The 7 Levels of Market Participants

This was inspired by the 7 Levels of Photographers by Ken Rockwell, which was perhaps inspired by religion. Well, in any case, here are 7 Levels of market participants, with One being the lowest and Seven being divine. Enjoy!

Level One: The Tippee

The Tippee is someone who receives a tip or some advice and wants to make a quick buck out of greed. This level of market participants usually never had a brokerage account and decided that they should make a some money from the stock market bcos everybody else is doing it. They are inevitably tipped to enter the market by friends who give bad advice at the peak of the bull market and are inevitably burnt and vow never to return. Only to do so during the next bullish peak, again tipped by another friend. In normal times, they live their quiet lives in reality, having full-time jobs and enjoying themselves like other normal folks. This level includes grandmas opening a brokerage account for the first time in their lives, taxi drivers, housewives, first time unit trust buyers, retirees and primary school kids.

Level Two: The Amateur

The amateur is a market participant who decided that he/she should dabble in the markets and learn about the intricacies of the world of investing. They are usually bold, eager to learn but lacking in knowledge and information. The amateur spends time after school or work to read up and learn more. The amateur has the potential to reach the higher levels of market participant if he/she has the determination to pursue their goals to the fullest, devoting time to learn the tricks of the trade. This level usually includes high school students or undergrads, young working professionals, semi-retired, rational investors.

Level Three: The Tradee

The Tradee is a term that I invented meaning someone who gets traded by the market, ie being played by the market. Most tradees aspire to be hotshot traders earning $10k per month but lack the knowledge or the will to pursue their goal to the fullest. Most of them never attain the status of a trader (next level). Well if they did some rational thinking, they would realize even the hottest shottest traders don't earn $10k per month unless their capital base is like close to $1mn. And if you already have $1mn, why bother trading? Tradees also don't have a robust trading system and the emotional stronghold to withstand the markets. Amateur can become tradees quite easily hence this level also includes a lot of young working professionals, semi-retirees, undergrads, housewives etc.

Level Four: The Trader

Okay a small no. of tradees do evolve into traders. These guys make the cut by adhering to their robust trading systems and rules. They definitely have their emotions under control as well. Usually they have put in a lot of effort as tradees, learnt their lessons and have proven themselves. They quit their full-time jobs to trade, making good money (unlikely to be $10k per month maybe $4-5k). They do not blog, they don't argue in forums as to whether traders are better or value investors are better. They spend their time analyzing and thinking. This level usually includes mid career professionals, ex-army officers, ex-investment bankers, PhD students and civil servants.

Level Five: The Manipulator

Now we get to the interesting stuff. Manipulators are the big boys. Much like Gordon Gekko. Their investment philosophy is buy high, sell higher. They keep asking, where's my edge over the market. Things they do are in grey zones like buying ahead of earnings downgrade by analyst. They had lunch with the analyst and he hinted. They also engage in activist moves. Like accumulating a lot of Company ABC stock, then announcing some plan to restructure the company, to be led by a restructuring guru, who is their buddy. Technically, it is all still legal, but grey. These people would include big names like ex-remisiers, high net worth stock operators, hedge fund managers, ex-prop traders etc

Level Six: The Value Investor

Ok this is the level we are familiar with. We buy value. Stocks that trade at a margin of safety below their intrinsic value. Usually mundane companies with a history of stable earnings. We spend a lot of time reading annual reports, looking at financials and if possible talking to industry people, analysts, company management etc. These level can include a whole spectrum of people including working professionals, undergrads, old-timers, fund managers, retirees and bloggers.

Level Seven: The Legend

This is the pinnacle. This are people who have seen it all, been there and done that in the world of investing. Usually they have a knack for finding value but they also have a nose for a good trade, has good macro economics background and are very smart and very diligent. They would buy value stocks only when they see a catalyst for the value to unlock. This is unlike dumb value investors who would just wait and wait. They would also go for high probability trades - like shorting Korean Won or Thai Baht after analyzing and knowing that their central banks cannot defend the currencies. They have surpassed all levels and reached the pinnacle whereby their investment philosophy is no philosophy. Using the formless to combat form. Legends are investors with names that people from all walks of life would know of, like movie stars, famous scientists and world leaders.

