This is The Memo by Howard Marx. Today, we are featuring another episode of The Rewind, in which Howard looks back on some of his memos over the years, discusses their origins, and considers their relevance to today's financial environment.
In this episode, Howard will be discussing The Memo Ditto with Bruce Flat, the CEO of Brookfield. Howard and Bruce were interviewed by Anna Shamancki, Okshree's senior financial writer. Here's the conversation.
Bruce, thanks so much for coming on today. I think this is going to be a really great discussion, so we will dive right in.
布鲁斯,非常感谢你今天来参加。我认为这将是一个非常棒的讨论,所以我们将立即开始。
Great to be here. Thanks.
很高兴能来到这里。谢谢。
So Howard, start with you. This Memo Ditto, which was published in January 2013, it highlights many key themes that you've written about over the years. So I was hoping that you could explain what you were trying to achieve when you sat down to write this Memo.
Well, I was trying to recap the things that I think are important. I was trying to be upfront about the fact that most of it was pure repetition, hopefully organizing things better than in the past, and then applying them to the then present.
And a very important thing was going on at that time. Remember we had had the tech media telecom bubble of 98, 99 and the first half of 2000. And then it collapsed and the S&P was down in 2001 and two, the first three year decline since 1939. People were really in a negative place. Many said I'll never invest again and so forth.
But then the Fed engineered a recovery by dropping rates. They dropped them so far that the low left hand part of the capital market line was unusable. Cash at zero and treasuries at one or two and so forth. So they forced people to the far right hand end of the line in higher aspiration but higher risk strategies. And that was really, I thought, the dominant consideration in the market at that time.
I wouldn't say they eliminated risk aversion, but they overcame risk aversion. I like the markets when they're risk averse and when it disappears, the market does not play its role as a disciplinarian as it should and permits all kinds of deals to get done. And of course a few years later, we see the result.
And so Bruce, there are a number of recurring themes that Howard discusses in the memo that relate to everything he was just speaking about. So of some of these themes, what were some that really resonated with you?
Howard's memos I read all of them and they're incredibly insightful. But the one sentence that's in this memo that I really thought was good is it's on page seven. I'm going to read it because it's really important. It says in bad time securities can often be bought at prices that understate their merits. And in good time, securities can be sold at prices that overstate their potential. And yet most people are impelled to buy you forgly when the cycle drives prices up and to sell in panic when it drives prices down.
Those three sentences encapsulate really the business plan of what we do in Brookfield is that we try to buy with great people, by great businesses and great places. But we try to buy them at times when it's different from what those sentences say. And I think for what we do, the most important thing you can do is at the entry point of when you buy something, if you look at the value of what you're buying, if you can get it right. You don't always get it perfect, but if you can buy it in the middle of the pack or in the lower part of the pack, then it starts your investment off on a good start.
And I think those three sentences that Howard writes in the memo are incredibly important for long-term investing for real assets.
我认为霍华德在备忘录中写下的那三个句子,对于长期投资真实资产来说非常重要。
Well the interesting thing about Brookfield is that they manage a huge amount of money for third parties and a similarly huge amount of money for themselves, big balance sheet. And yet certainly they're not average buyers. They're very clever buyers. They do very big deals. Sometimes I think they benefit from the fact that there aren't many others who could do those deals, but they're very selective. And as Bruce says, they're not among the people who are falling over themselves to buy at the highs or dump at the lows.
The most important thing is that markets are never in these sentences. Why like these sentences? These markets are never perfect. The efficient market theory does not exist for these type of assets that we buy. And when everyone's rushing in, prices are often too high. And when everyone's rushing out, they're too low. But the big difference is somebody has to understand what the difference of value in prices. And that's a very difficult thing. And also if you're an investor, when does price come about?
The difference for us is when we're taking companies' private, we're trying to capitalize on the inefficiencies of the market or what the people rushing in or out as Howard's points make. And we capitalize a lot on that by taking things private and then we can realize the value.
The difference is if you're in the public markets and you're just buying a security, you need to wait and there has to be an event in the market that changes that price. And those are two different things.
区别在于,如果您在公共市场购买证券,您需要等待市场发生事件并改变价格。这是两件不同的事情。
Yeah, this question of price and value, this is actually something Howard that you speak about in this memo. There's actually a section where you're talking about the relationship between price and risk and value in cycles. And you talk about the perversity of risk. And that's actually a great phrase. And I was hoping you could speak more about that.
Well, Anna, it's important to realize that the riskiness in investing is not inherent in the companies or in the securities or in the exchanges. And you can't find it in the prospectuses of the annual reports. The risk in investing comes from the people in investing. They're the ones who make it risky or not risky.
By the perversity of risk, what I mean is that the riskiest thing in the world is the belief that there's no risk because when people believe that risk has been banished as they did in the global financial crisis, that the mortgage-backed securities had been sliced and dice so finally and the risk distributed so broadly that there was none left. When they believe there's no risk, they'll do very risky things and eventually pay a price. So that is perverse. And of course, when people are afraid of risk because things have fallen so much and they desert the markets, they do so at a time when the risk is very little because prices are so low.
Right. And Bruce just maybe jumping off of also what you were speaking about before and also what Howard was just talking about this difference between price and value. Why do you think it's so important for investors to understand the difference between those two things?
Look, I think the most important thing in doing what we do and everybody has a different investment style or it makes different types of investments. But the most important thing for us is to understand the value of what an asset is worth. And the value of an asset of his worth has a number of assumptions that always get put into it.
But essentially, it's the long term discounted cash flow of the income or cash flow that you can create out of an asset over a long period of time. It's as simple as that. Now the complicated thing is that one needs to have knowledge of a market to be able to estimate what the cash flow stream will be and enough knowledge based on what's going on outside as to how to discount that back and what's the terminal value going to be. But if you have those three things, you know what value is.
What happens is people get confused between the value of something and when it's traded in the markets, the price. And we tend to think that the most distracting thing for investors is to be in the public markets because the price actually confuses investors as to what the value of a security is. And that is the discounted analysis of the cash flows of an asset that you can project into the future. And if you have enough information and you're knowledgeable enough, you can project that cash flow stream, maybe off a little bit, but you can project it. Price trading sometimes trades 50% higher and often trades 50% below. And that distracts from what the true value is.
And so the trick in investing in what we do may be a little different than what Oak tree specifically does Howard. But it's similar is that you know what the value is and the trick is, can you find is the price mispricing it up or down? I'd say on the up, it's difficult because sometimes you can't exit investments all to time when price is high, but you definitely know when price is low. And that's when you should be turning on the investing skills of all your people.
