New Sunday Times Feature - Diary of a Private Investor

I've now completed my latest update on "Diary of a Private Investor", which may be of interest.

Diary of a Private Investor Update #2 1 April 2018


The original intention for this update was to tell of an investment disaster - and I have had quite a few. This has been such a bad quarter for me investment-wise however that I decided some good news was in order, to take my mind off the bad news. Therefore, I do not propose to squeal on any of the investments that contributed to the negative 5.9% overall return return on my portfolio in the quarter to 31 March. Instead, I will focus on an investment, or more correctly a negative investment for reasons that will become clear, that contributed +0.9% to overall performance in the quarter. Without it, I would have been down 6.8% in the first three months. Not pretty.

Elon Musk, founder, chairman and chief executive of Tesla, the electric car company, has been described as a visionary genius. The Board of Tesla obviously thinks so. Just a few weeks ago, they granted him stock awards that could be worth up to $55 billion if certain targets are met over the next few years. Shareholders also agree. They have bought Tesla’s shares in droves, pushing its price to more than $300 a share by the time I looked at it in January last.

The latest accounts available at the time (and still the latest available) were for the quarter ended 30 September 2017. Despite all the hype surrounding Tesla, the accounts did not make pretty reading. They showed a loss in the third quarter of more than $600 million, and losses for the first three quarters of 2017 of almost $1.3 billion. The corresponding losses for the first three quarters of 2016 were $554 million, so the company appeared to be getting more loss-making by the quarter.

Per the balance sheet, the losses of $1.3 billion in the first nine months had been funded by new money from shareholders eager to buy into the Tesla story, but more shareholders mean more mouths to be fed when and if the company eventually turns profitable. Long-term debt increased by more than 60% in the 12 months from September 2016 to September 2017, from $5.9 billion to $9.6 billion. The figures for long-term debt corresponded closely to the amounts invested in property, plant and equipment at both dates, so bond-holders have first dibs on tangible assets. The total value of the company, equity and debt, was around $60 billion.

I concluded there was no way Tesla could be worth $60 billion. Even if it succeeds in persuading shareholders, banks and bond holders to keep shovelling in cash during the loss-making years (and I had my doubts, in which case the company could be close to worthless), the established car-makers are not exactly sitting on their hands, waiting for Tesla to blow them away. They are investing heavily in electric car technology and driverless cars, both core areas of expertise for Tesla. Competitors also have countless years' experience of car manufacturing. Despite stories about electric cars having fewer moving parts and being easier to assemble than traditional vehicles, I didn't think Tesla could ever match that expertise and experience.

I decided therefore to short Tesla, i.e. to borrow shares from a long-term holder and sell them at the prevailing price, in the hope of buying them back later at a lower price and returning them to the long-term holder. I would obviously have to pay the long-term holder for borrowing the shares, but the borrowing cost isn’t prohibitive (I reckon it’s costing me around 3% pa – the cost varies between spread bet providers). I opened the short position at $310 a share on 4 January.

My timing wasn't great. The share price kept rising through the month. The more it rose, the more I was losing. Within weeks, it had risen to over $355 a share, so I was losing $45 on every share I’d shorted. I had to decide whether to cut my losses or soldier on in the hope that the price would eventually fall. Spread bet companies encourage clients to put in stop losses, so that the position is automatically closed if losses reach a certain limit. The argument is that this reduces the risk of being wiped out if the share price moves sharply in the wrong direction. I don't believe in stop losses. If I thought Tesla was overvalued at $310, I thought it was even more overvalued at $355 a share. If anything, my doubts about Tesla’s long-term viability had increased as time went by and as news came through of production problems and other difficulties. Therefore, on 23 January, with the price at $355.54 a share, I did the only logical thing: I increased my short position rather than cut my losses.

Finally, the price started to fall. On 29 January, with the price at $349.66 a share, I added even further to my short position. The price has hardly stopped falling since. At the time of writing, it is down to $266.33 a share, so I’m sitting on a nice profit.

I am tempted to take some chips off the table, but have decided to keep the position open for the next few weeks at least. We should know before the end of April if I’ve made the right call, as key numbers are due out this month on sales and year-end financials. If the results go my way, I may finally pluck up the courage to come clean on the disasters!
 
I don't believe in stop losses. If I thought Tesla was overvalued at $310, I thought it was even more overvalued at $355 a share. If anything, my doubts about Tesla’s long-term viability had increased as time went by and as news came through of production problems and other difficulties. Therefore, on 23 January, with the price at $355.54 a share, I did the only logical thing: I increased my short position rather than cut my losses.

good for you and a good call, but was not the famous quote "markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent" coined based exactly on this thinking. For example the irish banks were in trouble long before the 2008 financial crash, if you started shorting in 2005 you would have been right about the banks precarious situation but you would have been wiped out trying to maintain a short that long against an ever rising banks share price over that period.
 
Are we now discussing a share?
I'm doing no different to what I've always done on this forum, telling what I've done with my investments. I have a vague recollection of Brendan explaining how it is different from discussing a share. I defer to him to answer your question.

Duke, I agree that it would have been better to have chosen a different date for posting the update!
you would have been wiped out trying to maintain a short that long against an ever rising banks share price over that period.
You're right, and there have been situations where I had to concede defeat even though I still felt I was right in my judgement. But I still don't believe in hard coding limits for closing out a position. Each situation must be evaluated on its merits at the time. Spread bet companies want clients to trade - that's how they make their money - so they're happy for limits to be placed on positions: it improves their margin. They don't really like people who hold onto positions (long or short) for a long time, as they make very little money on them.
 
