We have Italian elections in early March. The Germans still haven’t formed a government, and the AfD have 13% (the fictional TV series Berlin Station predicted a 13% vote for the fictional analogue PfD). All the data is good and synchronized. It really can’t get any better than this. Investors are more bullish than at any time in the last 10 years. What could go wrong?

Well, we’ll see.

The Fed is hiking, and no longer buying as much, the ECB’s QE could be running down, the BoJ is the last bastion of super loose money and facing a stronger economy, the PBOC is tapping the brakes on the financial system in China. If you believe that QE had little to do with asset price inflation then you can sleep easy.

Markets did very well in 2017 and are off to a very strong start for 2018. Are you happy with conditions?

The economy is as strong as it has ever been in the last 10 years. We’ve had bouts and pockets of strength but the current expansion is as broad as it is deep. Europe is growing at a rapid pace, America is growing at a stable pace. Developed markets growth is surprisingly strong. Emerging markets have shrugged off trade worries and commodity markets are rising.

It doesn’t seem to matter that the Fed is raising rates and shrinking its balance sheet, that the ECB is not far behind, that the PBOC is increasing regulation and curbing credit expansion. There is widespread optimism.

Conditions look very good indeed. Is there anything that causes you concern?

Markets are driven by inflexions and rates of change, not by levels. A synchronized expansion is vulnerable to change, to a country or region slowing down, to a deceleration. General conditions are so good now a deterioration will elicit a stronger response than an improvement.

We spent the last 10 years being cautious and facing a European crisis, a China stock bubble, various turns of QE and then its taper, all manner of political turmoil – mostly yet to be resolved, and what we got was a raging bull market. What will optimism bring? The market has not been this bullish since 2003, and before that 2000. It was right to be in 2003 but not in 2000. In 2003 it was coming off a recession, in 2000 it was coming off a high.

Valuations are high in both equities and credit. They only look reasonable in the context of low interest rates. If interest rates climb, financial assets could look very expensive indeed. Since we have a correlating factor, a common factor, the risks certainly have risen. You have to get your interest rate call right.

Financial market performance has correlated quite well with the monetary accommodation of the Fed, the ECB, the BoJ in the last 8 years. The Fed is done with QE, the ECB could be done with it soon. We will soon discover how dependent financial markets were on QE. I suspect they were but nobody knows for sure until we reverse the experiment.

There is a small risk that inflation reacts perversely to interest rates according to the Neo Fisherian view. If so, the Fed could be creating inflation with its rate hikes. In any case, inflation could pick up as base effects take effect. Also, commodity and in particular, energy prices are rising. If inflation rises significantly it could change the interest rate outlook on which so much hangs.

So we should be taking risk of the table?

The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent, said a great man. I wouldn’t underestimate the power of the herd and currently the sentiment is with the bulls. Markets over shoot when they rise and when they fall. They’ve already overshot reasonable levels but there is momentum and the overshoot could go further.

Buy some protection. Options are cheap at the moment and it makes sense to remain long the market, but buy some put protection. If you are a value investor, there is no value in sight except for the options market. Implied volatility is not realized volatility, it’s the market’s best guess of what the realized vol will be going forward and it is acutely low at the moment.

As for fixed income, I’d certainly be hedging duration. The market is probably underestimating the determination of the Fed to normalize and raise rates. It’s also probably underestimating the potential for inflation to rise as well. With the breadth of the economic growth we are experiencing, I wouldn’t be betting on lower EUR or JPY rates either. Credit is another matter. The corporate bond market is as tight as a drum and there is certainly very little value there. If you want to invest in credit you have to find cheap conduits, cheap vehicles, to access corporate credit, and there just aren’t that many.

We hear that equity valuations are near historical highs and credit spreads are extremely tight. Are markets really expensive?

In absolute terms, equity markets are very expensive and credit markets are acutely expensive. You can find cheaper access vehicles to credit but you’ll have to accept some complexity and illiquidity. There are pockets of value in ABS, in particular in RMBS. But generally markets are expensive. The only way to justify valuations is to compare them to sovereign bond yields. It’s cold comfort because all that says is that sovereign bonds are even more expensive. Further, it means that one should expect markets to be very sensitive to the sovereign bond market and to interest rates.