所以,在我们所投资的领域里,投资技巧可能跟Oak Tree Howard具体投资的略有不同。但是相似之处在于,你知道价值是什么,而投资技巧就是,你能否找到价格是否被高估或低估。我会说,在价格上升时,这很困难,因为有时你不能在价格高时退出投资,但你绝对知道价格低的时候。那就是你应该启动所有人的投资技能的时候。
Well, you know, there's an old saying that price is what you pay and value is what you get. And you have to bear in mind the difference. The interactive managers, both Oak tree and Brookfield and the raise on debture of the active manager is to find times when the price and value diverge. It's harder in the public securities market. It's harder still in the stock market. And there's a reason why the majority, for example, of mutual fund equity management has gone too passive. Not because passive is so great because active was so bad. People were emotional. They bought and sold for the wrong reasons. I believe they trade too much. All these things detracted from performance.
But as Bruce says, it's all about, first of all, you have to know value, which means you have to know better than others because other people may be looking at the same assets for sale. You want to be the one who has the superior knowledge and then being able to figure out what that makes them worth. And then you say, okay, can I buy it for that price or less?
You know, and how are mentioned earlier our businesses and I'd say our business I weigh but Oak tree is the same is that our skill is being able to define the difference between value and price. And then we'll understand the underlying fundamentals of what you get.
I want to mention something, I know, this morning when I was working out, the S&P was up half a percent. And it's probably up or down a half a percent most days. Well, if there is 225 trading days in the year, that means that the S&P probably has cumulative changes, not net but growths of like 110 percent a year. But nothing's changing. The companies aren't changing. And nothing's changing in the game on the field. People are sitting in the stands making side bets and they're irrelevant to the value creation process.
Those side bets don't make a company worth more or less. They don't change its long term prospects. You see the stock market goes up or down 50 percent. The prospects of the companies didn't change. So it's all the side betting activity which is motivated by mood, I would say. To which I would only add that if anyone that doesn't need money for liquidity purposes that they can have it in private assets, it means that they don't then get distracted.
If you own 100 percent of business, you run your business. You and your family have a business and it operates and it gives you cash flow or a growth. You don't check the price every morning to see what it is. The problem with the stock market is it confuses everybody as to what the goal is of investing.
Yeah, actually Howard in your recent memo, I know you actually kind of speak on this. Yeah. The recent memo is called what really matters and these daily price changes don't matter. Everybody looks at their stock prices every morning. Nobody does anything about it. Why do you look if it's down and makes you feel bad, it makes you feel good, but it doesn't really do anything. I think it's really is what Bruce calls a distraction.
I wonder what percentage of your assets price, very, very few, huh? Almost none. Yeah. And people look at us as a long term investor. Yeah. And part of the reason is because we don't have things getting priced every day and there's this big debate going on, I love your opinion on how it assets came down. Therefore private assets properly marked or not. And yes, there are some assets that are probably not marked properly because if bug markets came down 60% and they weren't real businesses because they were growth businesses and they had crazy multiples, it's possible private marks aren't at the right number yet.
But for most things, this Howard said, if you hadn't asked that, you bought it at 10 times cash flow and it's private and the market traded at 18 before and you bought it at 10 and now the market trades at at 8. Well, is it only worth 8? Probably not. It's worth 10. You pay 10. It's growing its cash flows. It's doing just fine. Well, let's go back to what we talked about before. Didn't see value in price.
The price changes every day. Sometimes it changes by huge amounts. The value not so much. I don't know if the price of private assets isn't down enough this year. But I know that the prices of public assets fluctuate too much. The market is manic depressive. In real life, things fluctuate between pretty good and not so hot. But in the market, they go from flows to hopeless. And so my question is, are we supposed to emulate that when we price private asset?
Is it your job, Bruce, to reflect the psychological ups and downs of the guy who's checking his stock prices every morning? I think not. Look, I think that's true for us. But I think there were some businesses over the last two years that traded at extreme prices, Howard. Those ones came down a lot and therefore private marks probably need to get out more. But the things that we do, I think you're 100% right, which is we bought them at, we thought the right multiple, yes, interest rates have changed a little bit. Terminal value may change a little bit.
But by the way, cash flows are going up more because inflation is increasing the cash flows in most businesses. Therefore, I don't think it's in the stuff that we do. But there may be some, if you traded at 100 multiple of revenue, maybe 100 multiple of revenue isn't the right number to. So I think the only caveat I'd make to your statement is that there are extreme points in the market to your oscillations. As I know, Howard, that's one thing you frequently talk about that idea of finding those extremes.
Yes, well, that's Nirvana for the Active Manager. Let's discuss cycles because this is something that I think both of you have spoken about and in Howard, this is obviously something you've written about. You've literally wrote the book on cycles.
We've obviously seen a shift in cycles. So for both of you, what do you think you have learned about cycles this year?
我们显然看到了周期的变化。对于你们俩来说,你们认为今年你们学到了哪些关于周期的知识?
Well, and let's bear in mind that the events of 20 and 21 were not normal cycles. Normal cycles, according to the book that I wrote, occur because even though things have a trend line, people get excited and stock market. It increases above trend rate. And then people say it's too high and then it corrects back toward the trend line, but through it toward an excess on the downside and then it corrects back toward the trend line and an excess on the upside. And the economy does the same.
That is not what happened in 20 and 21. In 20, a meteor from outer space hit the earth in the form of the pandemic and it required that businesses be shut down. First time in history that we ever voluntarily closed the economy. And it was to prevent the spread, obviously, and that had nothing to do with the cycle. And then the fed and the treasury came to the rescue with loans and bond buying and interest rate cuts and so forth. That had nothing to do with the normal cycle.
So the recovery of the economy and the market was not a normal cyclical occurrence. Now maybe we're getting back to normal cycles. Although the involvement of the fed has been so dominant in the last 14 years that the word normal has questionable relevance.
Well, I think the 21 was a positive cycle until the inflation reared its head. Again, the result of the fed intervention, not a cyclical development. But the fed is trying to cool it off with counter cyclical tools, which are interest rate increases and then quantitative tightening. They take liquidity out of circulation out of the economy. So that's where we are now.