You all are to be thanked for your contributions. Which I read with great interest.

I have decided after nearly ten years to go back into the market and have been working out an investment strategy.

The past twenty four hours I have been considering diversification and number of shares one should hold, thus I was drawn to this discussion.

I was badly burned by the banks in the past but I think that I may have it together now.

The overpriced house is mortgage free and the pension is reasonable.

It is just about a bit extra being available for my adult children and having a bit of a challenge.
 
This is a little tongue in cheek. Sometimes directions are delivered through indirections.

********************

At the start of the year, I concluded there was no way Reinshaw could be worth £3.8 billion.

I decided therefore to short Reinshaw, i.e. to borrow shares from a long-term holder and sell them at the prevailing price, in the hope of buying them back later at a lower price and returning them to the long-term holder. I would obviously have to pay the long-term holder for borrowing the shares, but the borrowing cost isn’t prohibitive (I reckon it’s costing me around 3% pa – the cost varies between spread bet providers). I opened the short position at £53.15 a share on 4 January.

My timing wasn't great. The share price kept rising through the month. The more it rose, the more I was losing. Within weeks, it had risen to over £57.65 a share, so I was losing £4.50 on every share I’d shorted. I had to decide whether to cut my losses or soldier on in the hope that the price would eventually fall. Spread bet companies encourage clients to put in stop losses, so that the position is automatically closed if losses reach a certain limit. The argument is that this reduces the risk of being wiped out if the share price moves sharply in the wrong direction. I don't believe in stop losses. If I thought Reinshaw was overvalued at £53, I thought it was even more overvalued at close to £58 a share. If anything, my doubts about Reinshaw’s valuation had increased. Therefore, on 23 January, with the price at £57.65 a share, I did the only logical thing: I increased my short position rather than cut my losses.

Finally, the price started to fall. On 24 January, with the price at £56.40 a share, I added even further to my short position. The price has hardly stopped falling since. At the time of writing, it is down to £45.06 a share, so I’m sitting on a nice profit.

I am tempted to take some chips off the table, but have decided to keep the position open for the next few weeks at least. We should know before the end of April if I’ve made the right call. If the results go my way, I may finally pluck up the courage to come clean on the disasters!
 
This is a little tongue in cheek. Sometimes directions are delivered through indirections.
Nice one! Hoist by my own petard, one might say. It's inevitable, when you put your neck on the line, as I'm doing with the column.

There is one big difference between the two companies. Renishaw doesn't have a penny of debt, lots of cash on the balance sheet, and is generating hefty profits on an ongoing basis. Yes, the share price got ahead of itself in January. I admitted as much in my posting of 3 March (#79 in this thread) when I wrote that it would be difficult if not impossible to do as well on Renishaw (and Apple) in the future as I had done in the past. Nevertheless, I'm still confident that, five years from now, I'll be happy with the return from Renishaw, starting from its current price. It won't shoot the lights out either, I reckon.

Tesla, unfortunately is a very different position. It has to keep scrambling for cash to keep the show on the road. The best case scenario is that it survives its current funding crisis by issuing new shares, but any such issues will dilute the eventual payback for other shareholders. As an aside, Renishaw hasn’t issued even a single new share since I first bought into the company 20 years ago, not even share awards for senior executives. Thus, there has been no dilution whatsoever of my interest in the company. If Tesla succeeds, Mr. Musk will walk away with shed loads of shares, diluting the interests of other shareholders.
 
Bravo Colm,

Fair play to you for taking a little bank holiday banter in the spirit it was intended. The symmetry was too good for this poor troll to resist!!

Following your promptings, I will actually go kick those Tesla tyres myself.

I am even going to award you additional kudos points for retorting to my Shakespearian provocations with such an apt quote from the self-same play.
 
I could also add that my March 3 posting was after Renishaw had fallen quite a bit from its January highs. As an aside, I sold some Renishaw shares at £57.85 in January, reckoning that the price had gone above what I considered its fair value of around £55, but I then ruined it all by buying back exactly the same number when the price had fallen to £52.88 later in the month! I'm not a genius. I make mistakes like everyone else. As I said at the start of this month's update, I'm trying to pluck up the courage to write about my failures. I definitely wouldn't put Renishaw into that category.
 
"Hamlet" is that where rich New Yorkers go for the summer in their teslas ?
 
Forget it! I thought you meant the Hamptons!
Interesting things happening to Tesla's share price today, by the way. Traders must have read my column at the weekend!
 
Hi Colm,

Did you hear about Mr. Musk's "April Fool" tweet yesterday? If not - worth a look - probably did not go down well.

Of course, if the tweet does come to pass - you'll be entitled to feel a little smug - you might even go as far as rejoicing with an "oh my prophetic soul!"
 
I did indeed see it. Thought it was the most stupid thing ever.
To be honest, I wouldn't like to see them going bust. He truly is a visionary genius - and visionary geniuses do stupid things at times.
That's the problem with shorts. You're betting on something nasty happening to a company and the people in it. I much prefer to be long on a share. Then you want them to succeed.
 
Nice one Duke!
I flew out to the Canaries this morning, confident that my gains on Tesla during yesterday's session would pay for the holiday - and more. Now I find all my imagined gains gone down the Swanee!
Better start trying to sun myself!
 
Nice one Duke!
I flew out to the Canaries this morning, confident that my gains on Tesla during yesterday's session would pay for the holiday - and more. Now I find all my imagined gains gone down the Swanee!
Better start trying to sun myself!
Now I know why I invest in Prize Bonds. I can enjoy my holidays:)
 
Back
Top