Archive for the ‘Research’ Category

Resources on Value Investing

Posted 25 May 2013 — by Charles Martineau
Category Personal Finance, Research, Value investing

This post is resource page for those who wish to become value investors. First, I have to admit something…I am not really a value investor…yet! Value invest­ing is the “method­ol­ogy” of invest­ment that I appre­ci­ate the most and I wish to prac­tice value invest­ing as a pas­time (I want 50% of my port­fo­lio to derive from value invest­ing). But, let’s face it… I am a PhD finance stu­dent! So you know like me that there are few finance researchers that are suc­cess­ful investors or actu­ally talk about their own per­sonal finance expe­ri­ence. Have you ever heard a researcher in finance brag­ging about their suc­cess­ful invest­ments? Not much right? In my case, I started to invest at the end of my bach­e­lor stud­ies – quite late I have to say – but that is when I had enough money to open an account with a dis­count bro­ker and to really buy and diver­sify a port­fo­lio (you don’t need much actu­ally to start with…let’s say $5,000?). Dur­ing my mas­ters, I had received few bur­saries that allowed me to save more money and invest. I first started invest­ing my money in index funds such as short-term bonds, emerg­ing mar­kets, broad Chi­nese mar­ket (not cov­ered in tra­di­tional emerg­ing mar­ket index funds), inter­na­tional MSCI, and the U.S. stock mar­ket. My first pur­chase of an actual stock was Wells Fargo — after a sud­den drop in the mar­ket. There wasn’t much ratio­nal analy­sis behind this pur­chase. I was only tak­ing advan­tage of a sud­den, some­what irra­tional, drop in the mar­ket. You know like me that Wells is a solid busi­ness as we speak (accord­ing to Buffett).

Over the course of my bach­e­lor and mas­ter stud­ies, I read some books and blogs on value invest­ing. Despite the fact that my research spe­cialty that I wish to develop through my PhD has noth­ing to do with value invest­ing, I want to share all the great resources that I found and will con­tinue to find on the sub­ject. I also do this for my future stu­dents… I wish I had a pro­fes­sor that would have done the same : )

How to get acquainted with value invest­ing? (very briefly…)

First and fore­most you must readThe Intel­li­gent Investor” by Ben­jamin Gra­ham. This step is cru­cial! Next, I would jump on read­ing mul­ti­ple blogs on the sub­ject of value invest­ing. Many give insights on their suc­cess­ful invest­ments, ana­lyze var­i­ous stocks using the value invest­ing method­ol­ogy and show you their steps of analy­sis, pro­vide you with resources to eval­u­ate your own stocks, give you mul­ti­ple insights on which stock that you should pay a close atten­tion to, and more impor­tantly learn from their mistakes!

Key Blogs:

The Frog’s Kiss – very detailed and well writ­ten analy­sis of stocks

Odd­ball Stocks – detailed and super clear analy­sis of net-net stocks (and other types). Also pays close atten­tion to inter­na­tional stocks. One of my per­sonal favorite blogs

Above Aver­age Odds Invest­ing – very pop­u­lar and detailed analy­sis of stocks

Barel Karsan – cov­ers var­i­ous top­ics on value investing

Clas­sic Value Investors – cov­ers var­i­ous top­ics on value invest­ing, pro­vides inter­views with finan­cial man­agers, and some stock analysis

Old School Value (OSV) – One of my per­sonal favorite web­site on value invest­ing. Pro­vides analy­sis, var­i­ous insights, and more impor­tant the author of this site devel­oped an amaz­ing value invest­ing tool to ana­lyze stocks (more on that later)

Long-Term Value

Value Uncov­ered

Tools of analysis

Once you get the habit of pay­ing a close atten­tion to these blogs (use Google Reader to keep track of blogs!) I highly sug­gest you to turn to Old School Value stock analy­sis tool for $137 (really good invest­ment – trust me!). For indi­vid­ual like us who can’t really put our hands on Cap­i­tal IQ or Bloomberg – this is the best tool out there. And to some extent, I am will­ing to say that OSV stock analy­sis tool beats both Cap­i­tal IQ and Bloomberg for its sim­plic­ity and on other aspects (price, etc.)