I guess the lesson of these two years is that you can fight the fed in the short run. The fed will do what it wants and can pretty much to produce the result that wants in the economy. And that resonates in the markets. I happen to be of the opinion they can't do what they want forever. They can't levitate the market and keep it up there because they don't have enough ammunition. And as we're learning now through inflation, there are negative consequences to their doing so. But I think that's a very strong lesson.
I guess the greatest lesson is that there are consequences to the feds actions. There was a theory called modern monetary theory, which said that deficits and debts don't matter to a country which is in control of its currency. Because if it runs deficits, it can just issue as much money as it wants. But now we're finding that printing too much money has an injurious effect through the inflation.
So, Bruce, I know you've also spoken a bit about cycles. So I'm curious why you think it's so important for investors to understand and appreciate cycles.
所以,布鲁斯,我知道你也谈论过周期。我很好奇你认为投资者理解和欣赏周期很重要的原因是什么?
Cycles in our view, capital availability is one of the most important things to investing into the types of things that we do. We consume enormous amounts of capital, both equity and debt, to be able to build out the backbone of the global economy. If there's too much money chasing assets, prices go too high. If there's too little, they're often better.
So we don't pay attention to cycles per se, but what we pay attention to is capital availability in the marketplace. 2020, everything went down. And then everything reflated. But today, you're starting to see that dispersion occurring. India is more positive today than many places. Brazil raised their interest rates way before everyone else. We're actually starting to come down in South America. You can see the different numbers. Europe is clearly in a recession. The U.S. may be coming to recession. And all those things impact capital flows and not necessarily the business value, but they affect the price by virtue of capital availability.
I would just say our view generally is, as I said earlier, by great assets and great places and have great people operate them. And if you do that, you can push all the way through cycles. And you will do very well if you just keep going. Just don't over leverage your assets and put too much debt on them. And to be able to support it and never be in a position to have to sell it at a point in time like that. And secondly, if you can widen out add to or add something else to your business, there are amazing opportunities and points in time when there's less capital available. Yeah, so that's cycle of capital availability creates those inefficiencies, as you said, where you see that difference between value and price.
And while we're talking about cycles, let's talk about one that I consider one of the most important in the short to medium term in rereading the memo diddo from 04 in preparation for this podcast. I had quite a shock. When I was writing the book on market cycles, I realized that there was a chapter missing and I put in what I considered one of the most important chapters in the book. And that is entitled the chapter, the cycle in attitudes towards risk. I thought that was really innovative. And as I say, I think it's a very important chapter. But in rereading diddo, there it is. Cycle in attitudes towards risk. So I thought it up. I imagined it twice. In other words, but I do think that the cycle in attitudes towards risk is very important.
Because as I say, people fluctuate wildly in their emotions and their attitudes. There are times when people say, oh, risk is my friend. The more risk you take, the more money you make. And anyway, I don't see anything to worry about. And when they feel that way, they'll obviously pay very high prices for risky assets because they have no risk aversion to hold them back. And then at other times, when things aren't going so well, then they say risk is just another way to lose money. I'll never bear risk again. Get me out at any price. And that's when they sell in despair. And that's when the great bargains are available.
And when I look at the extremes of the market that I've lived through, and if we called them right and acted right as a consequence, I think those calls were always based on where did we stand in the cycle of attitudes towards risk? That along with what Bruce said before, the importance of the cycle of credit availability, those two things really dominate market positioning. Powered you at our board meeting last time, our Brookfield board meeting last time said to one of our team, they were projecting we're going to do something and we're waiting. And you said, why are you waiting? The returns seem to be on your target. And I think that's another thing you can never hit it. Perfect. Perfect is the enemy of the good.
One of the six tenants of Oak trees investment philosophies that were not market timers. We do adjust our tactics sometimes and our attitude and our eagerness. But the one thing we never do is we never say it's cheap today, but it'll be cheaper in six months, so we'll wait. If it's cheap, we buy it.
Let's move on to contrarianism. Howard, I know this is something, again, you wrote about Indito partly because it's something you've written about quite a bit. So first, I'd just like you to defied. I know you've done this before, but again, really what you mean by contrarianism or intelligent contrarianism. The first level thinkers thinks contrarianism is doing the opposite of what others are doing. The second level thinker thinks that intelligent contrarianism is knowing what others are doing. And then why they're doing it, understanding what's wrong with what they're doing, understanding how that can be improved upon and then doing it. Obviously, a lot more complex, a lot more nuanced.
My first book, the most important thing, had a chapter on contrarianism. Then there was an illuminated edition a couple years later with people making commentary and my friend, Joel Greenblatt, who was one of the great equity investors. His comment on contrarianism is just because five other people refused to stand in the path of an oncoming truck doesn't mean you should.
So the point is you can't make a living and you may not even live if all you do is do the opposite of what everybody else does. A lot of the time, the things that other people do are okay. You have to find the error. All of active management is about finding error. All of active management is about taking advantage of other people's mistakes.
We say our primary goal is to buy things for less than their worth, which sounds like a noble and reasonable objective. There's only one problem. It requires cooperation from somebody who's willing to sell things for less than their worth. But we obviously become more active when we think more people are making that mistake.
And Bruce, how does contrarianism play into what you do at Brookfield? Look, the greatest thing you can do in owning the type of assets that we own is to understand the values of what you have and to buy value when you can get it inexpensively. And to the point of contrarianism, it's not that other people aren't doing it. That affords you the opportunity.
The question really is, has something changed in the thinking of the world that you are missing? What I would say is what's really important about understanding the operating businesses you're in and especially not deviating from those businesses at the bottom of the market is because to make good long-term investments, you need to really know what you're doing.
And if you do, you can have that hard cause with second level thinking. You can have the second level thinking lots of people are leaving office buildings at this point in time, but many are coming back and they want new space and therefore they're paying higher rents for great space. The news says people are leaving office buildings. What they don't pick up is that the great buildings have higher rents than they've ever had before. If you're not in the business, you don't understand that.
I think that's the fundamental difference in contrarian thinking is to differentiate between something was high there or for I should buy. Between something should high, what has changed in the fundamental analysis to the long-term future? Not often to things change other than technological advancement that affects increasingly more and more businesses, but that can fundamentally change a business.
So it's that idea that as Howard mentions in, I beg to differ that it's not enough to be different. You also have to be right. Right at the right time. Yeah. If you're thinking about second level thinking or contrarianism, being different for differences sake is not what this is about. You diverge from the pack when you're thinking is better and not if it's not.