So in summary, general conditions are healthy, good even, but markets are expensive and investors are complacent. Is that a fair characterization of the market? How would you invest under these conditions?

I think that sums it up quite well. That the underlying economy is growing is a comfort, so one should be long the market, not short. That markets are expensive means you should be cautious and therefore look to buy put protection. There are some fairly valued markets around such as the US mortgage market, but you can’t have all your eggs in one basket. Banks and financials are cheap, and facing a more forgiving regulatory outlook. And if you have to buy something expensive, it better be growing fast, so selected emerging markets like India, or Vietnam, some turnaround economies like Japan but you don’t want to over pay for pedestrian growth just because that economy happens to be in a cyclical upswing. It has to be a more durable growth than that.

But caution means you will miss some upside and some opportunities. If you are unwilling to miss out, you have to capture all the upside, you will inevitably capture a good part of the downside, when it comes. If you are lucky, the end comes late and you will have compounded a sizeable return by then. If the end comes soon, then, not so lucky and it will take some time to recoup losses. It depends on how reliant you want to be on luck. There’s certainly an element of it in everything.

Tell us what you make of Bitcoin and all these crypto currencies. A fad or the real thing? Will they last and are they worth that much?

Honestly don’t know. And yet, they have strong parallels to fiat currency. Fiat currency, the USD, the EUR, have value because an authority said so and we accept that it is so. Cryptocurrencies have value because a group of people say so and because sufficient people accept that it is so. Bitcoin is too volatile to be a medium of exchange because no one would ever pay with it as it is rising. Its not really a good numeraire since its value changes by so much in so short a time. It is a good store of value because it’s been rising but the since late Dec 2017 till mid Jan 2019 we’ve seen a lot of volatility. If you paid 18,800 USD for a Bitcoin, you’re store of value has fallen by over a quarter and then rebounded some. Is it a fad or will it last? I really don’t know. There will be insufficient coin to facilitate trade as long as the speed of mining is artificially handicapped. It’s tempting to say that cryptocurrencies aren’t real, that their value is arbitrary or dependent on the greater fool, but the same could be said of fiat currency. Perhaps the greatest thing about cryptocurrencies will be what they teach us about our perception of the financial assets and objects which we are so familiar with. Familiar to the point that we fail to examine them objectively.

What are your best investment ideas for 2018?

A portfolio is not just a collection of investment ideas. At all times a portfolio should be constructed so that it has the desired exposures and diversifies or hedges away unwanted exposures. I am invested in US mortgages, residential and commercial. I have non agency exposure and I have agency CRTs as well. I have a little emerging market hard currency credit exposure, not currency or duration exposure. I access corporate credit through CLOs which cheapen the access a little and also provide better diversification and credit enhancement. One of my main themes is banks and I have a significant exposure to bank’s contingent capital, especially in Europe. The result is that the credit book is quite risk on. What little duration there is is hedged not with swaps or futures but with long bank equity positions. Beyond a hedge, I expect banks to outperform the broad equity market and so have a significant overweight position. I am optimistic about India and Japan and am overweight their equities. Tech may come under pressure from increased regulation so I am underweight. The equity allocation is roughly neutral but I own put protection as implieds have been cheap and it makes sense to own some vega. I have a tactical trade in a 2 and 30 USD curve steepener betting on the flattening of the curve being overdone and inflation being underpriced. I’m watching the Italian elections closely to see if there might be an opportunity to buy BTPS against shorting bunds.

Financial markets began 2018 with a surge. Equity markets closed on or exceeded historical highs, credit spreads tightened and sovereign bonds sold off. Commodities rallied with emerging market currencies as the USD sank. The first week of 2018 appeared to indicate continued risk appetite and exuberant sentiment, with some good reasons and some cautions.

1. We have a benign economic environment with a broadening and strengthening of growth. Despite the Fed raising rates and normalizing balance sheets, global liquidity conditions remain very accommodative. The change in fiscal stance in the US adds another boost to growth potential. As far as the economy is concerned, all is well.

