VIRTUAL DAN

VIRTUAL DAN

Notes from my travels around the internet

VIRTUAL DAN
  • My Pacific Northwest Solar
  • About
Monthly Archives: November 2013

The Battle For The Cloud

A few things stood out to me when  I read this report regarding cloud computing market share:

http://www.srgresearch.com/articles/ibm-microsoft-and-google-still-make-little-headway-q3-against-amazons-iaaspaas-dominance

First I was surprised at the amount of revenue cloud computing is already generating for these companies.  We are very early in the cloud computing model, and I think this will be huge going forward for whatever company wins the battle.

Second, I was surprised at Google’s market share in this world.  You rarely hear about Google’s cloud initiative, and I have never run across any company that uses Google’s Cloud service.

Third, I thought Microsoft was way ahead of the other non- Amazon competitors.  Microsofts Cloud (Azure) is the hub to Microsofts next post-Windows business model.  I think Microsoft and possibly and possibly Salesforce have the most to lose by not gaining market share.

Cloud computing makes alot of sense for alot of companies, and because it is so competitive prices will be very attractive.  Whoever wins this battle will have a very lucrative business model for years to come.

If you would like a brief overview of cloud computing architecture, this article from Rackspace is a good overview.

November 26, 2013 Dan Leave a comment

10 Month Moving Average Back Testing Results

In response to my previous post about whether to buy or sell just on the basis of a 10 month moving average,  I decided to publish some back testing results of the process.

This test assumes you  bought or sold at the start of the each month based solely if the S&P 500 was above or below its 10 month moving average by one percent.  This test also assumes if you sell, you just have the money sitting in cash earning no interest.  In the table below, I test using 100 shares of S&P 5500 index fund – comparing the 10 month moving average approach to just buying and holding the index:

