Blessed by the Potato

Thesis progress was once again abysmal this week. In fact, yesterday featured negative progress as I got into a discussion with my supervisor about some previous prose that I may now have to rewrite… Can’t wait to be finished this thing. Weight was down: only one pound, so it could just be measurement error, but at least it wasn’t up again!

Patrick of A Loonie Saved has finally put a post up, discussing the P/E-10, which right now is suggesting that the market is over-valued, in contrast to my earlier ambivalence. In the comments, Patrick links to another blog by Saj Karsan that suggests the P/E-10 may be skewed a bit by a large number of share buybacks over the years, and by the effect of two recessions (the -10 part of P/E-10 is supposed to give an idea of P/E over a full business cycle, but the last 10 years catches two bottoms instead of just one).

Harper once again shows he’s a class act.

Now even Paul Krugman is very worried about a Canadian housing bubble. The Economist has an article titled “Bricks and Slaughter”. “An even bigger reason to beware of property is the amount of debt it involves. Most people do not borrow to buy shares and bonds, and if they do, the degree of leverage usually hovers around half the value of the investment. Moreover, when stock prices fall, borrowers can usually get their loan-to-value ratios back into balance by selling some of the shares. By contrast, in many pre-crisis housing markets buyers routinely took on loans worth 90% or more of the value of the property. Most had no way of bringing down their debt short of selling the whole house.”

Michael James has some very sensible advice on looking beyond the next 5 years in the eternal fixed vs variable debate.

There have been a couple good reports on the fox domestication program in Siberia (watching that Nova episode was the source of the current tagline in the masthead: “50 years ago, Soviet scientists set out to…” “That’s how all the best stories start.”), but I haven’t tracked them down on the web to link to them. Here’s National Geographic, Nova Science Now, and Nova: Dogs Decoded.

Wired has a nice article up on why trivial decisions can sometimes seem hard when there’s an abundance of choice. I seem to recall another article from a few years ago on choice paralysis in investing, and that company pension plans were much better utilized when fewer options were presented.

I was feeling a bit down as my thesis progress has been so slow, and what has progressed has seemed to be won at such a high cost. So I took the Sad Panda meme image and made it my avatar on various social networking sites, but then realized it wasn’t sad enough for the PhD thesis woes. So I made it even sadder by turning it greyscale and adding a watercolour painting effect:

Since I don’t know who to credit for the original image, I can’t presume to claim any rights on the derivative, so have at it.

Was it a whole month ago that I wrote:

…today I seemed to pass through that psychological barrier where it goes from being this impossible wall to climb, to being something that ‘hey, I can do!’ There are still a lot of pieces to put together, but it’s starting to look like the pieces will go together in the end, so I will finish it.

Now just a few weeks later and that psychological peace and steady, incremental accomplishment has gone right out the window. The last two weeks I’ve had just terrible writer’s block. That happens disparagingly often with science writing in large part because I care. It’s important that I write something that communicates a complex idea well, and also that what I write is accurate and backed up by ample references to the literature. And by actually caring about the quality I seem to just get locked up in a writer’s block loop where I’ll start a sentence or paragraph, then decide I don’t like it, go back to the paper I was referencing, rewrite it, decide I don’t like it… ad nauseum.

It doesn’t make sense, people tell me all the time that I’m a good writer, (and try to trick me into co-authoring screenplays with them) and I don’t have any problem writing on the blog here (look! I’m doing it now!). That’s partly because I know that this kind of writing doesn’t matter: the whole future trajectory of my life is not going to depend on the content and quality of my blog. My PhD thesis… maybe. But I have to write something, so my process so far has been to not interrupt the brief productive runs that come except for the very most urgent of biological necessities — which does not include sleep. I get myself good and stressed and sleep-deprived and it becomes much easier to not care so much and actually get something down on the page.

But I’m sure you’ve spotted the delicate balance that must be struck: too sleep deprived, and there’s an obvious deleterious effect on writing output. I read a paper and forget what I read before I can even get a summary into my annotated bibliography or a few lines about it in my manuscript. I make grammatical mistakes, get sloppy. I actually don’t mind that part too much — if I can at least get something on the page, it can be edited later. But worst of all is when I get out to the other side of the productive middle ground and find myself losing time to staring at the wall and clicking the top of a clicky pen for a half hour straight (incidentally, this is why I’m not allowed clicky pens at work).

I don’t quite know what to do at the moment. There’s a big gulf between recognizing the source of writer’s block, and actually crossing over to getting stuff done in a healthy, productive way. Our work holiday party is tonight, and though I’ve already got seats reserved I’m thinking of skipping to just keep writing now and sleep then, rather than trying to grab some sleep now. I know that at this rate I’d probably only get 100 or so words out in the whole evening, but I also just don’t want to go and deal with people right now. I’m a mess: exhausted, twitchy, stressed, and vibrating on a level mortal consciousnesses will never truly comprehend as my body becomes one with the stuff that underlies our universe’s existence (that is: caffeine).