I guess knowing other thing I'd add is it comes down to the fundamental analysis of information. And why I say it's important not to go into new things at the bottom of the market is, if you haven't been in a business before, you really don't understand the fundamental analysis of that business. And therefore you shouldn't try at the bottom of the market.
Everyone thinks it's great. It's cheap. Let's buy. But if you don't fundamentally understand the business, it's very difficult to figure it out at the bottom. Which is why adding to businesses you have is really fantastic at the bottom of the market because often you can combine things in by your basis down if you want to call it that and truly come out the other side of a recessionary period with an enhanced business that you have. It's attempting to really find where you can gain an advantage.
Well, it all comes down to an advantage, Anna. You have to have a knowledge advantage. If active investing consists of taking advantage of other people's mistakes, you have to have a knowledge advantage to be able to recognize those mistakes. And if you're trading with someone to be not the person who's making the mistake but the person who's taking advantage of it.
Specialization, Brookfield practices a high level of specialization. They go very deeply into a few fields. Howard, one of the things you've written about a bit this year or something your son mentioned about how it's increasingly becoming difficult to find ways to gain advantages. That as more people have more access to more information, you need to find other ways.
Right. We are talking about the efficient market hypothesis. And it should be presumed in most areas that there is a tendency towards efficiency because inefficiencies come from ignorance and prejudice. Well, ignorance tends to go away over time, knowledge is cumulative. And I think prejudice is to the walls come down.
You know, back in 1978 when I started with high yield bonds, Moody's defined a berated bond as saying that it fails to possess the characteristics of a desirable investment. That was a prejudice. If 95% of the people wouldn't buy them and you would buy them, maybe you can get a special bargain that way. But today, I think that those prejudices are going, if not gone.
And maybe one area where you can gain an advantage that others don't have is being able to have a long-term focus. And I know this is something that you share.
也许你可以在一个领域获得别人没有的优势,那就是拥有长期视野。我知道这是你也推崇的东西。
Yeah, absolutely. Well, when I'm traveling around, especially in Europe and people find out that I'm in investment business, they say, oh, what are you to trade? My ears perk up because I say, we're not traders. Traders are somebody who bet on the next price move, tomorrow's price move. We're not traders. We're investors. Well, since we deal in securities and they go up and down the way they do, where I would say, short a term, then Brookfield. Brookfield buys big chunks of essentially a liquid assets and holds them for a long period of time. But this is the advantage.
The memo, what really matters? First, starts off talking about things that don't matter. Short-term events, short-term focus, short-term trading, short-term performance. It's hard to get an edge on those things. And, Bruce, if you could speak a little bit about this importance of having a long-term focus.
So, start off by saying, how it started, Oak Tree 27 years ago. And I came to Brookfield 32 years ago. Both of us are still invested in this business and we're not going anywhere else. So I would say, these are just long-term investments. Oak Tree shares traded before they don't trade now. But Howard doesn't look at the day-to-day price of what Oak Tree is. And I don't look at the day-to-day price of what Brookfield is.
嗯,我们先从说说27年前 Oak Tree 开始说起,那时我来到 Brookfield 工作已经有32年了。我们俩都一直投资在这个公司,没有离开的打算。我觉得这都只是长期投资罢了。Oak Tree 的股票以前交易过,现在已经不再交易了。但 Howard 不会过于纠结 Oak Tree 的日日股价,而我也不会过于注重 Brookfield 的日日股价。
So I think of it as, that's the fundamental analysis. We own a business. We've been building a business for a long period of time. And the value of what we create is the discounted cash flow analysis over a long period of time. And we continue to grow it for 25 years. And not straight, but upward.
And this memo, what does matter? One of the things is an ownership mentality. You would do better in the markets to say, I want to own a piece of that company. As Bruce says, you don't wake up the next morning. Look at the prices. No, I changed them. I'm done. As an owner, you go for the long ball. And you can compound for five, six, seven years and really accomplish something big financially. Not day trading.
But the problem is Howard. And I go back to what I said it earlier about our repeatics. I think it's really important is we buy private businesses. And therefore, we don't have to get distracted. We buy a company. We take it private. We keep compounding away maybe five, 10, 15 years from now or maybe never. We sell it. We keep just growing and spitting up cash. If you're in the stock markets and you buy a share of Brookfield or any other company in the trades, the market confuses you every day. You're not sure.
And I think the lucky thing of being on the inside of a company is you treat it like it's yours. Do you understand these are businesses and you own them and you can sell them or trade them or you know what the cash flows are. But if people can put themselves into the mindset of owning a company, a share is owning a company for the longer term and it's an incredibly beneficial thing to their long-term wealth.
And we try to, I guess within everything we do, even though we have some funds or many funds that have life on them and we have to sell assets. At periods of time, we try to be very, very long-term in our thinking with respect to investments because the greatest way to compound wealth is to not pay taxes at intervals along the way every three years when you sell something or whatever that is. And to keep growing a business in its cash flows over a very long period of time. And that is an extremely good way to success in the investment business.
One of the best things that Bruce has said today is when he keeps calling price fluctuations distractions. And they are. In my memo, I guess it was earlier this year selling out, I said, why do people sell? They sell basically for two reasons because things are up and they're afraid that the profit will disappear or because they're down and they're afraid the profit will worsen. They're just responding to changes in the price.
What should dominate your thinking and your behavior is changes in the value. So on that note, I would just say any final thoughts about what we've discussed today?
No, I think that the memo did, oh, talks about the things that are important and the things to keep in mind, long-term value, cycles, tendency of investors to go to excess, the importance of not being with them, the shortness of financial memory, which is extremely important, it's really summed up in understanding investor psychology, certainly not succumbing to it, ignoring it is better, profiting from the error of it is the best.
My summary is howard always says it's better than I do, so I'm going to end with that. Thank you, Anna. Thank you guys so much for coming up. Pleasure.
我的总结是霍华德总是比我说得更好,所以我就这样结束了。谢谢你,安娜。非常感谢你们来参加。很高兴。
So before we go, I just like everyone to know that Brookfield has recently launched its own podcast, Brookfield Perspectives. In the first episode, Brookfield Vice Chair Mark Carney discusses the transition to a net zero economy with Connor Tuske, the head of Brookfield's renewable power and transition group. Everybody please check it out.
And now here's Ditto by Howard Marx. Here's how I started, what do you know in March 2003. I always ask Nancy to read my memos before I send them out. She seems to think being my wife gives her license to be brutally frank. They're all the same, she says, like your ties. They all talk about the importance of a high batting average, the need to avoid losers, and how much there is that no one can know.