2. Most investors agree that assets are expensive from equities to corporate bonds. The only justification for asset valuations comes from comparing them relative to interest rates. This makes interest rates an important factor in calling the markets.

3. Risk aversion is low. VIX index, an indicator of market participants’ perception of future volatility, is near all-time lows. Options are a form of insurance policy and one buys insurance when one can, not when one needs.

4. As asset returns have outrun economic growth, investment opportunities have become scarcer. Combine this with the massive liquidity infusions of the past 8 years and witness the global rise in asset valuations. Old opportunities continue to creep up and new opportunities become inundated with capital.

5. One response to the rising valuations is to invest with hedge funds. Hedge fund returns have been pedestrian in the past 8 years compared with their passive long only competitors but this has in part been due to central bank liquidity dampening volatility and increasing correlations. As central banks normalize, it is expected that dispersion and volatility will return to the markets providing hedge funds a more fertile hunting ground. However, investors have a tendency to allocate to the most recently best performing funds and, in the last year at least, these have tended to be the more beta driven funds.

6. The liquidity risk premium has also been compressed as investors give up liquidity for returns. Private equity and private debt valuations are near (and sometimes beyond) public market valuations reducing the liquidity premium.

7. As the Fed raises rates, even from such low levels, there comes a point at which it is not impractical to hold cash.

8. There are no immediate or apparent threats to economic growth or financial markets that investors can see. It is always difficult to identify catalysts to end a bull market. In 2000, the Dotcom bubble was only recognized by a few. In 2008, only a few investors recognized the bubble developing in the US real estate and mortgage market. Since the crisis, the market has shrugged off political risks (such as Brexit, Trump, the far right in Europe, North Korean missiles, and populism) as well as economic risks (QE taper, China’s debt levels, Japan’s national debt, Fed rate hikes and normalization). It is impossible to foresee what could derail this bull market but conditions are indicating a rise in exuberance and complacency.

How should one invest when growth is already robust and may plateau, expected returns are lower as assets are expensive and the central banks are beginning to turn from extraordinary accommodation? There are several approaches. One is to maintain a fixed target return and increase the level of risk required to achieve it. The other is to maintain the level of risk and do one’s best, accepting that returns may be lower.

What happens when investors target a level of returns? They get creative. In 2000, the Dotcom bubble had burst and taken the rest of Wall Street with it, the economy was suffering, and the Fed cut interest rates aggressively, from 6.50% to 1.00% in the course of two and half years. While this saved the economy, the stock market and the bond market, it meant that in 2003, investors seeking yield were finding it difficult to find any. Investors had to reach further for yield shifting weight from IG to HY, allocating more to junk, and then when returns have been squeezed out of traditional bond markets, turning to leveraged finance and ABS. CLOs, CDOs, SIVs, and other leveraged structures produced highly rated securities with arbitrage spreads which investors could take advantage of. The securitization of mortgages provided similar opportunities to benefit from diversification and leverage. When unlevered returns fall, returns targeting implies that leverage must rise. As leverage rises, demand for the underlying investment opportunities rises, at some point outstripping supply. When willingness to lend or invest outweighs willingness to borrow, or raise capital, the dynamics of the market change. Investors are no longer effectively policing markets and enforcing efficient price discovery. Subprime loans, liar loans, teaser rate loans, option ARMs, were inventions to encourage borrowing to feed the production of securities to satisfy investor demand. We know how that story played out.

For most people, a simple investment strategy is best. Complex investment strategies with ambitious objectives, whether they are loss reduction, returns enhancement, volatility targeting, alpha generation, et al, are luxuries with associated cost. Here are some simple rules that investors of all levels of sophistication should follow. 

1. Invest early and keep it simple. Take more risk when young and reduce your risk with age.

2. Diversify over time. Apply dollar cost averaging to reduce the impact of market volatility. Diversify over assets. Don’t have all your eggs in one basket.

3. Manage your costs which include both transaction as well as ongoing fees. Don’t trade often as it is expensive and does not add to performance in the long run.