Winter has arrived: last night the wind was howling and the rain was freezing. A big swing in temperature from just a few days ago. Things are just going horribly right now: I’m not even halfway towards my writing goal for my thesis this week, despite spending all kinds of time staring at the screen and wishing it was over. The diet’s been shot to hell as I run out the last of the Halloween candy. Plus last night was a new low: with the rain and the cold and the wind I didn’t feel like walking to work, but driving seemed silly considering it’s only a 10 minute walk. So, I rationalized it by driving out to pick up a pizza, and then taking that to work. Two fitness goals killed with one stone!

Do you know what I like?

Puppies.

I’m walking in to work and it’s as cold out as it will be the day in hell when I finish my thesis (i.e.: frozen over), and I’m basically freezing my nuts off and cursing the very sudden arrival of winter winds. There’s this guy walking along at a perfectly normal pace, and trailing behind him are these two tiny puppies. They’re hauling ass just trying to keep up with him, falling all over themselves if they catch up and try to jump on his leg, and just generally enjoying the hell out of life. I’m freezing, that guy is freezing, and these tiny puppies who should have no body heat left to them are just having a blast out in the wide world, just super-excited to be outside.

Conclusion: Puppies are awesome.

Sometimes, life’s little lessons are both obvious and fantastic.

The Globe had an article on travelers choosing to head to US airports to take flights, and discussed/blamed airport taxes this weekend. There are a lot of people from here that go to Detroit for flights, as it is cheaper to drive down there than take a flight out of London or Toronto most times. Significantly cheaper, since it does take gas or bus fare to get down there, as well as the hassle of crossing the border. So, is that price difference attributable to taxes as the article suggests? “Pearson, which holds the dubious distinction of charging the world’s highest fees for planes to land, paid more than $140-million in rent last year.” That sounds like a lot, but Pearson saw 30 million passengers last year. The math is simple: the airport tax amounts to less than $5 per ticket. Believe me, I’m not driving to Detroit for five bucks. The price differential is coming from somewhere else. Maybe it’s the other fees the airport is charging, rather than the government, but I suspect more blame can be pointed at Air Canada than Pearson (though the article did discuss other government subsidies in the US).

Canadian Financial DIY shows that beta is not the best measure of downside risk.

In an aptly titled article, “Priszm’s recipe for disaster”, Canadian Business magazine looks at the troubled operator of KFC restaurants in Canada. You may recall that Priszm was my single worst stock pick since I started doing my own research (yes, even my zero-or-hero bet on Freddie Mac preferreds are doing better). IMHO, Priszm’s “recipe for disaster” was two-fold. First, they didn’t have control over vital parts of the company’s budget: Yum brands (the owner of the KFC rights) did. They had the usual trick of deferring capital spending (i.e.: renovations) and claiming that since depreciation was a non-cash expense, they could pay out so much of their cashflow. Normally, that works in the trust model, if the depreciation expense you can claim doesn’t reflect the reality, so you can indeed defer/reduce capital spending. Unfortunately, it turned out that to renew the KFC franchise agreements, Priszm had to agree to renovate its locations, whether they needed it or not. That put them in a bit of a bind, not having been saving up for that all along. The second issue was that they had an interest-only loan (something I did not catch when evaluating them earlier on), and it all rolled over at once. So when lending is tough (e.g.: now) they face a liquidity crisis. I wasn’t impressed with the communication to investors about that issue, but communication issues aside, that looks to be the biggest risk facing the company right now. Either they find a new lender (and the clock is ticking — they’ve already arranged for one extension, which runs out in a month), or they could find themselves defaulting.

I think the big take-away lesson there is to avoid balloon payment schemes: it’s much easier to roll small portions of your debt, even if you have to suffer high interest rate spreads, when conditions are tight. And, if it comes to it, aggressive focus on reducing the debt could mean a company could pay off the debt as it matured, as long as the amount maturing in a given year was within its capabilities. Many lending covenants will keep companies to something like a 5 to 1 debt to earnings/EBITA ratio, so if the loan maturities are evenly spread out over 5+ years, it should be possible to become debt free by paying off the loans as they mature (by suspending dividends/capital reinvestment spending/deferring maintenance etc). Priszm’s one big loan strategy deprived them of that option.