The truth is, anyone who reads my memos of the last 23 years will see I return often to a few topics. This is due to the frequency with which themes tend to recur in the investment world. Humans often fail to learn. Today forget the lessons of history, repeat patterns of behavior, and make the same mistakes. As a result, certain themes arise over and over. Mark Twain had it right.
History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. The details of the events may vary greatly from occurrence to occurrence, but the themes giving rise to the events tend not to change. What are some of my key repeating themes? There are a few, the importance of risk and risk control, the repetitiveness of behavior patterns and mistakes, the role of cycles and pendulums, the volatility of credit market conditions, the brevity of financial memory, the errors of the herd, the importance of gauging investor psychology, the desirability of contrarianism and counter-cyclicality, the futility of macro forecasting.
Most are all of these have to do with behavior that's observed in the markets over and over. When I see it recur and want to comment, I'm often tempted to dust off an old memo, update the details and just insert the word, get out. But I don't, because there's usually something worth adding.
**Cycles**
One of the most important themes in investing, and when I often find worthy of discussion, relates to cycles. One is a cycle. Dictionaries define it as a series of events that are regularly repeated in the same order, or any complete round or series of occurrences that repeats or is repeated. And here's the definition of the term business cycle.
They're occurring and fluctuating levels of economic activity that in economy experiences over a long period of time. As you can see, the common thread is the concept of a series of events that is repeated. Many people think of a cycle as a continuous pattern in which a rise is followed by a fall, followed by another rise, and another fall, and so forth.
These definitions are fine as far as they go. But I think they all miss something very important. The sense that each of the events in a cycle not only follows the one preceding it but is a result of the one preceding it. I think in the economic, investment, and credit arenas, a cycle is usually best viewed not merely as a progression through a standard sequence of positive and negative events, but as a chain reaction.
Before I launch into the discussion of cycles that will follow, I want to make the point that it's hard to know where to start. It's tough to say the cycle started with Y, since usually Y was caused by X. X and X by W, but we have to start someplace.
**The real estate cycle**
I'll use the cycle in real estate as an example. In my view, it's usually clear, simple, and regularly recurring. Bad times cause the level of building activity to be low and the availability of capital for building to be constrained. In a while the times become less bad and eventually even good. Better economic times cause the demand for premises to rise.
With few buildings having been started during the soft period and now coming on stream, this additional demand for space causes the supply demand picture to tighten and thus prices and rents to rise. This improves the economics of real estate ownership, reawakening developers' eagerness to build. The better times and improved economics also make lenders and investors more optimistic.
They're improved state of mind causes financing to become more readily available. Shieper, easier financing raises the pro-former returns of potential projects, adding to their attractiveness and increasing developer's desire to pursue them. Higher projected returns, more optimistic developers and more generous providers of capital combined for a ramp up in building starts.
The first completed projects encounter strong pent-up demand. They lease up or sell out quickly, giving their developers good returns. Those good returns, plus each day's increasingly positive headlines, cause additional buildings to be planned, financed, and green-lighted. Cranes fill the sky and additional cranes are ordered from the factory, but that's a different cycle. It takes years for the buildings started later to reach completion. In the interim, the first ones to open eat into the unmet demand.
The period between the start of planning to the opening of a building is often long enough for the economy to transition from boom to bust. Projects started in good times often open and bad, meaning their space adds to vacancies, putting downward pressure on rents and sale prices, unfilled space hangs over the market. Bad times cause the level of building activity to be low and the availability of capital for building to be constrained. Or as we said in computer programming in the 1960s, go to top and begin again. This process is highly illustrative of the cyclical chain reaction I'm talking about. Each step in the progression doesn't merely follow the one that preceded it, it is caused by the one that preceded it.
Cycles and Risk This memo is devoted to the cycle in attitudes toward risk. Economies rise and fall quite moderately. Think about it, a 5% drop in GDP is considered massive. Companies see their profits fluctuate considerably more because of their operating and financial leverage. But market gyrations make the fluctuations in company profits look mild. Securities prices rise and fall much more than profits, introducing considerable investment risk.
Why is that so? Primarily I think because of the dramatic ups and downs in investor psychology. The economic cycle is constrained in its fluctuations by the existence of long term contracts and the fact that people will always eat, pay rent, buy gasoline and engage in many other activities. The quantities involved will rise and fall but not without limitation. Likewise for most companies, cost reductions can mitigate the impact of sales declines on earnings. And there's often some base level below which sales are unlikely to go. In other words, there are limits on these cycles. But there are no checks on the swings of investor psychology.
At times, investors get crazily bullish and can imagine no limits on prosperity, growth and appreciation. They assume trees will grow to the sky. Nothing's too good to be true. And on other occasions, or respondingly, despondent investors can't think of any limits to how bad things can get. People conclude that the worst case scenario they prepared for isn't negative enough. Highly disastrous outcomes are considered plausible, even likely. Over the years, I've become convinced that fluctuations in investor attitudes toward risk contribute more to major market movements than anything else. I don't expect this to ever change.
The source of investment risk. Much perhaps most of the risk in investing comes not from the company's institutions or securities involved. It comes from the behavior of investors. Back in the dark ages of investing, people connected investment safety with high quality assets and risk with low quality assets. Bonds were assumed to be safer than stocks. Stocks of leading companies were considered safer than stocks of lesser companies. Giltedge or investment grade bonds were considered safe. And speculative grade bonds were considered risky.
I'll never forget Moody's definition of a B-rated bond. Fails to possess the characteristics of a desirable investment. All of these propositions were accepted at face value, but they often failed to hold up. When I joined First National City Bank in the late 1960s, the bank built its investment approach around the nifty-fifty. Companies were considered to be the 50 best and fastest growing companies in America. Most of them turned out to be great companies, just not great investments. In the early 1970s, their PE ratios went from 80 or 90 to 8 or 9. And investors in these top-quality companies lost roughly 90% of their money.
Then in 1978, I was asked to start a fund to invest in high yield bonds. They were commonly called junk bonds, but a few investors invested nevertheless, lured by their high interest rates. Anyone who put $1 into the high yield bond index at the end of 1979 would have more than $23 today, and they were never in the red.
Let's think about that. You can invest in the best companies in America and have a bad experience. Or you can invest in the worst companies in America and have a good experience. So the lesson is clear. It's not asset quality that determines investment risk.