I would also sug­gest two stock screen­ers. Many use the Finan­cial Times stock screener avail­able (free) and a paid stock screen­ing tool (min $24 per month) from Screener.co

Key steps to fol­low in your val­u­a­tion… basi­cally how to invest!

A very good tuto­r­ial on how to invest in terms of what step to fol­low in your research and val­u­a­tion of stocks is pro­vided on the OSV web­site by the author’s friend Ernie. This tuto­r­ial is like a men­tal map­ping of the steps to fol­low to increase your chance of suc­cess with your investments.

Addi­tional Resources

Val­u­a­tion Mul­ti­ples: A Primer” is doc­u­ment writ­ten by UBS in 2001 on val­u­a­tion mul­ti­ples. It is clear, con­cise, and cov­ers if not all the key val­u­a­tion mul­ti­ples: how to use the mul­ti­ples in the val­u­a­tion of a stock, their lim­i­ta­tions / draw­backs, etc.  This doc­u­ment was found by OSV and Jae Jun (the author of OSV) declares that this is the best val­u­a­tion doc­u­ment available!

Fur­ther readings…

Ben­jamin Gra­ham and David Dodd – Secu­rity Analy­sis … a mas­ter­piece! I would sug­gest how­ever the 1951 edi­tion avail­able here sim­ply because you don’t need to go through the accompanied-CD for the appendices.

Many have told me that I must read this fol­low­ing book:

Seth Klar­man — Mar­gin of Safety: Risk-Averse Value Invest­ing Strate­gies for the Thought­ful Investor

This book is out of print, really hard to find, but is avail­able on the web in PDF (you have to search!). I haven’t read this one yet but I will!

New Article on a Review of Multifractals in Finance by L. Calvet and A. Fisher

Posted 16 May 2013 — by Charles Martineau
Category Finance, Fractals, Research

Last sum­mer I had the plea­sure to assist my adviser Prof. Adlai Fisher and his buddy and co-author Prof. Lau­rent Cal­vet at HEC Paris to do some research assis­tance on their new paper to be pub­lished in the Con­tem­po­rary Math­e­mat­ics titled Extreme Risk and Frac­tal Reg­u­lar­ity in Finance.  Their paper is a review of mul­ti­frac­tals in finance with an updated com­po­nent of two of their pre­vi­ous papers: (1) Mul­ti­frac­tal­ity in Asset Returns; and (2) How to Fore­cast Long Run Volatility.

I plan for the begin­ning of the sum­mer to put online the codes to repli­cate these papers. There seems to be more and more inter­est in frac­tals in finance… take a look at an inter­est­ing forth­com­ing paper in the Jour­nal of Finan­cial Econo­met­rics by Chen, Diebold, and Schorfheide titled A Markov-switching mul­ti­frac­tal inter-trade dura­tion model, with appli­ca­tion to US equi­ties.

TotalView ITCH 4.1. SAS code

Posted 31 Dec 2012 — by Charles Martineau
Category Research

I am cur­rently work­ing with the data­base TotalView ITCH (ver­sion 4.1) of NASDAQ. I updated the pre­vi­ous SAS code that was avail­able here for TotalView ITCH 4.0.

New SAS code avail­able here: itch_4.1_format for TotalView ITCH 4.10 (as of Jan 2013). Enjoy.

New productivity app: Omniwriter

Posted 31 Dec 2012 — by Charles Martineau
Category Productivity, Research

I am some­what late on this but by pure ran­dom­ness I found an amaz­ing and sim­ple appli­ca­tion for Mac (also avail. for iPhone and iPad) called Omni­writer. Omni­writer is a sim­ple text edi­tor that allows you to be totally focused when it comes to writ­ing. It is hard to really explain what this appli­ca­tion is all about. In one sen­tence, I would say that Omni­writer is what writ­ing would be like in heaven. I’ll let the video below really demon­strate what Omni­writer is all about:

 

Intro­duc­ing OmmWriter Dāna from hs&co on Vimeo.