Back to the issue of depreciation, it’s really an interesting one, and something that’s fairly important when looking at whether or not a trust’s payout is sustainable. The accounting rules provide guidelines for what depreciation figures to use — and it is important to have some kind of standard, or it would be all too easy to manipulate the books by just choosing a figure for depreciation that suits your mood. But a standard figure for depreciation is going to be perfect for almost nobody. Take computers for instance. At home we have here a powerful desktop system I use for everything from gaming to doodling to running MATlab scripts (as well as blogging, checking email, etc). The price curve of computers is such that all that power didn’t come cheap, and two years later that computer’s likely worth maybe 30% of what I paid for it, as now it just has the power of a typical mid-range desktop system. Wayfare on the other hand just has a little netbook for doing word processing and surfing the internet (and because it’s light and portable), and even though it’s also two years old now, it’s probably still worth at least half what she paid, since it’s still perfectly suited to achieving those goals. Similarly, you’ve probably seen lots of workplaces with downright ancient technology that still serves their purposes fine, even though it was long ago depreciated to zero on their balance sheets.

So, one example to think about: Canadian Helicopters (CHL.UN) is one company I like a lot – they’re paying out a decent amount of cash, and they’re earning that even under GAAP earnings. They amortize their helicopters at 4%/yr, straight-line (that is, after 25 years, the helicopters are recorded as having $0 value). I’m told though that a helicopter is far from worthless, even after 25 years. Though they didn’t say how old the helicopters were, in 2009 CHL sold 11 helicopters (plus some land) for $30 million. It’s unfortunately not spelled out how much of that was for the helicopters, or how old the units were when sold (likely fairly old since the buyer is reported to be replacing them within 2 years), but the end result was a reported one-time gain of $1.4M on the sale. Anyway, my point is that here’s a company that’s likely getting close with their amortization figures, or potentially even over-reporting depreciation (that is, their assets may be worth more than their balance sheet indicates). Though I have a “full position” in CHL at the moment, and though it’s been up a fair bit this year (I generally prefer buying stocks when they’re down), I’m thinking of getting more for this reason. The biggest issue is that its largest few clients make up a large part of their revenues, and can be fickle — Ornge took over their own operations, and for the NWS work, CHL lost out in the last round of bidding. That was offset a bit by picking up more work in Afghanistan, but now a very large part of their business is focused there.

Jim Chanos makes the case to CNN that China’s in a construction bubble. What to do about it? How will that affect the fertilizer and oil stories for China?

Michael James reminds investors that a good reason to limit trading is because of the opposition. I have to wonder if they’ve got room for another almost-PhD on their team :)

The folks at CMT report that TD’s Ed Clark supports a return to 25-year amortizations being the maximum. I’d support that: though it might be nice to have a 35-year amortization as an option for when times get tough, it’s just too tempting for enough people to make it troublesome, plus, it’s a systematic risk issue. After the first 5-year term (about the amount of time the average person goes before picking up and moving again), a person with a 35-year mortgage has only paid off about 7% of their loan. Combined with a minimum 5% down-payment, and it doesn’t take much of a move downward in house prices at all for that person to find themselves in negative equity (or effective negative equity, where their equity is not enough to allow them to sell the house and cover closing costs without finding additional funds). On a more traditional 25-year mortgage, almost 13% of the principal will be paid down in that first 5-year term. [Note that this is an interest-rate dependent calculation: I put 4% into the mortgage calculator, but higher rates result in even less principal paid down: at 6%, the paydown becomes 5% and 10% for the 35- and 25-year amortizations, respectively]

The WikiLeaks release is making waves. I know that they are themselves very secretive about where they get their information from, perhaps to protect their sources, but I have to wonder how they’re getting so much information. I also wonder if they think through what they’re doing. Scott Gilmore had an oped in the Globe examining that issue. A commenter also pointed out that these kind of full, plaintext releases may compromise cryptography. I think that modern techniques in use by governments will still be strong even with a number of cases of cryptotext and plaintext to work with, but I think it may be a question worth asking, especially if there’s a concern of a player with a long memory breaking transmissions from long ago (the news says the releases date back to 1966).

So NaNoWriMo — National Novel Writing Month — is coming up, also known as November. I am not attempting to write a novel this year, just like I haven’t any other year, because that is just crazy balls.

I am trying to finish my thesis though, which is nearly as much writing (and harder writing at that, since it involves 4X as much reading for references, etc.).

It’s a daunting task, but today I seemed to pass through that psychological barrier where it goes from being this impossible wall to climb, this “oh my god, what did I get myself into, and how will I ever finish this?!” type thing, to being something that hey, I can do! There are still a lot of pieces to put together, but it’s starting to look like the pieces will go together in the end, so I will finish it.