The precariousness of the nifty-fifty in 1969 and the safety of high yield bonds in 1978 stemmed from how they were priced. A too high price can make something risky, whereas a too low price can make it safe. Price isn't the only factor in play, of course. The deterioration of an asset can cause a loss, as can its failure to produce profits as expected. But, all other things being equal. The price of an asset is the principal determinant of its riskiness.
The bottom line on this is simple. No asset is so good that it can't be bit up to the point where it's overpriced and thus dangerous. And few assets are so bad that they can't become underpriced and thus safe. Not to mention potentially lucrative. Since participants set security prices, it's their behavior that creates most of the risk in investing.
This is true in many other activities as well, the common thread being the involvement of humans. Jill Fredstin, an expert on avalanches, has observed that better safety gear can entice climbers to take more risk, making them in fact less safe. Cansions and investments. When all traffic controls were removed from the town of Drachten-Hulland, traffic flow doubled and fatal accidents fell to zero, presumably because people drove more carefully. Dylan Greiss, Societe General. So improvements in safety equipment can be neutralized by human behavior and driving can become safer despite the removal of safety equipment. It all depends on how the participants behave.
The cycle and attitudes toward risk. The riskiest thing in the investment world is the belief that there's no risk. On the other hand, a high level of risk consciousness tends to mitigate risk. I call this the perversity of risk. It's the reason for Warren Buffett's dictum that the less prudence with which others conduct their affairs, the greater the prudence with which we should conduct our own affairs.
When other people love investments, we should be cautious. But what others hate them, we should turn aggressive. It is essential to observe that investor attitudes in this regard are far more constant.
A memo called the Happy Medium, July 21, 2004 said that while it would be good for most investors, the ones not suited to be contrairions, to always hold a moderate position that balances risk aversion and risk tolerance, and thus the fear of losing money and the fear of missing opportunities, this is something very few people can do. Rather, attitudes toward risk cycle up and down, usually counterproductively.
Becoming more and less risk averse at the right time is a great way to enhance investment performance. Doing it at the wrong time, like most people do, can have a terrible effect on results. How does the up cycle in risk taking develop?
When economic growth is slow or negative and markets are weak, most people worry about losing money and disregard the risk of missing opportunities. Only a few stout-hearted contrairions are capable of imagining that improvement is possible. Then, the economy shows some signs of life and corporate earnings begin to move up rather than down. Even later, economic growth takes hold visibly and earnings show surprising gains.
This excess of reality over expectations causes security prices to start moving up. Because of those gains, along with the improving economic and corporate news, the average investor realizes that improvement is actually underway. Confidence rises. Investors feel richer and smarter. Check their prior bad experience and extrapolate the recent progress.
Skepticism and caution abate, optimism and aggressiveness take their place. Anyone who's been sitting out the dance experiences the pain of watching from the sidelines as assets appreciate. The bystanders feel regret and are gradually sucked in. The longer this process goes on, the more enthusiasm for investments rises and resistance subsides.
People worry less about losing money and more about missing opportunities. Risk aversion evaporates and investors behave more aggressively. People begin to have difficulty imagining how losses could ever occur. Financial institutions subject to the same influences become willing to provide increased financing. In the words of Citibank's Chuck Prince, when the music's playing, they see no choice but to dance. Thus, they compete for market share by reducing the return they demand and by being willing to finance riskier deals.
See the race to the bottom, February 14, 2007. Easier financing, along with the recent gains, encourages investors to make greater use of leverage. Barrowed capital increases their buying power and they move to put it to work. Reached investors report the greatest gains, consistent with the old Las Vegas Maxim, the more you bet, the more you win when you win. This causes others to emulate them. The market takes on the appearance of a perpetual motion machine.
Appreciation accelerates, possibly leading to a mania or bubble. Everyone concludes that things can only get better forever. They forget about the risk of losing money and fixate on not missing opportunities. Leveraged buyers become convinced that the things they buy with borrowed money are certain to appreciate at a rate above their borrowing cost.
Eventually things get as good as they can get, the last skeptic capitulates and the last potential buyer buys. That's the way the cycle of attitudes toward risk ascends. The skeptic, in times of moderation, becomes a true believer at the top. But as Herb Stein brilliantly observed, if something cannot go on forever, it will stop.
Applying the thought here, I'd say when things are as good as they can get, they can't get any better. That suggests eventually they'll get worse. It always turns out that investors' hopes to the contrary, economies, profits and asset prices can't rise forever. Or at a minimum, they can't keep pace with investors' ever-rising hopes, and thus the down cycle begins.
Once the last potential buyer has bought, there's nobody left to take prices higher. A few unemotional, disciplined and foresighted investors conclude that things have gone too far, and a correction is in the cards. Effectivity and corporate earnings turn down, or they begin to fall short to people's irrationally expanded expectations. The error of those expectations becomes obvious, causing security prices to start declining. Perhaps someone is daring enough to point out publicly that the emperor of limitless growth has no clothes.
Sometimes there's a catalyzing event, or sometimes, see early 2000, security prices begin to fall of their own accord simply because they had moved too high. The first price declines cause investors to rethink their analysis, conclusions, commitment to the market and risk tolerance. It becomes clear that appreciation will not go on ad infinitum. I'd buy at any price is replaced by, how can I know what the right price is? Week economic news takes the place of positive reports.
The average investor realizes that things are getting worse. Interest in investing declines, selling, replaces buying. Investors who sat out the dance, or who just underweighted the depreciating assets, are lionized for their wisdom, and holders start to feel stupid. Gidey enthusiasm is replaced by sober skepticism.
Risk tolerance declines, and risk aversion is on the upswing. People switch from worrying about missing opportunity to worrying about losing money. Financial institutions become less willing to extend credit to investors. At the extremes, investors receive margin calls. Investors who borrow to buy are heavily penalized, and the media report on leveraged entities' spectacular meltdowns.
Invests selling in response to margin calls and covenant violations causes price declines to accelerate. Eventually we hear some familiar refrain. I wouldn't buy at any price. There's no negative case that can't be exceeded on the downside, and I don't care if I ever make another penny in the market. I just don't want to lose anymore. The last believer loses faith in the market, selling accelerates, and prices reach their nature.
The important conclusions from observing the pattern just mentioned are these. Over time, conditions in the real world, the economy and business cycle from better to worse and back again. Investor psychology responds to these ups and downs in a highly exaggerated fashion.