Month End
Price
10 mo moving avg
%over / under
 
shares owned
 Mov Avg $ 
 Buy/Hold $ 
9/30/2007
135.98
129.207
Initial Buy
100
  $13,598
 $  13,598
10/31/2007
130.71
129.802
0.70%
100
 $ 13,071
 $  13,071
2/29/2008
133.82
130.953
2.19%
100
 $ 13,382
 $  13,382
3/31/2008
131.97
131.777
0.15%
100
 $ 13,197
 $  13,197
4/30/2008
138.26
132.682
4.20%
100
 $ 13,826
 $  13,826
5/31/2008
140.35
133.357
5.24%
100
 $ 14,035
 $  14,035
6/30/2008
127.98
132.991
(3.77%)
Sell
0
 $ 12,798
 $  12,798
7/31/2008
126.83
132.922
(4.58%)
0
 $ 12,798
 $  12,683
8/31/2008
128.79
132.885
(3.08%)
0
 $ 12,798
 $  12,879
9/30/2008
115.99
131.068
(11.50%)
0
 $ 12,798
 $  11,599
10/31/2008
85.82
126.052
(31.92%)
0
 $ 12,798
 $    8,582
11/30/2008
90.09
121.99
(26.15%)
0
 $ 12,798
 $    9,009
12/31/2008
90.24
117.632
(23.29%)
0
 $ 12,798
 $    9,024
1/31/2009
82.83
112.718
(26.52%)
0
 $ 12,798
 $    8,283
2/28/2009
73.93
106.285
(30.44%)
0
 $ 12,798
 $    7,393
3/31/2009
79.52
100.202
(20.64%)
0
 $ 12,798
 $    7,952
4/30/2009
87.42
96.146
(9.08%)
0
 $ 12,798
 $    8,742
5/31/2009
94.77
92.94
1.97%
Buy
100
 $ 12,798
 $    9,477
6/30/2009
92.33
89.294
3.40%
100
 $ 12,554
 $    9,233
7/31/2009
100.44
87.739
14.48%
100
 $ 13,365
 $  10,044
8/31/2009
102.46
89.403
14.60%
100
 $ 13,567
 $  10,246
9/30/2009
105.59
90.953
16.09%
100
 $ 13,880
 $  10,559
10/31/2009
103.56
92.285
12.22%
100
 $ 13,677
 $  10,356
11/30/2009
109.94
94.99599
15.73%
100
 $ 14,315
 $  10,994
12/31/2009
111.44
98.747
12.85%
100
 $ 14,465
 $  11,144
1/31/2010
107.39
101.534
5.77%
100
 $ 14,060
 $  10,739
2/28/2010
110.74
103.866
6.62%
100
 $ 14,395
 $  11,074
3/31/2010
117
106.089
10.28%
100
 $ 15,021
 $  11,700
4/30/2010
118.8125
108.7373
9.27%
100
 $ 15,202
 $  11,881
5/31/2010
109.369
109.6301
(0.24%)
100
 $ 14,258
 $  10,937
6/30/2010
103.22
109.7062
(5.91%)
Sell
0
 $ 13,643
 $  10,322
7/31/2010
110.27
110.1742
0.09%
0
 $ 13,643
 $  11,027
8/31/2010
105.31
110.3491
(4.57%)
0
 $ 13,643
 $  10,531
9/30/2010
114.13
110.7682
3.03%
Buy
100
 $ 13,643
 $  11,413
10/31/2010
118.49
111.4732
6.29%
100
 $ 14,079
 $  11,849
11/30/2010
118.4925
112.5834
5.25%
100
 $ 14,079
 $  11,849
12/31/2010
125.75
114.0844
10.23%
100
 $ 14,805
 $  12,575
1/31/2011
130.235
115.4079
12.85%
100
 $ 15,254
 $  13,024
2/28/2011
133.15
116.8417
13.96%
100
 $ 15,545
 $  13,315
3/31/2011
132.59
119.1637
11.27%
100
 $ 15,489
 $  13,259
4/30/2011
136.43
122.4847
11.39%
100
 $ 15,873
 $  13,643
5/31/2011
134.9
124.9477
7.97%
100
 $ 15,720
 $  13,490
6/30/2011
131.97
127.6137
3.41%
100
 $ 15,427
 $  13,197
7/31/2011
130.22
129.2227
0.77%
100
 $ 15,252
 $  13,022
8/31/2011
122.22
129.5957
(5.69%)
Sell
0
 $ 14,452
 $  12,222
9/30/2011
113.15
129.0615
(12.33%)
0
 $ 14,452
 $  11,315
10/31/2011
125.5
129.0365
(2.74%)
0
 $ 14,452
 $  12,550
11/30/2011
124.99
128.512
(2.74%)
0
 $ 14,452
 $  12,499
12/31/2011
125.5
127.747
(1.76%)
0
 $ 14,452
 $  12,550
1/31/2012
131.32
127.62
2.90%
Buy
100
 $ 14,452
 $  13,132
2/29/2012
137.02
127.679
7.32%
100
 $ 15,022
 $  13,702
3/31/2012
140.81
128.27
9.78%
100
 $ 15,401
 $  14,081
4/30/2012
139.87
129.06
8.38%
100
 $ 15,307
 $  13,987
5/31/2012
131.47
129.185
1.77%
100
 $ 14,467
 $  13,147
6/30/2012
136.105
130.5735
4.24%
100
 $ 14,931
 $  13,611
7/31/2012
137.71
133.0295
3.52%
100
 $ 15,091
 $  13,771
8/31/2012
141.16
134.5955
4.88%
100
 $ 15,436
 $  14,116
9/30/2012
143.97
136.4935
5.48%
100
 $ 15,717
 $  14,397
10/31/2012
141.35
138.0785
2.37%
100
 $ 15,455
 $  14,135
11/30/2012
142.155
139.162
2.15%
100
 $ 15,536
 $  14,216
12/31/2012
142.41
139.701
1.94%
100
 $ 15,561
 $  14,241
1/31/2013
149.7
140.59
6.48%
100
 $ 16,290
 $  14,970
2/28/2013
151.61
141.764
6.95%
100
 $ 16,481
 $  15,161
3/31/2013
156.67
144.284
8.58%
100
 $ 16,987
 $  15,667
4/30/2013
159.68
146.6415
8.89%
100
 $ 17,288
 $  15,968
5/31/2013
163.445
149.215
9.54%
100
 $ 17,665
 $  16,345
6/30/2013
160.42
151.141
6.14%
100
 $ 17,362
 $  16,042
7/31/2013
168.71
153.615
9.83%
100
 $ 18,191
 $  16,871
8/31/2013
163.65
155.845
5.01%
100
 $ 17,685
 $  16,365
9/30/2013
168.01
158.4305
6.05%
100
 $ 18,121
 $  16,801

