Dennis Gartman’s Third Rule of Trading: “Learn to trade like a mercenary guerrilla.”
A guerilla is a warrior. A mercenary is a warrior who fights not out of loyalty or patriotism but for money and profit. So one would assume that Gartman is saying not to stand by a company that you like, nor a trading strategy, if its not working. Be flexible, because you’re in it not to prove a point but simply to make money. So he writes, “We must indeed learn to fight/invest on the winning side, and we must be willing to change sides immediately when one side has gained the upper hand.”
I’ve read other financial writers that say that people are often irrationally loyal to a company whose stock they invested in. My mother-in-law told me once that she thought it was basically immoral to short a stock, like you were betting for the downfall of a company or something. Regent College professor Paul Williams feels that one of the main problems of the market place today is the disconnection between the people–creditors, companies and clients alike; indeed, the stock market is one big anonymous place where traders can determine the ultimate fate of a company, sometimes in a matter of minutes, and that is all done outside of relationships with the other stakeholders, the workers and the management that may be ruined in the process. And yet that is the system. So I suggest that Gartman is correct. The anonymity of the market means that I can make the decisions that support my own solvency as opposed to what is going to help the companies whose stock I decide to buy or sell. I am indeed a mercenary ready to switch sides. This anonymity leads to the greater efficiency–and yes, perhaps, the brutality–of the market; decisions can be made not out of emotion, personal relationships, tribal loyalties, politics, patriotism or idealism, but simply because they are financially viable. This means that if Nortel, Enron, or BreX go down the tubes, I don’t have to go down with them, but I sell them and find something better to invest in–and hopefully, I do it before it is too late. This efficiency ultimately is good, in my view, and leads to great prosperity because the winners are the best companies and the losers are not viable. If you want a road to mediocrity and poverty, then create a system that rewards losers and punishes the successful (such as socialism or bailouts).
I made the decision in 2008 to sell my shares of Microsoft. Yet my sister works for Microsoft. I didn’t tell her about my decision to sell, and we are still talking to one another. Isn’t the anonymity of the market wonderful?
Dennis Gartman’s eighth rule of trading: “Markets can remain illogical far longer than you or I can remain solvent” (quote attributed to J. M. Keynes)
This depends on the definition of the term “solvency”. As a function of the solvency ratio, one must be pulling a profit at all times. However, I assume that Gartman probably means something like this:
The financial ability to pay debts when they become due. The solvency of a company tells an investor whether a company can pay its debts.
The way Dennis Gartman-type trader would become insolvent is through a margin call that could not be met. But Gartman says never to meet a margin call but rather liquidate positions. But what if selling assets is insufficient? The margin account could end up in a negative position and the trader becomes insolvent. Gartman’s advice is good as far is it goes. If a trader bets on a position using margin and leverage, he has to know when to leave the position before becoming insolvent. Say you’ve shorted Berkshire Hathaway because you know that “idiot” is running that company to the ground: when the irrational market keeps bidding that stupid company to the sky, you better get the heck out of that position before it bankrupts you. That’s excellent advice.
But wouldn’t it be better to use leverage in a way that leadeth not unto insolvency? So here is my alternate rule:
Thou shalt not use leverage unto insolvency
Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns are the negative parables of times–investment banks so highly leveraged that they couldn’t withstand a downturn in the economy. They had established debt-to-equity ratios of 30 or more to one. A company or individual that keeps the debt to equity ratio at a more manageable level will not likely go bankrupt except during an Armageddon of deflationary meltdown, if the country loses a war on its own soil, or if communists come to power and seize all wealth. Warren Stephens, in a Forbes interview, said that his investment bank only leveraged at 2-1, because he learned that one of the most important goals of business is to be in business tomorrow. I am personally only comfortable with a debt-to-equity ratio of 1 or less. Moreover, it is not a good idea to depend on available margin alone, unless that margin is extremely ample. When the stock market crashes, margin credit also plummets. Therefore, it is good to have a line of credit (e.g., HELOC) to fall back on. Indeed, for the selling of puts covered by the margin, I immediately subtract the cost of assignment from the available line of credit, while reserving at least half of the line of credit for averaging down. So it is ok in my opinion to use leverage; it just must be managed in a conservative manner.