…though I’m not going to get it done on time :( Once again I’m at risk of blowing through another deadline. My next milestone (or in the corporate parlance, “deliverable”) is set for this coming Monday, and I’m already 2 weeks behind, so somehow I’ve got to get 3 weeks worth of work done this week — and the planned timeline was a gruelling hellmarch pace to begin with! It makes me think it’s just not going to happen. Especially with Halloween festivities essentially making the prospect of any weekend productivity a non-starter.

And of course, one doesn’t get two weeks behind on the timeline without facing up to the realization that maybe the timeline was a little aggressive/optimistic in the first place.

As much as I’d love to get things squared away for this term (and save nearly $2700 in tuition), just seeing that there is an end in sight, that things are actually coming together, is a big relief, even if that end may still be half a year away yet.

It’s my 800th post! I was trying to think of ways of celebrating this arbitrary milestone, but they all involved the chocolate bar sale at RCSS this week, which means I don’t have very good news for my diet update this week. Well, actually, it’s not all bad. I’ve been much better about my regular meals, even having salad for lunch, much to the very vocal shock and surprise of my coworkers. It’s just that I’ve also been grinding away at analysis for 10-12 hours a day for the last two weeks or so, and that has involved a lot of snacking. Worse yet, I haven’t done much at all in the way of exercise through all this, and the weather’s not getting any better.

The housing bubble seemed to crack into the media’s attention this week, with numerous stories on the matter, thanks in part to some attention from reports from CCPA, Howe, the OECD, and TD.

One important distinction to make is that the US was not the only country to have a housing bubble collapse in the last few years: most of Europe did as well. So if some analyst lays out the reasons why we won’t have a “US-style collapse” here, well, that’s just playing with semantics. We could have a UK-style collapse. Or a Spanish one. Or our very own flavour. Yes, due to how our lending is set up we’re less likely to have “waves” of defaults, but that’s a fine point. The housing market in the US was not hunky-dory save for the defaults (and we didn’t really see them in our 1989 crash either). The fact is that housing is too expensive, and it will come down. There’s still plenty of debate about how quickly that will happen, and even how far it will come, and I will vigorously debate that the answers are “over the next 3-5 years” and “far enough that you don’t want to buy now” — but those are opinions vs facts. While we may not have defaults accelerating the downward cycle, we do have the experience of watching the rest of the world burn. Once it’s common knowledge that yes, our house is on fire too, I don’t think people will dick around before heading for the exits, which will help speed the process along.

In the US, Barry Ritholtz points out that the spin from the NAR did not help anything. Something to keep in mind when reading CREA/TREB releases!

David Fleming had a look at his new condo at West Side Lofts, and was not impressed. An important reminder that pre-construction is supposed to sell at a significant discount because of the risks inherent in buying something sight-unseen. Plus of course the delays, and the risk the market could move against you.

An engineering student did a cross-Canada trip in an electric car he built himself! Should (slightly) help put people’s minds at ease about range anxiety and charging infrastructure, at least a little bit.

Michael James comments on an article about using “robot traders” to move against the herd and stabilize markets. He asks the same question that popped into my mind when I first saw it on Larry McDonald’s blog — who’ll pay for all of that trading, especially if the positions lose money for years at a time?

John Hempton of Bronte Capital had an interesting post about doing due diligence on an internet travel booking company in China. It’s a long post, but a good read on some basic ways to check up on a company you may be interested in. He came to the conclusion that the company was worth shorting, which raised something of a shitstorm — UTA was the biggest decliner on the NYSE the day after the blog post. There are two followup posts as well.

I’ve long been a browser tab addict with Firefox, opening all kinds of links in new tabs to follow-up on later. I usually use the CTRL-click shortcut to have a link open in a new tab, rather than right-clicking, then going to “open in new tab”. However, Netbug just pointed out that clicking with the middle mouse button (on most mice, that’s clicking your scroll wheel) also does the trick. Efficiency!

And finally, it’s a new school year, which generally means very little to the full-time grad student. However, it did mean the replaying of our annual introduction to the department for the new students, including laying out the details on tuition support and stipends/scholarships. Which has resumed a discussion that is near and dear to my heart: Year X & funding. Funding for students is only guaranteed out to 5 years for PhD students (4 for those who already have a MSc). However, the average degree takes something more like 7 years — indeed, just finding information on the actual statistics for the time to complete a degree is proving to be nearly impossible. If you’ve got any good data on these issues (even just at the departmental level at whatever university you’re at) please share! There was also some brief talk on the fact that the funding slide was exactly the same as the one I saw when I first arrived here [redacted] years ago, which was old even then. In over a decade there have been no cost-of-living adjustments to the stipends grad students get, even though the university can’t be ignorant of inflation, as tuition has gone up 35% in that time.