A Two Iteration Monte Carlo Simulation on Trading

This is something that I have posted in a comment some time back. I thought I would just expand it for discussion and see if it makes sense.

First let’s work through some assumptions and no.s and see what’s the expected return for trading.

1. The capital base is $100,000
2. $10,000 is utilized per trade
3. 10 trades is done in 1 year
4. Take profit at 20%
5. Cut loss at -10%
6. Winning rate 60%
7. Transaction cost $20

Based on these:

a. The 6 winning trades will bring in $12,000.
b. The 4 losing trades take away $4,000.
c. Transaction cost is $400.
d. Total winnings: $3800
e. Return 3.8% - Yeah that's life for a trader, my darling. Why don't you put the money in CPF and earn the same return?

Ok, there are a lot of assumptions, some might be skewed to put traders down. After all, this is a value investing blog. :) What if we tweak them around? Say the capital base is just $20,000 – then the return becomes 20%! However the rationale would then be it won’t be possible to realize 10 trades in 1 yrs with just $20,000.

Anyways let’s do a more aggressive one

1. The capital base is $50,000
2. $10,000 is utilized per trade
3. 10 trades is done in 1 year
4. Take profit at 15% (rationale being that the time horizon is now shortened)
5. Cut loss at -10%
6. Winning rate 60%
7. Transaction cost $20

Based on these

a. 6 winning trades will bring in $9,000
b. 4 losing trades take away $4,000
c. Transaction cost $400
d. Total winnings: $4,600
e. Return 9.2%

Ok that’s better than market return, but that’s probably also a high hurdle. To do 10 trades with $50k in 1 yr, reach trade can only go for 6 mths.

I think the appropriate scientific experiment we should do is a Monte Carlo simulation of 1,000 iterations to see what’s the true expected return. But my guess is it’s actually going to be less than market return (of 8% or so). Yes, actually if you do it correctly, a trader should earn positive return, not negative ones. And in all those books, it always says academic studies show that trading cannot beat market return after factoring in transaction costs.

Well this also implicitly means, if you get your transaction costs low enough, you might beat market return and becoming a Big Swinging Dick.

Ok, daydreaming over. Trading is hard. My sense is, it is actually much harder than value investing. If you do it right, you might just make average return. Most people don't do it right in the first few years. Think about the time and effort that is needed to execute these trades during the year. Basically it’s a full time job in itself. Not forgetting that it's gonna be one helluva emotional rollercoaster ride every day!

Well, that’s why I stick with value investing.

Management compensation

Needless to say, if the management team is paying themselves too well, pls avoid the company. Most annual reports of Singapore co.s these days have a section on management payout. I make it a point to find out how much they are paid.

Just some rough no.s (since I can’t really remember all the figures), the CEO pay package is usually about $1mn for a few hundred million revenue firm. For smaller co.s, it is about $500k or so. Of course, as we all know, the record is a whopping S$20mn.

What is a good sum to pay a CEO? And how to actually determine the formula for the payout? Well I don’t have a good answer, but what I do think is wrong is to base it off revenue. Bcos a firm could have high revenue but zero profits to shareholders. It is also wrong for it to be mechanical, like based on formulas. So maybe a basic package and then bonus to be based off a comination of factors like net profit growth, impact of past decisions and qualitative appraisal by stakeholders of the firm.

Well there is also the social pay scale to consider, in our crazy world where a 23 yr old analyst could be paid S$100k a year, surely we cannot expect CEOs to be paid like S$150k a year right? So actually there is a floor for CEO’s pay. Since senior managers in big firms get around $200-300k so it is not unusual for CEOs to be getting around $500k at least.

Most of the time, when reading the annual reports, you won’t find anything strange until it gets out in the news. Usually the annual report just says that top management is being paid in a range of S$1-5mn, which is reasonable, considering what we have discussed.

Strange things happen once in a while and astute investors’ warning bells should sound and put companies that pay their CEOs or top management too well on the blacklist.

The infamous case of Sing Power comes into mind. I cannot recall the whole story but apparently the compensation package for the top management exceeded the net profits of the firm or something. This was bcos is was based on some arcane formulation and the management argued that it was ok. My foot!