Things are going well, investors swing to excessive euphoria, under the assumption that everything's good and can only get better. And when things are bad, they swing toward depression and panic, viewing everything negatively and assuming it can only get worse. When the outlook is good and their mood is abulliant, investors take security prices to levels that greatly overstate the positives from which a correction is inevitable.
When the outlook is bad and they're depressed, investors reduce prices to levels that overstate the negatives, from which great gains are possible and the risk of further declines is limited. The excessive nature of these swings in psychology and thus security prices dependably creates opportunities of over and undervaluation.
In bad times, securities can often be bought at prices that understate their merits, and in good times, securities can be sold at prices that overstate their potential. And yet, most people are impelled to buy euphorically when the cycle drives prices up and to sell in panic when it drives prices down.
Buy and hold used to be a popular approach among investors, and it performed admirably when the markets rose almost nonstop from 1960 to 1972 and from 1982 to 1999. But thanks to the lackluster results of the last 13 years, it has nearly disappeared. Nowadays, investors are much more likely to trade in an effort to profit from or at least avoid losses connected to economic, corporate and market developments.
However, when most investors unite behind a macro trading decision, they're usually wrong in the ways just described. This is the reason why contrarianism often pays off big. In order to be a successful contrarian, you have to do the opposite of what the herd does. And to do that, you have to diverge from the conventional cycle in attitudes toward risk.
Everyone would like to profitably resist this error prone and thus costly cycle. The fact that most people succumb anyway shows how strong its power is, and that most people are not above average in this regard. Of course. This move in response to decisions made by the majority of investors. Most investors are guilty of the sin of overreacting and even worse. This sin of moving in the wrong direction, demonstrating that the ability to resist the cycle is uncommon.
To be a successful contrarian, you have to be able to see what most people are doing, understand what's wrong about most people's behavior, possess a strong sense for intrinsic value which most people ignore at the extremes. Resist the psychological pressures that make most people air and thus buy when most people are selling and sell when most people are buying.
And one other thing, you have to be willing to look wrong for a while. If the herd is doing the wrong thing and if you're capable of seeing that and doing the opposite, it's still highly unlikely that the wisdom of what you do will become apparent immediately. Usually the crowd's irrational euphoria will continue to take prices higher for a while, possibly a long while, or its excessive negativism will continue to take prices lower.
The contrarian will appear wrong and the fact that his error comes in acting differently from most people will make him look like nothing but an oddball loser. Thus, in addition to the five requirements just listed, successful contrarianism requires the ability to stick with losing positions that, as David Swenson has written, frequently appeared downright imprudent in the eyes of conventional wisdom.
If you can't stand living with the embarrassment of being unconventional and wrong, contrarianism may not be for you. Rather than trying to do the difficult opposite of what the crowd is doing, you might have to settle for merely refusing to join in its errors. That would be a very good thing. But even that is not easy.
Risk and Return Today 2004 version. The name of this section served as the title of a memo in October 2004. It was one of my first cautionary responses to the vertiginous market ascent that would be exposed by the subprime mortgage collapse in 2007 and would culminate in the global financial crisis in 2008.
In the memo, I observed that the capital market line connecting risk and return had become lower and flatter. The loan is meant that the line started off with low returns on low-risk assets, due to the Fed's efforts to stimulate the economy through low interest rates. And as one moved out the risk curve, even riskier investments offered low potential returns.
Due to the low interest rates, I said, the bar for each successively riskier investment has been set lower than at any time in my career. The flatness of the line was a result of sanguine attitudes toward risk. Here are excerpts from my explanation.
First, investors have fallen over themselves in their effort to get away from low-risk, low-return investments. When you're especially eager not to make safe investment A, it takes less compensation than usual in terms of prospective return to get you to accept risky investment B. Second, risky investments have been very rewarding for more than 20 years and did particularly well in 2003.
Thus, investors are attracted more or repelled less by risky investments than perhaps might otherwise be the case and require less risk compensation to move to them. Third, investors perceive a risk as being quite limited today. Because rising inflation isn't seen as a significant risk, bond investors don't require much of a premium to extend maturity.
Because the combination of a recovering economy and an accommodating capital market has brought default rates to record lows, investors are unconcerned about credit risk and thus are willing to accept below average credit spreads. Prospective return exists to compensate for perceived risk and when there isn't much perceived risk, there isn't likely to be much prospective return.
One summary to use the word of the quants, risk a version is down, would be buyers are optimistic, unafraid, undemanding in terms of return and moving on mass to small asset classes. Holders of assets who play a part in setting market prices by deciding where they'll sell also are optimistic. The result is an unappetizing risk tolerant high-priced investment landscape.
There are times when the investing errors are of omission. The things you should have done but didn't. Today I think the errors are probably of commission. The things you shouldn't have done but did. There are times for aggressiveness. I think this is a time for caution.
In other words, everything seemed positive. Attitudes toward risk bearing were on the upswing and security prices moved higher, bringing down potential returns. That memo may have been too early, but it wasn't wrong. There was a fair bit of money to be made in the next few years, but its pursuit brought investors close to the peril that lay ahead.
Risk and return today, 2013 version. For about a year from the middle of 2011 to the middle of 2012, I was thinking and saying that given the many problems and uncertainties afflicting the investment environment, the biggest plus I could find was the near total lack of optimism on the part of investors. And I thought it was a major plus. There's little that says helpful for the availability of bargains as widespread low expectations.
Arguably the eight pages of this memo leading up to this point are there for the sole purpose of establishing that when investors are sanguine, risk is high and when investors are afraid, risk is low. Today, there's no question about it. Investors are highly aware of the uncertainties attaching to the sluggish recovery, fiscal imbalance and political dysfunction in the US. The same or worse in Europe, lack of growth in Japan, slow down in China, resulting problems in the emerging markets and geopolitical tensions.
If the global crisis was largely the product of obliviousness to risk, as I'm sure it was, it's reassuring that there is little risk obliviousness today. Sober attitudes on the part of investors should be a source of comfort, since in normal times we would expect them to bring down asset prices to the point where they're attractive. The problem, however, is that while few people are thinking bullish today, many are acting bullish. Their pro-risk behavior is having its normal, dangerous impact on the markets, even in the absence of pro-risk thinking.
I've become increasingly conscious of this inconsistency in recent months, and I think it is the most important issue that today's investors have to confront. What's the reason for this seeming inconsistency between thoughts and actions? The answer is simple. These people aren't buying because they want to, but because they feel they have to.