 

During this period, the 10 month moving average approach beats the buy and hold strategy by a total of  7.86% over approximately 6 years.    Another plus for the 10 month moving average approach is you are exposed to lower risk, as the portfolio was in cash for 19 months.

Note that in recent months, the moving average approach underperformed just buy and hold, primarily to some ill-timed sales.  So  I would agree there is a cost to this approach during low volitility periods of the market, however it does appear to provide insurance against major downside moves.

 

 

 

 

November 23, 2013 Dan Leave a comment

Emerging From An Asset Allocation Rabbit Hole – Part 2

As I mentioned in my previous post, I have been looking into asset allocation due to my concern about the both the stock market and the bond market in bubble territory.   More and more articles are discussing the high valuation of the market, and attributing it to the abnormally low interest rates.  It is rational to believe people are investing in the stock market only because there is no better alternative.  I thought this article from John Mauldin had the best quote:

One of the keys to any bubble is usually loose credit and lending. To finance all the new consumer goods, in the 1920s installment lending was widely adopted, allowing people to buy more than they would have previously. In the 1990s, Internet companies resorted to vendor financing with cheap money that financial markets were throwing at Internet companies. In the housing boom in the 2000s, rising house prices and looser credit allowed more and more people access to credit. And a new financial innovation called securitization developed in the 1990s as a good way to allocate risk and share good returns was perversely twisted into making subprime mortgages acceptable as safe AAA investments.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/mauldin-bubbles-bubbles-everywhere-2013-11

In this time of record (artificially) low interest rates we are seeing money being flooded into the marketplace, just like previous times of loose credit.

So during my asset allocation adventure,  I was trying to decide what percentage of assets  I want to invest in the stock market.  My first inclination was to be real conservative.  However, other investment alternatives offer little hope of capital appreciation, so if the bubble bursting is a ways off then that would be the wrong choice.  So this let me to look at other strategies being used  for mitigating stock market risk.  I stumbled upon this paper by Mebane Faber  and it alerted me to a technical indicator that I hadn’t applied to the stock market before.

The key takeaway is it appears you can mitigate stock market risk using a simple technical analysis tool – comparing the current S&P 500 index to its simple 10 month moving average.  Faber uses the rule that if the market goes +1% above the 10 month moving average, that’s a buy indicator, and if it goes 1% below the 10 month moving average that’s a sell indicator.  He backtested this model back to 1900 or so, and came out with superior market returns largely due to avoiding the large drops.  While I have historically not invested much on technical indicators – this chart did impress me:

sp10mo

This is a chart of the S&P 500 since 1980, and the redline is a 10 month moving average.    Note that if you followed the +1 / -1 rule in 2008, you would of under-weighted near 1400 on the S&P in June of 2008, then over-weighted again in November 2009 at around 880.  The same is roughly true for 2001.  Note that in even worked back to the crash of 1987.

I am in the process of looking at this a little closer, and backtesting various moving averages.  One concern about the +1 / -1 rule is it seems on the surface it seems counter-intuitive  you are using a rule to sell low and buy high.  However, my eye keeps going back to this chart.  I am still not sure I can fully trust such a simple indicator,  but it is something worth keeping an eye on.

