Beauty in randomness

18 Jun. 2019
Author
Roberto Plaja

You can only appreciate it at the right distance.

You can only appreciate it at the right distance.

You can only appreciate it at the right distance.

By coincidence, I began to appreciate Jackson Pollock’s art at the same time I was reading about fractals and deterministic chaos. Scientists have subsequently linked his beautiful work to fractal geometry. It is essentially the discovery that seemingly random events (how could Pollock gauge in advance where each drop would fall on the canvas?) are an expression of nature and can coalesce into harmony and beauty.

Like drip paintings, returns in financial markets have been shown to have fractal dimensions and they can sometimes be almost as exhilarating as looking at a Pollock. Other times not so much. It all depends from how far away you look at them.

What to do with this information when we are constructing a portfolio? If some form of randomness is pervading market returns, especially in the short-term, how is one to advise needy humans what to do with their accumulated savings today?

In a conversation with a friend I tried to make the distinction between investment ‘logic’ and the fractal beauty of high random returns (in truth, I didn’t know I was doing that until afterwards). Why don’t we buy more high-yield debt and increase our equity allocation today given where short- and long-term interest rates appear to be headed? Can’t you just Pollockize a portfolio and generate beauty in someone’s personal accounting ledger?

I proceeded to lay out my – and many other analysts’ – reasoning that current prices in equity-like investments are out of line with historical values. This means that to increase high yield debt or equities exposure today we must believe at least one of these five statements:

[1] The long-term underlying cash flows of those investments will grow faster than forecast, and faster than in the past;
[2] We’re happy with returns which are substantially below historical long-term averages (implied: for the same amount of risk);
[3] Historic norms no longer apply;
[4] We will be able to spot the moment before the ‘correction’ and sell on time; and/or
[5] We don’t really ever need the money.

The last point is a budgeting exercise (as we have seen here); if that is the case, we should probably have no other assets but equities. Point 4 has been so discredited by the data that it does not deserve further serious consideration and point 3 requires we come up with an alternative universe. Only 1 and 2 are realistically workable solutions, though the first one is very difficult to justify within current economic frameworks – even tossing in Modern Monetary Theory in the mix.

If we want to produce the Pollock version of a portfolio’s performance record, we must build our strategy and investment program on multi-cycle analysis and historical research, not on forecasts of yearly returns and daily news flows. Just like we shouldn’t stare at his paintings from one or two inches away counting the individual drips, we shouldn’t focus on too short a time frame and look instead at the farther horizons of our objectives.

That’s how Pollock would want you to do it.
By coincidence, I began to appreciate Jackson Pollock’s art at the same time I was reading about fractals and deterministic chaos. Scientists have subsequently linked his beautiful work to fractal geometry. It is essentially the discovery that seemingly random events (how could Pollock gauge in advance where each drop would fall on the canvas?) are an expression of nature and can coalesce into harmony and beauty.

Like drip paintings, returns in financial markets have been shown to have fractal dimensions and they can sometimes be almost as exhilarating as looking at a Pollock. Other times not so much. It all depends from how far away you look at them.

What to do with this information when we are constructing a portfolio? If some form of randomness is pervading market returns, especially in the short-term, how is one to advise needy humans what to do with their accumulated savings today?

In a conversation with a friend I tried to make the distinction between investment ‘logic’ and the fractal beauty of high random returns (in truth, I didn’t know I was doing that until afterwards). Why don’t we buy more high-yield debt and increase our equity allocation today given where short- and long-term interest rates appear to be headed? Can’t you just Pollockize a portfolio and generate beauty in someone’s personal accounting ledger?

I proceeded to lay out my – and many other analysts’ – reasoning that current prices in equity-like investments are out of line with historical values. This means that to increase high yield debt or equities exposure today we must believe at least one of these five statements:

[1] The long-term underlying cash flows of those investments will grow faster than forecast, and faster than in the past;
[2] We’re happy with returns which are substantially below historical long-term averages (implied: for the same amount of risk);
[3] Historic norms no longer apply;
[4] We will be able to spot the moment before the ‘correction’ and sell on time; and/or
[5] We don’t really ever need the money.

The last point is a budgeting exercise (as we have seen here); if that is the case, we should probably have no other assets but equities. Point 4 has been so discredited by the data that it does not deserve further serious consideration and point 3 requires we come up with an alternative universe. Only 1 and 2 are realistically workable solutions, though the first one is very difficult to justify within current economic frameworks – even tossing in Modern Monetary Theory in the mix.

If we want to produce the Pollock version of a portfolio’s performance record, we must build our strategy and investment program on multi-cycle analysis and historical research, not on forecasts of yearly returns and daily news flows. Just like we shouldn’t stare at his paintings from one or two inches away counting the individual drips, we shouldn’t focus on too short a time frame and look instead at the farther horizons of our objectives.

That’s how Pollock would want you to do it.
By coincidence, I began to appreciate Jackson Pollock’s art at the same time I was reading about fractals and deterministic chaos. Scientists have subsequently linked his beautiful work to fractal geometry. It is essentially the discovery that seemingly random events (how could Pollock gauge in advance where each drop would fall on the canvas?) are an expression of nature and can coalesce into harmony and beauty.

Like drip paintings, returns in financial markets have been shown to have fractal dimensions and they can sometimes be almost as exhilarating as looking at a Pollock. Other times not so much. It all depends from how far away you look at them.

What to do with this information when we are constructing a portfolio? If some form of randomness is pervading market returns, especially in the short-term, how is one to advise needy humans what to do with their accumulated savings today?

In a conversation with a friend I tried to make the distinction between investment ‘logic’ and the fractal beauty of high random returns (in truth, I didn’t know I was doing that until afterwards). Why don’t we buy more high-yield debt and increase our equity allocation today given where short- and long-term interest rates appear to be headed? Can’t you just Pollockize a portfolio and generate beauty in someone’s personal accounting ledger?

