Venture Populist

Since 2002, I have been writing a monthly column on the alternative investments for Investment Advisor magazine. A couple of years ago we renamed the column Venture Populist and focused exclusively on issues the issues confronting family offices and angel investors that make direct investments in startups and early-stage private ventures.

The column generates frequent inquiries from wealth managers as to what alternative asset classes or investment strategies may provide portfolios with risk-return characteristics that are comparable to the attractive asymmetric return profile of private venture investment (PVI). The queries acknowledge that PVI is a compelling asset class, as well as, game-changing value-proposition and differentiator for their advisory firm. Yet, despite their interest, these advisors lack the access to deal flow, due diligence skills, regulatory latitude, HNW client base, or, simply the compulsory cojones to actually allocate their client capital to private ventures.

Often these advisors have embraced the progressive precepts of Hybrid Portfolio Theory yet require more accessible investment products than direct investments in private ventures to populate Portfolio B—the 15-30% of the alpha-producing portion of the portfolio that seeks positive asymmetric investment outcomes.

So, for a number of practical reasons, some wealth managers and investors searching for a substitute asset class with the same positively skewed return characteristics of PVI, but with greater accessibility and liquidity. Many investors simply do not have the investment horizon required to successfully harvest venture investments. These investors seek liquidity—not lockups.

I have always maintained that specialized managed futures, distressed, deep-value securities and out-of-the-money option strategies have the asymmetric return profiles that are required to fulfill Portfolio B’s mandate. But for many investors and advisors, these aforementioned strategies are as arcane, elusive and illiquid as investing in PVI.

Fortunately, there appears to be more accessible alternative to PVI for investors lacking leptokurtosis in their portfolios—the universe of less liquid and smaller cap publicly-traded U.S stocks.

Recent relevant research and return data indicate that there is a seemingly significant semblance between the returns of venture capital and those of less liquid, publicly-traded, small company stocks.

In 2004, John Cochrane, finance professor at Chicago Booth School of Business published The Risk and Return of Venture Capital which examined whether individual investments in venture capital projects “behave the same way as publicly-traded securities”, and which kind of securities they may resemble.

Compiling data from the 16,613 financing rounds of 7765 private companies over a 13-year period Cochrane observed similar volatilities and alphas between venture capital returns and the smallest Nasdaq stocks and concluded that “thinly-traded Nasdaq…small stock portfolios are natural candidates for a performance attribution of venture capital investments.”

More recently, the pioneering investment industry academic Roger Ibbotson got a little more granular by re-introducing his working paper Liquidity as an Investment Style which he initially co-authored with Zhiwu Chen in 2007. The work is important to adopters of Hybrid Portfolio Theory as it more narrowly defines a potential substitute for private venture investments by articulating the phenomenon of the “Illiquidity Premium”.

From 1972 to 2009, Ibbotson studied the returns of 3500 publicly-traded U.S. stocks in the context of their relative liquidity (defined by annual trading volume divided by total shares outstanding). The surprising results were that liquidity (as an investment style) was a far more effective predictor of returns than the conventional Fama-French factors. Specifically, the equities that produced the best returns during the period were the less liquid small-caps that attract distinctively less trading interest. These companies generated a remarkable 17.87% annual return over the four decades studied.

In contrast, the most liquid (and most widely held) growth stocks performed miserably at 3.3% — below the risk-free rate. The apparent performance attribution is due to the premium that most market participants are willing to pay for the most liquid securities—which, in turn, has the unintended but discernable consequences of reducing their returns.

So, the relative liquidity of a security, according to Ibbotson’s research, actually reduces its return.

Venture investors have always acknowledged the existence of an illiquidity premium and concede that they are swapping liquidity for the potential of significantly greater upside. The historical returns of the venture capital asset class prove this out. But this quantification of the role of illiquidity as a risk factor, with a risk premium, is most illuminating.

“There is a clear pattern of decreasing returns as the liquidity of stocks increase”, cites Ibbotson. There is indeed an excess return attributable to less liquid stocks and “the less liquid stocks are not necessarily more risky. Measured by standard deviation, risk seems to increase with liquidity.”

Ibbotson himself likens liquidity as an investment style to private investment such as venture capital, commenting that private securities are most appropriate for investor’s seeking even higher returns that have the luxury of longer investment horizons.

But the illustrated fact that “the illiquidity premium is positive and substantial with publicly-traded securities” offers an “Ah-Hah” moment for advisors seeking a complimentary asset class or substitute for allocations to private venture investment.

Food for thought.

Album:   Food for Thought Substitute, Heaven’s Cry, 1997

Popularity: 9% [?]

Last month I spoke on a venture capital panel at an alternative investment conference in Chicago. As the former head of alternative strategies for a well known investment management firm, I saw many old friends and familiar faces among the family offices, wealth managers and investment firms that were attendees and exhibitors.

I also picked up on a chilling consensus that was apparent among the conference attendees…that the individual investor that has been fleeing from the public equities markets for months now, is not expected to return anytime soon. They are frozen…stunned, like the “ex-parrot” in the Monty Python sketch.