November 15, 2013 Dan 1 Comment

Its Official: Quantitative Easing Is A Stealth Wall Street Bailout

In past posts  I have complained about Quantitative Easing being a stealth bank bailout.  Now the cat is out of the bag, as the man responsible for orchestrating QE confesses it is  “the greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time”.

In this brutal Wall Street Journal op ed, he confesses paints a bleak picture of the Quantitative Easing and its effectiveness:

Even by the Fed’s sunniest calculations, aggressive QE over five years has generated only a few percentage points of U.S. growth. By contrast, experts outside the Fed, such as Mohammed El Erian at the Pimco investment firm, suggest that the Fed may have created and spent over $4 trillion for a total return of as little as 0.25% of GDP (i.e., a mere $40 billion bump in U.S. economic output). Both of those estimates indicate that QE isn’t really working.

Yet we continue with the same approach, trying to spur the economy by lowering interest rates, even though rates are near zero.  Why has no thought been given to lowering the payroll tax or some other plan to put more money in the pockets of the working poor?  Instead we continue to prop up Wall Street institutions by weakening the asset base of the US Treasury.

I doubt the US Treasury will ever be able to reverse the damage done to our balance sheet.  I just hope we can avoid the next financial panic until we get over the previous one.

 

November 12, 2013 Dan Leave a comment

Emerging From An Asset Allocation Rabbit Hole – Part 1

I have had some extra time of late, and have delved into the rabbit hole of asset allocation.   I have traditionally maintained an asset allocation balanced between stocks and bonds, and of late that has made me nervous because these both appear to be in bubble territory due to the artificially low interest rates being held down by quantitative easing.  My adventure started with this blog post by Mebane Faber on the performance of various asset allocation strategies over time.

This was a nice primer to how different financial schools of thought look at Asset Allocation.   Vanguard has a nice overview of some of the principles of Asset Allocation, though again it is just limited to stock classes vs bond classes.    If you use Quicken, you know their asset allocation tools are pretty basic, and in this investing environment possibly counter productive (if interest rates start to rise – both stocks and bonds will take a hit).     So it was nice to see some other more complex views of Asset Allocation Categories.

Having said that, the big takeaway for me was maybe it didn’t matter much. Note the chart at the bottom of the article shows the various allocations all performed pretty close to one another over time.  So maybe the investing world does just boil down to investing in a balance of equity vs debt, and all the subclasses in some of these strategies are just noise.

The financial press constantly hammers the point home that Asset allocation is very important, and that each person has to figure out what allocation is right for them, yet everybody has  a different opinion.  So after factoring all this information in, and my worries about both the valuation of the stock and bond markets, I have decided to take the super diversified route and tracking my asset allocation across more granular categories.  I have set target allocations for TIPS, REITs, Equitys, Emerging Foreign Markets, Developed Foreign Markets and more.   I am hoping this will reduce the shock of any bubble bursting, without greatly reducing my rate of return.  This decision also commits me to have a mechanism to track all this – to see if it does make sense.  I have developed a prototype that I am happy with, and hope to add this mechanism to Puget Investor in future months.

I’d be curious to hear if there are any other thoughts on asset allocation out there – please leave a comment if so.  I guess I haven’t fully emerged from this rabbit hole, and am still up for a little more exploring.

 

 

November 9, 2013 Dan 2 Comments

The Business Of Piracy

Interesting overview of how the Somali piracy industry works.

http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21588942-new-study-reveals-how-somali-piracy-financed-more-sophisticated-you

It doesn’t sound a whole lot different than the drug trade – fueled by the imbalance of the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ in close proximity to each other.  The higher the wealth gap between two parties, the less rule of law matters.