Noble group made the news paying 11 directors $30+mn in 2008. Not sure if this is a lot or not. Net profit was a record $500mn or so. So maybe it’s reasonable. After all, only 5% of net profits right? But I checked out their dividend payment – it was also $30+mn. Hmmm...

Of course we always have our favourite CEO who was paid $20mn – highest paid CEO ever in the history of Singapore in a year when his firm profits was down 50%. Again the formula excuse was used to justify this absurdity.

The lowest paid CEO in a Fortune 500 firm, by the way, is our favourite hero from Omaha. He pays himself US$100k annually.

More on Dilution

Rights issue sucks! Let’s see how this works:

Imagine you are the sole owner of Company ABC. It's better to think as a sole owner, it makes things clear.

So you put in $10mn capital to start the co. You list the co. and now own 1mn shares of $10 each. ie mkt cap of your co. is $10mn. Then you appointed a CEO to help you run the business. He lost $8mn, well partly bcos of the crisis, partly bcos he was not prudent and expanded to rapidly during the heydays of 2006-07, partly bcos he paid himself and his kakis $1mn over the past few yrs.

The share price plummet to $3, ie mkt cap is now $3mn and the capital is now $2mn. So the CEO announces a rights issue of $10mn, 5mn shares to be issue at $2, that’s 33% discount to today’s price of $3. Do you:

A. Rejoice bcos now you will own 6mn shares of your co. at an average of price $2+ but the share price is $3 (btw you paid $20mn in total, but the value of your co. is now only $12mn)

B. Or you curse the manager for losing most your capital, fire him and sue him in court to try to salvage part of the lost $8mn.

Rights issue is a form of dilution: if you do not take up the issue, your stake in the co. is reduced. If you do, you just gave money to a crappy management who lost the original capital in the first place.

Some other companies do outright secondary offering where the original investors suffer if they do not participate.

Management will often say that raising capital is the prudent thing to do to keep the company as a going concern. But who jeopardized the firm as a going concern in the first place?

Of course, in the stock market, where there are a million participants, Genius Ah Beng could have waited for the shares to fall to $3, participate in the rights issue, bring down his buying price to $2+ hence making a arbitrage since today’s share price is $3.

But that does not change the fact that management screwed up in the first place.

If you are a value investor, you should not be giving money to a management who goes cap in hand whenever he gets a chance! (And it’s always a HE, not a she). The SHE gives out the money magnanimously, every time!

So pls beware of companies that to serial rights issues!

Capital Prudence

One gauge for management which is often overlooked is how they manage the firm’s capital. Do they see the firm’s equity and cash on its balance sheet as valuable resources that belong to the shareholders and think twice about doing funny things with them? Well most management will do funny things when given the chance.


We look at 4 aspects of what crappy management will do:

1. Dilution

Most management couldn’t care less about diluting shareholders’ stake bcos they get the much coveted capital to cover up their mistakes. In Singapore, dumb retail investors actually rejoice when management wants to do rights issue: bcos they can get more shares at a cheaper price! The irony!
When management comes cap in hand to shareholders for money, multiple times in a span of a few years, run for the trees! This is one of the most unforgivable management mistakes.

2. Aggressive Capex

Beware of management that always announce huge expansion projects in the name of growth. Especially, when they are done at the top of the cycle. Most of these projects will not recoup its capital fast enough ie ROI is very low, like maybe 3% (ie 33 years to recoup the investment).

A good management should always be prudent with capex, expanding slowing at a regular pace and keeping expansion cost low.

3. M&A

This is a double edge sword. Some management are very good at M&A and can actually help to grow the company through M&A, however the fact is 70% of all M&A fails (ie 1+1 less than 2). If the management is always looking to do M&A, esp in unrelated fields, beware!

4. Cash Hoarding

Some great companies have such beautiful business models that the companies just overflow with cash as time goes by. You see companies with cash to market cap of 30-50% bcos the business just keeps churning money!

The management mistake then becomes how they keep hoarding the cash and not putting it into good use: like giving back to shareholders. Most management would say that they need the cash for expansion ie doing 2 or 3 stated above. Which destroys shareholders’ value.

Buffett sometimes just buy over the whole firm and dictate that whatever cash that is generated goes to the parent co: Berkshire Hathaway. This is the ultimate trick!