In the past, I've referred to them as hand-cuff volunteers. The normal response of investors to uncertain times is to say, because of the risks that are present, I'm going to shy away from risky investments and stick with a very safe portfolio. Such views would tend to depress prices of risky assets. But thanks to the actions of the world's central banks to keep rates near zero, that very safe portfolio, especially in the credit markets, will produce little if any return today.
Many investors have sought the safety of money market and T-bill funds yielding zero. Treasury notes that plus or minus 1% and high-grade bonds at 3%. But some can't or won't. The retiree, living on his savings, may not be able to abide the 90% reduction in short Treasury note returns. I imagine him picking up the phone, calling the 800 number and telling his mutual fund company, get me out of that fund yielding zero and get me into one yielding 6%. I have to replace the income I used to get from intermediate treasuries. And thus, he becomes a high yield bond investor, whether consciously or not.
A similar process can affect a pension fund or endowment that needs a return of 7 to 8% and doesn't want to bet its future on the ultra low yields on high-grade bonds and treasuries, or the 6% that the institutional consensus expects stocks to return, especially given how badly stocks performed in 2000 to 2002 and 2008, and their overall lack of gains since 1999.
Take high yield bonds, for example. They provide some of the highest contractual returns and greatest current income. They are attracting considerable capital. Some capital flows into a market, the resulting buying brings down the prospective returns. And when offered returns go down, investors' desires of maintaining income turn to progressively riskier investments. In the bond world that's called chasing yield or stretching for yield.
Do it if you want, but do it consciously and with full recognition of the risks involved, and even if you refuse to stretch for yield, be alert to the effect on the markets of those who do.
Getting rid of money. It's relatively easy to make good investments when capital is in short supply relative to the opportunities and investors are reticent. But when there's too much money chasing too few deals, investors compete to put it to work in ways that are injurious to everyone's financial health.
I've written often about the tendency of people to accept lower returns. Higher risk and weaker terms in order to deploy their capital in hot times. Again, as described in the race to the bottom. The deals they do get worse, and that makes investing riskier and less profitable for everyone.
Because the returns on safe investments are so low today, people are moving further out on the risk curve to pursue returns that meet their needs and are close to what they used to get. And the weight of their capital is bringing down prospective returns and making riskier deals doable.
As noted earlier, I wrote in 2004's Risk and Return Today that the result is an unappetizing risk-tolerant high-priced investment landscape. At that time, it happened because of excessive bullishness and a positive risk aversion. This time around, it's occurring despite the absence of bullishness, mainly because interest rates have been rendered artificially low by the Fed and other central banks. Regardless of the reason, things are happening again today, especially in the credit world that are indicative of an elevated risk-prone market.
Total new issue-leveraged finance volume, loans and high-yield bonds reached a new high of $812 billion in 2012, according to Standard & Pours, surpassing by 20 percent the previous record set in pre-crisis 2007. The yields on fixed income securities have declined markedly, and in many cases they're the lowest they've ever been in our nation's history.
Yield spreads or credit risk premiums are fair to full, meaning the relative returns on riskier securities are attractive, but the absolute returns are minimal. I find it remarkable that the average high-yield bond offers only about 6 percent today. Daily, I see my partner Sheldon Stone selling callable bonds at prices of 110 and 115, because they're yields to call or yields to worst start with numbers, handles of 3 or 4 percent.
The yields are down to those levels because of strong demand for short paper with prospective returns in that range. I've never seen anything like it.
收益率之所以下降到那个水平,是因为对那个范围内有前景的短期债券的强烈需求。我从未见过这样的情况。
As was the case in the years leading up to the onset of the crisis, the ability to execute aggressive transactions indicates the presence of risk tolerance in the markets. Triple C bonds can be issued readily. Companies can borrow money for the purpose of paying dividends to their shareholders, and CLOs are again being formed to buy leveraged loans with heavy leverage.
The amount of leverage being applied in today's private equity deals also indicates a return to risk-taking, as the Wall Street Journal reported on December 17. Since the beginning of 2008, private equity firms have paid an average of 42 percent of the cost of large buyouts with their own money, also known as equity, while borrowing the rest. During the past six months, the percentage has fallen to 33 percent, according to Thompson Reuters, close to the 31 percent average in 2006, and the 30 percent average in 2007.
Other measures also suggest that debt loads are hovering around pre-crisis levels. The average debt put on companies acquired in leveraged buyout deals from July to December amounted to 5.5 times the company's annual earnings, defined as earnings before interest taxes depreciation and amortization. That is higher than any two consecutive quarters since the beginning of 2008, according to S&P Capital IQ LCD. The average deal leverage was 5.4 times earnings in 2006 and 6.2 times earnings in 2007.
The good news is that today's investors are painfully aware of the many uncertainties. The bad news is that, regardless, they are being forced by the low interest rates to bear substantial risk out returns that have been bid down. Their scramble for return has brought elements of pre-crisis behavior very much back to life.
Please note that my comments are directed more at fixed income securities than equities. Fixed income is the subject of investors' order today since it's there that investors are looking for the income they need. These are still being disrespected and equity allocations reduced. Thus, they are not being lifted by comparable income driven buying.
In 2004, as just cited, I stated the following conclusion. There are times for aggressiveness. I think this is a time for caution. Here as 2013 begins, I have only one word to add. Ditto. The greatest of all investment adages states that what the wise man does in the beginning, the fool does in the end. The wise man invested aggressively in late 2008 and early 2009. I believe only the fool is doing so now.
Today in place of aggressiveness, the challenging search for return should incorporate goodly doses of risk control, caution, discipline, and selectivity. January 7, 2013.
Thank you for listening to the memo by Howard Marx. To hear more episodes, be sure to subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts.
谢谢您听 Howard Marx 的备忘录。如果您想听更多的剧集,请确保在任何您听播客的地方订阅。
More over, wherever there is a potential for profit, there is also the possibility of loss. This podcast is being made available for educational purposes only and should not be used for any other purpose. The information contained herein does not constitute and should not be construed as an offering of advisory services or an offer to sell or solicitation to buy any securities or related financial instruments in any jurisdiction.
Certain information contained herein concerning economic trends and performances based on or derived from information provided by independent third party sources. Oak Tree Capital Management LP Oak Tree believes that the sources from which such information has been obtained are reliable. However, it cannot guarantee the accuracy of such information and has not independently verified the accuracy or completeness of such information or the assumptions on which such information is based.
This podcast, including the information contained herein may not be copied, reproduced, republished, or posted in whole or in part in any form without the prior written consent of Oak Tree.