November 7, 2013 Dan Leave a comment

Archives

  • August 2021 (1)
  • May 2021 (1)
  • April 2021 (1)
  • March 2021 (1)
  • February 2021 (1)
  • January 2021 (1)
  • December 2020 (2)
  • November 2020 (2)
  • October 2020 (2)
  • September 2020 (2)
  • August 2020 (2)
  • July 2020 (2)
  • June 2020 (2)
  • May 2020 (2)
  • April 2020 (2)
  • March 2020 (2)
  • February 2020 (2)
  • January 2020 (3)
  • December 2019 (2)
  • November 2019 (2)
  • October 2019 (2)
  • September 2019 (1)
  • August 2019 (2)
  • July 2019 (2)
  • June 2019 (1)
  • May 2019 (3)
  • April 2019 (2)
  • March 2019 (2)
  • February 2019 (2)
  • January 2019 (3)
  • December 2018 (2)
  • November 2018 (2)
  • October 2018 (2)
  • September 2018 (2)
  • August 2018 (2)
  • July 2018 (2)
  • June 2018 (2)
  • May 2018 (2)
  • April 2018 (2)
  • March 2018 (2)
  • February 2018 (1)
  • January 2018 (3)
  • December 2017 (2)
  • November 2017 (2)
  • October 2017 (2)
  • September 2017 (2)
  • August 2017 (2)
  • July 2017 (2)
  • June 2017 (3)
  • May 2017 (2)
  • April 2017 (1)
  • March 2017 (3)
  • February 2017 (3)
  • January 2017 (2)
  • December 2016 (2)
  • November 2016 (3)
  • October 2016 (2)
  • September 2016 (2)
  • August 2016 (2)
  • July 2016 (2)
  • June 2016 (2)
  • May 2016 (2)
  • April 2016 (2)
  • March 2016 (2)
  • February 2016 (3)
  • January 2016 (4)
  • December 2015 (2)
  • November 2015 (2)
  • October 2015 (3)
  • September 2015 (3)
  • August 2015 (2)
  • July 2015 (4)
  • June 2015 (2)
  • May 2015 (4)
  • April 2015 (3)
  • March 2015 (4)
  • February 2015 (4)
  • January 2015 (4)
  • December 2014 (5)
  • November 2014 (3)
  • October 2014 (5)
  • September 2014 (3)
  • August 2014 (5)
  • July 2014 (4)
  • June 2014 (4)
  • May 2014 (3)
  • April 2014 (3)
  • March 2014 (5)
  • February 2014 (2)
  • January 2014 (5)
  • December 2013 (4)
  • November 2013 (6)
  • October 2013 (3)
  • September 2013 (3)
  • August 2013 (4)
  • July 2013 (3)
  • June 2013 (3)
  • May 2013 (5)
  • April 2013 (2)
  • March 2013 (6)
  • February 2013 (6)
  • January 2013 (5)
  • December 2012 (5)
  • November 2012 (4)
  • October 2012 (3)
  • September 2012 (4)
  • August 2012 (3)
  • July 2012 (3)
  • June 2012 (2)
  • May 2012 (3)
  • March 2012 (3)
  • February 2012 (2)
  • January 2012 (1)
  • December 2011 (3)
  • November 2011 (3)
  • October 2011 (2)
  • September 2011 (2)
  • August 2011 (3)
  • July 2011 (4)
  • June 2011 (4)
  • May 2011 (3)
  • April 2011 (6)
  • March 2011 (8)
WEBSITE DISCLAIMER: The operator of this site (Vertical Financial Systems, Inc) are not registered investment advisers, broker/dealers, or research analysts/organizations. The content on this website is issued solely for information purposes and should not to be construed as an offer to buy, sell, or trade in any way, any security mentioned herein. All information presented on this website is believed to be reliable and written in good faith, but no representation or warranty, expressed or implied is made as to their accuracy, completeness or correctness. You are responsible for doing your own research before investing in any securities mentioned herein. Readers are urged to consult with their own independent financial advisors with respect to any investment. Neither Vertical Financial Systems, Inc, nor its officers or employees accept any liability whatsoever for any direct or consequential loss arising from any use of information on this website.
Full Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Powered by WordPress | theme SG Simple