How to Build an Economic Model in Your Spare Time by Hal R. Varian.… yes I know…I am late

Posted 09 Jul 2012 — by Charles Martineau
Category Presentations, Research

Yes­ter­day my friend urged me to read How to Build an Eco­nomic Model in Your Spare Time by Hal R. Var­ian — econ. prof at Berke­ley. Soooo refresh­ing! To make this short, its another amaz­ing guide on help­ing econ­o­mist and any researchers on how to gen­er­ate great research ideas and pro­duce great work. But there is some­thing that I read in there that you will not usu­ally hear in academia:

There are three parts to a sem­i­nar: the intro­duc­tion, the con­tent, and the conclusion. My advice about intro­duc­tions is sim­ple: don’t have one. I have seen many sem­i­nars ruined by long, pre­ten­tious, con­tent­less intro­duc­tions. My advise: say a few sen­tences about the big pic­ture and then get down to busi­ness: show them what you’ve got and why it’s impor­tant. The pri­mary rea­son to get down to busi­ness right away is that your audi­ence will only remem­ber about twenty min­utes of your talk and that is usu­ally the first twenty min­utes. So make sure that you get some use­ful infor­ma­tion into that first twenty minutes.

Amen.

Most of the sem­i­nars I attend its always the same god damn thing… if the pre­sen­ter takes too much time before jump­ing in the meat of his or her research, peo­ple start to ask a lot of ques­tions and the audi­ence lose track right away and won­ders why there is some­one if front of them… I usu­ally start dreaming : )

Research Tools: Be More Efficient

Posted 11 Jun 2012 — by Charles Martineau
Category Research

More I do research the more I find cool and use­ful tools to make a researcher’s life more effi­cient. Here are the tools that I use often and why:

Ever­note

Remem­ber Every­thing is Evernote’s “brand­ing mes­sage” and its cor­rect. With Ever­note, any research ideas that pop up in your mind you can write it down in Evernote’s apps. This app syncs with your PC/MAC, phone, tablet etc.

Omni­fo­cus (for Mac prod­ucts only, 80$)

Omni­fo­cus is per­sonal pro­duc­tiv­ity appli­ca­tion. It’s costly but how effec­tive to keep track of all your work, projects, bills to pay, etc! It is not a per­sonal agenda! The app was in part devel­oped with the book “Get­ting Things Done” by David Allen.

Papers ($79)

A per­sonal library of research. Keep track of all your research arti­cles and make sure they are well organized.

Google Reader

You may prob­a­bly know what Google Reader is. It’s your own lit­tle hub of all the blogs you fol­low. I like it to fol­low other aca­d­e­mic blogs. I get a lot of ideas from there.

Google Alert

I am sur­prised that many don’t know Google Alert. With Google Alert, you can ask to report you, on a daily basis, any new stuff on the web that was cre­ated in the last 24hours on a topic of choice. A great way to keep track of what is going on in your field of research.

Skim

Skim allows you open any PDF doc­u­ments and anno­tate them the way you want. Let’s just say it’s eas­ier to anno­tate doc­u­ments in PDF using Skim when shar­ing your research with co-authors than using LaTex.

Stack Over­flow

Stack Over­flow is a web­site where all pro­gram­mers meet and help oth­ers who need help with MATLAB, SAS, PYTHON, C++, etc. I had to learn Mat­lab real fast and with­out Stack Over­flow, it would have taken me an eter­nity. You can get replies really fast and when you sub­mit a ques­tion. Make sure you approve the answers (if the cor­rect one) sug­gested by authors to build up your reputation.

Guides and Tips for Researchers

Posted 03 May 2012 — by Charles Martineau
Category Research

I recently added a new page for my web­site titled “Guides and Tips”. You will find in this sec­tion the fol­low­ing: (1) How to con­duct great research, (2) write great research, (3) pub­li­ca­tion process, and (4) on the job mar­ket + becom­ing a junior fac­ulty + teach­ing tips.

All the doc­u­ments you will find under these four sec­tions have col­lected for the past months. Hope­fully this helps!