Beyond this sallow assessment, these investment pros were not particularly optimistic about the near-term. Wealth managers and investment advisors are hardly the beneficiary of todays investor’s prevailing distrust of Wall Street. Among all investor types, from retirees to HNW, money is rapidly flowing out of equities in favor of bonds and cash.

Today, the key asset management industry metric of AUM (assets under management) more aptly refers to assets under mattresses. Investors have lost faith in the integrity, as well as, the opportunity of the public equities market.

The advisors I spoke with were not prescient…merely perceptive. The evidence is hard to ignore. A recent CNBC/AP poll cited widespread investor distrust of the stock market with 61% of investors declaring that the market’s recent volatility has made them skeptical about participating in the market.

The radical shift in stock market investor confidence has resulted in a net $250 billion outflow from stock mutual funds since January 2008, according to the ICI, $48 billion in the past four months alone. Perhaps under different a different economic scenario the recent 21 consecutive weeks of persistent equity outflows would be a contrarian indicator, but Citibank’s own Robert Buckland cites these menacing metrics as support for his theses foreseeing trillions of additional dollars in outflows to follow and summarily declaring the “Equity Cult” to be DOA.

Some of these credible voices are even stronger. For example, sports mogul, billionaire investor and modesty magnate Mark Cuban initially declared that the “Stock Market is for Suckers” back in January 2006. He has frequently revisited and reiterated his meme on his Blog Maverick site since. Cuban recently called out the conventional wish-dom of Buy & Hold to be “the second most misleading marketing slogan ever, after the brilliant rinse and repeat message on every shampoo bottle”.

I guess that’s why the mutual fund company swag has been such slim pickings at investment conferences lately. There probably is not a lot of interest in those tired old laminated Ibbotson “Stocks, Bonds, Bills” charts anymore.

The stock market has become inhospitable to the individual investor. It has gone absolutely nowhere in the past ten years and investors have no returns (rather, for the most part…losses) to point to for the risk that they have assumed.

Nothing seems to work. Forget about investing in an individual company’s security based upon its specific fundamentals and outlook. The price movements of individual securities are now dictated by larger global macro themes such as the economy, interest rates, currencies, commodities and geopolitical considerations. Individual stocks are no longer priced on their own fundamentals. Hedge funds, index funds and speculators drive price action.

Adding to the investor’s frustration is the fallibility and futility of popular, traditional and even alternative approaches to extracting returns from the stock market. Buy-and-hold, day-trading, Modern Portfolio Theory, diversification, sector rotation and even the majority of alternative and absolute return strategies have come up short.

After 10 years of high volatility but no net return, two 50% bear markets and the May 6th flash crash (apparently was the result of one massive computer-triggered sell order)…they majority of investors have it figured out. Mass exodus time. They are pulling out of the equity markets in droves.

But, I did not get the sense that the majority of wealth managers and investment advisors have caught on. Most are still approaching their asset-allocations as usual.

A couple of years ago I introduced and advocated Hybrid Portfolio Theory as an alternative asset-allocation approach for the progressive advisor that held preservation of client’s capital as the primary objective while simultaneously pursuing the opportunity to achieve double-digit annual returns at the portfolio level.

Hybrid Portfolio Theory is unique as it eschews equity exposure in favor of allocating the majority (75-80%) of the assets into fixed income such as Treasurys, munis and TIPS (portfolio A). A second portfolio (B) holding the balance of the assets is mandated to pursue investing opportunities that have a positive asymmetric return profile such as investment into private early-stage private companies or small businesses, public emerging growth companies, real estate, or, specialized trading strategies that employ options or managed futures.

Of course I am biased. Venture Populist advocates that wealth managers and investors more frequently embrace allocations to direct private investment as a means of increasing portfolio returns in a manner that does not increase portfolio-level risk.

But recent numbers from Cambridge Associates underscore this conviction as the venture asset class has continued to provide compelling returns over the long term. Over the past fifteen years the U.S. Venture Capital Index has returned 38% annually against 7.4% for the Nasdaq and 7.8% for the S&P. Over the past twenty years 24% for VC against 9% for both the Nasdaq and S&P.

Exposure to private enterprise has historically been this countries greatest single wealth producer. Progressive wealth managers would be well-advised to adapt their core competencies to embrace more diverse and opportunistic investment opportunities outside of the public equities markets.

Some of their client’s certainly are…as Mark Cuban recently posted, “The stocks I own for the most part I have owned for a long, long time and I have more in gains than I want to pay taxes on. But in total, I have been a net seller of stocks for more than a year. The only investments I am making are small buys into private companies.”

Entourage fans, for the record, those “small buys” do not actually include an investment in “Turtle’s tequilla“…but considering the past decade of stock market performance, and the forward prospects, a spirits investment may not be a such a bad alternative.

 Album:   Exodus, Bob Marley and the Wailers, 1977

Popularity: 8% [?]