4. Learn about economics, politics and finance but not so much that you feel you can break rules 1 to 3 above.

When you are young and just earning an income, say in your early twenties, set some income aside and invest it all in equities. A diversified ETFs is the most efficient way to invest. As you get older, put some portion away in bonds. Again one or two diversified ETFs or a single diversified mutual fund is best. At age 70, or 90, or whatever the retirement age has become by then, have no equities and should only have low risk, high quality bonds. In between, just do a straight line pro ration to figure out how much you need in bonds and how much in equities for any given age you are.

Exchange traded funds (ETFs) and mutual funds are useful investment vehicles. They give the investor instant diversification and reduce the investment amounts to manageable sizes for those who don’t have a lot to invest.

Stock picking is a difficult thing to do. Too much concentration in a single stock is risky, and too little exposure per stock means that the time and effort spent identifying that stock is diluted. Have a diversified portfolio.

Market timing is difficult to do. The best of professional traders fail at market timing, an amateur should not even try. Nor should they delegate market timing even to professionals. Apply dollar cost averaging, spreading investments over time to smooth the impact of market volatility.

Fund picking can be easy or difficult. Don’t make it difficult by trying to identify so-called alpha generating fund managers. Alpha is hard to find and can be variable. Often an ETF is the most effective investment instrument. When selecting an ETF, check that it indeed gives you the exposure you seek, check that you are comfortable with the cost (total expense ratio, not just management fees), and with the liquidity in case you need to cash out.

Sometimes, ETFs are not available for the investment you are trying to make. This is rare if you are keeping it simple, but some investors are a bit more sophisticated than others. In this case, a mutual fund could be the answer. Again, check that the fund gives you the intended exposure at a reasonable cost and liquidity.

Find a cost effective execution and custody platform. Most banks offer all of the investment solutions you seek but can be expensive. If all you seek is execution and safekeeping of assets, you should be acutely cost sensitive and risk conscious.

If you have lots of money, many financial institutions will try to advise you. If you have little or less money, fewer people will be willing to advise you. You should be clear what advice you need or want and seek it.

If advice comes looking for you, it is likely to be expensive. It is generally expensive to provide investment advice and so that advice comes at a price. Financial advisors have to find you. This is expensive as they have to spend money on advertisements or hire salespeople to seek you out. These costs are borne by you directly or indirectly, they are not borne by the financial advisor. Investment advice is expensive to deliver. The financial advisor has certain duties and responsibilities which raise their costs. They have to get to know you, your financial circumstances and objectives. The collection and maintenance of data is expensive. They have to provide suitable advice. This process involves finding the right products and selling them to you in a proper way, meaning that apart from telling you the benefits, they have to tell you the risks, and the costs. Financial firms have people who check that their salespeople are behaving properly and following procedure. They have investment professionals seeking out suitable products and doing research for you. All this costs money, and of course has to be paid for by you.

Small investors pay the highest fees because they do not have bargaining power and yet are not very profitable to the firm as their investment amounts are too small. To make servicing small investors profitable, costs have to be cut. Automation and other systematic asset allocation models are a potentially efficient solution.

Big investors are very price sensitive and often haggle over fees and shop around. To make servicing big investors profitable, service levels have to be raised, often raising costs further. The provision of increasingly sophisticated investment advice and products can be like an arms race, but the cost often rises to meet the benefit.

The TPP was President Obama’s trade pact designed to be a counterbalance to the surging influence of China. It was designed to exclude China. When President Trump decided to turn away from TPP he provided China with a strategic opening. China has been building bridges as the US was busy building walls, or trying to anyway.

China could wrongfoot the US easily by joining the TPP and help in driving it to conclusion. It would win as much prestige as the US would lose. Then perhaps President Trump will see that an insular and nationalistic policy is counterproductive and opt for a more open and engaging stance. If it did, it could spark a wave of competitive engagement which would be more productive than the current competitive insularism.

Of course, China’s SOEs present the biggest practical hurdle to China ever joining the TPP. For now at least, SOEs are an important policy apparatus in the management of the Chinese economy. Yet with time this may change as China continues to reform and deregulate. Already it has decided to open its banking and asset management industry to foreign ownership, which is a big step in the right direction. If China could find itself ready to procure that its SOEs comply with international commercial standards, there is a chance.