 

Reviewing Less—Progressing More” by Matthew Spiegel — RFS Editor

Posted 11 Mar 2012 — by Charles Martineau
Category Research

The cur­rent Review of Finan­cial Stud­ies’ edi­tor Matthew Spiegel recently wrote a bril­liant piece for the recent RFS March 2012 edi­tion titled “Review­ing less — pro­gress­ing more”. This edi­to­r­ial piece con­cerns recent and wor­ry­ing trends in the pub­li­ca­tion process of aca­d­e­mic finance (and prob­a­bly other) studies.

abstract

Pre­sum­ably, aca­d­e­mic jour­nals exist and pub­lish arti­cles to dis­sem­i­nate new ideas. Some­how that sim­ple goal has been lost. Today, arti­cles appear in print only after a ref­eree is con­vinced that all other alter­na­tive expla­na­tions for its results have been ruled out. In real­ity, no arti­cle can exclude every pos­si­ble alter­na­tive, so this is basi­cally an exer­cise in futil­ity. The cri­te­rion for pub­li­ca­tion should be that once an arti­cle crosses some thresh­old it is good enough to pub­lish. The prob­lem seem­ingly lies in our
inabil­ity to say “good enough.” But this is a prob­lem we can fix.

This is a must read! (I par­tic­u­larly adore the last para­graph on page 8 and its fol­low­ing on page nine…“What if an arti­cle is important—that is, peo­ple read and cite it? In that case, aca­d­e­mics will dis­sect its every aspect. Some will exam­ine the article’s data fil­ters; oth­ers will check for cod­ing errors; still oth­ers will look for miss­ing fac­tors or reverse causal­ity expla­na­tions. The list is end­less. But, that is the point. The list is end­less. Authors, ref­er­ees, and edi­tors can­not even scratch the sur­face. Nor do they have to. The fact that our col­leagues will stress test any impor­tant pub­li­ca­tion means our profession’s received canon of knowl­edge has a self-correcting mech­a­nism built in. We have faith that impor­tant arti­cles are “right” because their results have been tested over and over again in myr­iad ways. Instead of try­ing to pre­empt this by demand­ing authors per­form ever more tests, we should instead just let the aca­d­e­mic process work by pub­lish­ing arti­cles if they are likely to be inter­est­ing. After that, let the pro­fes­sion deter­mine if the author’s con­clu­sions are accurate—or rather, that they are inter­est­ing enough to even make check­ing for prob­lems worthwhile”)

Do Political Institutions Affect the Choice of the US Cross-Listing Venue?

Posted 15 Feb 2012 — by Charles Martineau
Category Politics, Research

My mas­ters research “Do Polit­i­cal Insti­tu­tions Affect the Choice of the US Cross-Listing Venue? is now avail­able on SSRN. I ended-up co-writing with my research with my the­sis direc­tor and co-director who did a lot of work on the data side.

Abstract:

We study the impact of polit­i­cal insti­tu­tions on for­eign firms’ choice of their U.S. cross-listing venue. Using two mea­sures of polit­i­cal insti­tu­tions (an index of polit­i­cal rights and a polit­i­cal con­straint index) and con­trol­ling for var­i­ous firm-level and country-level char­ac­ter­is­tics, we show that for­eign firms from coun­tries with weak polit­i­cal insti­tu­tions are more likely to cross-list in the U.S. via the over-the-counter mar­ket and less likely to opt for an exchange-listed pro­gram (i.e., New York, Nas­daq, and AMEX).

Presentation tip #3: Follow John Cochrane’s advice to seminar presentations

Posted 04 Jan 2012 — by Charles Martineau
Category Presentation Tips, Presentations, Research

John Cochrane of the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago wrote a bril­liant advice paper to PhD stu­dent few years ago. The paper should be read reli­giously by all PhD research stu­dents. The sec­tion on sem­i­nar pre­sen­ta­tions (sec­tion 4) cov­ers short and sweet guide­lines to increase the prob­a­bil­ity of suc­cess when it comes to pre­sen­ta­tions. It may be incom­plete on var­i­ous pre­sen­ta­tion aspects but nonethe­less one of the best place to start think­ing and struc­tur­ing your pre­sen­ta­tions. Below I copy/paste the sec­tion 4 of the paper (page 11–12). Read it care­fully… it is not long!

4 Sem­i­nar pre­sen­ta­tions
You will not believe how fast the time will go by.

Since time is lim­ited, it’s espe­cially impor­tant to get to the point. We can’t skim to the
impor­tant stuff in a seminar!

