaptability- sometimes it is about increasing knowledge and rejecting old ones that aren't robust or true. Sometimes it is about doing the most difficult things of ripping your processes apart and rebuilding them. You can avoid the second if you have a simple philosophy.
A simple philosophy that is based on a foundational set of truths, with which you can develop a robust process to build and expand new strategies on top of them. Your strategies are not your philosophy and process, they decay or go in cycles.
The survival of the fittest is the truth, but it is hard for most to grasp this concept as we like to fantasize about getting rich with certain styles of investing, be it value, growth, ESG, etc., as widely popularized in this industry.
Focus on managing risks and surviving in the business, ideas will come and so as returns.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The IMF statement is fairly typical. If a country adopts a new type of currency that is extremely volatile and lacks fundamental backing (anchor) of its value, the IMF will have to perform very careful and thorough analyses on the adoption. That is a part of its jobs.
When more and/or bigger countries are exploring the possibility of adoption, you will see the BIS getting involved as well.
I may be wrong, but the likelihood of bigger countries developing CBDC exceeds that of BTC adoption.
One thing I keep thinking about is that as consensus sees wider deployment of vaccines as the only path to normalcy (sometimes next year), what would happen if we return to "normal" with only better hygiene, test/trace, treatments, and the sheer desire/will for community?
What would happen to the risky assets in this case? How would different asset classes perform? How would sectors within an asset class perform relative to each other? How would you isolate and validate this thesis?
Well, OK, two things. With lower long-term expected returns but unrealistic target returns, as institutions expect continued accommodative policies and move out further on the risk curve, will they become the persistent dip buyers that prevent big drawdowns over the medium term?
House hunting and home renovation shows set unrealistic expectations and insidiously alter viewers' priorities in life. Having a "perfect" home =/= happiness.
I avoid them.
Same way I throw away my Bloomberg Pursuits.
The older I get, my view is moving towards "don't let what you own owns you”.
Equity investing:
As I continue to improve on my selection & shift my focus on names that have potential to surprise to their upward fundamentals, the discipline of selling & trimming winning positions (on valuation, sizing, lack of catalysts) keeps making me feel like an idiot.
It was "easier" when I covered cyclical sectors or traded turnaround names or companies going through changes (industry, company specific). More predictable, or said differently, less room for imagination about these companies.
With fast growing companies, it becomes tricky. I would often miss at least half of the upward movement (latter part) as fundamental stories change (outlook expansion), followed by increase in speculative interests.