I proceeded to lay out my – and many other analysts’ – reasoning that current prices in equity-like investments are out of line with historical values. This means that to increase high yield debt or equities exposure today we must believe at least one of these five statements:

[1] The long-term underlying cash flows of those investments will grow faster than forecast, and faster than in the past;
[2] We’re happy with returns which are substantially below historical long-term averages (implied: for the same amount of risk);
[3] Historic norms no longer apply;
[4] We will be able to spot the moment before the ‘correction’ and sell on time; and/or
[5] We don’t really ever need the money.

The last point is a budgeting exercise (as we have seen here); if that is the case, we should probably have no other assets but equities. Point 4 has been so discredited by the data that it does not deserve further serious consideration and point 3 requires we come up with an alternative universe. Only 1 and 2 are realistically workable solutions, though the first one is very difficult to justify within current economic frameworks – even tossing in Modern Monetary Theory in the mix.

If we want to produce the Pollock version of a portfolio’s performance record, we must build our strategy and investment program on multi-cycle analysis and historical research, not on forecasts of yearly returns and daily news flows. Just like we shouldn’t stare at his paintings from one or two inches away counting the individual drips, we shouldn’t focus on too short a time frame and look instead at the farther horizons of our objectives.

That’s how Pollock would want you to do it.
By coincidence, I began to appreciate Jackson Pollock’s art at the same time I was reading about fractals and deterministic chaos. Scientists have subsequently linked his beautiful work to fractal geometry. It is essentially the discovery that seemingly random events (how could Pollock gauge in advance where each drop would fall on the canvas?) are an expression of nature and can coalesce into harmony and beauty.

Like drip paintings, returns in financial markets have been shown to have fractal dimensions and they can sometimes be almost as exhilarating as looking at a Pollock. Other times not so much. It all depends from how far away you look at them.

What to do with this information when we are constructing a portfolio? If some form of randomness is pervading market returns, especially in the short-term, how is one to advise needy humans what to do with their accumulated savings today?

In a conversation with a friend I tried to make the distinction between investment ‘logic’ and the fractal beauty of high random returns (in truth, I didn’t know I was doing that until afterwards). Why don’t we buy more high-yield debt and increase our equity allocation today given where short- and long-term interest rates appear to be headed? Can’t you just Pollockize a portfolio and generate beauty in someone’s personal accounting ledger?

I proceeded to lay out my – and many other analysts’ – reasoning that current prices in equity-like investments are out of line with historical values. This means that to increase high yield debt or equities exposure today we must believe at least one of these five statements:

[1] The long-term underlying cash flows of those investments will grow faster than forecast, and faster than in the past;
[2] We’re happy with returns which are substantially below historical long-term averages (implied: for the same amount of risk);
[3] Historic norms no longer apply;
[4] We will be able to spot the moment before the ‘correction’ and sell on time; and/or
[5] We don’t really ever need the money.

The last point is a budgeting exercise (as we have seen here); if that is the case, we should probably have no other assets but equities. Point 4 has been so discredited by the data that it does not deserve further serious consideration and point 3 requires we come up with an alternative universe. Only 1 and 2 are realistically workable solutions, though the first one is very difficult to justify within current economic frameworks – even tossing in Modern Monetary Theory in the mix.

If we want to produce the Pollock version of a portfolio’s performance record, we must build our strategy and investment program on multi-cycle analysis and historical research, not on forecasts of yearly returns and daily news flows. Just like we shouldn’t stare at his paintings from one or two inches away counting the individual drips, we shouldn’t focus on too short a time frame and look instead at the farther horizons of our objectives.

That’s how Pollock would want you to do it.
May also be of interest
See all Insights →
May also be of interest
See all Insights →
May also be of interest
See all Insights →
Autorisation
Switzerland
Investing implies your capital is at risk. The value of your account depends on market movements and you may get back less than you invest.
Past performance is not an indicator of future performance. Unless otherwise specified, all return figures shown above are for illustrative purposes only and are not actual customer or model returns. Actual returns will vary greatly and depend on personal and market conditions.
Simplewealth AG is a Swiss-based advisory service, designed to assist clients in achieving discrete financial goals. We are not intended to provide comprehensive tax advice or financial planning with respect to every aspect of a client's financial situation and do not incorporate specific investments that clients hold elsewhere.
© SIMPLEWEALTH AG 2015 — 2022.
MADE WITH ❤️ IN BEAUTIFUL
Investing in securities involves risks, and there is always the potential of losing money when you invest in securities. Before investing, consider your investment objectives and Simplewealth AG charges and expenses.
FAQ
Navigation
Language
Documents
Social Media
1
2
How your assets can grow?
All your investments are insured. Up to USD 500k
Investing in securities involves risks, and there is always the potential of losing money when you invest in securities. Before investing, consider your investment objectives and Simplewealth AG charge sand expenses.
Client securities accounts at Interactive Brokers LLC are protected by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation ("SIPC") for a maximum coverage of $500,000 (with a cash sublimit of $250,000) and under Interactive Brokers LLC's excess SIPC policy with certain underwriters at Lloyd's of London 1 for up to an additional $30 million (with a cash sublimit of $900,000) subject to an aggregate limit of $150 million. Futures and options on futures are not covered. As with all securities firms, this coverage provides protection against failure of a broker-dealer, not against loss of market value of securities. For the purpose of determining an Interactive Brokers LLC client account, accounts with like names and titles (e.g. John and Jane Smith and Jane and John Smith) are combined, but accounts with different titles are not (e.g. Individual/John Smith and IRA/John Smith). SIPC is a non-profit, membership corporation funded by broker-dealers that are members of SIPC.