You don’t need any lit­er­a­ture review or moti­va­tion in a sem­i­nar. Just get to the point.
Gene Fama usu­ally starts his sem­i­nars with “Look at table 1.” That’s a good model to
emulate.

Don’t “pre­view” results. It wastes time; why say it twice rather than say it once, right?

Don’t make slides with a bul­let point for every word you intend to say. This forces you
into a pre­planned order, and then you can’t change on the fly when you figure out how fast
time is going by. Slides are fine that only con­tain equa­tions, tables and graphs — things
we really need to see. At most use words for the one or two really impor­tant things you
want peo­ple to know, e.g. “Identification: inter­est rates do not respond to fiscal shocks in the Ricar­dian model.” Also, you want peo­ple to remem­ber the struc­ture of the model, definitions of vari­ables, etc. If you have too much junk on the slides, peo­ple can’t see the util­ity func­tion while you’re talk­ing about the pro­duc­tion func­tion, so they get lost. Peo­ple don’t remem­ber equa­tions from one slide to the next.

You have to leave slides up for a decent amount of time in order for peo­ple to digest
them. That means you will not be able to put up 1 slide per minute!

As in writ­ing the paper, your main objec­tive is to get to the #1 impor­tant con­tri­bu­tion
as fast as possible.

Most sem­i­nars are a dis­as­ter. They start with point­less moti­va­tion and pol­icy impli­ca­tions, which the audi­ence can’t fol­low since we don’t know the result. Then we get a long
lit­er­a­ture review, which is even more bor­ing since we don’t know the point of this paper
much less what every­one else did. Then we get a results pre­view. Usu­ally, the pre­sen­ter says “I’ll pre­view the results now because I may not have time to get to them all,” a strangely self-fulfilling prophecy. Since show­ing the main results is the only rea­son you came, why not just start right now! Worse, the rea­son we run out of time is because we wasted half an hour on the stu­pid pre­view! The sem­i­nar then bogs down as peo­ple start ask­ing ques­tions about the pre­viewed results; most of the ques­tions are dumb (“I mea­sure the demand elas­tic­ity at 0.3.” “But how did you iden­tify sup­ply shifts?”) since they will be explained in a proper pre­sen­ta­tion of the results. But the ques­tions are totally rea­son­able since the claim with no doc­u­men­ta­tion is mean­ing­less. Next, we get (in empir­i­cal papers) some “theory” that is really beside the point and only serves to pro­voke more need­less argu­ment (no, there really is no way to dis­tin­guish the “behav­ioral” and “ratio­nal” expla­na­tion. Clever audi­ence mem­bers will come up with sto­ries that reverse all the signs.) Then we get some dis­tract­ing pre­lim­i­nary results and tables and graphs of unre­lated obser­va­tions. More point­less dis­cus­sion erupts; peo­ple don’t know what point the speaker is try­ing to make and the dis­cus­sion goes off in to tan­gents. Finally the speaker sees there is only 10 min­utes to go, tells peo­ple to be quiet, and the main results go by in a big rush. Every­one is tired and con­fused and doesn’t fol­low any­thing. I timed the finance work­shop last win­ter quar­ter and not one paper got to the main results in under an hour!

Lis­ten to the ques­tions, all the way to the end, then count to three before answer­ing.
Yes, you’re in a rush, and yes, you think you can guess what the ques­tion will be and you
know the answer. This isn’t a game show, and much of the time you actu­ally don’t know
what the ques­tion will be.

Keep a sheet of paper handy. You may not have a quick answer to every ques­tion, and
some ques­tions may point to good things to change in the paper.

You can­not make it too sim­ple. Most pre­sen­ters, espe­cially Ph. D. stu­dents over­es­ti­mate
dra­mat­i­cally how much the­ory peo­ple can digest in one sit­ting, and how quickly they can
mem­o­rize and digest mod­els and results.

Speak loudly, slowly and clearly.

There’s noth­ing wrong with end­ing early!*

* I bolded the last line… and not John Cochrane. Fin­ish­ing ear­lier does not kill anyone.